Here we go again.
The socials have been buzzing these past few days as World rugby rolled out the size 4.5+ ball for the women’s bracket at the HSBC7s in Dubai. The 4.5 was trialed earlier in Japan and France, and player feedback was solicited. There was positive feedback, but also a concern that being smaller, the ball wouldn’t be kicked as far. In response to that feedback the latest version is weight matched to the standard size 5 ball. I’m calling it the 4.5+.
This pursuit was first announced at the Shape of the Game Conference by World Rugby Women’s Director Sally Horrax in 2023.
Under ‘innovation’, it’s noted that there will be additional exploration of gender specific laws. This is important. It won’t end with the ball.
For all of rugby history, the laws of the game have been the same for men and women. It’s a point of pride for many women and girls, who lament the gender specific constraints that we see in women’s hockey, women’s lacrosse, and women’s sports in general. It also makes rugby one of the most accessible sports in the world.
For over a century it’s been ‘common sense’ that in ball sports, women should use a smaller ball than men, because they have on average, smaller hands. The belief in this unproven universal construct has permeated every corner of the sports landscape, and has always been used to frame the ‘women’s version’ of a sport as, basically, girl-pushups.
One need look no further than the discourse around the “Stephen vs. Sabrina” 3-point shootout in February 2024. Steph Curry won the 3-point contest 29-26, with Sabrina Ionescu scoring 26 points, equal to what the NBA champion had scored the previous year. “Not fair!” the critics shouted. “She used a smaller ball!” they said. “It should never have been close!” “Her shots were easier!” “SHES USING A GIRL BALL”. No matter how many times we say ‘different’, the critics will say ‘easier’.
It’s interesting that ‘women’s basketball uses a smaller ball’ is often used as proof that rugby women should use a smaller ball. Consider this – not one person playing NCAA women’s basketball or playing in the WNBA was alive when the decision was made to create a smaller ball for ‘ladies basketball’. That choice was proposed more than 90 years ago and was implemented more than 50 years ago. Surely it’s time for a fresh look.
Rugby has for decades stood alone without gender variations. It’s responded well to changing demographics and emerging markets without sacrificing the essence of the game along the way.
In all of its versions rugby is a game that balances the contest for possession with continuation of play. Changes to the law come about with a purpose – reduce head injuries, improve player enjoyment, reduce dead ball time etc.
ex … A desire to reduce contact injuries can be directly tied to the introduction of the 50/22. Over time, players and coaches learned that if they put more players on the defensive line, they would make more tackles and win more turnovers. Just like that, the game went out of balance. We went from 80-100 tackles per match to over 300. More contact = more collisions = more injuries. By introducing the 50/22, teams on defense now have to deal with the fact that if the opponent kicks the ball and it bounces out beyond the 22, they will get it back all the way down field. Instead of the possession going to the non-kicking team, the kicking team gets it back, in an absolutely perfect line-out–maul scenario. It’s a massive momentum change. The only way to deal with it is to drop defenders back to prevent the ball going into touch, reducing the number of players on the line, which reduces the number of tackles, which reduces the number of contact injuries.
ex …. Remember sealing at the ruck? That skewed the possession/play balance towards possession, and reduced the amount of time the ball is in play. Now sealing results in a penalty. Once again, the laws of the game are tweaked in a way that results in a particular positive outcome, keeping the game in balance.
ex …There was a time when the responsibility for a solid scrum rested entirely on the quads of the stronger team. A team that intentionally collapsed rather than be driven backwards could get a multitude of do-overs. If it proved dangerous, the referee could dictate that the game go to uncontested-scrums, taking a massive advantage off the table for the scrum-dominant team. This particular problem impacted ball in play time, player welfare, enjoyment as a player, and enjoyment as a spectator. Changing the laws so that a collapsed scrum results in a penalty award to the dominant team is a change that was made to bring the game back into balance, rewarding the team that’s dominant in the contest for possession.
What exactly are we trying to address with this ball change? Too many dropped balls? Not enough line breaks? Something related to safety? Surely we have goals … or is this truly a solution in search of a problem? Are we really doing all of this for a 3% smaller ball? THREE PERCENT.
The rugby law book doesn’t tell you how to play. Its shapes how you play by rewarding positive play and punishing infractions. How we play is up to us.
Over the past decades we’ve seen the community split into two camps over issues like this.
‘Women’s Rugby Essentialists’ believe that immutable biological differences between men and women should drive gender specific differences between men’s and women’s rugby. They advocate for the smaller ball, and are open to other gender-specific changes. You’ll hear things like ‘women are not small men’, which is true, but incomplete in this context.
‘Women’s Rugby Purists’ believe that women’s rugby has a unique place in sport, as the only contact sport with the exact same rules for men and women, and believe that growth and development are driven by equitable access to coaching, facilities, medical resources, and professionalism, and that those environmental needs are far more important to the women’s game than ball size.
It must be said – those in the ‘essentialist camp’ at WR have in recent years made three attempts to put a special wrapper on the women’s game based on what they believe to be ‘essential biological differences’.
- Exclusion of trans women based on comparisons of CIS women and CIS men.
- A ‘Coaching Women’ course based on 20+ year old book about marketing to women that triggered global outrage (specifically about this garbage table)
- This stupid ball garbage
Don’t fall for it.
The most recent women’s rugby World Cup leaves us rich with information – here’s some relevant bits. More tries were scored than at the previous Women’s World Cup and at the previous Men’s World Cup. There were less scrums. The ball was in play more. Alan Gilpin, the current WR CEO even highlighted this in his comments.
Try scoring doesn’t happen without skilled ball handling. Maybe the long standing assumption about hand size is wrong?
The ball skill most frequently associated with hand size (an assumption, not a fact in evidence) is the offload, which involves passing the ball to a support player while simultaneously being tackled. Successful offloading results in line breaks and tries, exciting elements of the game that are enjoyable for players and entertaining for spectators. It is often the skill that dictates whether the next thing happening is going to be a contest for possession or a continuation of play. Succeed and the ball continues to advance. Fail and we fight for possession. Balance.
Just this week the Telegraph published an article about how women in the PWR are actually offloading MORE than their male counterparts, using the same ball. Maybe the long standing assumption about hand size is wrong?
Every coach I know would rather have 10,000 reps with an imperfect ball than 1000 reps with a perfect one. Every coach I know has also had to run practices with water bottles on a patch of grass in a hotel parking lot, had only one ball show up on game day, and brought the balls themselves. Whatever WR decides we will all adapt. My concern is the much larger discussion that all of us in the community are entitled to be part of. Given than WR has been clear on their intention of exploring gender specific rule variations, I pose the following questions.
- Do we want the game to use the same laws across the genders and hold that as one of our sports standards? One sport, one law book.
- Do we take a fork in the road, applying different laws to different genders and letting women’s rugby define their own way. Two sports, two law books.
I implore the decision makers to ground their decisions in data and to fully acknowledge if these are their intentions. I can certainly understand the view that a smaller ball might be easier to pass. That’s not the same as actively looking for ways to change the game.
