minnesota assessment program january 15, 2012 3 agenda state assessment program update expectations...

44

Upload: briana-anderson

Post on 28-Dec-2015

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 2: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

Minnesota Assessment Program

January 15, 2012

Page 3: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

3

Agenda

State Assessment Program Update

Expectations

Feedback

Game Rating Review

Match Assessment Exercise

Brief 2 – 3 Minute Presentations

Page 4: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

State Assessment Team

Bob Petersen – SDA

[email protected]

[email protected]

Bob Petersen

@nationalref

National Assessor

National Referee Emeritus

Associate Instructor

Kip Jackson – Deputy SDA

[email protected]

State Assessor

National Referee

4

Page 5: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

Responsibilities

Bob Petersen – SDA

Training

Assignment

Programs

Kip Jackson – Deputy SDA

Mentoring

5

Page 6: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

6

Assessment Program Update

Page 7: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

7

2011 Assessors

45 total assessors registered3 National Assessors

including 1 Referee Inspector

2 National Assessors Emeritus14 State Assessors7 Referee Assessors19 Associate Assessors

Page 8: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

8

Added Assessors

Artem Sher, new State AssessorKip Jackson, new State AssessorMatt Tiano, new Associate AssessorJohn Morstad, new Associate AssessorKyle Burkhardt, new Associate AssessorKen Lamb, returning State Assessor

Page 9: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

9

Assessor Upgrades

Doug MarshakTo Referee Assessor

S. John HagensteinTo State Assessor

Sam TriguiTo State Assessor

Page 10: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

10

2011 Assessor Training

State Assessors Course, Orlando, FLS. John HagensteinKip JacksonArtem SherSam Trigui

Page 11: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

11

2011 Assessor Training

State Assessors Course, Orlando, FLS. John HagensteinKip JacksonArtem SherSam Trigui

State Assessor Academy, Developmental Academy Playoffs, Frisco, TX

Gentry Thatcher

Page 12: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

12

2011 Games Covered

Minnesota Cup – 5 games including FinalMRSL Playoffs

Quarterfinals through Finals

2 Developmental Academy U18

Page 13: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

13

2011 Administrative Improvements

Most state assessors access to ‘Pro’ side of gameofficialsAdded and improved features on SRC site

Improved functionalityAssessor forms and guides added

Referee upgrade process strengthenedChanged again for 2012

Assessor game and mileage fees determined‘State Inspector’ list identified

Assist with assessor training and advanced referees

Page 14: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

14

Referee Upgrading

Only for referees upgrading to grades 6 or 5Old process for 2011

Must pass two (2) mentoring reviews before next stepPotential to not move past mentoringMust pass required formal assessments

New process for 2012One (1) mentoring review before next stepEveryone will proceed to formal assessmentsMust pass required formal assessments

Page 15: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

15

Needs and Future Plans

Ensure all assessors have website accessReferee & game rating conformityAdd and improve items to SRC site as neededMYSA MentorshipRegional and US Soccer event participation‘Remote’ assessmentsAssessor coaches for high potential refereesAssessor academy during State Cup

Page 16: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

16

Games to Cover

Developmental AcademyMinnesota and Wilson CupMRSL PlayoffsNPSL – Men and WomenMN Stars FC ExhibitionsMidwest Regional LeagueMYSA State Tournament

Page 17: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

17

Assessor Academy

During first weekend of State CupOlder age group games

Friday night through Sunday afternoonUp to 8 assessors2 – 3 assessor instructors7 – 8 assessments each assessorCritique of game observation and feedback methodsLet Bob Petersen know if interested

Page 18: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

18

Expectations

Page 19: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

19

Program Expectations

Quality of assessmentsMore discriminateUseful informationAccurate grading

Feedback to entire crewAll assessments entered into gameofficialsEmail copies of pdf to referees within 7 daysMaintenance and upgrade assessments, results in SRC site within 48 hours

Page 20: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

20

Vernacular

Acceptable performanceUnacceptable performance

Do NOT use FAIL or FAILURE

Page 21: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

21

Feedback

Page 22: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

22

Feedback Preparation

The focus is always on the referees and their developmentDevelopmental issues AND positivesWhat are you going to ask about?Prepare questions on big incidentsHow player and referee actions affected the matchUse match factsDo not use own biases

Page 23: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

23

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 criteriaTotal match performance

Page 24: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

24

Terminology

Use terms described in the criteriaPresencePOE on elbowing (tool v weapon)POE on dissent (personal, public, provocative)Ask, tell, removeCareless / reckless / excessive forceOptions100% misconductPlayer needed / game needed

Page 25: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

25

Feedback Session

Engage the whole crewFacilitate the discussion

Try get the crew to do most of the talking

Ask questions of entire crewDifferent anglesDifferent points of view

Acknowledge positivesOffer suggestions and alternate methods of handling incidents as neededDo not get into extended debates

Page 26: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

FC Dallas v Weston FC

26

Page 27: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

27

FC Dallas v Weston FC

1’, Red defender #4 runs upfield and commits a hard foul on White #244’, White #24 tackles Red #4 unfairly from behind

Simple foul called

16’, Red #4 elbow on White #24 incident51’, Red forward commits a late tackle from behind53’, White forward jumps very late at opposing GK58’, 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

Page 28: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

28

Longer Postgame Method

3 positives3 negatives3 things referee will do differently3 action items

Page 29: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

29

Newer Postgame Method

3 events in first half3 events in second half

Tie issues togetherPositive and developmental

Anything referee would do differentlyTime permitting

Page 30: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

Do you have to

give verbal

feedback

immediately

after the match?

30

Page 31: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

31

Reporting

Written feedback must be close to verbalNo surprises!

Accurately critique ratingsAre your scores appropriate?

Same expectations of referees – timely

Page 32: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

32

Game Rating Review

Page 33: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

Unified Grading ScaleNot

Acceptable Very Good OutstandingAcceptable

69 or less 70 - 79 80 - 89 90 - 100

Competitive Difficult Very DifficultVaries

75 85 95Minimum 69

Difficult game but ref handled all

critical decisions80 - 93

Difficult managed to Competitive

76 - 84

Low70 - 74

Very Difficult managed to

Difficult86 - 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

70 - 83

Scoring Range

Game Difficulty

Standard Performance

Level

Performance or Game Critical

69 or less

Page 34: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

34

What elements contribute to game difficulty?

Page 35: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

35

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?

Page 36: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

36

Game Rating Example

U17 boysRelatively low foul count1 caution given plus 1 tough incident with player and goalkeeper that the referee handled well

Page 37: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

37

Game Rating Example

U17 boysRelatively low foul count1 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?

Page 38: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

38

Game Rating Example

U17 boysRelatively low foul count1 caution given plus 1 tough incident with player and goalkeeper that the referee handled well

AR2 (grade 8) given 85AR1 (grade 16) given 95Referee (grade 7) given 90Assessor rated as difficult based upon POTENTIAL of poor player behavior and incident

Page 39: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

39

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 gradeDo not rate a game based on how difficult the game would be for you

Page 40: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

40

Low, Competitive, Difficult, or Very Difficult

U13 girls MYSAU17 boys MYSAU17 boys State Cup SemifinalU16 boys Mpls United v Mpls United PremierD1 MRSL Red Devis v TsunamiD1 MRSL Medtronic v JooGoo Road WarriorSporting KC v Houston DynamoChivas Guadalajara v Club AméricaUSA v México World Cup Qualifier

Page 41: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

41

Match Assessment Exercise

Page 42: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

42

Directions

Your table is your groupUse Game Data form for notes10 minutes to fill out formsRate game difficulty with reasons and notes on overall performance in first section3 comments in first 2 criteria for referee1 comment in remaining criteria for referee and all criteria for ARs and 4th officialScore referee teamBrief 2 – 3 minute presentation

Page 43: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

43

Prairie Seeds Academy v

Benilde - St. Margaret’s

Page 44: Minnesota Assessment Program January 15, 2012 3 Agenda State Assessment Program Update Expectations Feedback Game Rating Review Match Assessment Exercise

44

Presentations

Game difficultyReferee scores3 positive comments on referee3 developmental comments on referee