Rooney Rule Take Two

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schoolreport/31907241

being a short fella, who's over 40, can I perhaps ask for a Rooney rule?

Before anyone makes any sexist comments, just a warning - anybody who does will be banned

I don't really see the major problem with it, we all know most clubs have someone lined up already (ie Sunderland) when they get rid of a manager so having an extra interview isn't going to make much of a difference BUT it could help chairmen etc see things in a different light.

Just as well Hampo wrote that before I penned my originally misogynistic comments :Do

On a serious note, women are woefully underrepresented in the management of men's sports, not just Footie. Not sure why, as you don't even need to have been a particularly good player to make it as a coach.
On a similar rugby thread, biltong made what I thought was a valid point about needing a coach who could throw in a hoo raa, and really ramp up the intensity, and not thinking a woman could do that convincingly (keeping in mind that Biltong is a 6 foot plenty Afrikaans boy). Makes sense because a rugby coach's job is really more or less head cheerleader (plus making subs) for eighty minutes. Captain chooses when to kick, any changes in style or tactic is done on the fly. Football coaching isn't quite there, and I'd think a woman with a good head on her shoulders should get a chance.

Rooney rule probably won't help though

Derbymanc wrote:I don't really see the major problem with it, we all know most clubs have someone lined up already (ie Sunderland) when they get rid of a manager so having an extra interview isn't going to make much of a difference BUT it could help chairmen etc see things in a different light.

I suppose whilst they may not get the manager's job, if they make a good impression they could be kept in line for a future coaching position.

On another note, why is Football always singled out for this issue. I understand that there's a higher proportion of Black and Ethnic minority players than in other sports, but I don't see any of the other major sports in Britain like Cricket and Rugby being put under the microscope for this issue.

not this rubbish again! theres not a underrepresentation of women managers there is simply a shortage of qualified coaches with the needed experience.

work at a sports facility where the second/third tier womens game play and to stay the standard is sunday league would be a compliment. and even then the majority of the coaches are men. so are we just supposed to pluck these non existent women with no back ground of any footballing ability and give them a interview over a guy with great experience in both playing and managing.

positive discrimination is still discrimination!

But it doesnt have to mean someone "better" isnt interviewed, its merely that someone under represented gets their foot in the door

compelling and rich wrote:not this rubbish again! theres not a underrepresentation of women managers there is simply a shortage of qualified coaches with the needed experience.

work at a sports facility where the second/third tier womens game play and to stay the standard is sunday league would be a compliment. and even then the majority of the coaches are men. so are we just supposed to pluck these non existent women with no back ground of any footballing ability and give them a interview over a guy with great experience in both playing and managing.

positive discrimination is still discrimination!

Hear, hear!

Here's to appointment by merit!

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:But it doesnt have to mean someone "better" isnt interviewed, its merely that someone under represented gets their foot in the door

whats the point if there not good enough for the job? load of wasting peoples time to be politically correct

How do you know they're not good enough if they don't get a chance?

That ^ Not that middle aged white men would know too much about the problems of discrimination

hampo171 wrote:How do you know they're not good enough if they don't get a chance?

The lady in the article explains why they are not good enough.

"At the end of the day, there aren't a lot of female coaches that have the top-level licence [...]"

Maybe they feel discouraged by a system that has no desire for them to reach certain levels

Then that is completely their own fault.

So the fact there is no encouragement for either women or coloured players to go in to the coaching side is their own fault? Makes perfect sense now.

Coloured, Hampo...really?

If we were to take Dolph's idea that female coaches don't take the top level license of coaching because they are discouraged by the system, then yes it is their own fault if they choose not to better themselves.

It isn't, of course, their own fault that encouragement from the system is lacking.

Just because the system may be against you doesn't mean you should meekly surrender - otherwise, things would never change.

I really don't see the problem with it (and I hate positive discrimination) all it's saying is to give someone an interview. As someone else pointed out, they might make a point that hasn't been said before or be someone for the future, the club then gets the choice to appoint them to a learning position and both sides benefit.

Would have an issue if i said women (or anyone for that matter) had to be given a job but it ain't that.

Literally nothing to lose. You lose nothing by encouraging people to improve. But some people will moan because they don't understand being held down by an oppressed system anyway

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Literally nothing to lose. You lose nothing by encouraging people to improve. But some people will moan because they don't understand being held down by an oppressed system anyway

Exactly, Dolph.

As a gay person in society, I have never once been discriminated or abused on account of my sexuality. (sarcasm!)

I could say a lot worse, few of my "coloured" friends actually prefer that term so get off your high horse, you're just looking daft.

If implemented correctly this will see more coaches from different back grounds, is that a bad thing? Certainly not. It's fine saying you shouldn't meekly surrender but when the cost of the course in this country is so astronomical, and the chance of getting a job at the end is practically zero of course they're going to chose not to proceed with the training.

Derbymanc wrote:I really don't see the problem with it (and I hate positive discrimination) all it's saying is to give someone an interview. As someone else pointed out, they might make a point that hasn't been said before or be someone for the future, the club then gets the choice to appoint them to a learning position and both sides benefit.

Would have an issue if i said women (or anyone for that matter) had to be given a job but it ain't that.

I think what is rather unpleasant is that it will start with token interviews before evolving into something more.

Token interviews won't solve the perceived problem of enough women, in this instance, getting coaching roles, so it is natural to assume that - if the scheme is implemented - it will morph into something greater over the course of time.

hampo171 wrote:I could say a lot worse, few of my "coloured" friends actually prefer that term so get off your high horse, you're just looking daft.

If implemented correctly this will see more coaches from different back grounds, is that a bad thing? Certainly not. It's fine saying you shouldn't meekly surrender but when the cost of the course in this country is so astronomical, and the chance of getting a job at the end is practically zero of course they're going to chose not to proceed with the training.

But is it a good thing? Certainly not.

Why isn't it a good thing? More people doing a coaching course than before is obviously a good thing, not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

There's no proof of that at all and it's just a lazy way of saying lets not do it. For info there's no way in this world there'll ever be able to pass a law that says a football manager has to be of certain ethnicity/gender etc. Not gonna happen

hampo171 wrote:Why isn't it a good thing? More people doing a coaching course than before is obviously a good thing, not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

Purposely striving to have more coaches from different backgrounds isn't a good thing, though. It will inevitably lead to a decline in standards.

Derbymanc wrote:There's no proof of that at all and it's just a lazy way of saying lets not do it. For info there's no way in this world there'll ever be able to pass a law that says a football manager has to be of certain ethnicity/gender etc. Not gonna happen

Oh I don't think that would happen, but we could perhaps have a descent into the murky field of quotas for clubs in football, similar to politics (in some instances).

Football doesn't work like that, if you don't make the standard then you get sacked.

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Literally nothing to lose. You lose nothing by encouraging people to improve. But some people will moan because they don't understand being held down by an oppressed system anyway

Exactly, Dolph.

As a gay person in society, I have never once been discriminated or abused on account of my sexuality. (sarcasm!)

But it isnt something so outwardly obvious, is it? People don't look at you differently in the street or even in a job interview. Unless you paint "I LIKE man sausage" on your head

Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

Duty281 wrote:

hampo171 wrote:Why isn't it a good thing? More people doing a coaching course than before is obviously a good thing, not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

Purposely striving to have more coaches from different backgrounds isn't a good thing, though. It will inevitably lead to a decline in standards.

How? That seems endemically racist to me. Because having more people from other background would affect the quite sterling white males who are the shrine of the top tier?

So having more coaches will lead to a decline in standards? More coaches taking the course can only be a good thing, and is highly unlikely to make standards drop as you state. You don't make the grade you don't pass the course for a start.

Often I think people are so blinkered about these ideas that they focus on solely the premier league, this would impact every level of football and by doing so is only going to help.

I'll take something from Wikipedia and see how it goes

Impact[edit]
Since the Rooney Rule was established, several NFL franchises have hired African American head coaches, including the Steelers themselves, who hired Mike Tomlin before their 2007 season[5] (The Steelers, however, had already interviewed Ron Rivera who is a Hispanic minority to fulfill the requirement before interviewing Tomlin, and Rooney himself contends that Tomlin's hiring did not result from the Rule).[6] At the start of the 2006 season, the overall percentage of African American coaches had jumped to 22%, up from 6% prior to the Rooney Rule.[7]

Alas, none of these people had to be hired. Yet suddenly, with more interviews, more were hired.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

Noones being given a job based on anything though Hammer, it's just stating they should be given an interview. Really don't see the problem (If they were demanding jobs then I'd understand)

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hampo171 wrote:Why isn't it a good thing? More people doing a coaching course than before is obviously a good thing, not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

Purposely striving to have more coaches from different backgrounds isn't a good thing, though. It will inevitably lead to a decline in standards.

How? That seems endemically racist to me. Because having more people from other background would affect the quite sterling white males who are the shrine of the top tier?

How on earth does it sound racist?!! No more racist than positive discrimination.

If the English Premier League had twenty black managers, all appointed by merit, then it would be far better than having ten white managers and ten black managers appointed to fit around a quota system.

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hampo171 wrote:Why isn't it a good thing? More people doing a coaching course than before is obviously a good thing, not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

Purposely striving to have more coaches from different backgrounds isn't a good thing, though. It will inevitably lead to a decline in standards.

How? That seems endemically racist to me. Because having more people from other background would affect the quite sterling white males who are the shrine of the top tier?

How on earth does it sound racist?!! No more racist than positive discrimination.

If the English Premier League had twenty black managers, all appointed by merit, then it would be far better than having ten white managers and ten black managers appointed to fit around a quota system.

You don't think saying "Purposely striving to have more coaches from different backgrounds isn't a good thing, though. It will inevitably lead to a decline in standards." Could be deemed as racist? It's basically saying having more black managers will lower standards.

Derbymanc wrote:Football doesn't work like that, if you don't make the standard then you get sacked.

Well I would hope so.

But I would hope for the same thing in politics in this country, and that doesn't always conform to the sensible ideal of merit taking the greatest precedent.

I think part of the problem is highlighted by Haaselbaink at Burton, he's doing a brilliant job thus far but the media are setting him up for a fall by placing so much emphasise on it. The same happened with Paul Ince at whatever club it was, the media should look past the fact he's black and give Burton the column inches they would usually receive which is very little. Let him progress outside the eye of the media.

I'd argue that Hasselbaink's getting so much attention due to his standing as a player, not his race.

hampo171 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hampo171 wrote:Why isn't it a good thing? More people doing a coaching course than before is obviously a good thing, not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

Purposely striving to have more coaches from different backgrounds isn't a good thing, though. It will inevitably lead to a decline in standards.

How? That seems endemically racist to me. Because having more people from other background would affect the quite sterling white males who are the shrine of the top tier?

How on earth does it sound racist?!! No more racist than positive discrimination.

If the English Premier League had twenty black managers, all appointed by merit, then it would be far better than having ten white managers and ten black managers appointed to fit around a quota system.

You don't think saying "Purposely striving to have more coaches from different backgrounds isn't a good thing, though. It will inevitably lead to a decline in standards." Could be deemed as racist? It's basically saying having more black managers will lower standards.

If you purposely strive to select coaches from a wide-range of backgrounds, then you move away from appointment by merit, thus leading to a decline in standards.

Duty281 wrote:

hampo171 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hampo171 wrote:Why isn't it a good thing? More people doing a coaching course than before is obviously a good thing, not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

Purposely striving to have more coaches from different backgrounds isn't a good thing, though. It will inevitably lead to a decline in standards.

How? That seems endemically racist to me. Because having more people from other background would affect the quite sterling white males who are the shrine of the top tier?

How on earth does it sound racist?!! No more racist than positive discrimination.

If the English Premier League had twenty black managers, all appointed by merit, then it would be far better than having ten white managers and ten black managers appointed to fit around a quota system.

You don't think saying "Purposely striving to have more coaches from different backgrounds isn't a good thing, though. It will inevitably lead to a decline in standards." Could be deemed as racist? It's basically saying having more black managers will lower standards.

If you purposely strive to select coaches from a wide-range of backgrounds, then you move away from appointment by merit, thus leading to a decline in standards.

No you don't, you merely give people a chance to be interviewed, by giving them a chance to be interviewed you hear a different point of view. Not one person is saying they have to be given a job, you're just taking it that way based on no evidence at all.

Teams can still hire who they think is best for the position, if you think otherwise you don't understand the concept.

hampo171 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hampo171 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

hampo171 wrote:Why isn't it a good thing? More people doing a coaching course than before is obviously a good thing, not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

Purposely striving to have more coaches from different backgrounds isn't a good thing, though. It will inevitably lead to a decline in standards.

How? That seems endemically racist to me. Because having more people from other background would affect the quite sterling white males who are the shrine of the top tier?

How on earth does it sound racist?!! No more racist than positive discrimination.

If the English Premier League had twenty black managers, all appointed by merit, then it would be far better than having ten white managers and ten black managers appointed to fit around a quota system.

You don't think saying "Purposely striving to have more coaches from different backgrounds isn't a good thing, though. It will inevitably lead to a decline in standards." Could be deemed as racist? It's basically saying having more black managers will lower standards.

If you purposely strive to select coaches from a wide-range of backgrounds, then you move away from appointment by merit, thus leading to a decline in standards.

No you don't, you merely give people a chance to be interviewed, by giving them a chance to be interviewed you hear a different point of view. Not one person is saying they have to be given a job, you're just taking it that way based on no evidence at all.

Teams can still hire who they think is best for the position, if you think otherwise you don't understand the concept.

Yes, teams can still hire who they think is best, but for how long? This is, potentially, the start of a slippery slope.

It will never happen due to the legality of it. You can't tell a business who it hires, that is down to the company at the end of the day. If that was going to happen it would have happened in the NFL already and it hasn't. From memory there were four head coaches jobs available, they were all taken by white coaches I believe.

No it's not, if it was employed here then it has to be employed to every league.

Its actually not worth debating because the answers against it are so flawed

Any company or organisation should be free to interview whoever they want and shouldn't be restricted to any quota.

In an ideal world. But we aint in one of those

Enforcing quota's makes it an an even more un-ideal world though Dolph, too much time, money and effort gets put into something which is rather meaningless.

How it is more un-ideal? I'd say its because the system is dirty and full of bigots and old boys clubs

Not that any particular time, money or effort would be either wasted nor are they commodities the FA and English football are lacking

I'd say that is a load of old BS, at which point you'll reply that 'your head is in the sand', it carries on back and forth when in fact there are bigger problems with society to worry about instead of what colour skin the manager of Doncaster Rovers has.

In what respect is it bull?