tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34418100.post4697275699410203320..comments2023-10-23T09:21:51.854-04:00Comments on Title IX Blog: NCAA Welcomes Women's RugbyEBuzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15887304836671743255noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34418100.post-36170639623419744692007-09-26T11:21:00.000-04:002007-09-26T11:21:00.000-04:00I can understand NCAA trying to limit game times s...I can understand NCAA trying to limit game times so that players have enough time to actually be <I>student</I>-athletes. And I can also understand an argument that it's necessary to protect athletes against prolonged exposure to dangerous activity -- like getting carpel tunnel or shin splints. <BR/><BR/>But if this is really about inherent dangers of the game, I'm not persuaded. If the game is "too" dangerous because of the potential for harmful contact, then it should either not be sanctioned period, or it should adopt a set of rules that penalize or minimize such contact. Limiting the number of games played makes no sense, nor is that rationale consistently applied (see, e.g., hockey).EBuzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887304836671743255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34418100.post-22382062946445159072007-09-25T09:40:00.000-04:002007-09-25T09:40:00.000-04:00I was surprised by anon 2's comments that rugby is...I was surprised by anon 2's comments that rugby is probably more physical than ice hockey because women's ice hockey does not allow checking. <BR/>First, men's hockey, where checking is allowed, plays more than one game a week. Often times twice in one weekend. And second, non-checking does not mean non-contact. There is a significant amount of contact in women's ice hockey. My intent is not to argue the level of physicality involved, because I cannot accurately do so, but rather to correct the misconception that women's hockey is somehow less so because they are not allowed to slam into one another.kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09975351996302093224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34418100.post-64295019767995400582007-09-24T23:06:00.000-04:002007-09-24T23:06:00.000-04:00Certainly rugby is not as physical as football, bu...Certainly rugby is not as physical as football, but to compare it with softball and basketball is off the mark. Probably not hockey either, as women's hockey is a non-checking game. I'm just guessing that the NCAA would start with football, the sport that rugby most closely resembles, as a starting point. In the event that they get significant participation, they can always adjust the rules.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34418100.post-39477766906279798682007-09-24T17:57:00.000-04:002007-09-24T17:57:00.000-04:00I can see why players might feel strongly about po...I can see why players might feel strongly about post-game socials, but it is not obvious to me why NCAA singles out rugby for a one game a week rule. Certainly softball has double headers and basketball and hockey players have more than one game in a week. What about rugby makes too much of it dangerous to one's health?EBuzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887304836671743255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34418100.post-4585378124196301392007-09-24T00:32:00.000-04:002007-09-24T00:32:00.000-04:00I think it is equally unlikely that the NCAA would...I think it is equally unlikely that the NCAA would give on the one game a week rule, and that the rugby players would give up on the post-game drinking. The NCAA is not going to want to be seen as sacrificing the health of female athletes, and the rugby players I have known (male and female) largely view the post-game drinking as the reason *for* the rugby game.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com