# Gender Ratio question

7 posts / 0 new
By Les
#1

I have a question on how the ratio rule is exercised on the field and I am hoping someone can clarify things. My understanding of the rule is that at the beginning of the game, the two teams decide which side of the field determines the gender ratio on the pull. My understanding is that the team that decides the gender ratio, the other team must match. So if Team A is deciding that the gender ratio is 4 M/3 F, Team B must play that same ratio. If Team A is deciding that the gender ratio is 3 M/4 F, Team B must play that same ratio.

My question is this: if Team A decides to play 4 M/3 F, can Team B decide play 3 M/ 4 F? Thanks for your help!

If it's the Gender choosing side. The ratio MUST match. IMO, if its not the gender choosing side and team A uses the 4f3m ratio, team B has the option to choose to match or not. I dont think its unspirited to not match on the nongender choosing side. However, team A may be want to play their females more so that is totally acceptable

If the team on the choosing side is 3f/4m and the other team lines up 4f/3m, then they have not matched and it seems to me that are in violation of the rule.

I see your point there Chris. But I think the goal of the gender ratio rule is to promote more opportunities for ladies to play more. In the past, it was infrequent to run 4F:3m unless you only have 3 guys or savage and want to give the guys a break. On my teams, even though the choosing side team decided to roll 3f:4m, we wanted to give the ladies on my team more opportunity to play more. We even told the other team that they did not need to match as they were the choosing side.

Its not a perfect rule as we can see based on the 3 comments and interpretations. It is the first time the VUL is promoting such a rule. So I suspect based on the leagues experience, the VUL may provide additional clarity in subsequent seasons

The rule in question is a new international standard, and it appears in almost identical form in the VUL, WFDF and CUC rules manuals. In all cases, the wording of the rule is *unambiguous*: the team in the ratio-determining endzone determines the ratio and the opposing team *must* match. There are no allowances made for a team that wants to"give their ladies more opportunity to play." As altruistic as that motivation may at first seem, consider the moral implications of making formal such allowances. There is good reason for which no such exceptions are formally codified.

To deviate from the prescribed rule, you would need to invoke the Captain's Clause. But before doing so, both captains should be sure to fully consider the moral statements they may be unconsciously making about their athletes, and it must not be taken lightly.

Gultimate is correct in understanding our intention. The whole point of the new rule is to increase the number of women playing, and move towards more gender parity overall in our coed leagues. The point is not to have strict exact gender matches all of the time, at least not yet. The process of moving to more gender parity won't be an even one: some teams will have more women on their rosters before others do. We'd be going backwards if we didn't allow a team to play 4W if they had lots of women on their team, even when the other team chooses to play 4M.

So a team could play 4W the whole game if they wish. On points where they choose the gender ratio, the other team would need to match.

We'll be updating the Rules page to clarify this point after we figure out suitable wording.

I think you should reconsider rewriting the rule, Craig. Some things are best left to the Captain's Clause and I think this is one of them; codifying such an exception is a moral minefield.