Why I support smaller balls in women’s game

This week, England back Zoe Harrison called World Rugby’s decision to trial a smaller rugby ball in the women’s game “the worst decision someone has ever made”. I disagree. 

I spent years competing in elite sport with equipment specifically designed for women. Before playing rugby, I was a Commonwealth Games hammer thrower. In athletics, women throw a 4kg shotput compared to 7.26kg for men. The women’s discus is 1kg, the men’s 2kg. Javelin is 600g versus 800g. Nobody questions it. Nobody says women’s athletics is somehow “less than” because the implement is different.

The smaller rugby ball has already been trialled on the international sevens circuit, and now the Red Roses will play with a slightly smaller ball at this year’s WXV tournament, where they will face Canada for the first time since the World Cup final, as well as Australia and New Zealand.

I find the reaction to rugby trialling a size 4.5 ball in the women’s game completely baffling. My question is: how many people arguing against it have actually played with a smaller ball? Because I have, and it makes a difference instantly.

I’m 5ft 10in, more than 100kg and have size 8 feet. I’m not a small woman. Yet I can only comfortably palm a rugby ball one-handed if it’s brand new, perfectly dry and clean, which basically never happens in rugby. If I struggle to manipulate a size 5 ball, there are a huge number of women who will struggle too.

The difference with a size 4.5 is tiny on paper, it’s only about a 3% reduction in size, but in your hands, that difference feels massive. With a smaller ball, you get more control, more grip, more ability to move the ball around contact instead of constantly tucking it under your arm.

I always remember watching Jaz Joyce play Sevens for Team GB at the Tokyo Olympics. She made a break down the wing and the ball looked enormous under her arm. At the time, the debate about making the ball smaller had not started, but I remember thinking: that just looks wrong. The women are adapting to the ball rather than the ball helping unlock their skillset.

That’s the point people are missing. This is not about making the women’s game easier; they don’t need that. It’s about making it better.

I actually think it’s strange that rugby has taken this long to explore it. In many other sports, we accept biological differences between men and women and adapt accordingly. The WNBA uses a smaller basketball than the NBA. In cricket, women play with smaller boundaries. In athletics, we don’t ask women to throw men’s weights because it would be ridiculous. I genuinely cannot imagine a woman throwing a 7.26kg shot competitively. It’s not even a conversation because everyone understands men and women are physically different.

But in rugby, the second you mention changing the ball size, people panic that the game won’t be taken seriously. Why? We constantly say women’s rugby is a different product to the men’s game. Different atmosphere, different culture, different fan experience. We celebrate those differences all the time. So why is the rugby ball suddenly untouchable?

And this idea that “the players” don’t want it is misleading too. The loudest voices are usually the players who have already made it to the very top using a size 5 ball. Of course change feels threatening when you have mastered one skillset already. Harrison is one of the best kickers in the world and a smaller ball changes the dynamics of kicking slightly, so I can understand why she isn’t in favour of the change.

But what about the thousands of girls and women who never make it to that top level? What about the players who might unlock completely new skills with a ball they can manipulate more effectively? I’ve already had players at the top level of rugby message me saying exactly that.

This is also only a trial. That part seems to have been forgotten. World Rugby are testing it in competitions because they want data and feedback. That is what sensible sports do. Why would you not explore ways to improve the game?

And no, I don’t think it’s a slippery slope. I’m not arguing for smaller pitches or lower posts. Those changes would reduce the skill level. A smaller ball is the opposite. It could increase skill execution and speed up the game because players can actually move the ball more freely.

Sometimes progress starts with asking a very simple question: what if there’s a better way of doing things?

Photograph by Catherine Ivill / RFU/The RFU Collection via Getty Images