Referee levels and required competencies

[DrSTU]

I'm looking to see if there's an RFU document that matches referee level and required competencies.

i.e. level 9, identifies players leaving their feet
level 8, identifies and attempts to correct players leaving their feet,
level 7, proactively manages players in order for them not to leave their feet
level 6, recognises the difference between players leaving their feet illegally and in an attempt to obtain clean ball.

Basically that type of thing for all the facets of the game.

 

[Rushforth]

I'm looking to see if there's an RFU document that matches referee level and required competencies.

i.e. level 9, identifies players leaving their feet
level 8, identifies and attempts to correct players leaving their feet,
level 7, proactively manages players in order for them not to leave their feet
level 6, recognises the difference between players leaving their feet illegally and in an attempt to obtain clean ball.

Basically that type of thing for all the facets of the game.

I really hope that such a document doesn't exist.

As referees, especially at the ground-roots level, we can't be perfect yet the players are supposed to act as if we are. Similarly, even at the elite level, referees sometimes are either ignorant over overwhelmed by facets where they are insecure (the scrum in particular used to be a problem).

I guess my point is that we have 5 levels:
IRB1 = ELRA is a one day course. This is all I have myself! We do the best we can
IRB2 is the norm, 2 day course, self-evaluation/reflection and external assessment
IRB3 is by invitation only, multiple sessions, remedials, monitoring, coaching, etc.
IRB4/5 are the elite/international levels, semi-pro or nowadays even pro.

We are all just as good as each other at seeing the clear and obvious stuff if it happens right in front of us.

We are all just as bad as each other when we miss something important clear and obvious, and none of us are perfect enough to see every offence, especially when we don't have the advantage of a team of three.

And more than that, the 'worse' we are (physically, perhaps not fit enough to position ourselves perfectly), the more we have to proactively manage the players. I am better at managing the scrum than most international referees, because I not only know what to look for, and also have played from 1 to 3 myself, but above all because I simply manage most of the time in advance.

Any referee wanting to 'rise up the ranks' needs to improve from 'good' to 'very good' on all areas of the game, but there simply cannot be any hard and fast guidelines. Per your example, I am level 7 in most games, but occasionally worse than level 9, for this specific issue you chose as an example.

It just isn't that easy

 

[DrSTU]

It's a shame you see it that way. There's lots of value in having metrics of performance for referee progression. Progression up the ladder is much easier when you actually know what you're aiming for.

 

[matty1194]

It's a shame you see it that way. There's lots of value in having metrics of performance for referee progression. Progression up the ladder is much easier when you actually know what you're aiming for.

I agree, it is such things that people are able to work towards, no-one is saying you can't instantly go from say Lvl 9 to Lvl 6 if your an expert in that part of the game, however if you have some key aims at most facets of the game then similar to what Team GB cycling did was work on the small gains at every session/competition in a similar way a referee can/could use each game to make small improvements and meet the criteria that is set by each Society for upwards progression.

In this day and age nearly every job/role has some sort of criteria that must be achieved in order to progress up the ladder. RUGBY IS NO DIFFERANT.

I have the SRU competencies and they breakdown various parts of the game.

 

[Simon Thomas]

DRStu
I am not aware of any such prescriptive documentation for either referees or Match Observers / Referee Coaches in RFU land, but we do have elements of it once we start developing referees at L7 and higher.
What you describe is the Dave Metcalfe assess by numbers system, which has its uses, but has to balanced with some softer measures. A balanced approach is in line with current RFU Referee Development, Coaching and Assessment thinking.

The old RFU CBRDS which identified each competency for each facet of play is still the base framework many of us use, so in some ways we can go through what you describe but it is not a rigid framework to apply.

Totally agree that the developing referee needs a clear definition of what he/she is trying to get to and that is exactly how our personal development plan and goal based coaching process is set up.

 

[andyscott]

The Panel assessment form is based around competencies, also used at level 5.

 

[Simon Thomas]

The Panel assessment form is based around competencies, also used at level 5.

Not really what Dr Stu refers to and it is not true stats based but just CC C or NYC scores which are based on estimate of % delivered across a series of technical and management sections of the report - I fill one in most weeks :biggrin:

 

[andyscott]

Not really what Dr Stu refers to and it is not true stats based but just CC C or NYC scores which are based on estimate of % delivered across a series of technical and management sections of the report - I fill one in most weeks :biggrin:

No indeed, but it is competency based, more than others, which are more opinion based.

 

[DrSTU]

I'll try and put up the USA r one I'm thinking off. Thought it was strange that I couldn't find an rfu equivalent.

Obviously Dave metcalfe was and is a big factor in how I referee and I'm a big fan of the 'stats' method but obviously there's the 'art' of refereeing too.

Obviously at my level I know exactly what my strength and weaknesses are and this obviously affects my planning for games but it'd be nice to have a game-based measurement of effectiveness of the technique.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

It's a shame you see it that way. There's lots of value in having metrics of performance for referee progression. Progression up the ladder is much easier when you actually know what you're aiming for.

One of the fantastic things that Netball has are clear and defined requirements for achieving qualification levels. It outlines what an umpire needs to identify and how they should be positioned etc. Check out the link below from page 24/25 onwards and it clearly outlines what is expected of an umpire through the game.
http://netball.com.au/wp-content/up...Umpire-Development-Framework-Revised-2013.pdf

Rugby having something like this would be extremely helpful. When I was trying to level up to Premier League earlier this year I used the netball Framework to identify where I needed to improve, and ultimately, I badged up. Having defined requirements also helps to even out personal perceptions by individual umpire/referee assessors as its hard to argue that you didn't do something when you can point at something in a framework.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Obviously Dave metcalfe was and is a big factor in how I referee and I'm a big fan of the 'stats' method but obviously there's the 'art' of refereeing too. .

Dave was trained and performed as a referee and assessor in Hampshire for many years, and has visited frequently over the years since he went to USA. I have done two joint observations with him with his refs over here and discussed at length his review and report philosophy and methodology.
Interesting debate every time but I am not convinced he has the right solution.

 

[Toby Warren]

I'm firmly in the art not science camp. Having said that a document that Dr Stu describes would make good reading.

 

[Account Deleted]

It's a shame you see it that way. There's lots of value in having metrics of performance for referee progression. Progression up the ladder is much easier when you actually know what you're aiming for.

Are you surprised. This is a man who says he manages it, yet on a thread about the maul he advocates not calling "maul". Either manage the game of don't. But don;t pick and choose when to do it.

 

[Account Deleted]

It thinks it is both science and art. You need the "scientific" base upon which you put the topping of ART.

You know the laws = Science


You understand how to use / interpret the law = ART.

 

[DrSTU]

Even an artist has to learn the different techniques and styles before they can become an individual. A list of criteria (like the umpire ones) allows a person to see what 'techniques they are weak on'. I would argue the science comes before the art for the majority of people.

It thinks it is both science and art. You need the "scientific" base upon which you put the topping of ART.

You know the laws = Science


You understand how to use / interpret the law = ART.

 

[Constantine]

It'd be nice to get one system of ranking which is global. Here you have your theory exams, which are completely and utterly ridiculous (also poorly written) and then grading varies association to association.

 

[Account Deleted]

It'd be nice to get one system of ranking which is global. Here you have your theory exams, which are completely and utterly ridiculous (also poorly written) and then grading varies association to association.

Indeed. Here the L1 exam is a joke.