The mark awarded by a club must be based on the Referee’s overall performance. It is most important that the mark is awarded fairly and not based upon isolated incidents or previous games. The Referee’s performance should be determined by the table below which should act as a guide for the overall mark which should fall within the mark range for each standard of performance.
||The Referee demonstrated very accurate decision-making and controlled the game very well using management and communication skills effectively to add value to the game
||The Referee demonstrated accurate decision-making and controlled the game well using management and communication skills to contribute positively to the game
||The Referee demonstrated reasonably accurate decision-making and despite some shortcomings generally controlled the game well
|60 and below
||The Referee demonstrated shortcomings in the accuracy of decision-making and control which affected the game
Club officials should use the full range of marks within each category to help distinguish between different performance levels, e.g. within the 85-76 category a mark of 84 indicates a better performance than a mark of 77
While some Referees may have below average performances, there will usually have been some positive aspects of their performance, so extremely low marks should be very rare
When club officials are marking a Referee, they should always look at the game as a whole and not isolated decisions. The result of the match should not influence the mark and disciplinary action should be judged objectively
When a mark of 60 or lower is awarded, an explanation must be provided to the Competition in the requested manner. The purpose of this is to assist Referees to improve their performance levels, so the comments should be as helpful as possible.
The following points should be considered in conjunction with the marking table:
- the overall performance
- measure the performance on this game only
- don’t penalise the Referee for errors by the Assistant Referee
- the starting point for the mark is 75 with fluctuation to reflect the performance
- pitch your expectations to this level of football
- be fair and objective
- try not to issue the mark immediately after the game, but allow a period of reflection on the Referee’s Mark
The following questions focus on the key areas of a referee’s performance. They are intended as an “aide memoire”, are not necessarily comprehensive and need not be answered individually. It is, however, worth considering them before committing yourself to a mark for the referee.
Control and Decision Making
- How well did the referee control the game?
- Were the players’ actions recognized correctly?
- Were the Laws applied correctly?
- Were all incidents dealt with efficiently/effectively?
- Were the appropriate sanctions applied correctly?
- Was the referee always within reasonable distance of incidents?
- Was the Referee well positioned to make critical decisions, especially in and around the penalty area?
- Did the Referee understand the players’ positional intentions and keep out of the way accordingly?
- Did the Referee demonstrate alertness and concentration throughout the game?
- Did the Referee apply the use of advantage to suit the mood and temperature of the game?
- Was the Referee aware of the players’ attitude to advantage?
- Did the referee use the assistants effectively?
- Did the Officials work as part of a team, and did the Referee lead and manage them to the benefit of the game?
Communication and Player Management
- How well did the Referee communicate with the players during the game?
- Did the Referee’ level of involvement/profile suit this particular game?
- Did the Referee understand the players’ problems on the day, e.g. difficult ground/weather conditions?
- Did the referee respond to the changing pattern of play/mood of players?
- Did the Referee demonstrate empathy for the game, allowing it to develop in accordance with the tempo of the game?
- Was the Referee proactive in controlling the game?
- Was the Referee’s authority asserted firmly without being officious?
- Was the referee confident and quick thinking?
- Did the Referee appear unflustered and unhurried when making critical decisions?
- Did the Referee permit undue questioning of decisions?
- Did the Referee deal effectively with players crowding around after decisions/incidents?
- Was effective player management in evidence?
- Was the Referee’s body language confident and open at all times?
- Did the pace of the game, the crowd or player pressure affect the Referee negatively?