Skills/abilities: priorities

[Rushforth]

This is not a poll for the simple reason that my question is not answerable in that format. What am I asking? What priorities we have, as referees.

The format I am suggesting is that of a report card. Either A-C (with +, - or A*, A**) or 5-10 (scale of 1-10, but 5 being a fail; please only use D or 5 for yourself

Furthermore, I think "safety" is sufficient 11 or A***, at least for amateurs that it can be ignored, and that "feeling for the game" is too wishy-washy, even if it is incredibly important.

If I had a "budget" of 6 skills/abilities, and had to put them in order, with ranks 5-10:
10: consistency
9: fair contest
8: fitness
7: observation
6: continuity of play
5: law knowledge

In actuality, my law knowledge is likely best of this choice of 6 I made, and fitness probably worst. My imperfect observation (caused by lack of fitness/experience more than anything) also contributes to lack of consistency.

Why is law knowledge so low in my ideal and consistency so high? Because a referee who is consistent BUT ALSO fair is unlikely to ruin anyone's game (unless he takes no regard for safety, but as I said, that scores 11).

Continuity of play is ultimately in the hands of the players. It is their game. It is an important concept, closely related to materiality. My personal view is that play should continue if a pass goes marginally forwards when players are moving at speed and referee ditto, and that a team camped 5m out from the try line should not pass it forwards. Some disagree. As long as the referee is consistent, it is irrelevant.

I placed fitness higher than observation for the very simple reason that although both are essential, the latter becomes harder the worse the former is.

Elite referees, by definition, average at least 9 on these very broad categories. Any referee averaging less than 6 out of 10 "broadly" will likely be abused sufficiently that he retires (possibly to the safe surrounds of his own home club, sadly).

Finally, just to be clear, my question is once again: what are your priorities. Do not slag off others, please!

 

[crossref]

Continuity of play is ultimately in the hands of the players. It is their game. It is an important concept, closely related to materiality. My personal view is that play should continue if a pass goes marginally forwards when players are moving at speed and referee ditto, and that a team camped 5m out from the try line should not pass it forwards. Some disagree.
!

i think everyone would disagree. If a pass actually goes forward, even if it's only a little bit forward, it's always material. Wherever you are on the pitch.

As long as the referee is consistent, it is irrelevant.

consistency is not just about yourself across 80 minutes - it's also important across different referees.
If you are knowingly refereeing differently from every other referee, I'd suggest that is relevant ... and not OK

 

[OB..]

i think everyone would disagree. If a pass actually goes forward, even if it's only a little bit forward, it's always material. Wherever you are on the pitch.

As long as you allow for momentum, of course.

 

[crossref]

As long as you allow for momentum, of course.

of course

 

[Rushforth]

consistency is not just about yourself across 80 minutes - it's also important across different referees.
If you are knowingly refereeing differently from every other referee, I'd suggest that is relevant ... and not OK

Absolutely. I knowingly have allowed scrum-halves to feed the ball into the second row (or rather, I looked elsewhere for more important things) so far. To be consistent with other referees, you know.

My apologies for my failure to inform you that for the purposes of this thread, my personal opinion of the momentum interpretation should be considered as irrelevant. I did my best to give that as an example.

Anyway, you can get all excited about me "knowingly" refereeing differently to other referees. I tended to know the laws better (yet now know how flexibly they are interpreted) as a player than any referee at my (low) playing level. From current evidence, I'm not all that impressed by you lot here either!

 

[SimonSmith]

You're missing game understanding/ability to feel the context of your decisions.

Anyone can be a robot. All that means is that they can deliver consistently shit decisions that kill the game off. Much of what you list can be trained/educated. Match understanding is much more difficult.

 

[Rushforth]

You're missing game understanding/ability to feel the context of your decisions.

Actually, no, not only did I not miss it, I actively dismissed it in my initial post (3rd paragraph). A term I used in dismissing "feeling for the game" was "incredibly important".

I'm interested in if other referees have different priorities to me. I doubt that your reading comprehension is that bad, so it seems that you didn't actually read my initial post.

 

[Phil E]

From current evidence, I'm not all that impressed by you lot here either!

I suspect the feeling is mutual :chin:

 

[damo]

Keeping calm and responding well to pressure situations is right up there as well. It's all very well knowing the law and knowing how to apply it, but if you fall to pieces at the end of a tight game because you can't hack it, then you are going to have trouble getting very far.

 

[crossref]

Rushforth I am sure you have roughly the right six skills, although I don't understand the reasoning that leaves you to leave out the one you reckon is #1, ie safety .

In the ELRA the RFU trainers talked about
Safety
Enjoyment /equity
Law

So I guess that you are in line with that , and expanding out all the things that drive equity and enjoyment . you could add communication skills to your list , the best referees communicate well.

But the way you talk about refereeing here you often seem to come across with a position that you don't care how other referees do it , or what it says in the law book, or what is established practice , you have your own way of refereeing which is better . of course that might just be the way you come across here, I have never seen you actually ref , but if it is the case it sounds to me like a weakness rather than a strength

 

[talbazar]

I reckon the list in the OP makes sense (taking into consideration what has been purposely omitted)

But there's one thing that I reckon has been missed, it's the "presentation".

A fellow (experienced) ref told me once after watching one of my initial games "You generally have the right decisions, now you need to sell them!"

It made so much sense to me... Have a look at experienced refs around your area (and even more on TV): it's a show.
As a referee we need to make everyone (on and off the pitch) believe that we are right. Of course it is indeed a lot easier when you are actually right, but it's not enough.

A ref with all the good decisions and ticking all the boxes listed above in the different posts will probably still get abused at some point in the game if he/she can't sell his/her decisions...
What I mean by "not selling your decision could be for example:
- shy whistle (vs. "singing" loud whistle)
- Slightly bent arm on PK (vs. Straight posture and arm high and stiff on PK)
- General "shy" body language" (vs. appearing confident)
etc...
Btw, there's a balance to find, you don't want to look like a pedant arrogant pr**k...

Just my two cents,
Pierre.

 

[Rushforth]

Rushforth I am sure you have roughly the right six skills, although I don't understand the reasoning that leaves you to leave out the one you reckon is #1, ie safety.

I was actually asking people to rank "their" top 6, with the explicit omission of safety, for the simple reason that there is no argument in my mind that it trumps all else.

But the way you talk about refereeing here you often seem to come across with a position that you don't care how other referees do it , or what it says in the law book, or what is established practice , you have your own way of refereeing which is better . of course that might just be the way you come across here, I have never seen you actually ref , but if it is the case it sounds to me like a weakness rather than a strength

I have plenty of weaknesses other than A, B, C, and D. E granted.

 

[OB..]

I have a couple of problems with the approach. A priority list implies that the aspects are neatly arranged in descending order of importance, whereas in reality some may be of essentially equal importance - a scoring system would be better.

I don't think safety should be in the list. It is not a skill, but something a referee achieves by the application of various skills. The same goes for fair contest and continuity of play.

Fitness and law knowledge are basic. Without those you cannot be an effective referee, but both need to be judged in the context of the actual game. Old Rubberduckians Extra B will not be a great fitness challenge, but no referee could expect to keep pace with Bryan Habana. Arcane points of law occur rarely, and at Extra B level you are unlikely to be challenged on such matters.

Consistency is IMHO a matter of judgement and observation rather than outcome.

It can be an interesting exercise to separate out various characteristics, but ultimately what is needed is an optimal balance between all of them.

 

[SimonSmith]

Actually, no, not only did I not miss it, I actively dismissed it in my initial post (3rd paragraph). A term I used in dismissing "feeling for the game" was "incredibly important".

I'm interested in if other referees have different priorities to me. I doubt that your reading comprehension is that bad, so it seems that you didn't actually read my initial post.

Oh, I read it. I was trying to tactfully indicate that your list is a crock of shit without it. I don't referee the D3 women the same way I referee the D1 Men or the College D1 Men - they are all different games with different requirements.

OB makes a great point. I look at it this way: good refereeing is made up of many constituent skills and competencies that are interconnected.