"not enough top refs" - Selector

Following a meeting with club coaches, a local selector has labelled his own referees as not good enough. In a recent email to senior referees, copied to RugbyWA, the selector was not backward in telling them that they were not all ‘top referees' and never will be. Coaches views were also (politely) labelled as biased due to club allegances A copy of the email is below.

I didn't think what the coaches had to say was far off the mark (so play on!); in fact their mostly accurate understanding reflected the importance of their role as Premier coaches and by enlarge is what our top referees are implementing. Its worth realising as it was acknowledged by the coaches they understandably see the game through club colour glasses. One of the reasons we have variation amongst our referees is because they are all not all top referees and this will always be the case; although we aspire and work towards expanding the pool. The most important outcome was the chance to dialogue. Any robust discussion between our established and emerging referees be it formal or informal and at times with coaches is to be encouraged. Keep up the keen spirit.

The comments were not unexpected following the decision by referee selectors to bring a referee out of retirement to whistle in the 2011 Grand Final. Furhermore, it is rumoured that the selection panel and RWA have also decided to waive the requirement for Premier grade refs to meet fitness benchmarks due to lack of attendance by the annointed ‘top refs.’

Refs who protest are dropped to lower grades……....

And no, I'm not a disgruntled ref. Just a fan lamenting the quality and laughing at their politics!

Darkfather
I'm all in favour of healthy constructive discussion, however uncomfortable, but i am also amused by the interpretation and context you or your supplier of the info has put on the words of the email. You should work for a tabloid :) what with talk of 'waiving requirements' and 'anointed top refs', and 'refs who protest are dropped'.

You may not be a disgruntled ref, but I reckon the person who supplied it to you may be :)

As always, politics are behind most things, which ever side of the fence you're on. Oh if only we could move away from that position - call me naive (sp ?)

Darkfather, your use of incorrect terminology would indicate that your knowledge of refereeing matters is very limited indeed.

I respectfully suggest that your source may be confused or perhaps confused you with their disgruntled views. Your conclusions appear out of context with the intent of the author.

Are you by any chance related to "Darkness" who contributes to this forum on occasion?

When I stop laughing I'll probably post a reply to our "new" member's "first" post

"Are you by any chance related to "Darkness" who contributes to this forum on occasion?"

If you're rich then I'm your long lost son! Give me the money.

The Force is strong with this one....

Sorry - read it again and started laughing all over again

": and by enlarge is what" was that meant to be "and by and large is what"?