davegtt Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 There isn't one valid argument ( in my opinion) so far which goes against abolishing rules based around sex... Im glad that its just your opinion because mine differs and I dont feel the need to try and justify it. As said, might be running for glory but its still living proof man is the bigger stronger sex. As with any other sport they set out to achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The point is, put them in sports up against men and they would be out of their depth. You might not like it but that is a purely sexist statement. Explain to me which part of the game a women could not do ? You seriously think a women couldn't take a Gregan special ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davegtt Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 As they say, its a mans game ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 As they say, its a mans game ;) Really.... You watched the premiership recently ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 At one time people said we wouldn't ever have a black president... Guess what happened once the playing field was levelled... I don't want to take this off topic - but Black people in the US most certainly do not have a level playingfield. Thats the most ludicrous statement on this thread so far! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I don't want to take this off topic - but Black people in the US most certainly do not have a level playingfield. Thats the most ludicrous statement on this thread so far! What the hell would you know ? You lived out there ? The playing field is about as level as this country... They still have issues but dear lord its much different than in the past... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Scientific and biological evidence that women are not on a level biological playingfield as men, as reported by the NY Times. “There are some biological factors that cannot be overcome” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 If that is true then you don't need a rule....no girl would ever make the grade.... At one time people said we wouldn't ever have a black president... Guess what happened once the playing field was levelled... You might think its different but it isn't... There isn't one valid argument ( in my opinion) so far which goes against abolishing rules based around sex... But I'm not commenting on the rules of the sport - I'm commenting on the plausability of the two sexes engaging in a rugy/American football game. They'll get battered into the middle of next week. Becoming the frist black President of America doesn't involve a gruelling off season training programme, and fitness regime to get into the starting XIII against Manly in the World Club Championship does it? Well f**k me. Give the women an opportunity to play alongside their male counterparts in Rugby League, and watch the sport contort itself to accomodate the "equallity" - that'll be the day Rugby dies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 But I'm not commenting on the rules of the sport - I'm commenting on the plausability of the two sexes engaging in a rugy/American football game. They'll get battered into the middle of next week. Becoming the frist black President of America doesn't involve a gruelling off season training programme, and fitness regime to get into the starting XIII against Manly in the World Club Championship does it? Well f**k me. Give the women an opportunity to play alongside their male counterparts in Rugby League, and watch the sport contort itself to accomodate the "equallity" - that'll be the day Rugby dies. So there is no need for a rule... If you cant compete you dont play... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Scientific and biological evidence that women are not on a level biological playingfield as men, as reported by the NY Times. “There are some biological factors that cannot be overcome” How much does that apply to a sport like soccer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 What the hell would you know ? You lived out there ? Excuse me? There's no need for the implied agression here. I have studied American Studies at University for two years, and spent three months out there prior to the election. Once again I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I certainly have an educated opinion. The playing field is about as level as this country... They still have issues but dear lord its much different than in the past... I agree, it's significantly better than it was, that has no bearing on how level it is though! And if you think that this country has a level playing field based on ethnicity you're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) Excuse me? There's no need for the implied agression here. I have studied American Studies at University for two years, and spent three months out there prior to the election. Once again I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I certainly have an educated opinion. Implied aggression? get over yourself.. I have been America a lot...mine is also a educated opinion... I agree, it's significantly better than it was, that has no bearing on how level it is though! And if you think that this country has a level playing field based on ethnicity you're wrong. That was my point...its not completely level but its level enough for lets say...a black president... maybe that one slipped you by... We are going off topic.... Edited February 17, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 So there is no need for a rule... If you cant compete you dont play... Accomodate the "equality" in Rugby League and the product will be so diluted it'll be a convoluted version of netball. Forget it, it's not going to happen. RFL will have to change the rules (you keep on banging on about) so much it'll be wasted. One cannot compare the members enclosure at the MCC or the first black president to a woman running from dummy half and getting smashed to pieces by three forwards - lambs to the slaughter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 How much does that apply to a sport like soccer? I can't say, the study does not cover that. That is only true because the rule exists. Girls do not get exposed to the coaching required. Removing this rule WOULD expose them to this coaching. Well, in athletics this is not the case, as shown by the aforementioned study. It's not certain that this would apply to football, however biology is not changed by sport, but by genetics, so one could assume this study would remain valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I can't say, the study does not cover that. Well, in athletics this is not the case, as shown by the aforementioned study. It's not certain that this would apply to football, however biology is not changed by sport, but by genetics, so one could assume this study would remain valid. The study centres on athletics... The very top of sporting achievement... Soccer is way below... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The study centres on athletics... The very top of sporting achievement... Soccer is way below... OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Well this thread don't look pretty. Alot of people talking about stuff they haven't seen and making nothing short of stupid judgements from what they haven't looked at. I would love our club to be the forward thinkers on this project. I think it would be nothing short of the best thing we have ever done. What's the good one who plays for England called, Smith? I reckon she could play at League 1 standard. There's no aspect of her game that I've seen that is inferior to BOSH! in his prime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 What's the good one who plays for England called, Smith? I reckon she could play at League 1 standard. There's no aspect of her game that I've seen that is inferior to BOSH! in his prime. BOSH is god, but not a fair representation of league one standards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Wayne Andrews... How anyone can say women at up to playing professional football when Wayne Andrews graced our pitch. The slightest breeze would send him arse over tit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Male athletes are generally more powerful (power = speed + strength) because they simply able to develop more muscle mass per unit volume of body weight due to the male hormone androgen. Some women are still more powerful than some men. Few sports played today require total strenght / power as most sports you require a level of skill (a mixture of both accuracy and co-ordination). Women are known to be better skilled than men in a few sports. Off the top of my head I think they are said to be better at certain motorsports .... which opens the debate as to why more women aren't involved. I don't know and I'm not certain what particular motor sports they are good at. Simple fact his that at present the differences in strength, power, skill and coordination between men and women does not matter one bit as mosts sports at present men play against men and women play against women. Where both share the same field, mixed doubles for instand, there equal numbers of men and women on each team so their strengths and weaknesses even out. Apart from sports with small team numbers this would be very difficult to implement..... physical make up / differnces of the male / female bodies seem to prevent this. Hence girls are allow to play football with boys up to a certain age until males androgen hormone starts to develop more rapidly. Certain sports require the use of more strenght than skills .... such as football and RL. Which sex is know to be more powerful than the other .................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Male athletes are generally more powerful (power = speed + strength) because they simply able to develop more muscle mass per unit volume of body weight due to the male hormone androgen. Some women are still more powerful than some men. Few sports played today require total strenght / power as most sports you require a level of skill (a mixture of both accuracy and co-ordination). Women are known to be better skilled than men in a few sports. Off the top of my head I think they are said to be better at certain motorsports .... which opens the debate as to why more women aren't involved. I don't know and I'm not certain what particular motor sports they are good at. Simple fact his that at present the differences in strength, power, skill and coordination between men and women does not matter one bit as mosts sports at present men play against men and women play against women. Where both share the same field, mixed doubles for instand, there equal numbers of men and women on each team so their strengths and weaknesses even out. Apart from sports with small team numbers this would be very difficult to implement..... physical make up / differnces of the male / female bodies seem to prevent prevent this. Hence girls are allow to play football with boys up to a certain age until males androgen hormone starts to develop more rapidly. Certain sports require the use of more strenght than skills .... such as football and RL. Which sex is know to be more powerful than the other .................. So why do we allow boys who fail to develop much more strength than your average girl to play football ? Growing up I know plenty of girls from 6 to 18 who could easily take out some of the guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Why do we allow boys who fail to develop much more strength than your average girl to play football ? Simply because nature tells us that the majority of males WILL develop ahead of females... literately over night in some casues. It's not always the case, but this act of nauture as created the distict split we have now, round this time development of the individual sexes takes hold and moves seperate ways. Because it's always been doesn't mean it should be now, but we just have to be aware that the simple truth is that at a number of sports women are never going to be able to compete equally with men. Here's one if we are saying that men / women should compete equally why in athletics do females and males run seperately ? Women are simply not as fast (due to strenght / muscle mass) as the top men and therefore all the finals would be compeated by men. Times prove this. Or is this what women want the chance to get into a final once in a blue moon or the opportunty to say your the best female sprinter in the world ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Why do we allow boys who fail to develop much more strength than your average girl to play football ? Simply because nature tells us that the majority of males WILL develop ahead of females... literately over night in some casues. Round this time development of the individual sexes takes hold and move seperate ways. N However this doesn't answer why can individual women not make it to the top level. I certain female individuals could and would hold their own a the top of male dominated sports. Athletics .... why do females and males run seperately ? Women are simply not as fast (due to strenght / muscle mass) as the top men and therefore all the finals would be competed by men. Times show this. Or his this what women want the chance to get into a final once in a blue moon or the opportunty to say your the best female sprinter in the world ?? It seems we are taking the extreme examples and using them as a basis for a base approach... Men are stronger than women... Its kind of a fact when you compare things like records etc.. Soccer and many other sports don't operate at this extreme level... its a case of the tail wagging the dog this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosa Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Explain to me which part of the game a women could not do ? You seriously think a women couldn't take a Gregan special ? To turn the question on its head (assuming it isn't a really distasteful euphemism), how many 6'2", 14 stone blokes would feel comfortable putting in a full blooded tackle on a woman half their size? I don't think it would be the same as tackling a bloke who was smaller. Most lads who i've spoken to say they'd hate to play against women because it wouldn't feel like a level playing field and they wouldn't want to go near them because any tackle would look OTT. Having said that, i like the fact that you've all debated this seriously over 8 pages, whenever i've seen this debated on other boards it's usually just consisted of a page of jokes about swapping shirts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markoasis Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 To turn the question on its head (assuming it isn't a really distasteful euphemism), how many 6'2", 14 stone blokes would feel comfortable putting in a full blooded tackle on a woman half their size? I don't think it would be the same as tackling a bloke who was smaller. Most lads who i've spoken to say they'd hate to play against women because it wouldn't feel like a level playing field and they wouldn't want to go near them because any tackle would look OTT. I've said earlier in the office that I would be simply to frightened of hurting the women (actually used the words killing her ) and as someone who's only really played RL my opinions are based mostly on this game. Being honest, women have the ability to give new life and I would be to afraid of doing something to prevent this. Whether I could / would doesn't matter because in my mind theres always that small possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.