1 / 44

Minnesota Assessment Program

Minnesota Assessment Program. January 15, 2012. Agenda. State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise Brief 2 – 3 Minute Presentations. State Assessment Team. Bob Petersen – SDA. Kip Jackson – Deputy SDA. jacksonk0001@yahoo.com

gagan
Télécharger la présentation

Minnesota Assessment Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012

  2. Agenda • State Assessment Program Update • Expectations • Feedback • Game Rating Review • Match Assessment Exercise • Brief 2 – 3 Minute Presentations

  3. State Assessment Team Bob Petersen – SDA Kip Jackson – Deputy SDA jacksonk0001@yahoo.com State Assessor National Referee • sda@minnesotasrc.com • redcardnb@hotmail.com • Bob Petersen • @nationalref • National Assessor • National Referee Emeritus • Associate Instructor

  4. Responsibilities Bob Petersen – SDA Kip Jackson – Deputy SDA Mentoring • Training • Assignment • Programs

  5. Assessment Program Update

  6. 2011 Assessors • 45 total assessors registered • 3 National Assessors • including 1 Referee Inspector • 2 National Assessors Emeritus • 14 State Assessors • 7 Referee Assessors • 19 Associate Assessors

  7. Added Assessors • ArtemSher, new State Assessor • Kip Jackson, new State Assessor • Matt Tiano, new Associate Assessor • John Morstad, new Associate Assessor • Kyle Burkhardt, new Associate Assessor • Ken Lamb, returning State Assessor

  8. Assessor Upgrades • Doug Marshak • To Referee Assessor • S. John Hagenstein • To State Assessor • Sam Trigui • To State Assessor

  9. 2011 Assessor Training • State Assessors Course, Orlando, FL • S. John Hagenstein • Kip Jackson • ArtemSher • Sam Trigui

  10. 2011 Assessor Training • State Assessors Course, Orlando, FL • S. John Hagenstein • Kip Jackson • ArtemSher • Sam Trigui • State Assessor Academy, Developmental Academy Playoffs, Frisco, TX • Gentry Thatcher

  11. 2011 Games Covered • Minnesota Cup – 5 games including Final • MRSL Playoffs • Quarterfinals through Finals • 2 Developmental Academy U18

  12. 2011 Administrative Improvements • Most state assessors access to ‘Pro’ side of gameofficials • Added and improved features on SRC site • Improved functionality • Assessor forms and guides added • Referee upgrade process strengthened • Changed again for 2012 • Assessor game and mileage fees determined • ‘State Inspector’ list identified • Assist with assessor training and advanced referees

  13. Referee Upgrading • Only for referees upgrading to grades 6 or 5 • Old process for 2011 • Must pass two (2) mentoring reviews before next step • Potential to not move past mentoring • Must pass required formal assessments • New process for 2012 • One (1) mentoring review before next step • Everyone will proceed to formal assessments • Must pass required formal assessments

  14. Needs and Future Plans • Ensure all assessors have website access • Referee & game rating conformity • Add and improve items to SRC site as needed • MYSA Mentorship • Regional and US Soccer event participation • ‘Remote’ assessments • Assessor coaches for high potential referees • Assessor academy during State Cup

  15. Games to Cover • Developmental Academy • Minnesota and Wilson Cup • MRSL Playoffs • NPSL – Men and Women • MN Stars FC Exhibitions • Midwest Regional League • MYSA State Tournament

  16. Assessor Academy • During first weekend of State Cup • Older age group games • Friday night through Sunday afternoon • Up to 8 assessors • 2 – 3 assessor instructors • 7 – 8 assessments each assessor • Critique of game observation and feedback methods • Let Bob Petersen know if interested

  17. Expectations

  18. Program Expectations • Quality of assessments • More discriminate • Useful information • Accurate grading • Feedback to entire crew • All assessments entered into gameofficials • Email copies of pdf to referees within 7 days • Maintenance and upgrade assessments, results in SRC site within 48 hours

  19. Vernacular • Acceptable performance • Unacceptable performance • Do NOT use FAIL or FAILURE

  20. Feedback

  21. Feedback Preparation • The focus is always on the referees and their development • Developmental issues AND positives • What are you going to ask about? • Prepare questions on big incidents • How player and referee actions affected the match • Use match facts • Do not use own biases

  22. Feedback Preparation • Assessors must be experts at ‘connecting the dots’ • If a referee has an area that is not acceptable, you must inform them and why • Individual criteria • Total match performance

  23. Terminology • Use terms described in the criteria • Presence • POE on elbowing (tool v weapon) • POE on dissent (personal, public, provocative) • Ask, tell, remove • Careless / reckless / excessive force • Options • 100% misconduct • Player needed / game needed

  24. Feedback Session • Engage the whole crew • Facilitate the discussion • Try get the crew to do most of the talking • Ask questions of entire crew • Different angles • Different points of view • Acknowledge positives • Offer suggestions and alternate methods of handling incidents as needed • Do not get into extended debates

  25. FC Dallas v Weston FC

  26. FC Dallas v Weston FC • 1’, Red defender #4 runs upfield and commits a hard foul on White #24 • 4’, White #24 tackles Red #4 unfairly from behind • Simple foul called • 16’, Red #4 elbow on White #24 incident • 51’, Red forward commits a late tackle from behind • 53’, White forward jumps very late at opposing GK • 58’, White midfielder commits bad tackle at midfield • Referee briefly talks to player • 61’, Red midfielder runs over white player from behind at midfield • Referee briefly talks to player

  27. Longer Postgame Method • 3 positives • 3 negatives • 3 things referee will do differently • 3 action items

  28. Newer Postgame Method • 3 events in first half • 3 events in second half • Tie issues together • Positive and developmental • Anything referee would do differently • Time permitting

  29. Do you have to give verbal feedback immediately after the match?

  30. Reporting • Written feedback must be close to verbal • No surprises! • Accurately critique ratings • Are your scores appropriate? • Same expectations of referees – timely

  31. Game Rating Review

  32. Difficult managed to Competitive 76 - 84 Unified Grading Scale Not Acceptable Acceptable Very Good Outstanding Scoring Range 70 - 79 80 - 89 90 - 100 69 or less Game Difficulty Varies Difficult Very Difficult Competitive Standard Performance Level Minimum 69 75 85 95 Very Difficult managed to Difficult Performance or Game Critical Low 70 - 74 69 or less 86 - 94 • Starting point for performances in each game “difficulty” area. • Scores move up/down depending upon ref performance and decisions. Competitive game but ref handled all critical decisions Difficult game but ref handled all critical decisions 70 - 83 80 - 93

  33. What elements contribute to game difficulty?

  34. Rating Questions • Does a low or easy game rating also mean a not ratable game or insufficient test? • What does a score of 95 mean? • What does a score of 50 mean?

  35. Game Rating Example • U17 boys • Relatively low foul count • 1 caution given plus 1 tough incident with player and goalkeeper that the referee handled well

  36. Game Rating Example • U17 boys • Relatively low foul count • 1 caution given plus 1 tough incident with player and goalkeeper that the referee handled well • What game difficulty do you expect? • What referee scores would you expect?

  37. Game Rating Example • U17 boys • Relatively low foul count • 1 caution given plus 1 tough incident with player and goalkeeper that the referee handled well • AR2 (grade 8) given 85 • AR1 (grade 16) given 95 • Referee (grade 7) given 90 • Assessor rated as difficult based upon POTENTIAL of poor player behavior and incident

  38. Game Rating Guide • How competitive was the game to expectations for that level? • What elements were present before the game? • What elements or events occurred throughout the game? • How did any of these elements contribute to the competitiveness or difficulty? • Do not base rating on the referee grade • Do not rate a game based on how difficult the game would be for you

  39. Low, Competitive, Difficult, or Very Difficult • U13 girls MYSA • U17 boys MYSA • U17 boys State Cup Semifinal • U16 boys Mpls United v Mpls United Premier • D1 MRSL Red Devis v Tsunami • D1 MRSL Medtronic v JooGoo Road Warrior • Sporting KC v Houston Dynamo • Chivas Guadalajara v Club América • USA v México World Cup Qualifier

  40. Match Assessment Exercise

  41. Directions • Your table is your group • Use Game Data form for notes • 10 minutes to fill out forms • Rate game difficulty with reasons and notes on overall performance in first section • 3 comments in first 2 criteria for referee • 1 comment in remaining criteria for referee and all criteria for ARs and 4th official • Score referee team • Brief 2 – 3 minute presentation

  42. Prairie Seeds Academy vBenilde - St. Margaret’s

  43. Presentations • Game difficulty • Referee scores • 3 positive comments on referee • 3 developmental comments on referee

More Related