Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Womens' rugby Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

1454648505176

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    It's about time someone had the balls to stand up to the women and stop being afraid of being anti equality.

    There was 0 talk of the womens team failing to make the world cup prior to failing. Why did you lose to Spain? Were the players and the coaches not good enough? Who were favourites

    Here's a line from a pre match article in the examiner:

    Spain, as holders of the Rugby Europe Women’s Championship, will carry the outsiders tag with them.

    Here are some headings and snippets from articles after the defeat:

    Big blow for Ireland Women as sloppy showing sees Spain win


    Ireland women humiliated by Spanish as Rugby World Cup ...


    The World Cup hopes of the Ireland women's rugby team hangs in the balance after they suffered a shock one-point defeat to Spain

    A shock! An embarrassment! Spain - outsiders! A strong showing by finishing 3rd in the 6 nations.

    The players were to blame. They need to cop on to themselves. When the mens team lose in a quarter final of a world cup they are mocked and blasted for bottling it. Why should the womens team escape the same treatment? They bottled it against a team in a different tier! The players on the pitch in those games was good enough to win. That's down to the players for not winning. End of.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,787 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Yeah, when the provincial mens team have to tog out next to a rat infested rubbish bins and graffitied walls.... Then you can come back on here and gloat about "anti equality"


    I've a feeling we'll be waiting a long long time for that though.

    So until then just shut up if you've nothing but ignorance to add to the conversation



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    Serious boomer energy between the opening line and your signature.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Have to tip my hat to Thornley. I often consider him bordering on PR man for the IRFU, but he bloody blistered them today in his piece, and rightly so.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    Attack the post, not the poster.

    By the way, boomers don't exist in this country. Go be a yank somewhere else.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    Where did they tog out when they lost to Spain? A team in a different tier? It would be like the mens team losing to Namibia. The mens team could tog out in slums and they'd still beat a team in a different tier.

    A graffiti'd wall...the horror :O How did they finish 3rd with a strong performance in the 6 Nations then?

    They got embarrassed, it was their fault and they're acting like it's not.

    Show me some articles where the loss to Spain was even touted as a possibility.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,787 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    the only thing embarrassing here is you... you come across as ignorant and scared.

    Women being treated equally is not a threat to your muscularity, dont be afraid..



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    So the players on the pitch v Spain were not to blame for the loss? Rugby is played on the pitch, not in a dressing room.

    How did they finish 3rd in the 6 Nations yet lose to Spain? Explain that please.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,128 ✭✭✭OldRio


    If only Sport was as simple as that. Unfortunately it's not.


    (Would be awfully boring though)

    You did read read their letter? Because reading your rant it appears not.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,345 ✭✭✭✭phog


    The IRFU reply wasn't great but I think the letter to the Minister shouldn't have been made public either.

    Women's rugby is in a bad place at the moment, hopefully, they'll work together to make is great again, they're the only senior Irish team to reach a S/F in the World Cup



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    The possible issues with full publication of the report is far more widespread than you are making out. What if a player submits a statement that doesn’t fully support what others are saying? How will that player get treated by her colleagues and the general public? Everyone who feeds into this needs to be honest and there being any repercussions for their statements will prevent that. Minimising any possibility for repercussions has to be a priority. Otherwise you get a diluted report.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    The Government is the outside influence they are referring to.

    There are plenty of genuine issues in all of this. We don’t need to be making up new ones.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    The letter is clear. They were not asked to sign it but we’re made aware of it. As contracted players they weren’t put in that position deliberately and rightly.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,787 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Minimising any possibility for repercussions has to be a priority. Otherwise you get a diluted report.

    "minimising any possibility for repercussions" is guaranteed to end up with a diluted report. Im stunned that you cant see the wood for the tress here. This is not "business as usual" here and shoudlnt be treated as such.

    What if a player submits a statement that doesn’t fully support what others are saying

    its obvious from the womens letter that a major problem is that some, if not all, players are not involved in these reports.

    Many of us have felt that the range of stakeholders asked to take part in these reviews have not always reliably represented the game well enough to capture accurate, independent data and insight - neither do all of us feel fully confident that the information submitted has been factual and designed to act in the best interest of the women’s game.

    If one player says they feel that everything is good and another sees it diametrically opposite then fine. thats a professional workplace, and thats the empowerment that each of these individual should be given. However the IRFU have shown time and again that they do not give weight to players views and especially past players who have gone through their systems.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    If rugby is only played on the pitch why do teams train and prepare for games.

    Im pretty sure I’ve seen you leveling some nice criticism at Joe’s door for the defeat to Japan. Though it was all about the players on the pitch right?



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    The IRFU are not the ones running the investigation or preparing the report. That is an independent body. There should be no reason for them to dilute the report at all. I’m talking about people not being fully open and honest because of what might happen when everyone sees what they said. If a player were to side with the IRFU and that were to made public do you really believe that there wouldn’t be a reaction to that? You can’t possibly be that naive.

    The real issue here is the IRFU will be the only ones who have visibility of the report. From there they could censor the stuff they don’t want to share and end up with a heavily edited version of reality.

    My point was that peoples submissions to the report should be protected while also having the independent body produce a summary findings report that is publicised. That way the most important content of the report is publicised without creating any drama where it doesn’t need to. It takes the IRFU role of picking and choosing what they publicise out of the equation and makes it all more transparent. I think that’s a pretty fair way of doing this.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,787 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    the IRFU get to pick the "key findings", which is what ends up being published.

    They also get to choose who is contacted for their input into the report.

    if you think that does not dilute the report and undermine the published findings then im afraid it is you who is utterly naive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Since when do the IRFU get to dictate who the independent body speak to? That’s new to me.

    And my entire point was about preventing the IRFU from picking the key findings. That’s the thing I have the biggest issue with in the process.

    Why are you being so aggressive about this anyway? My entire point was about making the process more transparent and reducing the IRFUs involvement in what get published. I’m not looking to spare the IRFU anything here or favour them over the women or anything remotely like that.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,787 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    im not being aggressive, i was the one accused of being naive by you in the first place (perhaps youd like to withdraw that accusation as you have no idea of my involvement with womens rugby?)

    do you consider the authors of the terms of reference for the review to be influential on how it can do its job? Do you think that women who created that letter have an input into the independent review?

    The body carry out the review is independent from the IRFU, but they certainly have not got carte blanche to review anything other than the RWC 2022 qualifying campaign, and therefore they dont have the ability to comment on the longer term failures of structure and management

    again i will point you to this statement

    Many of us have felt that the range of stakeholders asked to take part in these reviews have not always reliably represented the game well enough to capture accurate, independent data and insight - neither do all of us feel fully confident that the information submitted has been factual and designed to act in the best interest of the women’s game.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    So explain how the team had a decent 6 nations just a few months ago? Did the poor conditions only happen since then??



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    So explain how a team goes unbeaten for a year, wins a grand slam. Then follows it by a dire 6 nations and getting beaten Japan in the group stages of the World Cup? Is it all down to the players on the day?



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    Yes, obviously it's the players. Are you saying the conditions for the mens team worsened in 2019?

    Ask Jose Mourinho how he wins titles in his 2nd season and then 3rd season they collapse into midtable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    The IRFU have lost the women's dressing rooms. Not just at national level, it goes right down to the grass roots. The 15s game is growing - all the IRFU eggs are in the 7s basket, and they have stuck their finger in the ears to genuine concerns for years.


    None of this has happened in a vacuum. I was a member of the Irish Women's Squad back when amalgamation between the IWRFU and the IRFU was mooted, discussed, affiliation, and finally amalgamation agreed.

    The IWRFU needed financial backing, support as it grew, experienced professional backroom, full time coaching etc - but most of all the players needed to not have to pay for everything out of our own pockets. And I do mean EVERYTHING. Schoolboys went on an all expenses paid tour of Australia - women's senior team were buying our own kit, paying for our own accommodation & travel, taking unpaid time off work - and in some cases literally paying someone to cover their work out of their own pocket. If you got injured - tough luck. The money wasn't there. Those were the conditions when Ireland played in the first Women's Rugby World Cup in the Netherlands in 1998.

    We were promised equal footing with the men by the IRFU, with the acknowledgment on all sides that it would take time. It's been 13 years and all the fears expressed about the IRFU blowing smoke up our asses are coming true.

    The IWRFU, run by volunteers and players, built a bloody solid foundation for the 15s game - yes, the 7s got a look in. Now we have a situation where the national coach didn't attend club games, the majority of the national team are paid expenses for squad duties but have to self- fund the rest.


    The paid (not well paid mind you) players are 'ringfenced' for 7s meaning they are dropped in an pulled out of the 15s set up according the the 7s calendar. This is unfair to everyone, highly disruptive of squad cohesion, and tactically stupid. 15s and 7s are not the same (yes, I have played both) and the differences were on display during the world cup campaign. 7s players instinct to not take the tackle but seek the off-load, looking for space where it simply does not and cannot exist, being closed down etc etc. If being experts at the 7s game translated across to the 15s Fiji would be world champions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    Yet we know that’s not the case. Yes the players are partly responsible. However we know the systems failed in the preparation, in how they focused on the World Cup from too far out. How the coaches felt the external pressure and reacted by micromanaging the team.

    The it’s the all womens fault take on the Spanish game is extremely naive. Or probably just a deliberately bad take given some of your other posts on this site.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    I think you might need to look at the tone in your responses, saying you are stunned I couldn’t see the wood from the trees for example. Your tone has been aggressive. Maybe that comes from a good place in terms of your involvement and passion for the game, but I’m not sure directing that at me is much use.

    The letter to the Government clearly stated that they, as a group, had already fed into the RWC review. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that they, or anyone else, have been excluded from either review in any way. Surely that would have been flagged in the letter if it were the case?

    I’d need to look back at previous reviews to see how they were carried out, and by whom, in order to understand the history. I don’t recall the details right now.

    At the end of the day all I’m suggesting is something that would be deemed fairly standard best practice in any review. A detailed one for private consumption and a summary one for pubic consumption. Both published by the independent body carrying out each review. That removes any possible interference or editing by the IRFU and makes the whole process more transparent.

    I fully support those who signed this letter and back what they are doing. There have been too many issues in womens rugby for too long. This needs to be sorted. And I am concerned that the Union has allowed things get to this point, quite probably in no small part down to their engagement with those involved in the womens game on top of everything else. If people feel listened to then everything else from there is easier. Clearly that isn’t the case here and that’s on the IRFU. They are making their lives and those in the womens game more and more difficult. Hopefully someone points that out to them as part of all this too (and they take it on board).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,364 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    The IRFU find themselves in a bit of a bind here.

    They have spent the last few years pumping up the women's game and trying to sell it to the general public as being some it's not, i.e popular.

    Rugby itself is niche, and the women's game is even more niche.

    The reason for this promotion is probably some attempt to be progressive etc.

    So now the chickens have come home to roost.

    There is nothing to give the women because the game they play is not popular enough to generate anything to give them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    Yes it's all just a face. Look at the FAI giving "equality" to women with the same match fees as the men, which are nominal.

    If the FAI paid salaries like the IRFU does and were giving Seamus Coleman 100k per week you think they'd be giving the captain of the womens team the same? Not a chance and rightly so.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,146 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond


    The irfu did its job in promoting the women's game to as many people as possible/got as many eyes seeing games on TV as it could. They didn't do anything like try sell it as something it isn't. What are determining is popular and what isn't by the way?

    Rugby isn't niche. To claim it is is ridiculous when across multiple areas it is in the top 5/10 sports in the country. Its far from niche.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    How much would it cost to cover the cost of making the women's rugby team go professional, so they have two professional sides, the 7's and the 15's, separate like the men's.

    Would 2 million cover it? That'd pay 40 players 50k each. Surely the IRFU with sponsorship and government funding could scrape that together for a couple of years and see how things improve?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,364 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Sponsorship would be very low.

    As I said, women's rugby is super niche, any sponsor would not expect to pay much to get their names attached to it.



Advertisement