I'm due to recertify this summer, but a ref with whom I worked over the weekend suggested that I go for Grade 7 instead. Any thoughts? I'm not upwardly mobile -- I'm almost 50 and would not pass anything with a fitness test. However, the area assignor who lets me sign up for assignments is retiring, and most of her work has been taken over by another assignor who simply denies my requests without notification, much less explanation. Maybe if I'm Grade 7, I'll have a bit more pull?
USSF is completely overhauling the grade system this summer. We should know more in a couple weeks. Some states has it where grade 7 is pretty much an automatic upgrade. Some require an assessment and fitness test.
Our former SDI used to say that "If you can't pass the physical for grade 7, you shouldn't be out there for your own protection." Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking? Of course. He lost his grade 7 badge when he failed the test himself. Someone asked me last week about refereeing to stay in shape. I told him that I had made the transition back about your age, Beau, to staying in shape in order to referee. YMMV, literally. Chicago can make all kinds of pronouncements about the requirements for grades 9 through 5 and some states may even listen. But the variation between states about grade 7 only shows how much of a failure Chicago's attempts to make grade 7 an automatic. The people who use the information about grade are the assignors. Most don't know the actual skill level of the referees on their list, so knowing a grade has been achieved helps them a lot. Upward mobility from grade 7 is one thing but it does not need to be the only reason to upgrade. Some people think "I don't need to upgrade. I'm getting all the games I want to do now." It really isn't a question of the quantity of games you will get as a 7. It's more one of the quality of those games. And, at least in our state, you have to be, or have been, at least a grade 7 in order to become an instructor or assessor.
What kind of games do you want to be doing? We use the Grade 7 (and more importantly, the fitness test) to see who is capable of doing U-16 and above. If your goal is not to do those type of matches, there is little need to upgrade. Also, depending on the size of your organization, it helps to be a grade 7 if the assignor(s) don't know you from the next ref. If you are a capable 8 who is known by the assigning organizations, you can still pull some decent matches by reputation.
The age group I DON'T do is U19 boys. I've found I can keep up with U16 boys and U19 girls, but I'm happy to take assignments at lower age groups -- if the assignors will let me take them. So it's not really moving UP a level. It's just giving the assignors more of a reason to let me have some games. My fellow refs have encouraged me to go Grade 7, which I appreciate, and high school, which I think is mildly sadistic on their parts.
Depending on the rest time between sprints, I *think* I could pass this Grade 7A test: http://www.alasoccerref.org/upgprocess.htm Of the adult refs I've worked with (not including the kids, who could all do it), I'd guess maybe 40% could pass it.
The official guideline for the 'sprints' is at least 60 seconds recovery. I know referees who would do that time backwards because they were bored. The moving speed for the runs is 8.3 mph. A couple of weeks of running should get to to the fitness you need for that level test.
I'm always amazed by the fact that the grade requirements can be so radically different. In Massachusetts, we need 30 Centers and 10 ARs on affiliated adult league games to upgrade from 8 to 7. When out of state tournaments are assigned, I wonder if the assignors have an idea of that difference, or if they would assign a Grade 7 with only youth experience from your area over a Grade 8 from Massachusetts who has done a number of affiliated adult matches. Does anyone out there have experience with this?
If you can do U-16 boys (physically), you should be able to pass the fitness test required without too much effort. I was reasonably jogging the 150m in about 30-35 seconds. Definitely wasn't keeping up with my son running them in under 25 seconds. From what I understand, this is the fitness test that college refs use as well, so if you think you can't 'keep up' with U-19s, you'd be surprised. I know I can't. When I check them in on rosters, I'll let them know they will sprint faster than me for the first 60 minutes, but I'll look fresher and be a lot closer to them in the 90th minute.
I'm guessing you are closer to Boston than you are to Pittsfield. I'm about 45 minutes west of Pittsfield. We just don't have that type of adult match volume. We have 4-5 matches weekly of adult and a smaller summer U-23 league, so it would take you forever to accumulate those matches. We have the 30 match rule, but from U-16 matches and up count. I've traveled with my son to Mass. many times for tournaments, I wouldn't rate the refs there any better or worse than over here.
The NISOA interval test is 45 seconds to jog 150 M, then 45 seconds to walk 50 M to the next starting position, with 20 runs/jogs required. When we took the test last August, no one failed and most of us were talking and telling stories during the jogs. Let's just say that there was social pressure to not go all out and everybody was doing them in 41 to 42 seconds. You can try out the test at your local high school's track. Start at the apex of the curve, in line with the gridiron football goalpost and run/jog to the finish line/200 meter start line, using the stop watch feature on your referee watch. Then walk to the apex of the next curve, again in line with the gridiron football goal post. Remember, there is no penalty for taking the full 45 seconds and no extra points for going faster. Well, other than extra reputation. If you can do U-16 boys, you can definitely do community college and D3 women.
Nope, right outside of Springfield. From what I've been told the closest games that would count are an hour or more away for me. Despite being comfortable with U18 boys games I doubt I'll be able to climb USSF grades while I'm in college, however, finding my way onto college assignments seems like it may be a possibility.
But that's my point. Your state is Boston-centric. Many things in ENY are NYC/LI centric, but at least the refereeing standards are a little relaxed. If I lived downstate, I'd certainly have plenty of opportunity to do adult, but like you, I am not driving 1+ plus to do matches. I've been requested in the past couple years to possibly do college matches, but I've done a few spring scrimmages and I just don't feel I have the wheels to do those matches any longer (I'm 51).
Completely moot. The cycle ends June 30th. There will never again be a Grade 7 or Grade 6 upgrade course. The only upgrade course will be Regional Referee. Unless you have the game count to upgrade, the only class to take will be a Grassroots Recert.
NC is still keeping the intermediate grade even if they need to call it a regional candidate. As it's been talked about, SRCs have a lot of leeway when it comes to grades and certification criteria.
One thing I am hearing about the new upgrades is that doing youth games will not count towards the requirement needed to pass to Regional referee cert. Is that true? If so, won't that really make it hard for youth games to be filled by the more established refs who want to level up?
And, And in my state we have been told that recertifications will be done on line beginning with 2020. While I don’t mind the convenience of an on line recert, a deeper explanation to the upcoming changes to The Laws would probably benefit us grassroots. BTW, what are we calling ourselves on this forum? GR’s? GRR’s? Roots? I’m open to suggestions. I’m not emeritus anything, but what happens to all the guys who are emeritus?
Getting back to one of my posts above, we are keeping the fitness test required for grade 7 in order to determine who can do matches at U-16 and above.
Certainly, but the OP was specifically asking about upgrading to 7 and no state is offering that at this point. SRCs, local assignors, and National Assignors can set other standards they deem necessary for their states or games. That is good. Which test?
If they weren't changing it, I definitely would've recommended upgrading to 7. It separates you from the 8's so you get the quality games you're after. Grade 6, well, it depends what you really want. I suspect VA is doing something similar, since they're still taking money for Grade 7 Assessments. Or maybe they're just cashing in on the poor folks who aren't in the loop. But it's hilarious all the way if most of the states just make an "Intermediate Grassroots" level. A big middle finger to US Soccer and their state-of-the-art paint job. Hell, just make a level in between Regional and Grassroots. Call it, I don't know...State Referee?
Yep. Most assignors are too lazy to put the work in they should be. Having something in-between Grassroots and Regional will be vital to helping assignors distinguish referees as well as providing a goal for Grassroots referees to achieve and separate themselves.