Schofield

[Poower Lad 47]

Just to be dDevils Advocate on this . We’re these sexist comments he was making , in fairness to Gary he has always been forthright in his comments and how he compares teams in the men’s game . I didn’t see the game but is the standard poor . I’m just of the opinion that we break this down and calmly look at the facts , was it .

Sexist . 

reasonable this is ment to be the women’s super league with all the coverage that entails , it needs to have a minimum standard .

a misguided comment that hampers participation , yes the standard may be lacking but let’s approach how we comment in a better way .

im just conscious that we don’t do the modern thing and have people bandwagon any cause of race or gender just to not offend / self serve as opposed to sensibly look at the issue .

No pre conceived ideas on my part , the women’s developed hugely in the last few years in its visibility , and anyone who laced a boot up is a hero in my mind .

 

Discuss

 

[Just Browny 6,647]

No thanks. Garry has rightly climbed down from his poorly worded comments. Let's move on and think about how we improve the access to, and standard of, all forms of the game - women's, men's, LD, PD, juniors, wheelchair, and so on.

[Bedfordshire Bronco 832]

Gary is lots of fun but was wrong on this one

He ain't the best articulator though so not sure he always means what he says

[Mr Plow 695]

Don’t think he was being sexist just think he was commenting on the quality of the game although i think I did it in the wrong way and I didn’t really need saying anyway

[The Blues Ox 791]

1 hour ago, Poower Lad said:

Just to be dDevils Advocate on this . We’re these sexist comments he was making , in fairness to Gary he has always been forthright in his comments and how he compares teams in the men’s game . I didn’t see the game but is the standard poor . I’m just of the opinion that we break this down and calmly look at the facts , was it .

 

 

If you compare the game to a male Super League match then yes the standard was poor. Why it would be compared to a male SL match is beyond me though although I do think GS to it to the extreme with his comments on the game.

I will say though as a male involved in the womens game I can clearly break down where the big differences in this percieved lack of quality come from. As a young lad all I wanted to do was play Rugby with my mates, every minute I could at home, every break at school it were rugby. If I were not playing Rugby I were watching rugby, it's funny but I used to pretend I were GS when I were about 12 years of age. By the time I were 13 or 14 I literally had hundreds of thousands of hours of practice under my belt now compare that to a lot of girls who do not have them hours simply because Rugby is not going to be first choice when it comes to what girls would rather do, they are usually limited to a couple of hours training a week, maybe a match and every now and again a kick around with the few of their mates that have ambitions of playing the game at a good level.

I would say at the age of 16 most girls will be playing a standard of rugby that is at least 2 years behind their male counterparts at the same age. Now don't get conned that these girls don't put it in on the field, some of the biggest shots I have seen on a rugby field have been from girls. They are passionate, they are full bloodied, they put their bodies on the line and their game is on the up, there is none of the robotic stuff like we get in SL and while there is differences in skill between the teams it allows creativity and off the cuff stuff to flourish. The womens game is growing massively and will continue to do so and as that gets more popular more girls will participate and eventually this will lead to skill levels rising too. So yeah maybe there were some truth in what GS said but he could have put it a much better way or maybe talked about the improvement in the womens game in the last 2 years alone.

[Rach 425]

Spot on comments @The Blues Ox 

i said on another thread the irony in Schofields initial comment was that it's attitudes like his that have held back the Women's Game for years , A lack of access to facilities ,development opportunities and funding caused by the ' Old Time its a mans game ' mentality - not always openly but rippling under at many an amateur club and RL Governance board level has dogged the sport for years .. 

 

[Gibbo 43]

Garry needs to give the Womens game time to develop.

 

Edited October 14 by Gibbo

[jacksy 500]

He should take a look at the Aussies/Kiwis for what can be achieved. 

Its superb to watch.

[Futtocks 11,579]

At the risk of giving him more attention, he would have been absolutely correct to say that there were some poor catches of kicks, and that several passes went astray. I have seen better examples of both in this season's regular Women's SL matches, and from some of those same players, but that's the big occasion for you.

Instead, he just jeered and said it was like a bunch of children. A cheap shot, and one that played to the gallery of "I speak my mind and it doesn't take very long" types, who love to sneer and belittle anything outside their own narrow experience.

Edited October 13 by Futtocks

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo 655]

4 hours ago, Gibbo said:

Gary needs to give the Womens game time to develop.

 

He's 54 years old remember.

[RL does what Sky says 744]

I am very much in favour of everybody playing RL and indeed was connected with a part of the Women's Rugby League in the 1990s  - so even before many others decided to get involved and promote it - and when teams included such as Rochdale Ravens, Drighlington, York, Sheffield, Little Hulton, Hull Vixens, Askham and Hunslet Hawks. At that time the matches were played on local amateur grounds and attracted very few spectators, so please don't think my comments are sexist because I was there before many others ever got involved.

My only grievance these days - not only with regard to women's RL and not even with regard to any sporting activity, but to the way of the world we now live in - is that some people of minority groups or of those who provide less quality of entertainment - want to be treated in a similar way as those of a higher standard.

With regard to the Women's RL, what has got to be remembered is that they are just amateur players yet are being given preferential treatment more than the equivalent standard of teams in the men's amateur leagues.

Yes, I understand that the women's game is trying to get itself promoted more but I do feel it is a bit unfair on those teams (yes, male) who are possibly of a better standard but do not get to play on professional grounds nor are seen on tv.

 

[Dave T 13,106]

2 hours ago, RL does what Sky says said:

I am very much in favour of everybody playing RL and indeed was connected with a part of the Women's Rugby League in the 1990s  - so even before many others decided to get involved and promote it - and when teams included such as Rochdale Ravens, Drighlington, York, Sheffield, Little Hulton, Hull Vixens, Askham and Hunslet Hawks. At that time the matches were played on local amateur grounds and attracted very few spectators, so please don't think my comments are sexist because I was there before many others ever got involved.

My only grievance these days - not only with regard to women's RL and not even with regard to any sporting activity, but to the way of the world we now live in - is that some people of minority groups or of those who provide less quality of entertainment - want to be treated in a similar way as those of a higher standard.

With regard to the Women's RL, what has got to be remembered is that they are just amateur players yet are being given preferential treatment more than the equivalent standard of teams in the men's amateur leagues.

Yes, I understand that the women's game is trying to get itself promoted more but I do feel it is a bit unfair on those teams (yes, male) who are possibly of a better standard but do not get to play on professional grounds nor are seen on tv.

 

You keep repeating this here, but it still doesn't make sense, and yes it is just sexist.

The Womens SL is the top flight of womens RL, how it compares to mens RL is completely irrelevant. Why compare to males? It doesn't make sense?

And I think they are hardly getting spoilt by that one game ever live on Sky Sports.

People who use comparisons with mens sport to talk down womens sport are being sexist.

[Poower Lad 47]

7 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

If you compare the game to a male Super League match then yes the standard was poor. Why it would be compared to a male SL match is beyond me though although I do think GS to it to the extreme with his comments on the game.

I will say though as a male involved in the womens game I can clearly break down where the big differences in this percieved lack of quality come from. As a young lad all I wanted to do was play Rugby with my mates, every minute I could at home, every break at school it were rugby. If I were not playing Rugby I were watching rugby, it's funny but I used to pretend I were GS when I were about 12 years of age. By the time I were 13 or 14 I literally had hundreds of thousands of hours of practice under my belt now compare that to a lot of girls who do not have them hours simply because Rugby is not going to be first choice when it comes to what girls would rather do, they are usually limited to a couple of hours training a week, maybe a match and every now and again a kick around with the few of their mates that have ambitions of playing the game at a good level.

I would say at the age of 16 most girls will be playing a standard of rugby that is at least 2 years behind their male counterparts at the same age. Now don't get conned that these girls don't put it in on the field, some of the biggest shots I have seen on a rugby field have been from girls. They are passionate, they are full bloodied, they put their bodies on the line and their game is on the up, there is none of the robotic stuff like we get in SL and while there is differences in skill between the teams it allows creativity and off the cuff stuff to flourish. The womens game is growing massively and will continue to do so and as that gets more popular more girls will participate and eventually this will lead to skill levels rising too. So yeah maybe there were some truth in what GS said but he could have put it a much better way or maybe talked about the improvement in the womens game in the last 2 years alone.

Brilliant and informative response based on evidence . I think it’s worth discussing these kind of things in an open and calm manner however unpalatable people may or may not find them . Completely agree with you on this now thanks . 

[Rach 425]

2 hours ago, RL does what Sky says said:

I am very much in favour of everybody playing RL and indeed was connected with a part of the Women's Rugby League in the 1990s  - so even before many others decided to get involved and promote it - and when teams included such as Rochdale Ravens, Drighlington, York, Sheffield, Little Hulton, Hull Vixens, Askham and Hunslet Hawks. At that time the matches were played on local amateur grounds and attracted very few spectators, so please don't think my comments are sexist because I was there before many others ever got involved.

My only grievance these days - not only with regard to women's RL and not even with regard to any sporting activity, but to the way of the world we now live in - is that some people of minority groups or of those who provide less quality of entertainment - want to be treated in a similar way as those of a higher standard.

With regard to the Women's RL, what has got to be remembered is that they are just amateur players yet are being given preferential treatment more than the equivalent standard of teams in the men's amateur leagues.

Yes, I understand that the women's game is trying to get itself promoted more but I do feel it is a bit unfair on those teams (yes, male) who are possibly of a better standard but do not get to play on professional grounds nor are seen on tv.

 

You've blown your own argument out of the water there on several counts ...

'or of those who provide less quality of entertainment - want to be treated in a similar way as those of a higher standard.'  just because the skill level is less doesn't mean the entertainment level is less - I can watch an under 8's game between two equally matched teams and find it far far  more entertaining than a mis match between a highly drilled  NRL top of the league v bottom of the league fixture ,

With regard to the Women's RL, what has got to be remembered is that they are just amateur players yet are being given preferential treatment more than the equivalent standard of teams in the men's amateur leagues.- but they aren't the same, are they - ? those players for the Women's SL Teams are the best female RL  players in the Country - Leeds Rhinos Ladies team whether or not they are amateur are in the Women's Game equivalent of the Rhinos 1st Team in the SL Structure - providing international players and bringing in new players from other clubs to strengthen  in the same way as the mens side do ..

Yes, I understand that the women's game is trying to get itself promoted more but I do feel it is a bit unfair on those teams (yes, male) who are possibly of a better standard but do not get to play on professional grounds nor are seen on tv. - Players in Amateur Mens Team have had their opportunity to play on Pro Ground or Play on TV - its called being playing at a level to be able play in an SL Mens team  - in the same way any young lass playing for a club in the Women's Bottom Division  has the same opportunity to progress to the Women's Bottom Divison .

As for attracting few spectators - I played for many years in Askam Ladies Team  and unless my Grey  matter is totally giving up on me, we always drew a healthy crowd . Keighley Albion Ladies have on an amateur ground been pulling in 200/ 300  crowds this season in the Women's Bottom Division . Cas , Wigan and Leeds Rhinos Ladies have been attracting decent crowds all year to their games .

[RL does what Sky says 744]

37 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You keep repeating this here, but it still doesn't make sense, and yes it is just sexist.

The Womens SL is the top flight of womens RL, how it compares to mens RL is completely irrelevant. Why compare to males? It doesn't make sense?

And I think they are hardly getting spoilt by that one game ever live on Sky Sports.

People who use comparisons with mens sport to talk down womens sport are being sexist.

Difference of opinions. It may seem sexist to you but it isn't meant to be.

As I said, I was not saying specifically about women's RL but you no doubt know there have been incidents where lesser teams have wanted equal pay/conditions as those of higher quality.

https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/blog/women-in-football-are-demanding-pay-equality-we-must-no-longer-let-them-be-second-class-citizens

I am not against it as long as they achieve the same standard and bring in the same revenue for those who they want to pay them.

[RL does what Sky says 744]

24 minutes ago, Rach said:

You've blown your own argument out of the water there on several counts ...

'or of those who provide less quality of entertainment - want to be treated in a similar way as those of a higher standard.'  just because the skill level is less doesn't mean the entertainment level is less - I can watch an under 8's game between two equally matched teams and find it far far  more entertaining than a mis match between a highly drilled  NRL top of the league v bottom of the league fixture ,

With regard to the Women's RL, what has got to be remembered is that they are just amateur players yet are being given preferential treatment more than the equivalent standard of teams in the men's amateur leagues.- but they aren't the same, are they - ? those players for the Women's SL Teams are the best female RL  players in the Country - Leeds Rhinos Ladies team whether or not they are amateur are in the Women's Game equivalent of the Rhinos 1st Team in the SL Structure - providing international players and bringing in new players from other clubs to strengthen  in the same way as the mens side do ..

Yes, I understand that the women's game is trying to get itself promoted more but I do feel it is a bit unfair on those teams (yes, male) who are possibly of a better standard but do not get to play on professional grounds nor are seen on tv. - Players in Amateur Mens Team have had their opportunity to play on Pro Ground or Play on TV - its called being playing at a level to be able play in an SL Mens team  - in the same way any young lass playing for a club in the Women's Bottom Division  has the same opportunity to progress to the Women's Bottom Divison .

As for attracting few spectators - I played for many years in Askam Ladies Team  and unless my Grey  matter is totally giving up on me, we always drew a healthy crowd . Keighley Albion Ladies have on an amateur ground been pulling in 200/ 300  crowds this season in the Women's Bottom Division . Cas , Wigan and Leeds Rhinos Ladies have been attracting decent crowds all year to their games .

You too have blown your arguement out of the water ...

 You say   " .....those players for the Women's SL Teams are the best female RL  players in the Country ...."

Yes,. best at their level .. but that level is surpassed by many other RL teams who don't get such attention given to them

It is not the women's game in general I was commenting on but where some people want the same rewards even though they don't produce the same quality or revenue.  As shown here ...

https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/blog/women-in-football-are-demanding-pay-equality-we-must-no-longer-let-them-be-second-class-citizens

They want equality of pay yet what about the equality of income the different sides bring in for their clubs ?

Edited October 13 by RL does what Sky says

[Hemi4561 106]

3 hours ago, RL does what Sky says said:

I am very much in favour of everybody playing RL and indeed was connected with a part of the Women's Rugby League in the 1990s  - so even before many others decided to get involved and promote it - and when teams included such as Rochdale Ravens, Drighlington, York, Sheffield, Little Hulton, Hull Vixens, Askham and Hunslet Hawks. At that time the matches were played on local amateur grounds and attracted very few spectators, so please don't think my comments are sexist because I was there before many others ever got involved.

My only grievance these days - not only with regard to women's RL and not even with regard to any sporting activity, but to the way of the world we now live in - is that some people of minority groups or of those who provide less quality of entertainment - want to be treated in a similar way as those of a higher standard.

With regard to the Women's RL, what has got to be remembered is that they are just amateur players yet are being given preferential treatment more than the equivalent standard of teams in the men's amateur leagues.

Yes, I understand that the women's game is trying to get itself promoted more but I do feel it is a bit unfair on those teams (yes, male) who are possibly of a better standard but do not get to play on professional grounds nor are seen on tv.

 

You usually make more sense than your apparent position here. Would you care to elaborate on your involvement in Women's RL in the 1990's, with whom, which team, the management of the game then? It might help others understand your comments a little more. 

[MZH 1,655]

To be fair to Schofield he has been complimentary towards the women's game in the past. 

I haven't seen the game in question to be able to comment on the quality of it. But if a similar comment was made about a men's game (and it often is) then no one would care. Just because its the women's game it doesn't mean they should be immune from criticism. And saying the standard was poor isn't in itself sexist.

That said people need to stop comparing to the men's game and just appreciate it in its own right. No one says that Dina Asher Smith is much slower than the men, or that Simone Biles can't vault as high as the men. They are rightly applauded for being amazing athletes in their own right. The same should go for our own women. 

[Wellsy4HullFC 3,623]

30 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Yes,. best at their level .. but that level is surpassed by many other RL teams who don't get such attention given to them

To look at male and female sport as different levels ignores the fact that they are not allowed to compete together. You cannot put them into levels. They are different sections of the game.

Should we not televise and promote women's sport because they will never be as physically skillful as the men based purely on biology? Or should we see it as a separate section of the game, compared to only by and within itself? Similar to youth rugby and wheelchair rugby?

To compare the women's game to other sections of the game does no one any favours. They don't do that in tennis. Let's embrace it.

I agree about the equal pay thing though. Pay is proportionate to the income of the business they are working for (i.e. their club) and the income they generate for them.

[RL does what Sky says 744]

10 minutes ago, Hemi4561 said:

You usually make more sense than your apparent position here. Would you care to elaborate on your involvement in Women's RL in the 1990's, with whom, which team, the management of the game then? It might help others understand your comments a little more. 

I won't give anything which just might identify me personally but I'm certain that naming the teams I did does give a hint that I did have some involvement as most people would never have known such teams even existed,

My point is that it does seem a bit funny that when women ask for equality - and rightly so - everyone seems to agree yet if men ask for equality then it is deemed to be sexist.  If a woman can do a job better than a man then of course she should be paid more than him, but equally it should work the other way.

[Dunbar 5,922]

2 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

My point is that it does seem a bit funny that when women ask for equality - and rightly so - everyone seems to agree yet if men ask for equality then it is deemed to be sexist.  If a woman can do a job better than a man then of course she should be paid more than him, but equally it should work the other way.

That's not what women are asking for. They are asking for the same money for doing the same job. In fact, they shouldn't even be asking, they should (and are) demanding it.

And we still have a long way to go.

[RL does what Sky says 744]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

That's not what women are asking for. They are asking for the same money for doing the same job. In fact, they shouldn't even be asking, they should (and are) demanding it.

And we still have a long way to go.

Yes but it's also to do with the quality of the job they are doing. League 1 sides do the same job as the Super League but they don't get paid the same because they can't do it as well and don''t attract the same numbers wanting to watch them.

[JDINTHEHIZZOUSE 625]

I feel garry is fast becoming the david icke of  rugby league

[Hemi4561 106]

18 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

I won't give anything which just might identify me personally but I'm certain that naming the teams I did does give a hint that I did have some involvement as most people would never have known such teams even existed,

My point is that it does seem a bit funny that when women ask for equality - and rightly so - everyone seems to agree yet if men ask for equality then it is deemed to be sexist.  If a woman can do a job better than a man then of course she should be paid more than him, but equally it should work the other way.

I certainly know those teams existed, and many more besides. You are dodging my question, I am not asking you to name Yourself. If I am not mistaken nobody has mentioned pay other than you. Amateur rugby league is not a job. If someone wishes to broadcast the playoff games from the football leagues 4th professional tier because the games  might be even, entertaining, and of interest to 30,000 people so be it, no one thinks that those players should then be on 200000 per week. You weren't involved with Woolston were you? 

[Padge 5,154]

Let us all be honest here, Schofield is an utter and total w@n3r.

He makes money from being an absolute t0$$er, don't give him oxygen*

 

*yes I know I just did,