Following on from last nights league meeting and discussion on referees marks.
The mark awarded by a club must be based on the referee’s overallperformance. 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
MARK RANGE 91–100 The referee was extremely accurate in decision making and very successfully controlled the game using management and communication skills to create an environment of fair play, adding real value to the game.
MARK RANGE 81–90 The referee was very accurate in decision making and successfully controlled the game using management and communication skills to create an environment of fair play.
MARK RANGE 71–80 The referee was accurate in decision making and controlled the game well, communicating with the players, making a positive contribution towards fair play.
MARK RANGE 61–70 The referee was reasonably accurate in decision making, controlled the game quite well and communicated with players, establishing a reasonable degree of fair play.
MARK RANGE 60 and below The referee had signiﬁcant shortcomings in the level of accuracy of decision making and control with poor communication with the players which resulted in low levels of fair play.
Notes • Using a scale of up to 100 allows greater ﬂexibility for clubs to distinguish between different refereeing performances more accurately. • A mark within each mark range can be given to reﬂect the referee’s performance e.g. a mark of 79 indicates a somewhat better performance than a mark of 71. • A mark between 71 and 80 represents the standard of refereeing expected. • When a mark of 60 or less is awarded, an explanation must be provided to the League or Competition by completing the appropriate box on the marking form. It must include comments which could help improve the referee’s future performances. Even where a referee has signiﬁcant shortcomings there will have been some positive aspects which should be given credit; extremely low marks (below 20) should be very rare.