My first report

[Bunniksider]

I did the first assesors course 18 months ago, more to learn about how I am being assessed than to take up my clipboard immediately but as my game was pulled recently I was at a loose end and arranged to go and watch a colleague.

Here is my first report. I know that you were not at the match but please let me have your comments on my style, feedback etc.



REFEREE ASSESSMENT FORM

Name The referee Referee Level 10 Game Level 11

Home Team Blue v Away Team Gold

Description of the Match and its Challenge for the Referee
It was a cold day and heavy underfoot. Handling errors and maintaining concentration would play a part in this match. The referee advised that he was working on his secondary signals as his pre-match objective, as we were not using comms his signalling would be put to the test.

The referee pulled up with a calf strain after 38 minutes of the first half. On agreement with the captains half time was called and I refereed the second half myself.

Please outline areas for improvement and offer solutions

Scrum positioning – Notwithstanding the scrum issues below the referee started most, if not all, scums on the opposite side to the feed. Both 9’s were guilty of interfering with the clean delivery of the ball. Vary your scrum positioning and even move throughout the scrum so that the players are not able to pre-guess your position and offend accordingly.

Signalling – The referee did give secondary signals on most occasions but not always clearly and often after he had verbally explained his decision at some length. Give the primary signal, a clear, bold secondary signal and don’t get drawn into explanations or discussions. Have a word at the next scrum or lineout if needed.

Please list the referee’s strengths in this match

Scrum safety -The blue tight head was showing signs of inexperience and the referee managed the scum well with a number of resets and instruction to allow him to continue safely. The hooker and tight head then swapped positions and the scrums continued without incident. The blue captain commended the referee on his scrum safety in our post match discussion.

Advantage – Both scrum and penalty advantage was allowed on a number of occasions resulting in the non-offending team to make use of their possession of the ball. Remember to define scrum or penalty advantage and also advantage over on all occasions.

Communication – The referee spoke to the players often throughout the game and managed breakdowns and offsides verbally allowing play to continue. There is a fine line between management and coaching but at this level and also age grade rugby it is a useful management tool.


POTENTIAL (Please untick [ ] the appropriate box as relevant)
This referee is capable of refereeing at the next level of game
This referee is correctly graded at this level 
This referee would be more comfortable at a lower level game

 

[Davet]

Ref is a level above the level of the game, so should have had a fairly good grip on things. I know calf strains are a bugger, but on a cold and heavy day what was his pre-match routine, i would expect to see plenty of warm up, and lots of stretching in order to try and avoid that very issue.

the referee started most, if not all, scums on the opposite side to the feed. Both 9’s were guilty of interfering with the clean delivery of the ball. Vary your scrum positioning and even move throughout the scrum so that the players are not able to pre-guess your position and offend accordingly.

Firstly I would have asked him during the debrief "WHY are starting on the non-feed side?" I would prefer him to start on the feed side - where he can control square and steady prior to put-in and keep an eye on 9s niggling each other more easily. Move to far side if necessary to deal with those props. After the feed then move back and away from the scrum towards the ball winning side and get a big picture of what is happening. You can move around the scrum during this phase.

In the signalling section I may have stressed that lengthy explanations are not required at the time of the offence - it comes across poorly with the players - "Oh no - not another bloody lecturer, can't we just get on with it!?" Keep the signals clear and crisp and big - repeat - and keep the verbals to a very few words - "Ruck - Red 7 hands in! back 10!" - And don't enter into a discussion of any sort at the time - you could have a (BRIEF) word at the next stoppage if there is a question.

There is a fine line between management and coaching but at this level and also age grade rugby it is a useful management tool

This sounds like you are suggesting that the ref should be coaching at adult L11, since it is "a useful management tool". I would not recommend this - keep calls to the normal preventive calling - "Red 7, back feet, step back!" "Blue 14 - In front! Stop!"

 

[Simon Thomas]

Well done and welcome to the Match Observer team.

Speak to your Society SADO and other experienced MOs for feedback on your report. Good effort for this level of match, practice makes perfect !

Lovely touch that he pulled up and you had to take over.

Some thoughts for you to consider :

the report should reflect the post match de-brief, which is the most important element.

we are there to help referees develop their skills, get laws right, be consistent, etc etc, but above all to enjoy their officiating - NOT as a fearsome ogre who is highly critical. So well done on being constructive.

don't be a match reporter but focus on specific's with evidence (e.g. 1/14 & 1/23 - Gold #9 persistent interference with Blue thrown in and offside as he followed round. Early preventative call and PK required if non-compliant) and what was impact of development and strengths area.

focus on the important stuff - as you have, and ignore the minor issues, which can be mentioned after de-brief.

 

[menace]

NOT as a fearsome ogre who is highly critical.

Some would say that some may have missed that memo! (Or secret email?)

 

[Dixie]

Bunniksider, well done for getting out there on what you could have taken as a weekend off. Well done also for having your kit with you - or did you share a jockstrap with the original ref?

Davet makes the point that the ref was a level above the grade of the game, and you assessed him as being correctly graded at the lower grade. In other words, you felt he was not up to the grade he holds. From the ref's perspective, such assessments put him on a hiding to nothing. If he doesn't attain an Excellent or Good, he's underperformed. But assessors are programmed rarely to give such wonderful assessments, so he goes into the game knowing he's probably going to get a relatively negative assessment - which is exactly what you gave him. That being the case, you need to ensure that the report - even on this low-detail guidance sheet - justifies the negativity. Looking at it, there are a few things that indicate problems - particularly the lengthy explanations, which suggests a ref who is not fully in charge of the players or the game. But this indication is left as a vague inference. If it was indeed the case, I think you should ahve said so. If not - did it justify downgrading his effort?

The other strongly-noted failing was his scrum positioning, which meant the 9's were able to play silly buggers. Well, 9's do that. Can we infer that whenever 9's play up, the ref is performing below his nominal level? On the upside, he played good advantage and managed a difficult scrum imbalance well and safely.

Overall, I think that if you are effectively going to downgrade him, you need to have stronger justification than a few inferences - one being from a relatively minor issue. To me, the lengthy discussions alone probably justify the downgrade. That being so, it seems to me to be the primary focus of the report, and the jostling 9's is one to discuss in the debrief but perhaps not even mention in the report, as it detracts from the primary issue.

On the issue of scrum positioning, Davet suggests that it is not possible to control square and steady from the non-feed side, adn it's ahrd from there to watch the 9's nioggling each other. As this would be the feed side if the put-in had been awarded the other way, and as you are looking squarely at the 9's rather than having them behind you, I fundamentally disagree on both points. As to varying position while the scum is in progress so the cheats don't know where you are - well, if you can get around the other side before one prop or the other commits a binding offence, you're a damned site faster than I ever was, and faster than any ref I've ever seen.

 

[Davet]

On the issue of scrum positioning, Davet suggests that it is not possible to control square and steady from the non-feed side, adn it's ahrd from there to watch the 9's nioggling each other. As this would be the feed side if the put-in had been awarded the other way, and as you are looking squarely at the 9's rather than having them behind you, I fundamentally disagree on both points.

If you stand in front of the tunnel on the engage then you will the feeding 9 on your right the other on your left. You can prevent the feed until the scrum is square and steady - when it is you step smartly back and right, and allow the ball to go in - both 9s are slap bang in front of you and any sillyness becomes blindingly obvious without you even having to look for it. You can then move further back and right to see the bigger picture, and get a different view of the far side.

If you are on the far side then you cannot control the put in, and whilst the 9s are in front of you - you cannot see them clearly because of the 16 fat boys in your line of sight.

Why would you habitually stand on the far side of the scrum?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

..... adn it's ahrd from there to watch the 9's nioggling each other.

Is that a line from a Rambling Syd Rumpo song?

View attachment 2525

 

[OB..]

Well done on taking the opportunity. You got some practical experience. The referee got a report. The teams got a fit referee throughout. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Do you think analysing someone else will help your own refereeing? That seems to be other people’s experience.

Would you have been happy to receive a report like that? How does it compare with the ones you get? Did you overlook the implication that the referee is currently overgraded? Personally I would read your report as simply saying he had a reasonable game. Even refereeing a grade down I would not necessarily expect a L10 referee to get a G rating – there is not that level of precision about team grades anyway. If you do think he is overgraded your report would need to say so and focus strongly on the reasons.

I have always been encouraged to include as much factual evidence as I can. Most of the coaches like to have such things as a penalty count home/away by quarters. Were you comfortable with the amount of detail you recorded? It took me some while to devise a system I was happy with.

Most importantly, did you enjoy it, so that you will be happy to do it again?

I can’t resist this.

The blue tight head was showing signs of inexperience and the referee managed the scum well …

Unkind reference to Blue 3?

 

[Dixie]

Why would you habitually stand on the far side of the scrum?

I wouldn't - and very few refs do. But I do often do it, depending on where the scrum is on the pitch. I tend to stand on the short side of the scrum, irrespective of where the put-in is, so I can see both sets of backs and monitor their offsides. Of course, if the put-in is causing problems you do need to adopt the positioning you describe.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Davet makes the point that the ref was a level above the grade of the game, and you assessed him as being correctly graded at the lower grade. In other words, you felt he was not up to the grade he holds. From the ref's perspective, such assessments put him on a hiding to nothing. If he doesn't attain an Excellent or Good, he's underperformed. But assessors are programmed rarely to give such wonderful assessments, so he goes into the game knowing he's probably going to get a relatively negative assessment - which is exactly what you gave him. That being the case, you need to ensure that the report - even on this low-detail guidance sheet - justifies the negativity. Looking at it, there are a few things that indicate problems - particularly the lengthy explanations, which suggests a ref who is not fully in charge of the players or the game. But this indication is left as a vague inference. If it was indeed the case, I think you should ahve said so. If not - did it justify downgrading his effort?

Overall, I think that if you are effectively going to downgrade him, you need to have stronger justification than a few inferences - one being from a relatively minor issue.

Not how I read it as Chairman of Grading.

Dixie you are over-analysing and reading too much in. I get no sense of underperformance. There would be no suggestion of downgrading him. This is a report form a forst time MO !

A downgrade would only follow a Form 2 report from an experienced MO.

At L10/11/12 there are some dubious match levels, so maybe it was a real L10 albeit 'officially' L11.

This is a Form 1 Coaching Report, not the more detailed Form 2 so there is no G, MD, ND or SD mark to be given, as there is no separate management section.

For me it is a "MOT" report with some habits the ref needs to change - scrum and explanations.

 

[Bunniksider]

Thanks for all your comments there are some things there that I will take on board.

FYI The ref had plenty of spare kit and I also used his boots (but not jockstrap!!) Ironically as I was getting my watch from my bag prior to setting off I thought should I take my kit but decided against. Full bag packed and in the car from now on.

The debrief was minimal and took place as I was changing and returning his kit. He didn't come into the bar afterwards but wanted to get home to treat his injury. A fuller conversation would have been benificial though he has received the report and accepted my comments as a fair reflection of the match. I also offered that he could call me to discuss anything if required.

Our group (L9/L10/L11) manager has received the report and given me a call with favourable comments about me giving a couple of points to work on. Similar to ST's MOT comments.

I graded the ref as "correctly graded at this level" meaning his current grading of L10 as opposed to the match grading of L11. I think that ST read it as that but I can see where my ambiguity may have confused Dixie.

Perhaps I was being a bit too nice with my comments about managent/coaching. I know that he also does age grade rugby and ladies and I was wanting to get over that as he progresses with the adult game he will need to cut it out. This would have been covered in a fuller debrief and I also think that relying less on the chat would help him improve his signals.

I quite enjoyed advising (2nd best to reffing) and I will continue to do so if circumstances dictate. I think that it should help my game in so far as spotting things that I may be guilty of and also in having to offer a solution to any problems means that you are thinking about the game: position, management, lines, communication etc.

Cheers
Mark

 

[Davet]

One of the most important tools in my bag is a sheet on which I record each penalty and FK - time, type (PK/FK), team/player against, phase, offence, notes.

eg
15: P: Red 7: Tackle: Not Gate + To Ground: 5m out from own line - no card? no PT?

There are times when the player is not identifiable from where I am - and if the ref is not clear with his signals I may need to guess the offence. Comments may form the basis of discussion points, not necessarily the report.

But it is often very instructive just to look at the patterns, and ideally see a drop off in offences quarter by quarter -usually until the last 10-15min when they are knackered and just revert 'cos its too tiring not to....

 

[Dixie]

Not how I read it as Chairman of Grading
....
For me it is a "MOT" report with some habits the ref needs to change - scrum and explanations.

But speaking as a ref who used to get these things, the ref may see it differently! Perhaps I was uniquely sensitive to this - others can advise.

 

[Simon Thomas]

But speaking as a ref who used to get these things, the ref may see it differently! Perhaps I was uniquely sensitive to this - others can advise.

I still get a minumim of two a year too :biggrin: and yes you are being over sensitive :knuppel2:

 

[Pinky]

Mark, I think you have done a really good job with the report (and with being able to take over so the game could be completed) Obviously that would have affected the post match debrief, but good on you for offering to take a phone call to discuss. I also liked the tone of your report, much of what the ref did was good and you noted it and putting a couple of pointer for him to improve. If next game he does what you suggest, he will be a better ref and that's good for all.

In Scotland we deliberately removed the "referee potential" bit from the coaching reports on society refs (ie below the national panel) but we are also looking to introduce self assessment for the refs who want to develop and move up the grades. So I read you r report as Simon did, which I think was along the lines of ref able to do this level of game, not well below and struggling and not so apparently over qualified.

I do hope you continue to enjoy both aspects of refereeing

 

[Phil E]

Mark

Can we see the report he did on you in the second half epper:

 

[Bunniksider]

Mark

Can we see the report he did on you in the second half epper:

I quite like the idea of that, though not really practical and possibly unfair on the teams having to have two referees forced on them through no reason other than experimentation.

This week all the M&D assessors are off to PGH for a training session/meeting followed by watching the 1st or 2nd XVs then further meeting/debrief etc.