New balls please.....or not

World Rugby has announced an expansion of the trial using size 4.5 balls in women's rugby.

Here are my thoughts.

For years there have been many suggestions about how to adapt sport for women. After all, most sports are designed by men, for the male physique and with equipment that suits them specifically. Historically women's sport, and it's certainly true for rugby, and women's participation was an afterthought at best.

The science of gender performance difference between the sexes tells us that there is a roughly 10 to 30% strength, speed and size advantage for men according to Hunter et al, 2023, depending on the requirements of the sport. So why are women using the same equipment, playing on the same size pitches, courts and fields, playing for the same amount of time or playing by the same rules?

Some would say tradition, some would likely say it's a square peg being forced to fit a round hole. Many would argue that it's unfair for women to play with the same expectations and it limits women's ability to play to the same standard.

In relation to the size of the ball, it is argued that smaller hands limit the control of the ball, decrease the range of women's kicks relative to the men's and overall makes ball handling harder. The purpose of the size 4.5 ball is to level the playing field somewhat.

But....does it?

In a wonderful article by Huw Griffin, where he analysed kicking differences between men's and women's international players, we saw that players like Carla Arbez, Helen Nelson and our very own Dannah O'Brien were kicking longer than the likes of Finn Russell, Romain Ntamack, Fin Smith and Sam Prendergast.

Huw correctly identifies that kicking distance isn't the big deal that many think it is. While strategically it can be beneficial to kick further in the game, this isn't always true. Kicking to regain possession while gaining territory is a crucial part of the game of rugby, and it requires controlled kicks within a distance that players can remain onside before the kick and get to the landing site before it hits grass.

Basic but important nuances. But what about place kicking or kicking for goal?

As recently as two years ago, the then England head coach Simon Middleton argued that the rules for women's kicking should be changed. He argued that when women score in the corner, like their male counterparts, they must take the kick in-line with where the try was scored and that this was unfair. His claim is sound in that women typically score under 50% of their conversions while the men score closer to 70%.

There is merit to altering elements of the game to suit the typical women's physique and abilities. But I still don't support it.

Now, I know I'm at risk of sounding conservative, or as though this is an appeal to tradition, but my personal take is....why change it?

And I know, I know, that's very simplistic, but hear me out.

When we start to adapt the game retrospectively to be inclusive of women, we start to complicate existing systems and structures that are often already hostile to women's participation in the first place. While I'm all for fighting for better for women, this isn't the issue that needs to be tackled.

Imagine we insist that pitches need to be 10-30% smaller, games need to be 10-30% shorter or posts need to be 10-30% lower. The logistical nightmare this creates is huge. Arguably, smaller balls are less of a headache, but when it comes to cash strapped clubs with a priority anywhere but the women's game, we aren't helping the women be included or valued when we increase and complicate the consumables we need. While I would ordinarily argue that women should never minimise our needs or stay quiet on issues of equity, in this case I would question whether it's a need or even an inequity at all.

For it to be an issue that matters, I would need to see that the women's game suffers as a result of size 5 balls. That the game is negatively impacted or that performance is harmed by the current ball. I don't see that at all.

I feel that the real problem here is viewing the women's game through the lens of men's rugby. It is harmed by problematic comparisons, where those comparisons have no value. We're comparing apples and oranges, because we're not competing against men. We're not at a disadvantage to those we are competing against at all.

I strongly feel we need to move away entirely from the comparison of sports and enjoy them in isolation. At the end of the day, competition is the true value.

Huw put it perfectly for me when he wrote "it is important to put aside the better/worse mindset and simply view them as different". And I'd go further, by saying embracing that difference gives the viewer a fresh love of a game we all love. It's an advantage.

At the start of the URC season, I watched Munster play Scarlets in the opening round and I found it kind of....jarring. My initial reaction was "they're doing it wrong". They weren't, at all, but I had spent the last few weeks seeing game after game of the women's world cup. As part of our podcast, we analyse these games. I snip out clips for social media. I had been immersed in the game and how we play it. Suddenly reverting to a viewer of the men's game threw me! It felt wrong, but in reality it was just different.

Don't worry, I quickly adapted! And I enjoyed the tactical differences in how we each play the game and how we play it to our respective advantages.

I personally love the additional layer that difference brings, and I enjoy the nuance of how we play the game, what different strategies are used and how we have adapted structures to our needs. Think of it like playing chess but with a bigger board and more squares. The rules are the same, the tactics would need to alter. And wouldn’t that be interesting!

Further, at times, women's sport is actually harmed by different requirement between the genders. If I had a euro for every time I've seen men argue that women don't deserve equal pay in tennis when women play three sets and men play five, I'd be heading on a nice winter sun holiday.

To me, our game isn't harmed by difference in style of play. What it is harmed by, however, is the really big issues I've been banging on about for years. The inequity in representation at club and union level. The research gap into women's physiology and sports medicine. What it is truly harmed by, is being treated as the poor cousin of the men's game where women struggle to get funding, pitch time, coaching resources or visibility.

Women in sport face boundaries and obstacles in so many areas, ones that are truly harmful to the sport and to us as individuals.

The focus on the size of the ball feels like a distraction. I'd go as far as to say it's performative feminism. A decision to make it look like they're on the pulse of the women's game and the issues we face, but the reality is, nobody was calling for this. And what we are calling for, isn't being addressed adequately if at all.

I'd question whether world rugby is focusing on the real issues, or whether they're including enough women in the room when these decisions are being made.

I'll finish with a rather crass quote I saw recently, but one I absolutely adore...

'Anything you can do, I can do better....while bleeding....'

Ailbhe O'Nolan

Irish Women's Rugby Supporters Club