What is Good for Women's Rugby

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.

It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.

I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female. Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.

@Kirwan you are the one politicising the subject. Can you, please, stop, even if you disagree with what is being said? Or maybe continue it in "Politics"? Or maybe just accept that you dont' have to win every argument? It's spoiling the thread.

@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.

It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.

I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female. Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.

A good example. NZRPA had to add clauses into the collective agreement around menstrual cycles being taken into account because they weren't and it was causing problems in areas of expectations and communication.

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@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.

Oh boy. So where is the money supposed to come from to run the game when we run things at a loss?

If we don't plan for woman's rugby to be at least cost neutral (preferably profitable to grow it's niche) then you are just cannibalising the mens game, which is already in poor health. This is wrong thinking, we shouldn't be propping up the NPC either, we should be generating more interest and profit from that too. The game will collapse without being sustainable, at least as a professional sport.

A very narrow view IMO. Would you remove NPC from the calendar as well? That is far from being cost neutral.
Have you thought that a Women's game cost centre that runs at a loss may improve the bottom line in the mens game?
All sorts of ways that can happen. More involvement by girls can drive more involvement by boys. Families investing effort into the womens game increases interest in the game overall. More community involvement in clubs = less strain on Provinces = less support needed at that level.......

As I said in my post, the NPC is not sustainable and needs to be improved and have more support from the NZR - not less.

The rest of your post is little more than wishful thinking. If they rob Peter to pay Paul then I expect that the professional game in NZ will get worse not better. While I support woman's rugby in principle, it's not at the cost of health of the sport. So it's extremely important that whatever they plan to do is appropriate to the scale of the game currently, and with planned growth and covered costs.

@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.

It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.

I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female. Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.

Finally, someone with examples not just throwing out "woman have more insight".

Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way. He's slowly moved away from that, which is good because that will throw away a lot of talent and slow the growth of the woman's game IMO.

So my basic point is you don't need to artifically lean towards gender, picking the best people will naturally get a mix of genders and you'll get the outcomes like you describe in your example. Where we have failed in the past is woman didn't get those opportunties. The solution to that is not quotas, and certainly not fining lack of representation on boards.

@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan you are the one politicising the subject. Can you, please, stop, even if you disagree with what is being said? Or maybe continue it in "Politics"? Or maybe just accept that you dont' have to win every argument? It's spoiling the thread.

It's a thread about woman's sport, talking about an aspect of what Crucial thinks is good for woman's rugby. We are having a pretty civil conversation about a thorny topic, and we couldn't be any more on topic for the thread.

I thought you got over trying to police what people were posting in threads.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crazy-Horse said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial The fact that you just blow past the statement Sports NZ fining an organisation for lack of female represenation on a board and just accept that is an OK policy is exactly why I'm pushing back so hard. These sorts of policies won't help any organisation be more successful at anything.

It's the old equality of outcome over equality of opportunity argument. Once you introduce quotas for anything you by definition are no longer chasing the best candidates.

I think I can see where @Crucial is coming from (apologies to @Crucial if I am wrong). I don't think he is disagreeing with your assertion of having the best people for the job regardless of gender. I think he is suggesting sometimes that best person may well be a female, simply because she is a female. Take uniform issues for example. For years females were forced to wear white clothing - white shorts in footy or white undies in tennis. As a male I had no idea of the issues this can cause during certain times of the month. It never even crossed my mind and I am betting it didn't cross many men's mind until it was pointed out. This is an issue that is only now starting to be addressed in women's sport because women are getting into positions of power and subsequently getting a voice.

Finally, someone with examples not just throwing out "woman have more insight".

Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way. He's slowly moved away from that, which is good because that will throw away a lot of talent and slow the growth of the woman's game IMO.

So my basic point is you don't need to artifically lean towards gender, picking the best people will naturally get a mix of genders and you'll get the outcomes like you describe in your example. Where we have failed in the past is woman didn't get those opportunties. The solution to that is not quotas, and certainly not fining lack of representation on boards.

Your last paragraph is spot on. I think workplaces/organisations are starting to realise this. I know mine did after trying a quota system for a year or so.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.

Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.

here's the view in a nutshell.

"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."

One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.

Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.

here's the view in a nutshell.

"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."

One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.

You literally said;

"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"

and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"

But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.

Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.

here's the view in a nutshell.

"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."

One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.

You literally said;

"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"

and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"

But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.

And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.

This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.

Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.

here's the view in a nutshell.

"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."

One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.

You literally said;

"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"

and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"

But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.

And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.

This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.

No, where we differ is the inclusion of gender as criterion for determining best.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.

Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.

here's the view in a nutshell.

"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."

One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.

You literally said;

"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"

and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"

But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.

And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.

This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.

No, where we differ is the inclusion of gender as criterion for determining best.

And I said many post ago that I fundamentally disagree with your view on that.

If, as you concede, men and women can bring different attributes to a role then why isn't it possible that those attributes could be deemed desirable? If the attribute is, say, an understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent women then it stands to reason that more female candidates will meet that requirement than male.
You don't get he job by being female but you may be more likely to be the best depending on the weight applied to attributes. That's not discrimination.

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.

Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.

here's the view in a nutshell.

"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."

One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.

You literally said;

"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"

and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"

But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.

And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.

This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.

No, where we differ is the inclusion of gender as criterion for determining best.

And I said many post ago that I fundamentally disagree with your view on that.

If, as you concede, men and women can bring different attributes to a role then why isn't it possible that those attributes could be deemed desirable? If the attribute is, say, an understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent women then it stands to reason that more female candidates will meet that requirement than male.
You don't get he job by being female but you may be more likely to be the best depending on the weight applied to attributes. That's not discrimination.

Flip the gender, still not discrimination?

Mark Robinson clearly has a better understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent men. It's a silly argument.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.

Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.

here's the view in a nutshell.

"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."

One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.

You literally said;

"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"

and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"

But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.

And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.

This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.

No, where we differ is the inclusion of gender as criterion for determining best.

And I said many post ago that I fundamentally disagree with your view on that.

If, as you concede, men and women can bring different attributes to a role then why isn't it possible that those attributes could be deemed desirable? If the attribute is, say, an understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent women then it stands to reason that more female candidates will meet that requirement than male.
You don't get he job by being female but you may be more likely to be the best depending on the weight applied to attributes. That's not discrimination.

Flip the gender, still not discrimination?

Mark Robinson clearly has a better understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent men. It's a silly argument.

Again with the philosophical arguments.
You advocate for best person for the job but seem to not want to admit that maybe the best person could be partly decided by gender.

I'll leave it there. Had enough.

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Crucial's first couple of posts on this was leaning very heavily of pick mostly woman and for men to get out of the way.

Your interpretation. Not what I meant , I have have tried to clarify many times.

here's the view in a nutshell.

"If women can get involved even more in running the womens game (as the best qualified to do so) I think that there may be advantages to that in many areas. If that means that a female perspective in areas is deemed an advantageous quality in candidate selection then so be it."

One of the reasons that Bunting was so admired by the sevens players was that alongside his coaching cred he actively tried to understand the needs of the players that were different to men. He ensured that he had good female coaching and management participation alongside him and has actively supported their development. His game analyst turned skills coach turned into his assistant at Chiefs Manawa and is now Head Coach. Judged best person for the job and that will bring benefits to the game in showing that pathways exist which is a driver to participation.

You literally said;

"I am also advocating that women run the game as much as possible. Part of the RWC success was that women saw women driving what was happening.
Board, coaching, management , organisation....let them at it and I'll support from the sidelines"

and then made cracks about "A game designed by woman.....by men"

But putting that to one side, picking the best candidates will naturally include woman without artificially making it a requirement in hiring selections.

And I have never advocated quotas, just that I would like to see it get to that point by involvement and choosing the best possible.
Where we differ is the definition of 'best'. I think that there are added benefits that some women can bring that may tip things in their favour. Not accelerated beyond abilities.

This discussion has got well away from the intention of the post. I am talking about the game at the key youth and development levels to increase and maintain participation. My view is that more involvement and design by women at those levels would be advantageous.

No, where we differ is the inclusion of gender as criterion for determining best.

And I said many post ago that I fundamentally disagree with your view on that.

If, as you concede, men and women can bring different attributes to a role then why isn't it possible that those attributes could be deemed desirable? If the attribute is, say, an understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent women then it stands to reason that more female candidates will meet that requirement than male.
You don't get he job by being female but you may be more likely to be the best depending on the weight applied to attributes. That's not discrimination.

Flip the gender, still not discrimination?

Mark Robinson clearly has a better understanding of the physical and emotional needs of developing adolescent men. It's a silly argument.

Again with the philosophical arguments.
You advocate for best person for the job but seem to not want to admit that maybe the best person could be partly decided by gender.

I'll leave it there. Had enough.

It was your argument, just with the genders flipped!

It's a dangerous path to follow to filter jobs by things like gender. And been shown to not work elsewhere where it's tried.

If we want woman's rugby to succeed you need pragmatic choices to be made, not ideological ones like you are suggesting.

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

Ignoring the 'political' aspects to stop thread diversion, I think that there is a good counter argument to this.

Nothing political here in my view. When discussing what is best for the woman's game there are differences in the game compared to mens. Thus, the level of female involvement in the off field is a legit discussion free of politics.

I don't think that anyone is saying to remove male involvement but direction would mean that design of comps, understanding of problems and drivers etc would be better. Avoid the "designed for women....by men" aspect.

I agree with this. But I'd also suggest a woman whose never played rugby doesn't have a better insight.

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.

As for refs, the womens game is played a little differently, the focus aspects for refs is a little different, allowances are made in some areas etc That can come through in what constitutes advantage, time given to clear the tackle area and plenty of other areas. Unlees there are other 'better' refs that can also adjust to these aspects then we are better off having specialists. The other aspect is providing clear pathways for female refs which is very important as getting refs is one of the hardest things.

Are the rules different though? I mean, we do often talk about, and criticise, referees for not having the feel of a game & I'm sure there are subtleties which do dictate how a female game needs to be refereed differently. I am on the opposite side of the fence here though. I think the biggest service world rugby could have given the woman's game is to the give the final to the best referee on the planet.

Is it perfect? No, but it may be the best as the game grows in its own way.
I have seen refs (male and female) control a game as they would a mens game and that subtle change makes a difference to flow and enjoyment. Much more noticeable at lower levels.

Having agreed with a lot of the above, I firmly disagree with the notion that you shouldn't have the best person in the job. Wayne Smith being proof of that.

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@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.

Oh boy. So where is the money supposed to come from to run the game when we run things at a loss?

If we don't plan for woman's rugby to be at least cost neutral (preferably profitable to grow it's niche) then you are just cannibalising the mens game, which is already in poor health. This is wrong thinking, we shouldn't be propping up the NPC either, we should be generating more interest and profit from that too. The game will collapse without being sustainable, at least as a professional sport.

A very narrow view IMO. Would you remove NPC from the calendar as well? That is far from being cost neutral.
Have you thought that a Women's game cost centre that runs at a loss may improve the bottom line in the mens game?
All sorts of ways that can happen. More involvement by girls can drive more involvement by boys. Families investing effort into the womens game increases interest in the game overall. More community involvement in clubs = less strain on Provinces = less support needed at that level.......

As I said in my post, the NPC is not sustainable and needs to be improved and have more support from the NZR - not less.

Off the other aspect now but this comment intrigues me. Are you saying that because your view is that rugby can't sustain 'loss leaders' then they need to support NPC to make it profitable? It does seem so.

The rest of your post is little more than wishful thinking. If they rob Peter to pay Paul then I expect that the professional game in NZ will get worse not better. While I support woman's rugby in principle, it's not at the cost of health of the sport.

So now I'm confused. NZR needs to give more support to NPC but when the same ruler is applied to Women's Rugby it doesn't deserve investment? So NPC (which has a stagnant support base) should be saved but the biggest growth potential in the game shouldn't be encouraged?
By the way NZR doesn't exist solely to support the professional game.
You mention appropriate scale which is a fair point but again that does not look to the future. If investment in the Women's game is made then it could be of a similar scale to NPC.
Not all costs have a direct link to profit and not all indirect benefits are warm fuzzies.
This is something that Gens Y and Z seem to understand better than GenX. The overall warm fuzzies around one product can benefit the overall portfolio even when that particular product is less profitable.

@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.

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@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.

Oh boy. So where is the money supposed to come from to run the game when we run things at a loss?

If we don't plan for woman's rugby to be at least cost neutral (preferably profitable to grow it's niche) then you are just cannibalising the mens game, which is already in poor health. This is wrong thinking, we shouldn't be propping up the NPC either, we should be generating more interest and profit from that too. The game will collapse without being sustainable, at least as a professional sport.

A very narrow view IMO. Would you remove NPC from the calendar as well? That is far from being cost neutral.
Have you thought that a Women's game cost centre that runs at a loss may improve the bottom line in the mens game?
All sorts of ways that can happen. More involvement by girls can drive more involvement by boys. Families investing effort into the womens game increases interest in the game overall. More community involvement in clubs = less strain on Provinces = less support needed at that level.......

As I said in my post, the NPC is not sustainable and needs to be improved and have more support from the NZR - not less.

Off the other aspect now but this comment intrigues me. Are you saying that because your view is that rugby can't sustain 'loss leaders' then they need to support NPC to make it profitable? It does seem so.

The rest of your post is little more than wishful thinking. If they rob Peter to pay Paul then I expect that the professional game in NZ will get worse not better. While I support woman's rugby in principle, it's not at the cost of health of the sport.

So now I'm confused. NZR needs to give more support to NPC but when the same ruler is applied to Women's Rugby it doesn't deserve investment? So NPC (which has a stagnant support base) should be saved but the biggest growth potential in the game shouldn't be encouraged?
By the way NZR doesn't exist solely to support the professional game.
You mention appropriate scale which is a fair point but again that does not look to the future. If investment in the Women's game is made then it could be of a similar scale to NPC.
Not all costs have a direct link to profit and not all indirect benefits are warm fuzzies.
This is something that Gens Y and Z seem to understand better than GenX. The overall warm fuzzies around one product can benefit the overall portfolio even when that particular product is less profitable.

No, that is a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of my position. I was answering your question about removing the NPC from the calendar, pointing out that it needed more support (that includes more than just money) from the NZR. At the moment the NPC is dying a slow death.

So my point is we have declining interest in NPC and Super Rugby for the mens game, now is not the time to be adding on "loss leaders". Grow the woman's game, sure, but do it in a sustainable and financially responsible manner.

@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.

Well, you did say that gender should be a criteria for selecting the best person. Literally the point of our disagreement, because that's about as relevant as filtering by race or age or hair colour.