What is Good for Women's Rugby
-
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@gt12 said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
I personally think that the ref in the final was pretty fucking pants,
Out of curiousity, do you have specifics? We say the same about most refs in any game as we pick apart their performances.
Many would say that Joubert's reffing of the 2011 final was pants yet he was probably the top ref around at the time.
I am wondering how much of the judgement is due to the slightly different reffing in the women's game and how much was just incompetence. Of the incompetence, how much worse was it to what we see in the mens game?
I actually didn't mind the ref team in the final. The game flowed well, the penalty count was down, the players ultimately decided the game.We could pick apart any ref, I agree - it's very subjective. The interpretation that stands out in the final and semi, is the allowing of turnovers without supporting their bodyweight (hands/elbows on the ground). It was happening so much I actually wondered if they were playing under different laws.
A better question would be is Davidson the best ref in the world? Top ten? If not, why wouldn't you want the best refs adjudicating at the World Cup?
-
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@gt12 said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
I personally think that the ref in the final was pretty fucking pants,
Out of curiousity, do you have specifics? We say the same about most refs in any game as we pick apart their performances.
Many would say that Joubert's reffing of the 2011 final was pants yet he was probably the top ref around at the time.
I am wondering how much of the judgement is due to the slightly different reffing in the women's game and how much was just incompetence. Of the incompetence, how much worse was it to what we see in the mens game?
I actually didn't mind the ref team in the final. The game flowed well, the penalty count was down, the players ultimately decided the game.We could pick apart any ref, I agree - it's very subjective. The interpretation that stands out in the final and semi, is the allowing of turnovers without supporting their bodyweight (hands/elbows on the ground). It was happening so much I actually wondered if they were playing under different laws.
A better question would be is Davidson the best ref in the world? Top ten? If not, why wouldn't you want the best refs adjudicating at the World Cup?
There are a few high level mens refs that do the same (NH ones mainly). I do think that this is one of those areas where more leeway is given though.
-
@antipodean yea maybe wishful thinking, the grassroots is very well managed by volunteers. I just genuinely hate the sport
-
-
-
@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Steve Then what are you doing in this thread?
It really is a redundant comment for sure. Plenty of other topics to contribute to, hopefully with something a bit more constructive @Steve
-
Not sure if it's been raised here, but a few years back, NZR brought all the mens teams under the same "banner", so it's All Blacks, All Blacks Sevens, All Blacks XV, etc.
Could the Black Ferns be the All Blacks Ferns? Thought just occurred to me as I'm a cheap arse and would like if wearing my AB's gear could also be seen as supporting the BF's.
-
-
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@MajorRage said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
I firmly disagree with the notion that you shouldn't have the best person in the job. Wayne Smith being proof of that.
I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with in that statement. No one has said that the best person shouldn't get the job. Quite the opposite in fact.
I think you implied it, but then you have moved away from it, so I'll accept this isn't what you meant and move forwards.
@MajorRage said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
Whether right or wrong a big aspect to the success of the WRWC was the buy in by women that saw how other women were driving much of what was happening..if that is what needs to happen to accelerate growth then I'm happy with it.
You sure about this? It's a pretty big statement.
This is the part I'd really like more reasoning behind. Im not saying you are wrong, would just like some insight as to how you built this point of view. I'm not on the ground so I have less of a feel, but my thoughts would think that the success of the tournament was more about the personalities like Ruby Tui than anything.
-
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.
That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO
Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.
I'm not convinced we're disagreeing with each other.
NZR (and other unions) need to create a market out of the not middle aged male die hard sports tragic.
-
@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Bones I think Black Ferns is its own brand and I wouldn't change it.
How the other half live eh, moneybags
-
@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Steve Then what are you doing in this thread?
Just throwing my tuppence in , against the circle jerk du jour.
Equality of opportunity is obviously what we all want but the train has over shot the station.
In the UK they are now mixing in womens scores with the mens, so you will see âArsenal 1-0 Manchester Cityâ and then realise 5 minutes later they arenât even playing . Itâs womens football they have sprinkled in to the mens scores in some sort of egalitarian move which has done nothing other than muddy the waters.
Similarly the breakdown or Aotearoa rugby pod is now spending half their show talking about the black ferns. They have done both genders a disservice. Give the womens game its own pod and own shows and let ex female players present and be pundits on it.
So instead of treating the women equal by giving them their own shows, the solution is to dilute the mens product by stealing air time from talking about the mens game . We lose out on the Xâs and Oâs to shoe horn in our virtue signalling quota.
So while people boo from the cheap seats at my initial post , I believe itâs a fair position to hold. The men would beat the women every day of the week and twice on Sundays . They are the superior athletes . Itâs an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth for some. I want to watch my favourite sports. shows without them diluting their service with an inferior product .
-
@Steve said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Steve Then what are you doing in this thread?
Just throwing my tuppence in , against the circle jerk du jour.
Equality of opportunity is obviously what we all want but the train has over shot the station.
In the UK they are now mixing in womens scores with the mens, so you will see âArsenal 1-0 Manchester Cityâ and then realise 5 minutes later they arenât even playing . Itâs womens football they have sprinkled in to the mens scores in some sort of egalitarian move which has done nothing other than muddy the waters.
Similarly the breakdown or Aotearoa rugby pod is now spending half their show talking about the black ferns. They have done both genders a disservice. Give the womens game its own pod and own shows and let ex female players present and be pundits on it.
So instead of treating the women equal by giving them their own shows, the solution is to dilute the mens product by stealing air time from talking about the mens game . We lose out on the Xâs and Oâs to shoe horn in our virtue signalling quota.
So while people boo from the cheap seats at my initial post , I believe itâs a fair position to hold. The men would beat the women every day of the week and twice on Sundays . They are the superior athletes . Itâs an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth for some. I want to watch my favourite sports. shows without them diluting their service with an inferior product .
Sport is still sport and most watch it for the potential and real entertainment, drama and excitement it brings. Some of that only really comes with investment or interest in the game although even non followers of womenâs rugby would have been treated to a dramatic exciting RWC final.
I donât follow League. Have never had an interest in it. I donât complain when it is talked about on the sports news though. As for the the rugby shows, They talk and womenâs rugby in proportion. Was there another RWC on last week? No, so it was their moment in the spotlight.
I understand that you donât have an interest in womenâs rugby so find that part of a show boring but that doesnât mean the show should cater only to you.
Inferior product? Different product more like. You can only see inferiority if you are expecting something else. That RWC final was the best rugby watch I have had all year and probably the most memorable since 2011. I canât call that inferior.
You are welcome to your opinion though so now you have shared it can you get out of the thread? In the pub analogy you are the guy butting into a conversation about beer and telling everyone you donât like what they are drinking and they should all just drink what you do. -
@Steve You barking up wrong tree , or certainly wrong thread. I watch rugby pod and breakdown and enjoy they talk about the parts of the game that has interest. I enjoy when they speak about U20s rugby, NPC, Super, having refs on etc as well, you know they are shows about the sport, not one particular part of it,
I freely admit to being someone who used to go women's rugby , who's interested get em in the kitchen making aftermatch feed etc, and then I watched a bit and came to a conclusion, I love the game of rugby , hell I watch kids play, 2nd/3rd div club stuff, it's all bloody great to me. None really better, but almost all have owns strengths I enjoy! -
You are welcome to your opinion though so now you have shared it can you get out of the thread?
Ughh, you were doing so well until that line. His first post was crap, but to his credit he followed it up with a more well thought out criticism.
It's a pet peeve of mine when people tell people where to post, we certainly have plenty of digressions in other threads. Stop trying to be a gatekeeper, we have plenty of mods that will split threads if moves too far off topic.
This is a discussion forum, not a "post only what I agree with forum"
-
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
You are welcome to your opinion though so now you have shared it can you get out of the thread?
Ughh, you were doing so well until that line. His first post was crap, but to his credit he followed it up with a more well thought out criticism.
It's a pet peeve of mine when people tell people where to post, we certainly have plenty of digressions in other threads. Stop trying to be a gatekeeper, we have plenty of mods that will split threads if moves too far off topic.
This is a discussion forum, not a "post only what I agree with forum"
Was I meant to put a winking emoji after the line or something? The post wasnât aggressive, it was a thought out response. Maybe it was only in my head that was obviously a tongue in cheek comment.
Just like the pub analogy where that person would be told to fuck off in a joking manner.
The radar here is totally out of whack at times. -
@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
You are welcome to your opinion though so now you have shared it can you get out of the thread?
Ughh, you were doing so well until that line. His first post was crap, but to his credit he followed it up with a more well thought out criticism.
It's a pet peeve of mine when people tell people where to post, we certainly have plenty of digressions in other threads. Stop trying to be a gatekeeper, we have plenty of mods that will split threads if moves too far off topic.
This is a discussion forum, not a "post only what I agree with forum"
Was I meant to put a winking emoji after the line or something? The post wasnât aggressive, it was a thought out response. Maybe it was only in my head that was obviously a tongue in cheek comment.
Just like the pub analogy where that person would be told to fuck off in a joking manner.
The radar here is totally out of whack at times.Nah, you were just meant to not tell someone to post in another thread. You aren't the only one that does it.
-
@Steve said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:
So while people boo from the cheap seats at my initial post , I believe itâs a fair position to hold. The men would beat the women every day of the week and twice on Sundays . They are the superior athletes . Itâs an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth for some. I want to watch my favourite sports. shows without them diluting their service with an inferior product .
- I can boo from expensive seats too. You aren't watching so you have no seat at all!
- Some people watch for entertainment, arguably there were games by the Ferns where they played smarter and more entertaining games than the ABs.
- The ABs have been diluting themselves lately.
- Rugby is surely not just about physical performance it is also about strategy. So for well-rounded sports fans, the Ferns are really interesting to watch due to Smith having such an influence so quickly.
- The ABs don't seem to think they are being diluted given Aaron Smith etc tweets.
-
This post is deleted!
