Do rubbish refs have to die before they are replaced?

Roland, Clancy, Walsh, the list goes on, but these three stand head and shoulders above the mediocre mire that represents the international panel of refs.

Roland was poor, very poor at the weekend but Clancy was borderline OCD. 8 penalties in the first 5 mins, It is hard to give that many penalties away if you were trying.

Do the powers that be actually look at new ref talent coming through or is a die in your boots job once you get there. These guys are ruining the game and should be phased out in Roland case with lethal injection (only joking Mrs Roland)

Im amazed by your Clancy reference. Not about him doing a good/bad job but more the idea that he has been around a long time. He only reffed his first test match about 3 years ago.

I actually do agree with general gist of this. There is a lack of transparency to referee selection.

You're just hoping that alot get retired so you get promoted up the ranks staggie

red_stag wrote:Im amazed by your Clancy reference. Not about him doing a good/bad job but more the idea that he has been around a long time. He only reffed his first test match about 3 years ago.

I actually do agree with general gist of this. There is a lack of transparency to referee selection.

Is it only 3 years. God it seems longer, so much longer.

I would suggest they only have to retire to be replaced, however they are reviewed and can lose their position on the elite referee panel,

On a side note, if you perform really badly, you get nominated as referee of the year.

You can add Steve "the ego " Walsh to that list!