referee ratings

[givememychoice]

Apologies if this is a peebles post.

 

I was surprised to see the referee ratings scale today in the post match report from the official observer at the united v celtic game.

 

"Overall mark given to referee: 7.9. A mark of this number indicates one clear, important mistake has been made. The full evaluation scale is as follows:

 

9.0 ? 10: Excellent performance (outstanding)

8.5 - 8.9: Very good (a highly commendable performance under quite challenging / challenging circumstances)

8.3 - 8.4: Good (an efficient performance, referee should maintain this standard)

8.2: Satisfactory with minor areas to develop

8.0 - 8.1: Satisfactory with specific areas for improvement

7.9: One clear important mistake, otherwise 8.3+

7.8: One clear important mistake, otherwise 8.0 - 8.2

7.5 - 7.7: Below expectation (significant point(s) to improve)

7.0 - 7.4: Disappointing (considerable improvement necessary)

6.0 - 6.9: Poor performance (unsatisfactory)

5.0 - 5.9: Major breach of interpretation of the Laws of the Game"

 

 

Quite a bizarre scale.

It does mean they can look good come the end of the season regardless of how bad they are. If 7.4 was averaged for a season, for a player it would generally be very good, probably looking at making the best 11 of the year. In reffing terms it would be considerable improvement necessary.

 

What also struck me was the absence of any real depth to the report. There is probably more analysis on sportscene....

[DETTY29]

Apologies if this is a peebles post.

 

I was surprised to see the referee ratings scale today in the post match report from the official observer at the united v celtic game.

 

"Overall mark given to referee: 7.9. A mark of this number indicates one clear, important mistake has been made. The full evaluation scale is as follows:

 

9.0 ? 10: Excellent performance (outstanding)

8.5 - 8.9: Very good (a highly commendable performance under quite challenging / challenging circumstances)

8.3 - 8.4: Good (an efficient performance, referee should maintain this standard)

8.2: Satisfactory with minor areas to develop

8.0 - 8.1: Satisfactory with specific areas for improvement

7.9: One clear important mistake, otherwise 8.3+

7.8: One clear important mistake, otherwise 8.0 - 8.2

7.5 - 7.7: Below expectation (significant point(s) to improve)

7.0 - 7.4: Disappointing (considerable improvement necessary)

6.0 - 6.9: Poor performance (unsatisfactory)

5.0 - 5.9: Major breach of interpretation of the Laws of the Game"

 

 

Quite a bizarre scale.

It does mean they can look good come the end of the season regardless of how bad they are. If 7.4 was averaged for a season, for a player it would generally be very good, probably looking at making the best 11 of the year. In reffing terms it would be considerable improvement necessary.

 

What also struck me was the absence of any real depth to the report. There is probably more analysis on sportscene....

I suppose you could argue if a player made only 1 clear mistake during a game they could still end up getting anywhere between a 7 to a 9.

 

E.g. Kello came rushing far too far off his line in the first half for no reason v. Rangers which led to a major scramble in the box when Barr was still in a position to cover the running player (following similar errors v. ICT, M'well x3 and Falkirk), got his wall position all wrong at the first goal and also decided to try and save laughing boy's shot by diving over a foot behind his line and very few peeople on here gave him less than an 8 - MacGregor did the same thing against the Czechs plus stopped the flow of the game once it finally opened up be deliberately kneeing Bednar in the back in the last few minutes despite all the publicity on the morning of the game being about his general on field petulance. And again very few if any gave him less than an 8.

 

I've also seen subs being given 6s for not making a mistake for 5 mins as a last minute sub, so I you could argue in the grand scheme of the number of decisions a ref has to make during the course of a game thwn that scoring is fair enough. While the scores do appear to be on the high side, they are still quantified

[givememychoice]

I suppose you could argue if a player made only 1 clear mistake during a game they could still end up getting anywhere between a 7 to a 9.

 

E.g. Kello came rushing far too far off his line in the first half for no reason v. Rangers which led to a major scramble in the box when Barr was still in a position to cover the running player (following similar errors v. ICT, M'well x3 and Falkirk), got his wall position all wrong at the first goal and also decided to try and save laughing boy's shot by diving over a foot behind his line and very few peeople on here gave him less than an 8 - MacGregor did the same thing against the Czechs plus stopped the flow of the game once it finally opened up be deliberately kneeing Bednar in the back in the last few minutes despite all the publicity on the morning of the game being about his general on field petulance. And again very few if any gave him less than an 8.

 

I've also seen subs being given 6s for not making a mistake for 5 mins as a last minute sub, so I you could argue in the grand scheme of the number of decisions a ref has to make during the course of a game thwn that scoring is fair enough. While the scores do appear to be on the high side, they are still quantified

but how many times have you seen players get 0s,1s,2s on kickback...

Your counter argument will justifiably be, well, its a different scale.

How many times have you seen a scale go from 5.0 - 10.0