Surveying after the game

[Taffy]

I'm still thinking about this so forgive me for banging a drum.

What one question would you most like to honestly ask of a player or captain after the game in relation to your refereeing.

I offer mine as a starter for ten (nicked from someone else I confess)

"How much did the referee and the way in which he reffed contribute to the enjoyment of the game?"

Any thoughts appreciated. :smile::wales:

 

[Pegleg]

"Did you enjoy the game?"

If I get yes from both sides (allowing for disapointment from the losing side), I am happy with my game. I usually have a fairly clear idea about how it's gone. It is nice to find the sides like what you did. Especially when they lose.

I'd not ask how I'd contributed to the game. I doubt that many would be truely honest. Enquire more laterally.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I'm still thinking about this so forgive me for banging a drum.

What one question would you most like to honestly ask of a player or captain after the game in relation to your refereeing.

I offer mine as a starter for ten (nicked from someone else I confess)

"How much did the referee and the way in which he reffed contribute to the enjoyment of the game?"

Any thoughts appreciated. :smile::wales:

That is a standard question on some Societies' Referee Match Card.

It reflects the RFU Refs Dept mantra a decade or so ago

Better Ref, Better Game.

Safety - Law - Equity with Enjoyment

I would adopt a far more conversational tone and avoid a question that sounds as if it comes off a report card.

It is all about the players and game, not the referee.

Comment on a specific player who did something good, a passage of play, a tactic, the overall game plan, etc and you are more likely to get engagement. The only time players and coaches are interesting in law and ref is when you have got it wrong in their eyes, so you are on the defensive from the start.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I am intrigued with your obsession in "surveying" after the game, especially at the level you referee at.
Far too analytical and referee focussed in my view.

 

[Taffy]

I am intrigued with your obsession in "surveying" after the game, especially at the level you referee at.
Far too analytical and referee focussed in my view.

Just want to be a better ref!

Remember my society doesn't do cards (mentioned it a week or so ago to someone on the committee) and he laughed and said "we will never do those cards in Devon!"

Not so convinced that 2 assessments per 40 games gives enough information.

I am proud to be of the camp where Continual improvement does become rather an obsession...........

 

[Simon Thomas]

Not so convinced that 2 assessments per 40 games gives enough information.

I am proud to be of the camp where Continual improvement does become rather an obsession...........

Fully support PDPs and continual development, but it needs to be practical focussed and specific.
Take key elements of play and work on one or two at a time - breakdown has dozens of segments and specific decisions to work on.
Likewise the scrum.
Management and compliance with offside lines is the other kept technical component to get right early on - if you create the space and continuity for the players the match will flow far better.
Add the offer and execution of advantage and those for me are the four main things to work on at your level.
Wrap around an effective and adaptive management style, and effective precise communication only when needed and you have the basic toolkit needed to be an effective referee.

When talking to players and skippers, get their perspective and their views on how your decisions impacted on them.
When talking to coaches you can be more technical and law based, with specific incidents but it is still the match outcomes of your decisions that they are interesting in.

 

[crossref]

I am not sure that I get too much from coaches and players after the game, other than a general feeling of how well they think I have done (which you get on the pitch anyway).

At my level the clubhouse after the game is more about chatting than detailed analysis.

Coaches don't ask me : 'what did you think of our game plan today? Was it effective kicking so much or do you reckon perhaps we should played more in forwards ?' and if they did, and I thought the coach was rubbish, I'd be hesitant to give an honest opinion.
Similarly if I asked : how was my on field commuinication and game management - and do you think I would have benefited if I'd YC your flanker five minutes earlier?' it probably wouldn't work.

'Did you enjoy the game' or even 'I thought that was a cracking game' works better to get a conversation going.

Cards are useful to the Society (I assume) as they provide a general picture of how well you are doing. But a ref they rarely tell you much you didn't know already, you know if they think you did a good job. And if they give in a card with one particular area marked down it's almost invariably to do with one particular decision you gave that they didn't agree with, rather than a genuine area of weakness. (of course if you frequently get the same bad mark from both teams, and most weeks, then you can safely conclude it's a genuine area of weakness!)

 

[Phil E]

Ask the front rows what they got away with that you missed?

You will learn a lot about scrums that way.

 

[Pegleg]

'Did you enjoy the game' or even 'I thought that was a cracking game' works better to get a conversation going.

Spot on. Give the players an opening to speak.

Ask the front rows what they got away with that you missed?

You will learn a lot about scrums that way.

Ceertainly worth talking to the Front Rows. I'm not sure I'd honestly answer your question mind you. I'd not own up to anything illegal to that question. I just say "basic technique".

However, following a compliment "You had their TH in a bit of trouble in the first half." Might get me to boast a bit and let a "trick or two" slip. Front rows have egos. Massage them.

I would adopt a far more conversational tone and avoid a question that sounds as if it comes off a report card.

Is vital. A conversation coaxes unguared comments out of people. If it sounds like a "survey" or a "test" people will default to defensive mode and you'll get little of value.

 

[matty1194]

Ask the front rows what they got away with that you missed?

You will learn a lot about scrums that way.

Former Ospreys prop playing for one of the army teams on Wednesday after the game complimented me on my ability to keep control of the scrum, said and I quote, " You never let me get away with any of the things I normally do, fair play mate, however you did allow us to scrum hard which was good"

Happy with that I was!

In response to the OP, Taffy definatly start with massaging their egos a little even the losing team, they may of been some good phases in their game, something along the lines of, " that was a hard game today, you were unlucky to lose but your driving maul was awesome today, one of the best Ive seen this season" Normally gets someone to open up and can lead to furrther discussion about what they can and carnt do legally to stop it, but let them bring that up otheriwse it can look a bit like a lecture.

I think as you stated Taffy only getting 2 assessments in 40 games and having no other way of feedback from the teams then you are well within your rights to ask a few questions after a game, you will of course get varying answers depending on who you speak too!

As Simon T says, Personal Development Plans (PDP's) are great for a ref and allows you to work on things throughout the course of the season but if your stated aim is "to improve my scrum setup" or something similar and no one else watches you except 2 assesors in the season then you may of picked up bad habits, a bit of outside chat can always help and offers a different perspective.