NZ Maori 2008 World Cup

[Ari Gold]

I'm glad you put "country of birth" in bold text, it makes you look like a bigger fool. Maori/Aboriginals do not represent a country.

ok, hopefully you will increase my foolishness then,

who do they represent ?

A race of people... but they don't represent a specific nation.

It'll be like a Jewish team taking part in a Union/soccer world cup... so stupid and pointless.

Hell why not invite Indian Fijians, Afro-Americans into our World Cup?

 

[roopy]

I don't know why our WC has to follow the soccer WC etc and just be about 'nations'.

Let's face it, the USA side will be cheered by all if they make it through qualifications, but you will be lucky if a quarter of the team has American accents - while NZ Maori is a side with nearly 100 years of tradition and every player would have family going back generations who have lived and breathed for that tradition. I once read a great article by ozbash on the Ropati family and their tradition in the game - and dozens of Maori families would have that tradition.

I don't think we should be about trying to clone the pathways taken by other sports - we should be about looking to our traditions.

 

[Jackal Dog]

Maybe GB should play NZ Maori as a warm up next year instead of NZ A?

 

[YANTO]

promoted and marketed ?

the promotion and marketing of a serbia v holland pool game to get a paying crowd of over 35 will be interesting.

instead of banning maori or aboriginal team they should ban australia,nz,france and the british teams.

even it up instead of making it the one sided joke its going to be.

Serbia v Holland played in Belgrade in the Euro nations "B" attracted over 1000 crowd and Holland v Georgia attracted over 600.

Not great crowds BUT when second division soccer in Holland in a country that is soccer mad can only get gates of between 1000 and 5000 its an encouraging start.

These gates were on par with some of the crowds for the Euro Nations games played in Ireland,Scotland and Wales.
Georgia attracted nearly 5000 for their clash with Serbia in Tbilissi and 7000 for their game v France.

Anyway if Holland and Serbia do enter and play their pool games it will be in Europe and you sitting down under wont have to worry about any marketing and promotion.
Now if by a miracle one of these countries did make the final ten then all genuine league suppoprters would surley go and watch the minnows WOULD'NT THEY????

Serbia are a real league playing nation but again the vibes are if you dont have a proffesional league then you cant play.
Sounds to me like you should be on the RLIF board and keep the game within the boundries of the proffesional nations.

 

[The Observer]

This is a sad day for Maori RL and for international RL. Carlnz, your crowing over this decision is in poor taste.

From my perspective, that is a good decision. World Cups (in any code) should be about countries and not ethnicities within countries.

So you should demand that only a UK team, and NOT England, Scotland or Wales, take part in the RLWC.

I'm glad you put "country of birth" in bold text, it makes you look like a bigger fool. Maori/Aboriginals do not represent a country.

Acually, you are being foolish here. England, Wales, Scotland or the Island of Ireland don't represent countries (which represents 2 countries). Only a GB team represents a country.

 

[Fairleigh Good!]

This is a sad day for Maori RL and for international RL. Carlnz, your crowing over this decision is in poor taste.



So you should demand that only a UK team, and NOT England, Scotland or Wales, take part in the RLWC.



[/b]Acually, you are being foolish here. England, Wales, Scotland or the Island of Ireland don't represent countries (which represents 2 countries). Only a GB team represents a country.

What are you going on about?

 

[The Observer]

Fairleigh Good, what I've said before and should clarify now is that everyone is claiming that teams entering an RLWC should representcountries or nations.

If we are going to be strict anout that definition, then the RLWC teams should each represent politically independent, autonomous, sovereign nation-states. E.g. you find 192 autonomous states in the United Nations - the UK is one, England is not. The Roos, Kiwis, Chanticleers represent such entities in Aus, NZ, France.

A team representing the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) would fit that definition. Teams representing England, Wales, Scotland wouldn't. The principality of Wales has less autonomy within the UK than the state of NSW does within the Commonwealth of Australia, and noone is claiming NSW should be in RLWC.

In the Olympics, the biggest sporting comp in the world, Great Britain has taken part for decades. England does NOT take part.

In Union and League, the Home Nations have a special dispensation that other groups (like the Maori) don't get because of their long history in the game and the fact they are powerbrokers. That's a double standard.

If the HN want into an RLWC, great. Let the Maori in too.

 

[Evil Homer]

Good news.

If those players were good enough they'd be in the New Zealand team,so its effectively a NZ 'a' team.

It'd be horribly unfair if they took the place of an actual country that has potential within the game.By all means they could play a series against the Aboriginals but they should never be in a World Cup.

England,Ireland,Scotland and Wales are independant countries,at least in my view.They all have capitals,flags etc.What's the capital of Maoriland?

 

[girvie]

I think it would be great for New Zealand Maori to take on Australian Aboriginals in the curtain raiser to the World Cup final.

 

[screeny]

Agree with the general sentiment of relief that the Maori won't be included. Honestly, I cannot believe the few posters on here who actually believe they should be given a go.

Observer, when Fifa demands GB plays instead of England, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, then come back and talk to us, until then we're ok.

Football, like RL, benefits from the HNs playing, but will RL benefit from the Maori taking the place of another nation? No way.

Ozbash, what are you on about?! Jesus wept...'one sided crap'....who do you mean, NZ will wipe the floor with everyone so it's pointless playing?

Oh, by the way, here's a lock for you: in the 2006 Fifa WC Brazil are AS CERTAIN WINNERS AS CAN BE, in a sport where territory doesn't necessarily equal points, and where the scoring system is much more draw-friendly than RL (or RU).

Shouldn't we play the 2006 Fifa WC?

As Copa says, don't buy a ticket, don't watch, and even better, stop talking about it.

 

[iggy plop]

Great decision, no need for non-countries in this tournament.

 

[carlnz]

This is a sad day for Maori RL and for international RL. Carlnz, your crowing over this decision is in poor taste.

Its no poor taste, its great news, it means the Rugby League World Cup wont be a joke like 2000. Proper nations with home growen talent and no teams like the Maori!

That was the first time Maori were in the World Cup, so its not like the deserve a place over Fiji or Tonga who have been at the last two..

 

[Humphrey]

This is a sad day for Maori RL and for international RL. Carlnz, your crowing over this decision is in poor taste.



So you should demand that only a UK team, and NOT England, Scotland or Wales, take part in the RLWC.



[/b]Acually, you are being foolish here. England, Wales, Scotland or the Island of Ireland don't represent countries (which represents 2 countries). Only a GB team represents a country.

You are joking right? Your not that big a dick?????

 

[Humphrey]

Its no poor taste, its great news, it means the Rugby League World Cup wont be a joke like 2000. Proper nations with home growen talent and no teams like the Maori!

That was the first time Maori were in the World Cup, so its not like the deserve a place over Fiji or Tonga who have been at the last two..

Couldnt agree more carlnz

 

[AuckMel]

Good news.

If those players were good enough they'd be in the New Zealand team,so its effectively a NZ 'a' team.

But Lebanon, Greece, Italy etc who will be full of born and bred Australians wont be Australia "A" "B" and "C"?

Then of course we'll have, Western Samoa and Tonga who'll be full of Kiwis and Australians too.

 

[screeny]

But Lebanon, Greece, Italy etc who will be full of born and bred Australians wont be Australia "A" "B" and "C"?

Then of course we'll have, Western Samoa and Tonga who'll be full of Kiwis and Australians too.

Well they're countries, the Maori aren't representing a country.

Surely there's no debate, no argument......?!

 

[The Observer]

England,Ireland,Scotland and Wales are independant countries,at least in my view.They all have capitals,flags etc.What's the capital of Maoriland?

NSW and QLD have capitals, flags and state flowers too. They have capitals in Sydney and Brisbane. They have more powers within their countries than the fledgling assemblies in Wales and Scotland. Are they countries? Wales and Scotland may be seeking more autonomy under the process of devolution, but so are the Maori in NZ. Looks like your criteria don't really hold up.

http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/britishisles/

Agree with the general sentiment of relief that the Maori won't be included. Honestly, I cannot believe the few posters on here who actually believe they should be given a go.

Not everybody thinks the same way. Sometimes its necessary to question the assumptions underlying a point of view.

Observer, when Fifa demands GB plays instead of England, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, then come back and talk to us, until then we're ok.

The IOC is a more encompassing body for world sport than FIFA, so if I were to look to any other org for precedent, it would be them and not FIFA. FWIW, FIFA agreed to a Great Britain soccer team taking part in the Olympics. The Scottish FA disagreed.

Why do the HNs deserve special treatment that few other groups get?

Football, like RL, benefits from the HNs playing,

In your opinion. All four Home Nations teams were the subject of scorn after RLWC 2000 for a variety of reasons. In this year'sENC, 80 people watched Wales play Ireland. Willl it help the game if England lose 22-2 and 49-6 again? As I said, I don't have a problem with the HNs taking part in the WC, its fine, but I'd prefer not to be selective and biased towards them either.

but will RL benefit from the Maori taking the place of another nation? No way.

In your opinion. If we're supposed to use the very subjective notion of a team's potential contribution as a criterion for RLWC entry, then we'll struggle to stage an RLWC with 4 nations.

Back to the topic, perhaps you'd like to answer these questions:
1) The West Indies play test, ODI and WC cricket. What nation or country do they represent? Is it OK that a WC team represents 6 countries?

2) Northern Ireland team plays in FIFA competition, and can vy for WC entry. Does Northern Ireland represent a nation or country? Which country are they a part of?

The HN will be in RLWC and the Maori won't, but this is due to politics, misunderstanding and inconsistency in the rules.

 

[AuckMel]

Well they're countries, the Maori aren't representing a country.

Surely there's no debate, no argument......?!

Wales and Scotland aren't countries either. The West Indies isn't a country, but people seem happy enough for them to compete in the CWC.

 

[ozbash]

Well they're countries, the Maori aren't representing a country.-screemy

you try telling that to a maori .
what a load of crap.

 

[AuckMel]

In your opinion. If we're supposed to use the very subjective notion of a team's potential contribution as a criterion for RLWC entry, then we'll struggle to stage an RLWC with 4 nations.

Here is a list of some players who went on to bigger and better things after the 2000 World Cup.

Alex Chan
Wairangi Koopu
Kylie Leuluai
Paul Rauhihi
Clinton Toopi
Paul Whatuira
David Kidwell
Toa Kohe-Love

Clearly no good came out of their involvement in the WC of 2000. :roll: