PeterH
Referees in England
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2004
- Messages
- 709
- Post Likes
- 0
REFEREE ASSESSMENT FORM 2010-11
NAME OF REFEREE PETER HOUGHTON LEVEL: 7 SOCIETY: LIVERPOOL
MATCH TYPE: LEAGUE LEVEL: 7 DATE: xxx
MATCH RESULT: RED TEAM1ST XV (14 pts ) -v- YELLOW TEAM 1ST XV (14 pts)
1.CHALLENGE OF THE MATCH: This was a well contested match which had its entertaining moments when the sides successfully ran the ball, but too often, moves broke down due to unforced errors. The competitive nature threatened to be taken too far at the end of the first half with a brawl involving at least 14 players. In truth one could detect the temper of the match rising for a good ten minutes beforehand. The result was a yellow card for an Yellow team player who had run some distance past the referee to join the melee. Shortly after, a further bout of “handbags” between two players resulted in another two yellow cards. The match calmed down in the second half as the two teams concentrated more on trying to win.
Yellow team started off very sluggishly and gave away silly penalties, two of which resulted in penalty goals. A further try from a rolling maul gave the home team a 11-0 lead at half time. Yellow team were let off the hook with an interception try shortly after the break and scored a further try to take the lead. Another Red penalty levelled the scores and although they were the better side in the last 15 minutes, failed to make the breakthrough to record the win they would have just about deserved. The competitive nature of this match was thus a considerable challenge for the referee.
__________________________
2.MATCH MANAGEMENT:
Peter’s communication with the players was for the most part very impressive. He was calm at all times and he spoke “to” them rather than “at” them, whilst explaining decisions at the appropriate moments. If there was a need to question whether or not he was in control of the match, it was soon demonstrated by his appropriate handling of the two incidents outlined above. The yellow cards certainly seem to put pay to any serious misdemeanours in the second half. Furthermore, his award of a penalty try to Yellow team following three penalties within 5 metres of the home team’s goal line was absolutely correct. He set out his stall early on in all elements of the game and was, for the most part successful in achieving what he wanted (see below). In addition, by good use of advantage, both teams were given every opportunity to play. Peter’s secondary signals were of a high order, although his penalty whistle could perhaps be a little louder.
Despite there being some quick second phase possession, my main issue with Peter’s refereeing of this match was his failure to get the tackler and tackled player to roll away at the tackle. He was telling players to roll away but his communication was not always effective. In addition, there were times when the third and fourth player to arrive went over the top and although penalised on some occasions, I feel he should have dealt with the miscreants from a very early stage in the match and more severely. He should have been prepared to show further yellow cards if he did not get what he wanted from the players. It must be noted that the underlying cause of the fracas referred to above was born out of the frustration at delaying quick release of the ball.
Whilst not unfit, Peter did not demonstrate much in the way of a sprint pace. He must therefore move off a fraction earlier from the last phase of play, in order for example, to be the third player to arrive at the tackle. Only then will he be in the best position to make people on the ground move away from the tackle area. Since Peter reads the game very well this should not pose too many problems for him.
PENALTIES CONCEDED: FQ ES2 OK4, SQ EX2 OK2, TQ ES4 OK1, FQ ES2 OK3 TOTAL ES10 OK10
PLEASE ASSESS THE REFEREE’S MATCH MANAGEMENT USING THE CRITERIA:
3.THE REFEREE’S POTENTIAL: Despite the above comments there were a lot of good elements in Peter’s game, not least being his management of foul play, the scrum and advantage. On balance and on the basis of this game, although I have graded his performance as an MD, I feel that he should do more games at this level before undertaking matches at L6.
SIGNATURE OF ASSESSOR xx DATE: xx
NAME: xx SOCIETY: Devon
4. KEY COMPONENTS
TACKLE, MAUL, ADVANTAGE, RUCKS, KICKS, LINE-OUT, SCRUM
AREAS TO DEVELOP - Please select up to three of the above units to outline areas that need to be developed using the Key Component descriptors.
TACKLE: The tackler and the tackled player on more than a few occasions were reluctant to move away immediately from the tackle area. The result was that they got in the way of the ruck which followed and certainly delayed quick ball. The ball had to be declared unplayable too many times
In addition, I feel more attention should also have been paid to the actions of the third and fourth player to arrive. Too often they went to ground to seal off the ball and this resulted in an unfair contest for the ball on the occasions the opposition competed for it, rather than standing back. Yellow team were the most culpable to begin with, but when they realised that they could get away with it, Red teamdid the same.
Having got to the breakdown early and having made specific commands e.g. “Red 6 roll away”, if you are not successful in getting players to do what you require of them, and/or the third or fourth player goes to ground, and there is no advantage, then you must penalise. The award of a penalty is particularly important at the beginning of the game, since it shows players what you expect from them. If after three penalties players are still taking no notice, then the threat of a yellow card should be made, and followed through with impunity if the offences are repeated. Furthermore, it does no harm to remind players at the beginning of the second half and again towards the end, if necessary, especially when they begin to tire. It is important that you are clinical in this element of the game and that everyone appreciates the potential penalties for non compliance.
MAUL/RUCK: Having located the ball, Peter tends to stand too far in field of the action and was rather stationary whist keeping the three-quarters onside. Consequently he missed some instances of handling the ball on the ground and some players going in the side, offside. Failure to deal with the former especially, can lead to flashpoints.
Peter must therefore stand nearer and be prepared to be perpetually on the move and circulate the ruck or maul. He would also be better able to move off quicker as play broke away up field. Don’t be afraid to rubber neck and make sure the two sets of backs see you doing it. Varying your position makes you less predictable and thus players are less likely to risk being penalised. You would also have been in a better position to verbally prevent some of the incidents described above.
REFEREE’S STRENGTHS - Please select up to three of the above units to outline the referee’s strengths in this match, using the Key Component descriptors.
ADVANTAGE: Peter allowed advantage for just the right amount of time. He was clearly looking to play advantage at every opportunity. He clearly signalled when advantage was being played and also kept the players well informed as to its progress. Defensive advantage was rightly shorter than when a team was attacking in their opposition’s 22.
KICKS: Were well monitored. Players were by and large kept onside by clear verbal communication. On the occasions they ignored him and their failure to retire was material, they were appropriately penalised. Crossing was correctly identified and Peter exercised good judgement in deciding when an obstruction was accidental.
SCRUM: Here Peter worked hard at his preventative refereeing and it was very effective. The engagement sequence was unrushed and although displaying empathy, he was firm in ensuring that the front rows maintained a position to executive an effective forward shove. The offside lines were well maintained and the collapsing which led to a penalty try, was correctly judged.
NAME OF REFEREE PETER HOUGHTON LEVEL: 7 SOCIETY: LIVERPOOL
MATCH TYPE: LEAGUE LEVEL: 7 DATE: xxx
MATCH RESULT: RED TEAM1ST XV (14 pts ) -v- YELLOW TEAM 1ST XV (14 pts)
1.CHALLENGE OF THE MATCH: This was a well contested match which had its entertaining moments when the sides successfully ran the ball, but too often, moves broke down due to unforced errors. The competitive nature threatened to be taken too far at the end of the first half with a brawl involving at least 14 players. In truth one could detect the temper of the match rising for a good ten minutes beforehand. The result was a yellow card for an Yellow team player who had run some distance past the referee to join the melee. Shortly after, a further bout of “handbags” between two players resulted in another two yellow cards. The match calmed down in the second half as the two teams concentrated more on trying to win.
Yellow team started off very sluggishly and gave away silly penalties, two of which resulted in penalty goals. A further try from a rolling maul gave the home team a 11-0 lead at half time. Yellow team were let off the hook with an interception try shortly after the break and scored a further try to take the lead. Another Red penalty levelled the scores and although they were the better side in the last 15 minutes, failed to make the breakthrough to record the win they would have just about deserved. The competitive nature of this match was thus a considerable challenge for the referee.
__________________________
2.MATCH MANAGEMENT:
Peter’s communication with the players was for the most part very impressive. He was calm at all times and he spoke “to” them rather than “at” them, whilst explaining decisions at the appropriate moments. If there was a need to question whether or not he was in control of the match, it was soon demonstrated by his appropriate handling of the two incidents outlined above. The yellow cards certainly seem to put pay to any serious misdemeanours in the second half. Furthermore, his award of a penalty try to Yellow team following three penalties within 5 metres of the home team’s goal line was absolutely correct. He set out his stall early on in all elements of the game and was, for the most part successful in achieving what he wanted (see below). In addition, by good use of advantage, both teams were given every opportunity to play. Peter’s secondary signals were of a high order, although his penalty whistle could perhaps be a little louder.
Despite there being some quick second phase possession, my main issue with Peter’s refereeing of this match was his failure to get the tackler and tackled player to roll away at the tackle. He was telling players to roll away but his communication was not always effective. In addition, there were times when the third and fourth player to arrive went over the top and although penalised on some occasions, I feel he should have dealt with the miscreants from a very early stage in the match and more severely. He should have been prepared to show further yellow cards if he did not get what he wanted from the players. It must be noted that the underlying cause of the fracas referred to above was born out of the frustration at delaying quick release of the ball.
Whilst not unfit, Peter did not demonstrate much in the way of a sprint pace. He must therefore move off a fraction earlier from the last phase of play, in order for example, to be the third player to arrive at the tackle. Only then will he be in the best position to make people on the ground move away from the tackle area. Since Peter reads the game very well this should not pose too many problems for him.
PENALTIES CONCEDED: FQ ES2 OK4, SQ EX2 OK2, TQ ES4 OK1, FQ ES2 OK3 TOTAL ES10 OK10
PLEASE ASSESS THE REFEREE’S MATCH MANAGEMENT USING THE CRITERIA:
3.THE REFEREE’S POTENTIAL: Despite the above comments there were a lot of good elements in Peter’s game, not least being his management of foul play, the scrum and advantage. On balance and on the basis of this game, although I have graded his performance as an MD, I feel that he should do more games at this level before undertaking matches at L6.
SIGNATURE OF ASSESSOR xx DATE: xx
NAME: xx SOCIETY: Devon
4. KEY COMPONENTS
TACKLE, MAUL, ADVANTAGE, RUCKS, KICKS, LINE-OUT, SCRUM
AREAS TO DEVELOP - Please select up to three of the above units to outline areas that need to be developed using the Key Component descriptors.
TACKLE: The tackler and the tackled player on more than a few occasions were reluctant to move away immediately from the tackle area. The result was that they got in the way of the ruck which followed and certainly delayed quick ball. The ball had to be declared unplayable too many times
In addition, I feel more attention should also have been paid to the actions of the third and fourth player to arrive. Too often they went to ground to seal off the ball and this resulted in an unfair contest for the ball on the occasions the opposition competed for it, rather than standing back. Yellow team were the most culpable to begin with, but when they realised that they could get away with it, Red teamdid the same.
Having got to the breakdown early and having made specific commands e.g. “Red 6 roll away”, if you are not successful in getting players to do what you require of them, and/or the third or fourth player goes to ground, and there is no advantage, then you must penalise. The award of a penalty is particularly important at the beginning of the game, since it shows players what you expect from them. If after three penalties players are still taking no notice, then the threat of a yellow card should be made, and followed through with impunity if the offences are repeated. Furthermore, it does no harm to remind players at the beginning of the second half and again towards the end, if necessary, especially when they begin to tire. It is important that you are clinical in this element of the game and that everyone appreciates the potential penalties for non compliance.
MAUL/RUCK: Having located the ball, Peter tends to stand too far in field of the action and was rather stationary whist keeping the three-quarters onside. Consequently he missed some instances of handling the ball on the ground and some players going in the side, offside. Failure to deal with the former especially, can lead to flashpoints.
Peter must therefore stand nearer and be prepared to be perpetually on the move and circulate the ruck or maul. He would also be better able to move off quicker as play broke away up field. Don’t be afraid to rubber neck and make sure the two sets of backs see you doing it. Varying your position makes you less predictable and thus players are less likely to risk being penalised. You would also have been in a better position to verbally prevent some of the incidents described above.
REFEREE’S STRENGTHS - Please select up to three of the above units to outline the referee’s strengths in this match, using the Key Component descriptors.
ADVANTAGE: Peter allowed advantage for just the right amount of time. He was clearly looking to play advantage at every opportunity. He clearly signalled when advantage was being played and also kept the players well informed as to its progress. Defensive advantage was rightly shorter than when a team was attacking in their opposition’s 22.
KICKS: Were well monitored. Players were by and large kept onside by clear verbal communication. On the occasions they ignored him and their failure to retire was material, they were appropriately penalised. Crossing was correctly identified and Peter exercised good judgement in deciding when an obstruction was accidental.
SCRUM: Here Peter worked hard at his preventative refereeing and it was very effective. The engagement sequence was unrushed and although displaying empathy, he was firm in ensuring that the front rows maintained a position to executive an effective forward shove. The offside lines were well maintained and the collapsing which led to a penalty try, was correctly judged.
