|
GUIDANCE
FOR
MARKING
REFEREES |
| |
|
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.
A
faultless performance displaying an excellent level of control, player
management and Law application throughout. |
| 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.
First class match control and player management
with an accurate interpretation and application of Law. |
| 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.
A
very good performance with a high level of player control and management
and Law application. |
| 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.
A good performance with an effective level of management,
control and Law application. |
| 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.
An
average performance with satisfactory Law application, player management
and overall control. |
| 41-50 |
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.
A
below average performance where areas of player management and control
as well as Law application require improvement. |
|
31-40 |
An unsatisfactory performance showing deficiencies in
player management and control as well as areas of Law application, which
needs to be addressed. |
|
21-30 |
A poor performance with severe lack of control and player
management and a weak application of Law. |
|
11-20 |
A very poor performance with an inadequate display of
player control and management and an inaccurate application of Law. |
|
Below 10 |
A totally unacceptable
performance. |
| |
| Notes |
|
|
|
 |
Where a Club marks a Referee 40 or less, a written
explanation must be sent to the appropriate Referees' Secretary within
seven days of the match, giving the reasons for such an assessment. This
is an important aid for our Referees' Secretaries. |
|
|
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 memoir”, are not necessarily comprehensive and need not be
answered individually. It is, however, worth considering them before
committing yourself to a mark for the referee. |
|
|
General Control
Including confidence, satisfactorily dealing with major
incidents. Was the Referee generally correct with his decisions and were
they accepted by most players? Were the decisions made with firmness and
not influenced by shouting players? |
|
|
Application of Laws
Including correctness of decisions, clear
signals, good positioning. Take into account whether the Referee was
able to differentiate between play that was careless, reckless and
played with excessive force and whether misconduct was correctly dealt
with. Also take into account personality, appearance and fitness. |
|
|
Control & 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 & 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 taken against your players. |
