The easiest thing to do following the embarrassing press conference no-show that followed the Dragons loss to the Knights on Saturday is to blame the RLPA led media boycott.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It's convenient for multiple parties. The NRL and RLPA can continue their respective finger-pointing and suggest it's all the fault of the other, while we in the media can claim it makes it all a bit too hard.
The reality is, the precise scenario that played out following Saturday's NRLW game in Newcastle would very likely have occurred with or without the player boycott.
Anyone who's covered an NRLW regular-season game would tell you the same thing. For those who haven't, heres a logistical insight.
In theory, NRLW post-game media operates the same way as it does following NRL games. Reporters spend the five to 10 minutes after fulltime bashing out 'on the bell copy' - a match report with no follow yet from players or coaches.
There's then a procession of reporters from the on-site media box to where the post-game press conferences are held. The length of that journey varies from venue to venue.
The press conference sees the losing team coach and captain speak to gathered media first, followed by winning coach and captain. For the record, the NRLW conferences are far more expansive and worthwhile than the NRL ones.
Reporters quickly update their game copy with relevant quotes then head to the dressing rooms to speak with players on request. This step used to be fruitful ground for journos, an opportunity for one-on-ones that went into depth beyond the just-played-out-result.
These days, for whatever reason, they're not really worth a great deal. In the case of NRL players, they can either decline to speak at all, while others rush through 'all-in' interviews with cliched answers without much considered thought keen to get out of there as quickly as they can.
It's case by case. Obviously some players remain a post-game goldmine. These are all the things you weigh up as working media when balancing the demands of coverage, deadlines, and the immediate versus the in-depth.
That entire process takes time, and more of it than many would think. In a situation like Saturday where the NRLW game was held as a double-header with an NRL fixture, it's almost halftime in the men's game by the time a reporter gets back to the media box.
You simply can't do both, certainly not well. It's why even local media weren't flocking to the post-NRLW conference in Newcastle either. The NRL match was about to start.
The fact Saturday's game took place in Newcastle with the Knights taking on an out-of-state rival in Melbourne also drastically minimised the size of any traveling media contingent
It's something to be weighed against the obvious benefits of NRLW-NRL double-headers that see a franchise's men's and women' sides play together at the same venue (as the Dragons will do in Wollongong this weekend).
It's obviously good for fans, and there's no reason that shouldn't be a top priority, but it's also ripe for situations like what occurred on Saturday.
The press conference no-show was, in fact, no one's fault. It does illustrate why more thought needs to be given to how the women's game should be scheduled, covered and promoted.
It also illustrates that what works for the men won't necessarily work for the women. There remains a righteous desire to see the men and women treated equally, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be treated the same.
It's true in all aspects of the game, but certainly in terms of media coverage and scheduling.
In what might be music to the ears of Jillaroos star Millie Boyle, who has called fore a more honest and forthright dialogue on issues in women's footy, this year's two-game State of Origin Series didn't reach the heights of preceding years.
The quality, particularly of game one, suffered greatly due to the fact the players had been off the paddock for months following the conclusion of state cup competitions.
That was never going to be conducive to the product at its best (which is very, very good). Likewise, holding the series at the same time as the men's Origin series saw the two games come and go with minimal coverage.
Origin already cannibalises everything else in the game at that time of year, the women's series was never going to get cut-through in that window.
So why play the women's series at that time? Is it simply because that's when the men play? If that's the reason, then it needs a rethink, much like the NRLW season scheduling.
The still-running CBA saga delayed both the NRLW contracting window, and limited scope for when the extended season could be held. Beyond this year, though, it's questionable whether late July is the best time for the NRLW season to start.
It's aimed at the women's grand final being held on the same day as the men's, but is that even the best day for it? Would it not garner more interest and attention as a stand-alone event?
Perhaps the ARLC should consider starting the women's season before the men's. Start it in February in alignment with the state cups and have them filter into the NRLW as a direct pathway.
If the long-term goal is for a season that mirrors the men's, build toward it from the start of the year, not the middle of it. It would certainly make for a more logical transition from club, to NRLW, to Origin and then Test footy.
Perhaps in order to treat the men and women equally, they need to be treated differently. Likewise, should the RLPA have included its female members in the media boycott just as their season was beginning?
The merits of the boycott in general has been a topic of debate - that's the point after all - but are the women well-served by the blackout the same way as their male counterparts?
While it's sparked a PR war on many fronts, the game-day media blackout has next to no material impact on NRL players or their product. It's not the case for the women, who suffer immensely and immediately.
It's a familiar story. With all their existing conditions rolling over from the previous agreement, the men have never been left exposed by the drawn-out CBA saga like the women were heading into this season.
Now with this media boycott, it's the women who are once again actually sacrificing something in their fight, while the men sacrifice nothing other than some PR skin lost in the information war.
Are there other ways in which NRLW players could show solidarity with the RLPA and their male peers that don't have a material impact on the reach of their competition?
To be frank, the NRLW and its players aren't getting any easier to cover, and for a myriad of reasons. Again, it's no one's fault but, given they're still not full-time athletes, female players are more time-poor than their male peers.
Open media opportunities need to be squeezed into already crammed training and preparation schedules, typically outside normal business hours.
The time for in-depth coverage beyond the typical week-to-week stuff is simply difficult to find without infringing on their personal time, something sacred for the men.
Female players are also wedged between football clubs and coaches that traditionally operate with an 'us versus them' mentality when it comes to media and opportunistic player managers talking about their 'brand'.
Again, both are a necessity in the men's game, but applied automatically to the women in the same way and it can become counterproductive. Perhaps that could also use a rethink.
For all the progress occurring in women's rugby league and the NRLW competition, it's continuation requires a lot more forethought, and a lot less afterthought.
Our news app has had a makeover, making it faster and giving you access to even more great content.
Download The Illawarra Mercury news app in the Apple Store and Google Play