Guess what: the smaller ruby ball for women is already controversial. 

I was telling you about this last week because World Rugby is spitballing the idea of giving the female rugby players a ball that's about 3% smaller and lighter than the standard ball. 

Because their hands are smaller than male hands, and it would make kicking and passing easier for them. 

Because let's be honest, kicking a rugby ball is ever slightly more difficult for a female rugby player than a male rugby player because she's smaller. So it would simply be balancing that out. 

Well... This is not gone done well with Bonnie in the Herald sports department, who reckons this is a classic case of men sitting around thinking up ideas for women that women don’t actually want. 

And all that this is going to do is give detractors of the women’s game another thing to undermine the game with by basically writing off any record that they might set by saying it doesn’t count because the ball is smaller. Who cares! 

I love it, because it’s true. 

Women are smaller and weaker than men on average, and that is a fact. 

So, if we’re playing with the same size ball, we are having to work harder. 

Cricket accepts this fact, the boundaries are smaller for women. Same with basketball, the ball is smaller. 

Let's be logically consistent about this.

Sporting bodies around the world have just banned transgender women from competing at the international level against biological women because they accept that the male body is bigger, stronger, and faster. 

So, give women a smaller rugby ball. 

If it makes the women’s game faster and better, and that then brings in more viewers... that cannot be a bad thing for women’s rugby, can it?