Question Number: 35956

Mechanics 6/30/2025

RE: NA Adult

Lansana Boima of Freetown, W/ Area Sierra Leone asks...

In the Referee's Assessment form, there is a portion under evaluation scale marked:

1. DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY
2. Justification of difficulty

What are the looking for, or what is the understanding?

Thanks

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

The degree of difficulty in refereeing a soccer match is a factor used to assess a referee*s performance. It considers the intensity of the game and the number of key match decisions, or KMIs, that the referee must make. Higher intensity and more KMIs result in a higher degree of difficulty, requiring the referee to demonstrate better decision-making and game management skills.
In our association we have three Levels of Difficulty
They are 1. Normal which is a regular match for the officials with few challenging situations. 2. Quite challenging which is a difficult match with some difficult decisions for the officials and 3 Very challenging which is a Very Difficult match with many difficult situations for the officials
The degree of difficulty is incorporated into the individual mark of each match official. As an observer I must decide and include the level of difficulty and the ability of each match official to deal with critical incidents. It is a judgement call to be made and most games will be in Normal category. I would typically mention the important elements of the match officials performance in the report, indicating the minutes when critical incidents occurred, in order to justify the final mark.
The level of difficulty includes the number of key match decisions combined with the intensity of the match. The intensity of the match can be determined based on numerous factors including but not limited to: the speed of the match, the frequency/style of fouls committed (e.g. many reckless challenges and the attitude of the players and coaching staff (e.g. general aggression, high levels of dissent,
In a normal game a referee would be expected to achieve a Good Mark which is the expected level of performance. Where the game has proved much more difficult and the referee has managed that game well a Very Good mark would be appropriate.
So for example 8.4 would be Good in a Normal game, 8.5 could be Good in a Challenging game and it could be 8.6 to 8.7 in a Very Challenging game.
In many ways it is to give the reader a sense of the mark reflecting the type of game that the referee had to manage such as multiple cautions , dismissals, penalty decisions, confrontations etc

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Lansana,
What an interesting question.

It is important to remember that the Degree of difficulty ratings reflects the match content it is NOT about the referee's competence. You do not use this field to penalize or reward the referee for application of the Laws or his personal performance abilities.
Poor or Good decisions in an ANY match get captured under the technical “Competency” and “Critical Match Incident” sections, not by inflating or deflating the Difficulty
Keep the Difficulty section pure: it measures match complexity, not referee errors.
By separating match context from referee performance you ensure clarity, fairness and actionable feedback.

Degree of difficulty reflects how challenging the match-context was for the referee.
That isn’t “how hard you worked” but how many complicating factors the referee had to manage.
Match level (elite international vs. local amateur)
Pace of play (end-to-end fast breaks, frequent restarts)
Player skill and tactical nuance (tight offside traps, blind-side fouls)
Discipline issues (dissent, time-wasting, crowd pressure)
Environmental factors (poor light, wet surface, heat/high altitude)

I rate on a simple scale of low,medium and high. Some use the number of stars 1* being “this was a routine game” versus 5***** “super demanding fixture.”

Justification of difficulty is the explanation of why you picked the rating!
You need to sumbit the reason as evidence.
I rate the match as a HIGH DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY I could use explanations like:
Pace to play was incredibly fast, several critical incidentst throughout the match required to be dealt with, including managing several hard challenges within a congested midfield where advantage had to be applied & or cards shown, 4 controversial split-second offside decisions, Two controversial penalties awarded, including denying obvious goal scoring opportunity, persistent dissent from both benches.

Whereas if I gave say a MEDIUM : speed of play was steady, only one controversial penalty decision, ARs clear on offside. Play was scrappy but relatively fair, reasonable descent

LOW DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY: Slower pace, few stoppages, minimal discipline issues

I hope this helps you understand. This is only part of the overall assessment and feedback mark Below is the performance review of what a referee did and how it affected the match

Overall Mark is heavily influenced by critical incidents and competence scores. A referee who scores well in a game of medium difficulty or easy difficulty may have a really hard time in a difficult match that stretched their capabilities to stay with play, recognize professional fouls etc.... But even in an easy or a medium game game a referee can make a serious mistake or several mistakes it all depends on their handling of that game & knowledge of the laws of the game.

Per FIFA/US Soccer guidelines, any missed critical incident caps the overall performance mark at 69/100. No matter what level of difficulty it is.
In the “Overview” or “Critical Incidents” field you must:
Describe the incident (what happened, where, and why it should’ve been spotted).
State its impact on the game’s outcome or control.
Cite specific examples:
“Failed to call clear foul at 12’, resulting in counterattack goal.”
“Issued card for routine sideline water break confusion suggests gap in Law 5 knowledge.”
Use the competencies grid to downgrade areas where rules weren’t applied.
Document every missed “critical incident” under its own headin, this drives both score and feedback.
Cheers

.