Rich_NL
Well-known member
I don't think there's a vast chasm at all. Partly because there's no objective line between
- "ref had a challenging game, the teams were hard to manage, did well under the circumstances and shows promise"
- "ref lost control towards the end, needs to drop back a level and work on things"
- "ref had a shocker, what can you expect from women/Italians/LGBTQ/etc?"
It's a judgement thing, it's coloured by personal preference and style considerations, by the direction assessors want rugby to go, and by prejudice (whether against a group, or for a team or nation). The next time Hollie Davidson refs a competitive mens' match, take a look at the comments from fans, especially of the losing side.
Besides, having top referees benefits a union's referee system, greatly. So besides the personal development aspect, there's a global development aspect.
- "ref had a challenging game, the teams were hard to manage, did well under the circumstances and shows promise"
- "ref lost control towards the end, needs to drop back a level and work on things"
- "ref had a shocker, what can you expect from women/Italians/LGBTQ/etc?"
It's a judgement thing, it's coloured by personal preference and style considerations, by the direction assessors want rugby to go, and by prejudice (whether against a group, or for a team or nation). The next time Hollie Davidson refs a competitive mens' match, take a look at the comments from fans, especially of the losing side.
Besides, having top referees benefits a union's referee system, greatly. So besides the personal development aspect, there's a global development aspect.
