OT Sharpe & Badger to officiate NRL

[Chimp]

Let’s see which game either of them get this weekend….

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

What point are you trying to make exactly?

How do you determine if they are getting special treatment? as opposed to the regular selection of game refs?

I've been very clear in the point I'm trying to make.

I'm sure you have enough insight through my responses to work it out.

If you still can't work it out. I can't help you. sorry.

 

[Quicksilver]

I've been very clear in the point I'm trying to make.

I'm sure you have enough insight through my responses to work it out.

If you still can't work it out. I can't help you. sorry.

There is no clarity at all. You've gone on about them not being able to handle it, then posted an article about them being able to handle it.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

There is no clarity at all. You've gone on about them not being able to handle it, then posted an article about them being able to handle it.

I posted an article about the intent to start them round 1 and move them to the top tier of referees. Then quoted the bottom part of the article about the difference in speed in the game when stepping up. Which is the core of my argument, being a female referee adjudicating men's sport.

1 game doesn't say they can "handle it" at all.

If they are moved to the top tier of referees, should we expect to see them scheduled for all 27 rounds next year? Or should we expect some rounds they wont be scheduled at all?Should we expect them on the top tier games? Or just the bottom of the table ones? Should we expect to see one of them for origin next year? Grand Final even? Tell me what you think we'll see. If they step up next year then as the article says they a ready for any and all games. Come on Nrl. Throw a female referee at origin if you really stand by "they are ready".

So tell me, since you think women are equal to men. You must want to combine the Nrl and Nrlw yeah?

Should we just be done with it and buy Millie Boyle to solve our prop issues? Apart from the absolute beat down in physicality, tell me why else that'd be a bad idea. Tell me some other key reasons that might not be a good idea.

 

[Dragon Slayer]

Well, it's a decent lunchbox.

Yeah it has to be big to fit all the John Morris, Chad Townsend & Belinda Sharpe stickers on it.

 

[Quicksilver]

I posted an article about the intent to start them round 1 and move them to the top tier of referees. Then quoted the bottom part of the article about the difference in speed in the game when stepping up. Which is the core of my argument, being a female referee adjudicating men's sport.

1 game doesn't say they can "handle it" at all.

If they are moved to the top tier of referees, should we expect to see them scheduled for all 27 rounds next year? Or should we expect some rounds they wont be scheduled at all?Should we expect them on the top tier games? Or just the bottom of the table ones? Should we expect to see one of them for origin next year? Grand Final even? Tell me what you think we'll see. If they step up next year then as the article says they a ready for any and all games. Come on Nrl. Throw a female referee at origin if you really stand by "they are ready".

So tell me, since you think women are equal to men. You must want to combine the Nrl and Nrlw yeah?

Should we just be done with it and buy Millie Boyle to solve our prop issues? Apart from the absolute beat down in physicality, tell me why else that'd be a bad idea. Tell me some other key reasons that might not be a good idea.

I've not said that women are equal to men in all areas. I just don't think the gulf would be that great in terms of the fitness requirements for refereeing a rugby league game. if the female can reach those requirements then who cares that it is a woman?

There is a set frequency that the ref will be required to run. If the female reaches that threshold with comfort and the male is 40 percent above then it's redundant. The male isn't benefiting from running around in circles for no reason. That isn't the criteria under which they are judged.

Should we expect to see them in the Grand Final? Well, yes, if they are the best person for the job. I wouldn't consider it a failure if we don't see them though, given that only one ref gets the job.

Speaking of false equivalents. Do you seriously think being a prop forward in a game of NRL has the same physical requirements as a referee?

 

[coolumsharkie]

I've not said that women are equal to men in all areas. I just don't think the gulf would be that great in terms of the fitness requirements for refereeing a rugby league game. if the female can reach those requirements then who cares that it is a woman?

There is a set frequency that the ref will be required to run. If the female reaches that threshold with comfort and the male is 40 percent above then it's redundant. The male isn't benefiting from running around in circles for no reason. That isn't the criteria under which they are judged.

Should we expect to see them in the Grand Final? Well, yes, if they are the best person for the job. I wouldn't consider it a failure if we don't see them though, given that only one ref gets the job.

Speaking of false equivalents. Do you seriously think being a prop forward in a game of NRL has the same physical requirements as a referee?

It might happen one day cause chicks rule!!

 

[Mr Angry]

I read it was considered a success and both will get regular games next year at NRL level.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

I've not said that women are equal to men in all areas. I just don't think the gulf would be that great in terms of the fitness requirements for refereeing a rugby league game. if the female can reach those requirements then who cares that it is a woman?

Great, Badger for origin 1 next year then.
Can't wait.

There is a set frequency that the ref will be required to run. If the female reaches that threshold with comfort and the male is 40 percent above then it's redundant. The male isn't benefiting from running around in circles for no reason. That isn't the criteria under which they are judged.

If the male reaches said threshold with comfort and the female is 40% less, what do we have then? A female in discomfort and a shit show. It's all relative. You're assuming the baseline is met.

Should we expect to see them in the Grand Final? Well, yes, if they are the best person for the job. I wouldn't consider it a failure if we don't see them though, given that only one ref gets the job.

Great, Badger for the Grand final as well.
Can't wait x 2.

Speaking of false equivalents. Do you seriously think being a prop forward in a game of NRL has the same physical requirements as a referee?

False equivalent?

The tangent you needed to draw was on fitness requirements.
Women couldn't play against the men because they wouldn't have the fitness or speed for it. They'd be on the dead ball line dry reaching after 10.

The same is true across a spectrum of aerobic based activities.
That's why we differentiate men from women in literally all sport.
There's no reason we shouldn't expect that to be the case with refereeing.

When officiating, your fitness matters as you need to make judgement calls at speed and if you're gased your cognitive ability and judgement are impaired. They literally test them like this.

Females are much more likely to hit that limit quicker and more frequently than men.

 

[King Ben]

To be fair the whole referee dept need to be cleaned out regardless of gender. The NRL should be stoked that there's been enough other things making news that have made everyone overlook the performance of the refs and Bunker aside from a game-by-game critique.

 

[Quicksilver]

Great, Badger for origin 1 next year then.
Can't wait.


If the male reaches said threshold with comfort and the female is 40% less, what do we have then? A female in discomfort and a shit show. It's all relative. You're assuming the baseline is met.


Great, Badger for the Grand final as well.
Can't wait x 2.


False equivalent?

The tangent you needed to draw was on fitness requirements.
Women couldn't play against the men because they wouldn't have the fitness or speed for it. They'd be on the dead ball line dry reaching after 10.

The same is true across a spectrum of aerobic based activities.
That's why we differentiate men from women in literally all sport.
There's no reason we shouldn't expect that to be the case with refereeing.

When officiating, your fitness matters as you need to make judgement calls at speed and if you're gased your cognitive ability and judgement are impaired. They literally test them like this.

Females are much more likely to hit that limit quicker and more frequently than men.

And they've passed the test, presumably?

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

And they've passed the test, presumably?

we will see won't we.

Like I've already said, tokenism.

are we now looking to place woman regardless of whether there are more deserving men?

then we have quotas at play which flies in the face of best candidate for the job.

We will likely never see the performance metrics behind these decisions to know exactly how they handle high aerobic output at speed for prolonged periods of time, to keep pace with male altheles in peak condition.

 

[Quicksilver]

we will see won't we.

Like I've already said, tokenism.

are we now looking to place woman regardless of whether there are more deserving men?

then we have quotas at play which flies in the face of best candidate for the job.

We will likely never see the performance metrics behind these decisions to know exactly how they handle high aerobic output at speed for prolonged periods of time, to keep pace with male altheles in peak condition.

You're calling it tokenism without actually having any evidence that it is tokenism.

That'll do me.

Let me put it another way. If a woman comes through with superior athletic results to a man, should she be denied purely because she happens to be a woman? Should we put in a less able man?

Are we looking to replace the men? Not necessarily but that may be the outcome. We are looking for the best referees based on a number of factors.

By the way, have you been given any metrics for the men? And again, the fintess component is just one requirement for the job. There are a stack of other (more) relevant metrics for them to be judged by.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

You're calling it tokenism without actually having any evidence that it is tokenism.

That'll do me.

Let me put it another way. If a woman comes through with superior athletic results to a man, should she be denied purely because she happens to be a woman? Should we put in a less able man?

Are we looking to replace the men? Not necessarily but that may be the outcome. We are looking for the best referees based on a number of factors.

By the way, have you been given any metrics for the men? And again, the fintess component is just one requirement for the job. There are a stack of other (more) relevant metrics for them to be judged by.

We are talking about cream of the crop. Best possible candidates in an elite men's sport.

I'll put it another way, you have a group of 10 men and you add 2 females, add all the metrics in the world to measure what ever story you want to tell.

The most likely outcome based of what we know about the biological differences in men vs women is that they will finish at the bottom of the pack. Pure and simple, take the best female anywhere in their respective sports and they finish dead last when measured against men.

Expand the group to 50 the same thing will occur. As you keep expanding your base, you are likely to get outliers that start to exceed the performance of some males, who let's keep in mind, are not near the top.

Remember when they banged on about Sarina Williams all those years ago? Played a man outside the top 200 and got her ass whooped.

Stop pretending pls. You can live in fairytale land all you like, no where in any other walk of sport do women sit in or near the cream of the crop when measured against males.

Why would they here?

 

[Eion]

We are talking about cream of the crop. Best possible candidates in an elite men's sport.

I'll put it another way, you have a group of 10 men and you add 2 females, add all the metrics in the world to measure what ever story you want to tell.

The most likely outcome based of what we know about the biological differences in men vs women is that they will finish at the bottom of the pack. Pure and simple, take the best female anywhere in their respective sports and they finish dead last when measured against men.

Expand the group to 50 the same thing will occur. As you keep expanding your base, you are likely to get outliers that start to exceed the performance of some males, who let's keep in mind, are not near the top.

Remember when they banged on about Sarina Williams all those years ago? Played a man outside the top 200 and got her ass whooped.

Stop pretending pls. You can live in fairytale land all you like, no where in any other walk of sport do women sit in or near the cream of the crop when measured against males.

Why would they here?

Mate have you seen Todd Smith, an athlete he is not.

Ashley Klein is 44 years old, Ben Cummins is 49!

I agree it should always be best candidates for the job, but it is realistic that some women will be in contention because they will clearly be able to match it with a fat ginger or a 49 year old.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

Mate have you seen Todd Smith, an athlete he is not.

Ashley Klein is 44 years old, Ben Cummins is 49!

I agree it should always be best candidates for the job, but it is realistic that some women will be in contention because they will clearly be able to match it with a fat ginger or a 49 year old.

You'd be surprised.

George rose was an Nrl player don't forget lol

 

[bluefox68]

We are talking about cream of the crop. Best possible candidates in an elite men's sport.

I'll put it another way, you have a group of 10 men and you add 2 females, add all the metrics in the world to measure what ever story you want to tell.

The most likely outcome based of what we know about the biological differences in men vs women is that they will finish at the bottom of the pack. Pure and simple, take the best female anywhere in their respective sports and they finish dead last when measured against men.

Expand the group to 50 the same thing will occur. As you keep expanding your base, you are likely to get outliers that start to exceed the performance of some males, who let's keep in mind, are not near the top.

Remember when they banged on about Sarina Williams all those years ago? Played a man outside the top 200 and got her ass whooped.

Stop pretending pls. You can live in fairytale land all you like, no where in any other walk of sport do women sit in or near the cream of the crop when measured against males.

Why would they here?

You’re making some big generalisations…
I would suggest that the ability to MAKE A GOOD DECISION outweighs physical performance…

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

You’re making some big generalisations…
I would suggest that the ability to MAKE A GOOD DECISION outweighs physical performance…

Not necessarily.
They are fair and reasonable assessments for what is uncovered ground.

They are intrinsically linked if you've followed my argument.

 

[Stake Removed]

Annesley said basically would be picked round 1.
Well give one of them the token game in Vegas.
Souths vs Manly I believe, it's 2 teams who finished bottom half of table