Guide To
Marking
The mark awarded by a club must be based on the referee's overall performance, It is most important that the mark is awarded fairly and not based upon isolated incidents or previous games. The referee's performance should be determined by the table below which should act as a guide for the overall mark which should fall within the mark range for each standard of performance.
|
Mark Range |
Comment |
|
91-100 |
The referee was extremely accurate in decision making and very successfully controlled the game using management and communication skills to create an environment of fair play, adding real value to the game. |
|
81-90 |
The
referee was very accurate in decision making and successfully controlled the
game using management and communication skills to create an environment of
fair play. |
|
71-80 |
The referee was accurate in decision making and controlled
the game well, communicating with the players, making a positive contribution
towards fair play. |
|
61-70 |
The referee was reasonably accurate in decision making,
controlled the game quite well and communicated with players, establishing a
reasonable degree of fair play. |
|
51-60 |
The referee had some shortcomings in the level of accuracy
of decision making and control, with only limited success in communicating with
the players resulting in variable fair play. |
|
50 and below |
The referee had significant shortcomings in the level of accuracy of decision making and control with poor communication with the players which resulted in low levels of fair play. In this case an additional report should be completed and sent in to the league. |
Notes
| · |
Using a scale of up to 100 allows greater flexibility
for clubs to distinguish between different refereeing performances more
accurately. |
| · |
A mark within each mark range can be given to reflect
the referee's performance e.g. a mark of 79 indicates a somewhat better
performance than a mark of 71. |
| · |
A mark between 71 and 80 represents the standard of
refereeing expected. |
| · |
When a mark of 50 or less is awarded, an explanation
must be provided to the League or Competition by completing the appropriate box
on the marking form. It must include comments which could help improve the
referee's future performances. Even where a referee has significant
shortcomings there will have been some positive aspects which should be given
credit; extremely low marks (below 20) should be very rare. |
How
to Decide on the Referee's Mark
The following
questions focus on the key areas of a referee's performance. They are intended
as an "aide memoire", are not necessarily
comprehensive and need not be answered individually. It is, however, worth
considering them before committing yourself to a mark f the referee.
CONTROL
AND DECISION MAKING
| · |
How well did the
referee control the game? |
| · |
Were the players'
actions recognized correctly? |
| · | Were the Laws applied correctly? |
| · | Were all incidents dealt with efficiently/effectively? |
| · |
Were all the
appropriate sanctions applied correctly? |
| · |
Was the referee
always within reasonable distance of incidents? |
| · |
Was the referee
well positioned to make critical decisions, especially in and around the
penalty area? |
| · |
Did the referee
understand the players' positional intentions and keep out of the way
accordingly? |
| · |
Did the referee
demonstrate alertness and concentration throughout the game? |
| · |
Did the referee
apply the use of the advantage to suit the mood and temperature of the game? |
| · |
Was the referee
aware of the players' attitude to advantage? |
| · |
Did the referee
use the assistants effectively? |
| · |
Did the
officials work as a team, and did the referee lead and manage them to the
benefit of the game? |
COMMUNICATION
AND PLAYER MANAGEMENT
| · |
How well did the
referee communicate with the players during the game? |
| · |
Did the
referee's level of involvement/profile suit this particular game? |
| · |
Did the referee
understand the players' problems on the day - e.g. difficult ground/weather
conditions? |
| · |
Did the referee
respond to the changing pattern of play/mood of players? |
| · |
Did the referee
demonstrate empathy for the game, allowing it to develop in accordance with the
tempo of the game? |
| · |
Was the referee
pro-active in controlling of the game? |
| · |
Was the
referee's authority asserted firmly without being
officious |
| · |
Was the referee
confident and quick thinking? |
| · |
Did the referee
appear unflustered and unhurried when making critical decisions? |
| · |
Did the referee
permit undue questioning of decisions? |
| · |
Did the referee
deal effectively with players crowding around after decisions/incidents? |
| · |
Was effective
player management in evidence? |
| · |
Was the
referee's body language confident and open at all times? |
| · | Did the pace of the game, the crowd or player pressure affect the referee negatively? |
Final
Thoughts
| · |
Always try to be
objective when marking. You may not obtain the most objective view by marking
immediately after the game. |
| · |
Judge the
performance over the whole game. Don't be too influenced by one particular
incident. |
| · | Don't mark the referee down unfairly because your team was unlucky and lost the game or some disciplinary action was taker against your players. |
Updated: 04/02/2008