Coming into the Northern League didn’t initially seem to
be as much of a culture shock as we all had feared. Obviously on the pitch,
things have gone fairly well. Okay we’re not top of the tree any longer, but
we’re nicely placed in the promotion pack with a good chance of going up at the
end of the season. Off the pitch, the on-going struggles with getting the
lights up appear to have been resolved, with attendant support and scorn from
other teams and fans, generally in terms of faceless on-line keyboard warriors
grinding axes and airing their ignorance, appearing in equal measure. As
regards the rigorous administration regime expected of us, it’s a tough,
exacting and busy set of tasks that need to be followed in a clockwork routine
each match day, with jobs differing depending on whether it is a home or away
game.
One clear difference is in the tolerance of referees to
transgressions of the law; while no-one could argue Joe or Weeksy didn’t
deserve to see red versus Tow Law Town and Brandon United respectively, Lee was
very unlucky in the cup game at Team Northumbria in the League Cup. I don’t
think it is too controversial to say he’d probably not have been dismissed in
an Alliance game for that challenge. Sadly, bad luck, bad tackle and bad
language mean we have now fallen to the foot of the League’s Fair Play table,
which is rather disappointing. I wonder whether this is part of our learning
curve, as I’m sure some of our bookings for dissent would have been ignored
last year. However, this is part and parcel of playing at a higher level of
football and is something we must accept, rather like the Northern League’s
(in)famous Secret Shopper initiative.
Now in its second season, and widely praised by some
(including the FA who gave it an award last season) and mercilessly ridiculed
by others, who’ve generally received negative reports, the system involves a
panel of unaligned spectators who visit all teams throughout the season,
marking each club on a 0 (terrible) to 5 (faultless) scale in the categories
of: player behaviour, technical area language, technical area discipline and
supporter behaviour. Currently we’re 44th out of 45 teams in the
Northern League. At first sight, this is both terribly embarrassing and an
awful indictment of this wonderful football club. However, there are mitigating
circumstances and the picture may not be as terrible as I’ve just painted it.
Let me state unequivocally that I am 100% behind any
campaign that will effectively minimise indiscipline on and off the pitch, as
well as potentially increasing the amount of spectators that come through the
turnstiles, but I must admit to having grave unease with the way the current
system operates as I feel there are avoidable variations in practice and
anomalies that need to be addressed and hopefully eliminated, if the Secret
Shopper scheme is to retain any credibility moving forwards.
As far as I’m aware, we’ve been “shopped” on 4 occasions
so far. The Ryton home game saw us gain straight 5s across the board, which was
encouraging. Brandon away wasn’t perhaps the team’s finest hour in any circumstance,
but among the intensely embarrassing verbatim quotations of Weeksy’s Tourette’s
meltdown were suggestions that two other players who’d been repeatedly
foul-mouthed during the game were Mark Davison and William James. Yes I’m being
serious. Willsa, who is renowned as being quiet to the point of virtual silence
and Mark, who wasn’t even at that game, were blamed for things they did not do
and have absolutely no right of appeal or recourse to what has been said about
them.
The Willington away game included an observation from the
Shopper
that Gary Dixon’s yellow card ought to have been a red. Well, pardon me, but
that decision was absolutely nothing to do with the Secret Shopper; if the
referee deemed it a booking, then a booking it was. Finally, and most
preposterously, there was the Seaham Red Star away game for which the club was
given straight 3s. This was the game where our away support consisted of 4
people, three of whom were in their 70s, with me playing the juvenile lead. Not
one of us said a curse all night, yet we got the same marks as the players when
Gary McGarrigal had, shall we say, a frank exchange of opinions with the
technical area occupants. Where’s the consistency?
I believe I’ve identified 2 major areas of concern with
the Secret
Shopper scheme. Firstly those compiling the reports may assume that
their role is to comment on every single aspect of the “match day experience,”
rather than confining their attention to the 4 clearly defined criteria on
which they’re supposed to comment. In addition, there is a palpable divergence
of both standards and consistency among the panel compiling these reports.
Thankfully I am not just here to find fault with the system, but to offer
concrete advice on how to plug these gaps and help to maintain or restore
confidence in the Secret Shopper initiative.
Firstly, there is a very simple way to ensure those
marking games do not stray from their required brief; tell them in no uncertain
terms what they should be looking and listening for, then remind them that
while they may have an opinion on many other matters from the quality of the
pies to the availability of pin badges, such thoughts are beyond the scope of
their remit and should not appear on their final written report. If they make
such comments, they must be disregarded; perhaps to the extent of regarding
such a report as the equivalent of a spoilt ballot paper. Secondly, something
urgently needs to be done to introduce some kind of moderation system that
standardises the marks on an agreed set of principles that can be referenced as
required. Unfortunately this may compromise the Secret part of the Secret
Shopper initiative and strip it of its sibilant nomenclature.
The only way to assure quality control is by a
standardisation exercise. As far as I can see it, the best way to do this would
be to get every Shopper to watch the same game and then to give their marks.
One way to do this would be to make attendance at a game, for instance the Craven
Cup curtain-raiser at the start of each season, compulsory and then to
perform the moderation exercise immediately afterwards, with a defined set of
standards put in place to give Shoppers an unequivocal mark sheet
to work from. Alternatively, if anonymity is required, then I’m sure Hayley
Revell’s excellent NLFPP service would be happy to record a chosen game and send
DVDs to all those who need a copy. A League official could also mark the game
and provide a written commentary on points of interest and a clear explanation
of how the marks were arrived at. Whether the game in question was faultless or
appalling is immaterial; it is simply there to provide an agreed standard. In
time, a compilation DVD of clips of games of differing standards could be
compiled to build on this rigorous system of moderation.
If the scheme is to continue with any degree of
confidence and credibility in the future then I believe such
standardisation
and robust post report moderation must be introduced. Otherwise nagging doubts
about bias and questions of competency can rear their head; especially when one
considers that there is currently absolutely no appeals procedure against what
has been submitted. For me, the best
idea for subsequent seasons would not be independent observers, but internal
quality control, whereby each club submits a mark in each of the four
categories for both their own club and the opposition, on the completed team
sheet when it is submitted to the league. This is, I feel, the best way to
ensure compliance not only with the requirement to improve the conduct of
players, supporters and management, but also with the spirit of this
initiative.
It is far better to have people inside the tent
micturating out, than outside micturating in…
No comments:
Post a Comment