THE MARK

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

51-60 The referee had some shortcomings in the level of accuracy of decision making and control, with only limited success in communicating with the players resulting in variable fair play.

50 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.