NZ Maori 2008 World Cup

[screeny]

I don't want a WC. I believe our code isn't ready for a WC. I'd much rather see a tournament which celebrates our game in a way which nobody else can.

Why do we have to have a WC? Just because everyone else does? To hell with them, lets celebrate our game.

Invite teams from around the world to try and make the final tournament which will involve 10 teams. Market it as the biggest celebration of the game since it's inception and go from there.

IMO it would be bigger than a WC if done correctly and we won't leave ourselves open to ridicule.

I hear you, and don't think that idea of a unique celebration of RL is a bad one. Personally, though, I'm all for the qualifiers-then-proper WC as soon as possoble. RL will benefit as a whole from it (if done correctly).

 

[griff]

I don't want a WC. I believe our code isn't ready for a WC. I'd much rather see a tournament which celebrates our game in a way which nobody else can.

Why do we have to have a WC? Just because everyone else does? To hell with them, lets celebrate our game.

Invite teams from around the world to try and make the final tournament which will involve 10 teams. Market it as the biggest celebration of the game since it's inception and go from there.

IMO it would be bigger than a WC if done correctly and we won't leave ourselves open to ridicule.

Not sure I understand what you are saying. You are saying lets have a competition involving qualifiers and 10 teams making the tournament. A World Cup by any other name...

Why do we have to have a WC, not because everyone else does but because we have had 12 of them since 1954!

 

[ozbash]

its not a true compitition, it is dominated by 3 teams and the rest get caned by the dominant teams.
what good is that to the developement of league ?
we have the tri nations where the 3 (maybe 4 soon with france ) slogging it out to find the best in the world. the world cup will be no different, 3 teams battling at the top, filling the stadium for the finals and completely shadowing out the rest of the teams.


the aussie ethos sees any world cup as something which must be won, another trophy for the cabinet (a little bare this year but thats a different discussion).

for me a world cup should be light weights only, keep the top 3 right out of it so the smaller nations can move forward and develope at their own pace rather than trying to keep up with them.

 

[screeny]

its not a true compitition, it is dominated by 3 teams and the rest get caned by the dominant teams.
what good is that to the developement of league ?
we have the tri nations where the 3 (maybe 4 soon with france ) slogging it out to find the best in the world. the world cup will be no different, 3 teams battling at the top, filling the stadium for the finals and completely shadowing out the rest of the teams.


the aussie ethos sees any world cup as something which must be won, another trophy for the cabinet (a little bare this year but thats a different discussion).

for me a world cup should be light weights only, keep the top 3 right out of it so the smaller nations can move forward and develope at their own pace rather than trying to keep up with them.

With ideas that bad you must be Colin Love! The 'OZ bashing' persona is just a ruse to throw us off the scent.

A WC is a festival, a celebration, a rarity that brings together a collection of nations to play their sport in unique circumstances which, hopefully, generates a lot of enthusiasm for the sport from the punters and sponsors.

If you can't see that then there's no hope for you.

What good is it to the sport? Well, if it makes bundles of dough that's divided up to the lesser nations who will benefit directly. Then there's the increased media attention the sport will get, and the govt attention nations can garner for WC participation. But, why am I explaining this? Have we got so remedia that we have to explain why a WC is a good thing? Jesus......

 

[Big Bunny]

An interesting tale, but one which begs the question: what makes an Aborigine?

Do we really want our incompetent administrators delving into the minefield of racial eligibility?!!

This just proves the point that it's far easier, and more proper, to have everyone represent the nation of Australia.

What you seem to have missed is the fact that the subject has nothing to do with race and everything to do with perception. An Aboriginal nation of Australia would not be one based on race. Anyone with ties to the nation is eligible, quite simply the eligibility rules would be no different to those in operation for gaijin in Japan. The subject is hardly a minefield when all that's required is either aboriginality or acceptance by an indigenous community and that's at least easier to prove than trying to hunt up a Scottish grandparents details.

A team representing more than just one nation, involving reps from a number of indigenous tribes and nations would again have nothing to do with race, as mainland, Tasmanian and T.I peoples are 3 distinct races with a multitude of cultures.

I'm not arguing for an Aboriginal team at the WC, but against the reality where people on this forum seem only concerned with what other people think because it's "far easier and more proper." Dismissing a nation just because it doesn't fit with your own santized views is more than a tad silly. It all comes down in the end to nothing more than money and what's in the best commercial interests of the game, regardless of what's actually right or wrong morally.

 

[screeny]

What you seem to have missed is the fact that the subject has nothing to do with race and everything to do with perception. An Aboriginal nation of Australia would not be one based on race. Anyone with ties to the nation is eligible, quite simply the eligibility rules would be no different to those in operation for gaijin in Japan. The subject is hardly a minefield when all that's required is either aboriginality or acceptance by an indigenous community and that's at least easier to prove than trying to hunt up a Scottish grandparents details.

A team representing more than just one nation, involving reps from a number of indigenous tribes and nations would again have nothing to do with race, as mainland, Tasmanian and T.I peoples are 3 distinct races with a multitude of cultures.

I'm not arguing for an Aboriginal team at the WC, but against the reality where people on this forum seem only concerned with what other people think because it's "far easier and more proper." Dismissing a nation just because it doesn't fit with your own santized views is more than a tad silly. It all comes down in the end to nothing more than money and what's in the best commercial interests of the game, regardless of what's actually right or wrong morally.

'Maori' and 'Aborigine' aren't perceptions, though, they're hard and fast ethnicities, regardless of a multitude of tribes or cultures.

Different Aboriginal tribes are still Aboriginal peoples, just as different Celtic or Pict tribes are still Celts and Picts.

The fact remains that an Aboriginal team, however stocked, whether through Aboriginal people or those "accepted, as you say, as part of the Aboriginal nation would be chosen from within the confines of Australia.

"Hunting" a Scottish GP is hardly difficult - you've either got one or you haven't.

YOu say:

"Dismissing a nation just because it doesn't fit with your own santized views is more than a tad silly."

I'm not dismissing any claims on 'nationhood', I'm dismissing ethnic, indigenous groups participating in a RL WC finals.

Agree with your last sentence.

 

[The Observer]

Observer, <snipped FIFA observation, HNs comments>

Your observations are astute, and the last line that the HN's want to maintain a presence in FIFA competition due to money, power and history is true.

Its beside the point though. If you want to exclude the Maori, then you should exclude the HN.

I absolutely disagree with that! What are you saying, that only four nations can have any positives coming out of a WC??!

You have stated that teams should only be in the RLWC if they provide serious, viable competition for the title. Only Australia, NZ, France and GB/England (possibly in the case of GB) will provide that. I'm taking your comments to their (absurd) conclusion.

1. The cricket authorities believe that a federation team offers their sport a serious, viable int'l competitor which would not be the case with individual island nations.

The Windies cricket team is a huge part of that sport's int'l programme.

OK, this team represent a group of disparate, sovereign nation states, as do the RL Lions BTW. Whether they are a serious, viable competitor is secondary. If you insist the Maori can't enter RLWC because they represent only a minority within a country, and not one country itself, then you can't allow a team representing multiple. That is hypocritical.

The Maori do not offer RL any serious salvation - it's not as though they provide the sport at the moment with a real int'l drawcard.

Neither do GB ATM, whom the Maori beat and ran close on the last two occasions BTW. Again, this is besides the point.[/quote]

2. NI is independent in football because, I presume without doing any research, the other HNs are independent and the N. Irish FA wanted to control its own patch. Again, I'm sure money and power have a lot to do with it.

According to your rationale, NI isn't a country and shouldn't participate. The Windies and NI provide two strong precedents for RL (even though RL shouldn't need such precedents).

 

[The Observer]

No, the Maori only got to NZ in about 1200 AD.

My mistake, the 9000 year figure is the estimate of presence of Polynesians in Oceania.

So if you say that they deserve a chance to qualify for the RLWC by virtue of their length of time they lived in NZ and the fact they are an ethnic minority, do you think Yorkshiremen should also qualify? Yorkshiremen have been living in England for longer than Maoris have been living in NZ.

Let me clarify - the criteria I suggest were status as first people of a land and ethnic minority. The length of time was an added example, but part of that criterion.

And the point you aren't recognising about Wales or Scotland or the West Indies is that they are all countries or groups of countries - they are all geographic areas. Maori on the other hand is an ethnic concept.

I specified my interpretation of the political status of the HN in my original post. If you insist the Maori can't enter RLWC because they represent only a minority within a country, and not one country itself, then you can't then support allow a team representing multiple countries. That is inconsistent and selective.

Griff, you've made these arguments before, and your stance opposing the Maori's entry to RLWC is based on following the established view rather than consistently applying a clear principle.

 

[The Observer]

What are you going on about,

As I've said several times in this thread, I'm talking about consistency in letting teams attempt to qualify for RLWC. If a team is supposed to represent a country to gain entry, then it should represent an autonomous, politically independent, sovereign nation-state. Wales could fail that requirement.

As I've also said, I think both Wales and Aotearoa Maori should be allowed to attempt to qualify for RLWC if they wish.

have you ever done history?

Yes.

Wales is millenia's old

OK.

with its own language,

So do the Maori.

own territory, own capital,

The Act of Union ceded it to the British Crown, but you seek further autonomy within the UK as the Maori do within NZ.

The Maori have their own territory too.

identity,

as the Maori do.

own flag

as the Maori do.

and peoples.

as the Maori did.

We have fought for our independance for thousands of years.

Yes, and the Maori fought for independence from the British since they invaded. Gave them a bollocking too until the hustle of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Just because our larger neighbours decided THEY want everyone under the same flag doesn't mean the Welsh want to.

The Welsh have their own sporting teams by right.[/quote]

The Welsh have their own sporting teams because they want them. As the Maori do. I respect Wales right to participate in international competition, in RLWCs. I've travelled through Wales and its a great country.

Last time I checked NSW had a history spanning 1 side of A4 paper with no traditions of its own and no culture apart from that borrowed from your English mother country.

Shouldn't that be "our" English mother country? ;op

The Maori shouldn't be allowed their own team, if they do should there also be a Norse RL, Celtic RL, Viking RL, Saxon RL, Pict RL...etc...etc

Just because our larger neighbours decided THEY want everyone under the same flag doesn't mean the Welsh want to.

One rule for you and one for everyone else?

 

[Paul Condon]

Being Maori myself the big problem I have is this. Who would I support at the RLWC? I would like to focus on our best chance which is the Kiwis. Not having a strong allegiance to just one team in the world cup does not make sense to me.

I still like the World Sevens idea with a the ability for Maori and Aboriginal teams to play as well other less known teams who qualify via tournaments.

In closing, I think the 10 that make it will have a great time as will their supporters whether its a country happy to qualify or compete well or one of the big 3 after the prize.

 

[Evil Homer]

Say what?

These blokes will be excluded from the WC all because they don't have a grandparent with a foreign background. That's a clear disadvantage to them.

Nice way to conveniently ignore the rest of my post...

A chinese player would be excluded from the WC because they don't have grandparents from an RL playing country.This is much more unfair than the Maoris,who can still play for the country of their birth anyway and would if they were selected...Allowing them in would just be allowing a second-string NZ team into the World Cup!

 

[AuckMel]

Nice way to conveniently ignore the rest of my post...

I didn't ignore it.

A chinese player would be excluded from the WC because they don't have grandparents from an RL playing country.

If they can get a team together, let them attempt to qualify.

This is much more unfair than the Maoris,who can still play for the country of their birth anyway and would if they were selected...Allowing them in would just be allowing a second-string NZ team into the World Cup!

Well, they wouldn't be the only country with two teams in it.

 

[AuckMel]

I hear you, and don't think that idea of a unique celebration of RL is a bad one. Personally, though, I'm all for the qualifiers-then-proper WC as soon as possoble. RL will benefit as a whole from it (if done correctly).

I'm hearing you, I just think that time is, 20 or more years away.

In 2005 we still have the ridiculous situation where New Zealand can't put out their strongest team in every single game they play.

I think we have bigger issues to solve first before we attempt to take on the world.

 

[AuckMel]

Not sure I understand what you are saying. You are saying lets have a competition involving qualifiers and 10 teams making the tournament. A World Cup by any other name...

It is, only it embraces more teams and more players.

Why do we have to have a WC, not because everyone else does but because we have had 12 of them since 1954!

Yes, and each year it gets casts further and further down the pecking order.

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,17485500-39115,00.html

The latest complaint from the clubs.

 

[ozbash]

With ideas that bad you must be Colin Love! The 'OZ bashing' persona is just a ruse to throw us off the scent.

A WC is a festival, a celebration, a rarity that brings together a collection of nations to play their sport in unique circumstances which, hopefully, generates a lot of enthusiasm for the sport from the punters and sponsors.

If you can't see that then there's no hope for you.

What good is it to the sport? Well, if it makes bundles of dough that's divided up to the lesser nations who will benefit directly. Then there's the increased media attention the sport will get, and the govt attention nations can garner for WC participation. But, why am I explaining this? Have we got so remedia that we have to explain why a WC is a good thing? Jesus......

and there you have it. the most important thing about the w/cup is making a bundle of dough ?
your WC may be a festival, happening, whatever the f**k you want to call it but at the end of the day its just another aussie bussiness venture.

to hell with promoting the game, you want to promote gate sales.

with an attitude like that i can see league being competitive in only about 4-5 countries by 2010.

the rest will be playing union.

or soccer :roll:

 

[Razor]

There shouldn't be race sides in the World Cup. If you have a NZ Maori side why not have an Aussie Aboriginal side, an Aussie Asian side, and an Aussie Caucasian side?

Just because the Maoris will beat some of the lesser nations means nothing. Ethnic teams from the top countries in all sports will beat the lesser sides in the sports World Cups. But you don't see soccer or Union having race sides.

 

[screeny]

and there you have it. the most important thing about the w/cup is making a bundle of dough ?
your WC may be a festival, happening, whatever the f**k you want to call it but at the end of the day its just another aussie bussiness venture.

to hell with promoting the game, you want to promote gate sales.

with an attitude like that i can see league being competitive in only about 4-5 countries by 2010.

the rest will be playing union.

or soccer :roll:

That's right, promoting the game and developing the sport have nothing to do with finances - now I see that. You've been hitting PW's dream pipe.

By ensuring we promote a 'WC' without the three best nations in the world we also ensure we lose bundles of money and go bankrupt. Forget Colin Love, you must be [insert name of NZRU boss here who I can't be bothered to look up].

 

[screeny]

It is, only it embraces more teams and more players.

....and loses bundles of cash, thereby dismantling any notions of global development investment for years - or perhaps for ever.

At some stage we've got to trust the work of professionals in the field, in the case John Quayle's consultancy firm, whose job it is to make the tournament feasible, and that means making the tournament as profitable as possible.

I find it hard to view the most profitable 2008 WC as anything but the best result for RL as a whole, and Quayle's company has suggested that a 10-team WC is the best compromise between profit and genuine world competition. I'm happy with that.

 

[screeny]

Your observations are astute, and the last line that the HN's want to maintain a presence in FIFA competition due to money, power and history is true.

Its beside the point though. If you want to exclude the Maori, then you should exclude the HN.

No you shouldn't. The 'Maori' are a people, Wales is a geographical area with a history of competing in sporting events as long as sporting events themselves.

You have stated that teams should only be in the RLWC if they provide serious, viable competition for the title. Only Australia, NZ, France and GB/England (possibly in the case of GB) will provide that. I'm taking your comments to their (absurd) conclusion.

No I haven't. I have stated teams be allowed if they provide something positive to the tournament and to the sport. If the Maori are included ahead of another national side I think the game will suffer for it for one of the many reasons I and others have listed. You think otherwise, and I presume that the sport will benefit as a whole because of the Maori's inclusion, whihc is your right. I just don't see it.

OK, this team represent a group of disparate, sovereign nation states, as do the RL Lions BTW. Whether they are a serious, viable competitor is secondary. If you insist the Maori can't enter RLWC because they represent only a minority within a country, and not one country itself, then you can't allow a team representing multiple. That is hypocritical.

It's not secondary to ICB. To the ICB the Windies represents a major part of its top level int'l programme. If the NZ Maori RL team represented a surefire way for RL to make money and become a more credible int'l sport I'd be in wholehearted support for their WC entry. But they don't.

Barring an ethnic team would only be hypocritical if I was suggesting allowing another ethnic team - i.e. the Scottish Picts - to qualify. I'm not.

Neither do GB ATM, whom the Maori beat and ran close on the last two occasions BTW. Again, this is besides the point.

Comparing Maori as a credible int'l RL drawcard with England or GB is just very, very silly.

According to your rationale, NI isn't a country and shouldn't participate. The Windies and NI provide two strong precedents for RL (even though RL shouldn't need such precedents).

The WIndies in cricket isn't at all the same as the Maori in RL and you know it (I hope). Like I said before, NI only exists due to the existence of the other HNs and in this specific case it is, I assume, all to do with cash, jobs, livelihoods and opportunity.

 

[griff]

I specified my interpretation of the political status of the HN in my original post. If you insist the Maori can't enter RLWC because they represent only a minority within a country, and not one country itself, then you can't then support allow a team representing multiple countries. That is inconsistent and selective.

Griff, you've made these arguments before, and your stance opposing the Maori's entry to RLWC is based on following the established view rather than consistently applying a clear principle.

It is about following the established view but I think the principle is clear as well. It is the established view that England, Wales etc are countries even though admittedly they are not sovereign nation-states.

I don't see that it is inconsistent that teams representing one or more countries appear at the world cup but a team representing an ethnic group does not.

Anyway I agree with the point mentioned earlier, if it was in international RL's best interests for the Maori to be at the WC then I would support it to the hilt. It is not, so I don't.