Women's Rugby World Cup

[the spoofer]

There are those that back the women 100% without apparently having any clue as to what they want (other than to be listened to) I don’t back the IRFU 100%. I’ll wait to see what the key findings of the reviews are. I do know that I have huge confidence in Su Carty and her impartiality.

The key findings that the IRFU publish which may or may not be the key findings of the private report and that the signatories have strongly said they don't trust.

I don't expect this to be a clean 1 side is right and the other is at fault for everything.

Likewise. The IRFU make mistakes, they may be a little tone deaf at times but the action of those that signed the letter has caused massive reputational and possible financial damage to the organisation. As I said, they set the house on fire cause someone living in it pissed them off.

[Dexter]

OK, that's the meaning I took from it in which case I was technically wrong which is the worst kind of wrong. what bit did you find weird?

just to carry this on one more step - DO you think it would be weird for for the ladies to have their own union / association

I find it weird that TS seems to think the women are a nuisance for the IRFU as opposed to being a part of it.

I don’t really have an opinion on the second question but I would try and address the concerns the women have raised and make changes at the top before contemplating it. They’re not asking to do it so I don’t see why it would be on the table. One thing I would say is that women’s sport in general is growing hugely right now in a commercial sense and the IRFU would be mad to miss out on that regardless of anything else. It’s 4 and a half years since the women’s football team held that press conference and even less than that since the FAI cleared the decks, but look at how the team is performing on the field, plus they’ve got a deal with Sky and I’m constantly seeing their ads for Cadbury’s too. The way things are going now the rugby team won’t get there too, but I bet they would if the right people were in charge.

Im not pretending to be an expert btw, but as I said I don’t like the dismissive “shut up and dribble” attitude from some, I do have great faith in some of the high profile women who signed the letter, I think a brave and drastic measure like that must mean something is rotten in the organisation, and I don’t like Eddy, Nucifora, or the way the IRFU responded on Monday. Therefore I back them 100% in sending that letter. Unfortunately that means nothing to them but hopefully the people that matter can change things.

Well said, LRIP. Pretty much sums up my take on this whole imbroglio too! The sooner Nucifora goes, the better, IMO.

+1
They obviously exhausted all other avenues and had to go to the last resort, possibly a little reluctantly. I've two girls, both big rugby fans, who found it extremely difficult if not impossible to get involved in girls/women's rugby in our locality. The eldest is at least getting the opportunity now while in college in UCD.

[Dave Cahill]

The IRFU confirms that it intends to fully publish the two independent reviews currently being undertaken into women’s rugby.

The review of the Rugby World Cup 2021 qualification campaign and the wider review of the Women in Rugby Action Plan are both being undertaken by Amanda Bennett and her colleagues at FairPlay (Ltd).

The decision was made at the December meeting of the Union Committee where the IRFU committed to transparency in this review process.

The IRFU expects that the initial review, into the RWC21 qualification campaign, will be completed by Amanda Bennett, and her colleagues, in January, while the wider review is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2022 (subject to completion).

The IRFU wishes to assure all those devoted to rugby, including the players who issued the recent letter to Government Ministers, that the situation that developed, particularly in the last week, is regrettable and we will work tirelessly to mend and build the relationship between the Union and our players.

We are committed to the development of the women’s game, from grassroots to elite level, to provide the opportunity for girls and women to enjoy lifelong participation in rugby.

The IRFU will seek to meet a delegation from the women’s group early in the New Year and assures them that their views will be listened to and fed into future planning.

The IRFU hope to meet with Minister Chambers next week.

[ronk]

Certainly sounds positive.

[the spoofer]

The IRFU confirms that it intends to fully publish the two independent reviews currently being undertaken into women’s rugby.

The review of the Rugby World Cup 2021 qualification campaign and the wider review of the Women in Rugby Action Plan are both being undertaken by Amanda Bennett and her colleagues at FairPlay (Ltd).

The decision was made at the December meeting of the Union Committee where the IRFU committed to transparency in this review process.

The IRFU expects that the initial review, into the RWC21 qualification campaign, will be completed by Amanda Bennett, and her colleagues, in January, while the wider review is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2022 (subject to completion).

The IRFU wishes to assure all those devoted to rugby, including the players who issued the recent letter to Government Ministers, that the situation that developed, particularly in the last week, is regrettable and we will work tirelessly to mend and build the relationship between the Union and our players.

We are committed to the development of the women’s game, from grassroots to elite level, to provide the opportunity for girls and women to enjoy lifelong participation in rugby.

The IRFU will seek to meet a delegation from the women’s group early in the New Year and assures them that their views will be listened to and fed into future planning.

The IRFU hope to meet with Minister Chambers next week.

This could be very interesting. As they say " be careful what you wish for"

[riocard911]

The IRFU confirms that it intends to fully publish the two independent reviews currently being undertaken into women’s rugby.

The review of the Rugby World Cup 2021 qualification campaign and the wider review of the Women in Rugby Action Plan are both being undertaken by Amanda Bennett and her colleagues at FairPlay (Ltd).

The decision was made at the December meeting of the Union Committee where the IRFU committed to transparency in this review process.

The IRFU expects that the initial review, into the RWC21 qualification campaign, will be completed by Amanda Bennett, and her colleagues, in January, while the wider review is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2022 (subject to completion).

The IRFU wishes to assure all those devoted to rugby, including the players who issued the recent letter to Government Ministers, that the situation that developed, particularly in the last week, is regrettable and we will work tirelessly to mend and build the relationship between the Union and our players.

We are committed to the development of the women’s game, from grassroots to elite level, to provide the opportunity for girls and women to enjoy lifelong participation in rugby.

The IRFU will seek to meet a delegation from the women’s group early in the New Year and assures them that their views will be listened to and fed into future planning.

The IRFU hope to meet with Minister Chambers next week.

A step in the right direction, it seems. Good!

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Saw one of the players earlier grinning like a cheshire cat shortly after this was announced, was great to see.

[paddyor]

There are those that back the women 100% without apparently having any clue as to what they want (other than to be listened to) I don’t back the IRFU 100%. I’ll wait to see what the key findings of the reviews are. I do know that I have huge confidence in Su Carty and her impartiality.

The key findings that the IRFU publish which may or may not be the key findings of the private report and that the signatories have strongly said they don't trust.

I don't expect this to be a clean 1 side is right and the other is at fault for everything.

A listener to the 42 made a good point about publishing the reports. How far would they go(like are they going to go in dept to the interviews that were done with the players and coaches etc?). IN general I think the 42 weekly were quite balanced about it. IRFU really shat the bed with their statement whatever the merits of the letter. As to the Politicians witholding funding meh. Reminds of that great gif of POC in the first Lions test in 2005 where he supermans into a ruck near the NZ ine and goes striaght over it giving away a peno. Must find that.

[blockhead]

Saw one of the players earlier grinning like a cheshire cat shortly after this was announced, was great to see.

If some of these reports conclude that the players were not good enough, what then?

[Oldschoolsocks]

Saw one of the players earlier grinning like a cheshire cat shortly after this was announced, was great to see.

If some of these reports conclude that the players were not good enough, what then?

then I suspect she won't be smiling no more

[ronk]

Saw one of the players earlier grinning like a cheshire cat shortly after this was announced, was great to see.

If some of these reports conclude that the players were not good enough, what then?

It'll still be his fault.

[blockhead]

And any his will do.

[hugonaut]

A listener to the 42 made a good point about publishing the reports. How far would they go(like are they going to go in dept to the interviews that were done with the players and coaches etc?). IN general I think the 42 weekly were quite balanced about it. IRFU really shat the bed with their statement whatever the merits of the letter. As to the Politicians witholding funding meh. Reminds of that great gif of POC in the first Lions test in 2005 where he supermans into a ruck near the NZ ine and goes striaght over it giving away a peno. Must find that.

It will be fascinating to see them, but I'm very surprised. To quote a very appropriate Eddie O'Sullivan-ism, you can't unring a bell.

This is very sensitive information. It could significantly affect people's professional lives, their earning ability, their reputation, their self-esteem and [I don't think this is over-stating it, but others may disagree] their mental health. I am referring to all those involved: players, coaches, support staff, administrators etc.

Did those interviewed know that the reports were going to be published and released to the general public? It seems unlikely. I don't think they were originally intended to be.

Have all interviews been carried out, or are some still outstanding? If it is the latter case, I would expect a very different tenor [the word of the moment] from those who were interviewed for a limited audience report and those who are interviewed for a public report.

Have employees or committee members of the IRFU seen a draft of the reports? The IRFU commissioned them and are paying for them; they own them. This might be edging towards a conspiracy theory, but if they have received a draft that casts them as not too bad, they would obviously be more likely to release it to the public.

And on the other hand, if the players whitewash their own under-performance – after all, they lost to Spain [who have a womens' senior playing population of 707 players] and Scotland [who have a womens' senior playing population of 642 players, with both figures based on the most recent available numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... _countries ] – does that make the report worthwhile at all? Will there be anything actually learned from it? Or will it just become a bunch of newspaper stories with a load of juicy pull-quotes as with the leaked England RWC11 reviews?

Reports re: leaked English reviews of RWC11
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/ ... ked-report
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... lysis.html

[paddyor]

A listener to the 42 made a good point about publishing the reports. How far would they go(like are they going to go in dept to the interviews that were done with the players and coaches etc?). IN general I think the 42 weekly were quite balanced about it. IRFU really shat the bed with their statement whatever the merits of the letter. As to the Politicians witholding funding meh. Reminds of that great gif of POC in the first Lions test in 2005 where he supermans into a ruck near the NZ ine and goes striaght over it giving away a peno. Must find that.

It will be fascinating to see them, but I'm very surprised. To quote a very appropriate Eddie O'Sullivan-ism, you can't unring a bell.

This is very sensitive information. It could significantly affect people's professional lives, their earning ability, their reputation, their self-esteem and [I don't think this is over-stating it, but others may disagree] their mental health. I am referring to all those involved: players, coaches, support staff, administrators etc.

Did those interviewed know that the reports were going to be published and released to the general public? It seems unlikely. I don't think they were originally intended to be.

Have all interviews been carried out, or are some still outstanding? If it is the latter case, I would expect a very different tenor [the word of the moment] from those who were interviewed for a limited audience report and those who are interviewed for a public report.

Have employees or committee members of the IRFU seen a draft of the reports? The IRFU commissioned them and are paying for them; they own them. This might be edging towards a conspiracy theory, but if they have received a draft that casts them as not too bad, they would obviously be more likely to release it to the public.

And on the other hand, if the players whitewash their own under-performance – after all, they lost to Spain [who have a womens' senior playing population of 707 players] and Scotland [who have a womens' senior playing population of 642 players, with both figures based on the most recent available numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... _countries ] – does that make the report worthwhile at all? Will there be anything actually learned from it? Or will it just become a bunch of newspaper stories with a load of juicy pull-quotes as with the leaked England RWC11 reviews?

Reports re: leaked English reviews of RWC11
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/ ... ked-report
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... lysis.html

So there's something in the report that someone or a few people said that they(letter signers) feel wasn't given enough of a public airing. But there may also be more that counters whatever that is. 62 isn't that big a number. SO what do you redact?

Ultimately I don't think they will be ahppy until it's a woman at the top of womens game so spoofers argument or a some hybrid is the likely outcome.

[the spoofer]

And any his will do.

Spoken like a married man!

[the spoofer]

A listener to the 42 made a good point about publishing the reports. How far would they go(like are they going to go in dept to the interviews that were done with the players and coaches etc?). IN general I think the 42 weekly were quite balanced about it. IRFU really shat the bed with their statement whatever the merits of the letter. As to the Politicians witholding funding meh. Reminds of that great gif of POC in the first Lions test in 2005 where he supermans into a ruck near the NZ ine and goes striaght over it giving away a peno. Must find that.

It will be fascinating to see them, but I'm very surprised. To quote a very appropriate Eddie O'Sullivan-ism, you can't unring a bell.

This is very sensitive information. It could significantly affect people's professional lives, their earning ability, their reputation, their self-esteem and [I don't think this is over-stating it, but others may disagree] their mental health. I am referring to all those involved: players, coaches, support staff, administrators etc.

Did those interviewed know that the reports were going to be published and released to the general public? It seems unlikely. I don't think they were originally intended to be.

Have all interviews been carried out, or are some still outstanding? If it is the latter case, I would expect a very different tenor [the word of the moment] from those who were interviewed for a limited audience report and those who are interviewed for a public report.

Have employees or committee members of the IRFU seen a draft of the reports? The IRFU commissioned them and are paying for them; they own them. This might be edging towards a conspiracy theory, but if they have received a draft that casts them as not too bad, they would obviously be more likely to release it to the public.

And on the other hand, if the players whitewash their own under-performance – after all, they lost to Spain [who have a womens' senior playing population of 707 players] and Scotland [who have a womens' senior playing population of 642 players, with both figures based on the most recent available numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... _countries ] – does that make the report worthwhile at all? Will there be anything actually learned from it? Or will it just become a bunch of newspaper stories with a load of juicy pull-quotes as with the leaked England RWC11 reviews?

Reports re: leaked English reviews of RWC11
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/ ... ked-report
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... lysis.html

So there's something in the report that someone or a few people said that they(letter signers) feel wasn't given enough of a public airing. But there may also be more that counters whatever that is. 62 isn't that big a number. SO what do you redact?

Ultimately I don't think they will be ahppy until it's a woman at the top of womens game so spoofers argument or a some hybrid is the likely outcome.

You forgot to mention lots more money!

[heno]

Fully publishing a report with sensitive information is not new and the norm for many industries. You can have appendices not published, names redeacted etc. You can circulate beforehand and let all named individuals have a right to comment. It's not something that should be used to hide behind to prevent publishing.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[ronk]

And on the other hand, if the players whitewash their own under-performance – after all, they lost to Spain [who have a womens' senior playing population of 707 players] and Scotland [who have a womens' senior playing population of 642 players, with both figures based on the most recent available numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... _countries ] – does that make the report worthwhile at all? Will there be anything actually learned from it? Or will it just become a bunch of newspaper stories with a load of juicy pull-quotes as with the leaked England RWC11 reviews?

Reports re: leaked English reviews of RWC11
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/ ... ked-report
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... lysis.html

Wow. First time I saw the 2nd story, that's pretty damning. You can see why Johnson had already fallen on his sword and the career damage.

I think it also shows what the endgame is around forcing the IRFU to publish the full report is, a cleaner more palatable way to get at enemies.

Unfortunately this works both ways, and the mail story shows how badly senior players came out of it even if they weren't always named.

The biggest failing the management team were called on were allowing some of the drinking and national coaches being behind the players club coaches.

It'll be harder to make those charges stick for coaches of amateur players, so I wonder what will be the outcome. Coach is already sacked so IRFU have an easy target on anything there.

[hugonaut]

Fully publishing a report with sensitive information is not new and the norm for many industries. You can have appendices not published, names redeacted etc. You can circulate beforehand and let all named individuals have a right to comment. It's not something that should be used to hide behind to prevent publishing.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I can't think of many examples in the sporting world, but that might just be my own oversight/lack of knowledge.

I am really only speaking about the qualifiers report at this stage, not the wider ranging one.

Obviously the players' failings as a team are already public: all the matches in the RWC qualification games were televised live and covered quite extensively in the Irish sports media. From their perspective, there may be failures on an organisational level that they see the IRFU attempting to brush over or cover up.

They have aired an obvious but not pointed sense of frustration. Maybe there is something very tangible that is an issue, maybe it is a malaise that is harder to quantify [like in RWC07, for example], or maybe it is a case that they are taking out their frustrations at their own limitations on somebody else – that wouldn't be unusual in any sporting group. The likelihood is that it's a mix of all three.

[Ourson]

And on the other hand, if the players whitewash their own under-performance – after all, they lost to Spain [who have a womens' senior playing population of 707 players] and Scotland [who have a womens' senior playing population of 642 players, with both figures based on the most recent available numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... _countries ] – does that make the report worthwhile at all?

Have you considered that Wikipedia figures may not be reliable? These figures are at least a decade old if you check the sources quoted below.

Spain has around 4,000 female players according to the national union and over 120 active senior women's teams. In terms of participation it is on par with most European nations bar England and France. Women's rugby is important there.

Of course there is an enormous gap in funding, since FER has a budget 20 times smaller than IRFU, as well as no access at all to quality test matches. But Spain prepared that game against Ireland for almost a year, since it was thought that Ireland would be Spain's first rival in whatever format Rugby Europe and World Rugby agreed to hold RWC qualifiers (whether it was through seeds, round robin...). It doesn't justify Ireland's underperformance, but it gives context to their defeat.

To me, the first conclusion should be quite straightforward: the two teams out of contention are the two who take part in Sevens World Series. Both Spain and Ireland suffer massively from having their best and only pro players switching codes constantly and will now be fighting to avoid relegation in 7s as well.