|
@zinny -
Okay, am going to try bring a bit of reason back to things here, rather than emotion. First a bit about the history of it all:
I won't claim to know all about the foundation of the Camogie Association back in 1904, but I do know that the world in general - and the sporting landscape in particular - was very different for women back then from what it is now.
It was felt that the rough and tumble game of hurling simply wasn't suitable for women, and so a modified and scaled-down version of the game was developed instead. It remained this way for most of the years since - remember it was only about 25 years ago that Camogie even went to full-sized pitches and 15-a-side. And it's only been since then that calls started for it to come under the GAA wing as well, as up to that, and for reasons of their own, they were happy to be a stand-alone organisation.
I know a bit more about the LGFA. It was founded in 1974 with the help of several people who were senior GAA administrators, but it wasn't founded under the wing of the GAA. The founders took the decision themselves to establish separately, and their main reason for doing so was so they'd have full control themselves over their Rule Book, so they could adapt quickly and exactly as they wanted to as the sport grew and evolved.
This wasn't just about playing rules, but also about fundamental things like club catchment areas, club and county committee structures, and other such things that continue to differ significantly from the GAA Rule Book.
As an aside, redefining club catchment areas and "isolated player" eligibility would be one of the biggest challenges that a new fully-integrated Association would have. Currently, all three have different systems. But it's one that I haven't even heard mentioned in the apparent rush to integrate as soon as possible.
On your other point - you've introduced mention of a potential benefit for the GAA which I'll admit hadn't occurred to me. However, it's a relatively small one in the overall scheme of things, in that it would only apply to GAA clubs in other countries, where a condition of public funding is that the sport has to be a member of the Olympic movement.
But I do have to wonder - given that hurling/camogie/football (men's and women's) are not "international sports" in the usual sense of the term, and that they're highly unlikely to ever actually feature in the Olympic Games, would even a new fully-integrated GAA be admitted to the Olympic movement in the first place? Genuine question.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2262 - 14/08/2023 13:31:03
2500468
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: "There won't be camogie and lgfa reps if it's properly integrated. Just GAA reps. As regards funding for county teams most counties have inequal funding for their hurling and football teams as it is. So nothing is likely to change there either." That actually remains to be seen. Quite possible that a new Club Constitution for a fully-integrated Association would stipulate that a club executive committee must include a Camogie Officer and a Ladies Football Officer, in the way that the current Constitution stipulates all the other officer roles that must be filled.
Quite possible it would also stipulate that a club committee must also have a Camogie Players Officer and a Ladies Football Players Officer (or possibly one person to represent both codes), in the way the current one stipulates there must be a GAA Players Officer.
Matter of fact, the Constitution would probably have to stipulate these things, to ensure camogie and ladies football have a proper voice. Otherwise, there'd be the possibility that if there was an area with strong resistance to integration, camogie and ladies football could be shut out.
And going up the line, corresponding stipulations would be highly likely for County Boards, Provincial Councils, and the National Executive.
This is another key challenge of integration - ensuring there's a fitting balance across all codes.
By the way, have to return to an earlier statement of yours - "It's really not about improving the running of the GAA".
Whether you meant to or not, you've now answered the question I actually posed.
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2262 - 14/08/2023 13:54:27
2500480
Link
0
|
|
Yesterday was tribute to LGFA and local volunteers as are. I seriously cannot see how that will benefit from integration. Self reliance and initiative is the key to most good things in this country and elsewhere. Creating bigger bureaucracies with more full time adminstrators tends to dilute core values.
BarneyGrant (Dublin) - Posts: 2663 - 14/08/2023 14:00:44
2500482
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "@zinny -
Okay, am going to try bring a bit of reason back to things here, rather than emotion. First a bit about the history of it all:
I won't claim to know all about the foundation of the Camogie Association back in 1904, but I do know that the world in general - and the sporting landscape in particular - was very different for women back then from what it is now.
It was felt that the rough and tumble game of hurling simply wasn't suitable for women, and so a modified and scaled-down version of the game was developed instead. It remained this way for most of the years since - remember it was only about 25 years ago that Camogie even went to full-sized pitches and 15-a-side. And it's only been since then that calls started for it to come under the GAA wing as well, as up to that, and for reasons of their own, they were happy to be a stand-alone organisation.
I know a bit more about the LGFA. It was founded in 1974 with the help of several people who were senior GAA administrators, but it wasn't founded under the wing of the GAA. The founders took the decision themselves to establish separately, and their main reason for doing so was so they'd have full control themselves over their Rule Book, so they could adapt quickly and exactly as they wanted to as the sport grew and evolved.
This wasn't just about playing rules, but also about fundamental things like club catchment areas, club and county committee structures, and other such things that continue to differ significantly from the GAA Rule Book.
As an aside, redefining club catchment areas and "isolated player" eligibility would be one of the biggest challenges that a new fully-integrated Association would have. Currently, all three have different systems. But it's one that I haven't even heard mentioned in the apparent rush to integrate as soon as possible.
On your other point - you've introduced mention of a potential benefit for the GAA which I'll admit hadn't occurred to me. However, it's a relatively small one in the overall scheme of things, in that it would only apply to GAA clubs in other countries, where a condition of public funding is that the sport has to be a member of the Olympic movement.
But I do have to wonder - given that hurling/camogie/football (men's and women's) are not "international sports" in the usual sense of the term, and that they're highly unlikely to ever actually feature in the Olympic Games, would even a new fully-integrated GAA be admitted to the Olympic movement in the first place? Genuine question." The Olympic thing is a red herring Pikeman. As regards the rules of camogie and ladies football being different why would that matter? The rules for football and hurling are different as it is. Club catchment areas should be defined as they are currently for the GAA. If clubs have to field joint teams at adult or underage camogie or ladies football then so be it. If a club doesn't field a team in 1 or other, as some already don't in football or hurling, then parents might have to bring their kids to a neighbouring club as is already the case. Or get their act together collectively to field a team by themselves for their local club in their chosen sport. Start at the bottom up as some football clubs have already done around the country in hurling for example.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12224 - 14/08/2023 15:19:52
2500502
Link
0
|
|
Replying To BarneyGrant: "Yesterday was tribute to LGFA and local volunteers as are. I seriously cannot see how that will benefit from integration. Self reliance and initiative is the key to most good things in this country and elsewhere. Creating bigger bureaucracies with more full time adminstrators tends to dilute core values." But if integration is done right then there would be less full time staff and less roles in clubs as work done now between multiple associations would now be done by less staff.
KillingFields (Limerick) - Posts: 3525 - 14/08/2023 15:24:47
2500505
Link
0
|
|
Replying To KillingFields: "But if integration is done right then there would be less full time staff and less roles in clubs as work done now between multiple associations would now be done by less staff." Yes KF in any other merger at corporate or club level I ever heard of less staff required was always one of the benefits.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12224 - 14/08/2023 15:56:01
2500514
Link
0
|
|
Replying To KillingFields: "But if integration is done right then there would be less full time staff and less roles in clubs as work done now between multiple associations would now be done by less staff." You reckon that the people who work for the LGFA and Camogie association, and their members in GFA are all going to retire now!
Watch that space ....
BarneyGrant (Dublin) - Posts: 2663 - 14/08/2023 16:15:03
2500519
Link
0
|
|
Viking, I could give you a detailed answer on why the rules for camogie and ladies football being different would matter, but am conscious many of my posts are quite long already, and that one would be an absolute essay altogether.
But it's important to realise I'm not talking about differences in playing rules. That would be easily sorted out along the lines of how the current GAA Rule Book has different sections for hurling and football.
They're the rules to do with catchment areas and overall structures and governance. One of the major considerations is that camogie doesn't even have a catchment area rule. A player can choose any club at all within her own county as her First Club, rather than being bound by the things that apply in the GAA Rule Book.
A statement like "Club catchment areas should be defined as they currently are for the GAA" might seem like the simple, logical, and straightforward thing, but in reality, it's nowhere near as easy as that.
Again, could write you a detailed answer. But it would be long. Very very long!
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2262 - 14/08/2023 16:29:42
2500522
Link
0
|
|
Replying To arock: "Also worth pointing out the following really crucial anomaly. Girls who play either codes or both with the likes of Lucan, Ballyboden, Cuala, Na Fianna, Kilmacu Crokes in Dublin are all equal members of those clubs. So they pay dues to GAA clubs and they are already members of GAA by default. There is no issue at all unless you are a male only club, now theres a dinasaur." An awful lot of clubs in rural Ireland are run separately. You'd have a LGFA and Camogie club using the GAA club pitch and often having to contribute for use of that.
It makes sense in today's world to have one GAA club for all sports
valley84 (Westmeath) - Posts: 1890 - 14/08/2023 16:41:50
2500530
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "Viking, I could give you a detailed answer on why the rules for camogie and ladies football being different would matter, but am conscious many of my posts are quite long already, and that one would be an absolute essay altogether.
But it's important to realise I'm not talking about differences in playing rules. That would be easily sorted out along the lines of how the current GAA Rule Book has different sections for hurling and football.
They're the rules to do with catchment areas and overall structures and governance. One of the major considerations is that camogie doesn't even have a catchment area rule. A player can choose any club at all within her own county as her First Club, rather than being bound by the things that apply in the GAA Rule Book.
A statement like "Club catchment areas should be defined as they currently are for the GAA" might seem like the simple, logical, and straightforward thing, but in reality, it's nowhere near as easy as that.
Again, could write you a detailed answer. But it would be long. Very very long!" Surely this would be one of the things that would have to happen if there is to be integration. A federal model of 3 seperate organisations being run by an added layer of beaurocracy at the top isn't really integration at all and wouldn't really benefit anyone. The reason the Camogie association had the rules they had as regards catchment areas was because initially very few clubs in any county played the game at all. That rule surely has to be replaced, even if they continue as an Independent organisation and integration doesn't happen.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12224 - 14/08/2023 18:03:34
2500543
Link
0
|
|
Replying To BarneyGrant: "You reckon that the people who work for the LGFA and Camogie association, and their members in GFA are all going to retire now!
Watch that space ...." There will be redundencies or people move on and who's saying it would just be people from LGFA or Camogie who will move on?
Mergers happen all the time and people lose jobs. theyre not going to retire.
KillingFields (Limerick) - Posts: 3525 - 14/08/2023 21:05:00
2500562
Link
0
|
|
Replying To BarneyGrant: "You reckon that the people who work for the LGFA and Camogie association, and their members in GFA are all going to retire now!
Watch that space ...." Why are you assuming in all cases if there were to be redundencies that it would just be LGFA and CA people who would lose out?
And why would those people be retiring?
KillingFields (Limerick) - Posts: 3525 - 14/08/2023 21:22:52
2500563
Link
0
|
|
Replying To KillingFields: "Why are you assuming in all cases if there were to be redundencies that it would just be LGFA and CA people who would lose out?
And why would those people be retiring?" I haven't heard of any reduction in full time jobs, have you? More likely to be the opposite, GFA is certainly not going to be backing anything - as they have pushed this - if their own people are going to selfishly missing employment opportunities. They have been highly successful in that regard, would you not agree?
BarneyGrant (Dublin) - Posts: 2663 - 15/08/2023 10:18:15
2500590
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: "Surely this would be one of the things that would have to happen if there is to be integration. A federal model of 3 seperate organisations being run by an added layer of beaurocracy at the top isn't really integration at all and wouldn't really benefit anyone. The reason the Camogie association had the rules they had as regards catchment areas was because initially very few clubs in any county played the game at all. That rule surely has to be replaced, even if they continue as an Independent organisation and integration doesn't happen." Now you're catching on :)
Exactly my point is it's one of the things that would have to happen. My associated point is that it will be far from straightforward. Could even bring a negative for female players, as per the following hypothetical situation after integration, and assuming the new rules would be modelled on the current GAA rules:
- A girl is living in a place where she joins Club A to play camogie.
- However, Club A doesn't play ladies football, so she joins Club B down the road to play this. At the moment, she's perfectly entitled to do this, as they're two separate memberships of two different organisations. And even after integration, she'd still be entitled to do so, as she'd qualify as an isolated player.
- A few years later, Club A decides to start up ladies football after all. Now she's in a fix, because she can't play two different codes with two different clubs.
- So, she's forced to leave Club B for football, where she's played it all along, and play it with her 'home' Club A instead.
- Would be particularly hard on her if she's a good player (maybe with the county panel) with a strong Club B side in senior/Division 1, who then has to instead line out with her 'home' Club A side who's just starting out in Junior B/Division 4 or 5.
You couldn't have a rule that would allow her to continue to play the different codes with different clubs, as that would involve different membership rules based purely on gender, which more than likely wouldn't stand up to any case brought by an aggrieved male player. And then you'd have a free-for-all, where for instance here in Wexford, somebody could decide he's going to hurl for Taghmon-Camross but play football for St. Anne's.
And that's just a 'short' version of what I said would be a long post if I started getting into details!
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2262 - 15/08/2023 13:21:31
2500626
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "Now you're catching on :)
Exactly my point is it's one of the things that would have to happen. My associated point is that it will be far from straightforward. Could even bring a negative for female players, as per the following hypothetical situation after integration, and assuming the new rules would be modelled on the current GAA rules:
- A girl is living in a place where she joins Club A to play camogie.
- However, Club A doesn't play ladies football, so she joins Club B down the road to play this. At the moment, she's perfectly entitled to do this, as they're two separate memberships of two different organisations. And even after integration, she'd still be entitled to do so, as she'd qualify as an isolated player.
- A few years later, Club A decides to start up ladies football after all. Now she's in a fix, because she can't play two different codes with two different clubs.
- So, she's forced to leave Club B for football, where she's played it all along, and play it with her 'home' Club A instead.
- Would be particularly hard on her if she's a good player (maybe with the county panel) with a strong Club B side in senior/Division 1, who then has to instead line out with her 'home' Club A side who's just starting out in Junior B/Division 4 or 5.
You couldn't have a rule that would allow her to continue to play the different codes with different clubs, as that would involve different membership rules based purely on gender, which more than likely wouldn't stand up to any case brought by an aggrieved male player. And then you'd have a free-for-all, where for instance here in Wexford, somebody could decide he's going to hurl for Taghmon-Camross but play football for St. Anne's.
And that's just a 'short' version of what I said would be a long post if I started getting into details!" There's a woman in that position down here who has played intercounty in both in the recent past fair play to her. I suppose like the introduction of the helmet rule there would have to be a grace period for people like her.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12224 - 15/08/2023 16:02:41
2500660
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Viking66: "There's a woman in that position down here who has played intercounty in both in the recent past fair play to her. I suppose like the introduction of the helmet rule there would have to be a grace period for people like her." I don't recall any period of grace for the mandatory helmets rule in hurling. Maybe it was different in camogie? Or unless you mean how it was signalled in advance that it would take effect on a certain date, a few months away? But then once that date came, that was it. Wear a helmet. No exceptions.
And I still don't see any easy way of having a grace period to cover situations like the one we're talking about, for the same reasons at outlined earlier about different membership rules on what men and women are allowed to do in the same organisation. Maybe a good barrister could write that part of the new Rule Book, but it would definitely be beyond the likes of me!
Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2262 - 15/08/2023 20:03:09
2500687
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "@zinny -
Okay, am going to try bring a bit of reason back to things here, rather than emotion. First a bit about the history of it all:
I won't claim to know all about the foundation of the Camogie Association back in 1904, but I do know that the world in general - and the sporting landscape in particular - was very different for women back then from what it is now.
It was felt that the rough and tumble game of hurling simply wasn't suitable for women, and so a modified and scaled-down version of the game was developed instead. It remained this way for most of the years since - remember it was only about 25 years ago that Camogie even went to full-sized pitches and 15-a-side. And it's only been since then that calls started for it to come under the GAA wing as well, as up to that, and for reasons of their own, they were happy to be a stand-alone organisation.
I know a bit more about the LGFA. It was founded in 1974 with the help of several people who were senior GAA administrators, but it wasn't founded under the wing of the GAA. The founders took the decision themselves to establish separately, and their main reason for doing so was so they'd have full control themselves over their Rule Book, so they could adapt quickly and exactly as they wanted to as the sport grew and evolved.
This wasn't just about playing rules, but also about fundamental things like club catchment areas, club and county committee structures, and other such things that continue to differ significantly from the GAA Rule Book.
As an aside, redefining club catchment areas and "isolated player" eligibility would be one of the biggest challenges that a new fully-integrated Association would have. Currently, all three have different systems. But it's one that I haven't even heard mentioned in the apparent rush to integrate as soon as possible.
On your other point - you've introduced mention of a potential benefit for the GAA which I'll admit hadn't occurred to me. However, it's a relatively small one in the overall scheme of things, in that it would only apply to GAA clubs in other countries, where a condition of public funding is that the sport has to be a member of the Olympic movement.
But I do have to wonder - given that hurling/camogie/football (men's and women's) are not "international sports" in the usual sense of the term, and that they're highly unlikely to ever actually feature in the Olympic Games, would even a new fully-integrated GAA be admitted to the Olympic movement in the first place? Genuine question." You don't have to be a sport that is in the Olympics to be recognized by the IOC. There are somewhere around 400 clubs outside of Ireland. The sport is international in every sense and anyone who has been overseas would attest to that. I guess a lot of people only see the International GAA as America and the cash cow for counties to raise money but the reality of what it is is much different. There is no reason that the GAA would not be recognized by the IOC - as I said being recognized and an Olympic sport are two different things. However that said the GAA would have much more to offer than some of the demonstration sports that are included in the Olympics. There is a train of thought that the GAA does not want to see the international game develop to much as it could mean a loss of control within Ireland.
If the GAA wanted to they could have accommodated the women's sports in its Organization setup a long time ago but as you rightly pointed out they would have need to been a progressive and far thinking organization to do so - was the GAA than in 74? in 2014 it may show that it is in danger of becoming one.
zinny (Wexford) - Posts: 1806 - 16/08/2023 04:34:01
2500710
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "Now you're catching on :)
Exactly my point is it's one of the things that would have to happen. My associated point is that it will be far from straightforward. Could even bring a negative for female players, as per the following hypothetical situation after integration, and assuming the new rules would be modelled on the current GAA rules:
- A girl is living in a place where she joins Club A to play camogie.
- However, Club A doesn't play ladies football, so she joins Club B down the road to play this. At the moment, she's perfectly entitled to do this, as they're two separate memberships of two different organisations. And even after integration, she'd still be entitled to do so, as she'd qualify as an isolated player.
- A few years later, Club A decides to start up ladies football after all. Now she's in a fix, because she can't play two different codes with two different clubs.
- So, she's forced to leave Club B for football, where she's played it all along, and play it with her 'home' Club A instead.
- Would be particularly hard on her if she's a good player (maybe with the county panel) with a strong Club B side in senior/Division 1, who then has to instead line out with her 'home' Club A side who's just starting out in Junior B/Division 4 or 5.
You couldn't have a rule that would allow her to continue to play the different codes with different clubs, as that would involve different membership rules based purely on gender, which more than likely wouldn't stand up to any case brought by an aggrieved male player. And then you'd have a free-for-all, where for instance here in Wexford, somebody could decide he's going to hurl for Taghmon-Camross but play football for St. Anne's.
And that's just a 'short' version of what I said would be a long post if I started getting into details!" It has been said of club in Wexford that has used the GAAs own rules to prevent players from playing with other clubs. A hurling only club at underage putting in a football team so that the players wouldn't join another club for football only, then giving walkovers.
The answer to your problem is simple and should also apply to the GAA, if a player was a member of a football club prior to the club where they live setting up a football club, then they could continue to play with the club in Football only. What's so difficult to solve about that? seems like you are still looking for reasons to be against it.
zinny (Wexford) - Posts: 1806 - 16/08/2023 04:46:10
2500711
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "I don't recall any period of grace for the mandatory helmets rule in hurling. Maybe it was different in camogie? Or unless you mean how it was signalled in advance that it would take effect on a certain date, a few months away? But then once that date came, that was it. Wear a helmet. No exceptions.
And I still don't see any easy way of having a grace period to cover situations like the one we're talking about, for the same reasons at outlined earlier about different membership rules on what men and women are allowed to do in the same organisation. Maybe a good barrister could write that part of the new Rule Book, but it would definitely be beyond the likes of me!" Helmets were made mandatory at underage 1st.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12224 - 16/08/2023 10:08:55
2500725
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Pikeman96: "I don't recall any period of grace for the mandatory helmets rule in hurling. Maybe it was different in camogie? Or unless you mean how it was signalled in advance that it would take effect on a certain date, a few months away? But then once that date came, that was it. Wear a helmet. No exceptions.
And I still don't see any easy way of having a grace period to cover situations like the one we're talking about, for the same reasons at outlined earlier about different membership rules on what men and women are allowed to do in the same organisation. Maybe a good barrister could write that part of the new Rule Book, but it would definitely be beyond the likes of me!" In other words whatever changes are made to Camogies eligibility rules would need to come into effect at u12 as they do currently in the GAA as regards which club you end up playing for. And then in a period of years as lads retire etc eventually it would be the same rule for everyone.
Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 12224 - 16/08/2023 10:12:10
2500726
Link
0
|