RLWC2007 plus international news

[screeny]

You just can't have Maori or Aboriginal teams in a World Cup, you just can't.

And Kurt, I disagree about the lebanese having more rights to be in a WC than the likes of Samoa and Tonga. Those countries try their arse off too. The NRL clubs should be criticised for refusing to release players for any Pacific Cup type comps.

I reckon we having qualifiers and either 8 or 10-teams to reduce cost.

 

[YANTO]

Joker
I think this has been questioned before BUT SCOTLAND,WALES,ENGLAND and IRELAND are COUNTRIES in their own right,own goverments,own anthems,own flags,own language even and in the case of Northern Ireland and Scotland their own currency.

QLD and NSW are STATES of Australia just like Teaxas,Oklahoma etc are States of America.

The four COUNTRIES mentioned are part of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and also part of the United Kingdom which includes the likes of Isle of Man (own goverment and currency) Isle of Wight etc etc.

The only think that ties them together is they all have the same Monarch (Queen Elizabeth 2nd) as does Canada,New Zealand the rest of the British Commenwealth including (dare I say it) Australia.

The most stringent sporting criteria for nations is FIFA (who control the soccer) and they RECOGNISE England,Scotland,Ireland and Wales as seperate countries as do EUFA and the IRB.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland compete under a united banner at the Olympics but that is the personel choice of the GB&NI Olympic Committee.

Infact the Scots and Welsh are proberbly the most patriotic nations in the Northern Hemisphere.......try telling them they are not a country in their own right.

The difference with the Moari and Aborigonies is that they are a cultural part of their countires just like the Red Indians in America.

Once you start talking cultures then you could have a English Anglo Saxon team, a Welsh Gaelic team etc etc , all important parts of the community but representing ethnic populations not a NATIONAL SIDE.
There is no Anglo Saxon nation or Gaelic nation same as their is no Maori or Aborigonie nation.
They are PART of the bigger picture and once you start breaking countries into ethnic populations and representative teams you are on a sticky wicket.

 

[screeny]

Very well explained Yanto.

I believe we must keep the HNs separate for the World Cup as a development exercise. Sure the heartlands fans will support GB but we are denying a lot of new fans (and good players) teh chance of getting involved in the sport's WC event.

A lot of great work is being done in the HNs and by refusing them separate entry all this work would be for nothing and I'm sure a lot of them would give up.

Plus England won't lose too much by playing as England, only Carney and a couple of others.

Plus the Euro Nations Cup has all but spelt out the RFL's committment to playing the HNs as separate entities, so all this argument is moot!!!!

The question is, how to control entry into the WC. That is a thornier issue, I would suggest than the WC finals themselves.

Do England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Russia play-off for two spots? Or do England and Wales get automatic qualification, leaving the other three to play-off? If this happens Russia have next to no chance of getting into the finals agains the pro HNs players Scotland and Ireland can call upon.

What about the Pacific nations. Will the NRL clubs release their copious island players? Can the RLIF organise a Pac Cup in Auckland?

Will the Med Cup be a qualifying event and if so will Italy and Greece be forced upon it?

By 2007 maybe the Med Cup will be up to 6 teams (France, Lebanon, Italy, Greece, Serbia and Morocco). Why should France get automatic entry into the finals seeing as they only made it to the quarters in 2000. Only the semi-finalists, if anyone, deserve automatic qualification.

So how many of the above teams make it to the finals? One would think that France, Lebanon, Greece and Italy, the latter three boosted by Aussies, would be the favourites to go through, with perhaps two making it to the finals.

Failure by France to make it would be little short of a disaster but against heavily Australianised Greek, lebanese and Italian teams they have no certainty of making it through.

What about SA, the States, Canada? How do they fit in? Is Holland a league nation yet? What are the requirements set out by the RLIF? Does a nation need to have a governing body registered with thier nation's govt? Do they need a domestic comp with X number of teams?

So many questions? A tough one for the RLIF that needs a lot of thinking and a lot of debating before consensus is reached.

I think that no one should get automatic entry except the host nation(s).

The RLIF, if they sort out these pools satisfactorly, will have launched int'l RL into the modern era.

 

[AuckMel]

A friend of mine wrote this very good article on Maori and Aborigine involvement in the World Cup. So far i've yet to see anything written that has changed my mind on this issue.

Here it is,

"Maori decision vindicated."

The decision to allow the Aotearoa Maori team to compete in the 2000 World Cup was given the ultimate vindication in early February, when the re-born World 7's was played in Sydney.

The furore that developed over the Maori being allowed to compete in the Rugby League World Cup of 2000 could be heard loud and clear across Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain.

The World 7's certainly got me thinking deeper on the subject of the Maori participation at World Cup level and believing, without a doubt, that they should have that right.

At one stage during the build up to the 7's, I read the views of a fan who thought the Aborigine team shouldn't be allowed direct access to the draw proper, simply because he thought it would mean, that too many teams would come from Australia.

Now while that was a nice sentiment, the Aborigine team made it anyway. Meanwhile real nations like Italy, Japan and Samoa missed out, and other nations like Parramatta, Melbourne, South Sydney and the Sydney Roosters etc. gained direct entry into the main draw. Doesn't seem right does it. ?

Maybe one of the NRL teams could have pulled out to allow one of these actual real nations a chance to compete. Certainly would have been a nice gesture, but one that would no doubt, not be forthcoming.

Right through the whole Maori debate, the one thing that became perfectly clear, was that many against Maori involvement believed real nations should have been there in the first instance. Yet in the not long completed World 7's we saw the make believe nations granted direct entry to the main draw.

The silence from those who criticised Maori involvement in the World Cup was deafening when it came to the World 7's. Where were those, who only a couple of years earlier been so opposed to the Maori teams involvement in the World Cup gone. ? Sadly, little was heard of them. It seemed while they found a Maori team in the World Cup wrong, it was fine for 14 club teams from Australia and 1 from New Zealand to compete freely at this World 7's competition.

Now I'm not stupid, and I realise, that the NRL sides were needed to make the 7's a success, but maybe in the future fans won't be so quick to right off teams like the Maori and Aborigine when talk of the World Cup and who should participate in it become discussed.

If we can have Parramatta winning the World 7's, then we should offer Maori or Aborigine teams the right to win the World Cup.

 

[In-goal]

the W7's and WC are like apples and oranges no comparison in my eyes.

In 7's im more than happy to see maori and Aboriginals but not at the WC.

 

[YANTO]

We are still talking ethnic minorities(sorry but we are) competing against Nations ,no matter how weak they are they are still nations.

 

[In-goal]

Don't worry Yanto i fully support your side of the argument.

 

[AuckMel]

We are still talking ethnic minorities(sorry but we are) competing against Nations ,no matter how weak they are they are still nations.

All well and good, but you leave yourself open to hints of bias when this very point isn't applied to other World events.

I still thinks it's disturbing, that those who called for Maori exclusion, were more than happy for players with a different background to double dip at the last World Cup.

 

[The Observer]

Joker
I think this has been questioned before BUT SCOTLAND,WALES,ENGLAND and IRELAND are COUNTRIES in their own right,own goverments,

As do NSW, QLD and the other states of Australia. They have little political autonomy however. None of them, bar the Republic of Ireland, is represented at the United Nations. Only the UK is.

AFAIK England does not have its own assembly.

own anthems,[/qoute]

Debatable. It is questionable whether GSTQ has EVER been officially been ratified in a Royal decree or in an Act of Parliament.

own flags,

As do our states.

own language even

Some people would say the same about our states ;p Seriously though, across the different indigenous tribes and peoples, there is a great diversity in language use.

and in the case of Northern Ireland and Scotland their own currency.

Perhaps not for long if you adopt the Euro

QLD and NSW are STATES of Australia just like Teaxas,Oklahoma etc are States of America.

The four COUNTRIES mentioned are part of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and also part of the United Kingdom which includes the likes of Isle of Man (own goverment and currency) Isle of Wight etc etc.

The only think that ties them together is they all have the same Monarch (Queen Elizabeth 2nd)

As I said above, the issue is political autonomy. Wales/Eng/Scot/NI may classify themselves as states, nations, kingdoms, assemblies, fiefdoms, provinces, islands, pirate ships or whatever name you might come up with. The UK has a parliament and its prime minister is Tony Blair. When there are dealings with others on an international basis, Tony Blair does it on behalf of the UK.

The Republic of Ireland gained its independence from the UK in 1924.

In a sporting sense, the people in the UK demand special treatment when it comes to themselves but are happy to discriminate when it comes to others. Why is that?

There has been no strong argument to show that Eng/Wal/Scot constitute a country (insofar as being an independent nation state) any more than NSW/QLD/Vic.

To classify the Maori peoples and ATSI peoples of Aus as just another ethnic group, or just another ethnic minority, just ignores the history and central place that these people occupy in the culture of these countries. They are the indigenous people, the first sentient people in these countries.

 

[yakstorm]

Ahh the madness, make it stop!

Seriously, whilst it can be argued that the Aboriginies and Maori people have a right to compete in a Rugby League World Cup, the problem is when a tournament comes around we don't have the people or the marketing arm to convince the world on why we allowed these teams in, and the benefits they bring.

In this tournament, we have to be considered seriously on the world sports market, and we need to turn it into revenue. I personally feel that the inclusion of Aboriginal or Maori sides in the 2008 tournament could jepodise this abit, especially if you got like an Australia V Aboriginal final. Any form of nit picking and attacks by other sports about our tournament may cost sponsors, good media coverage, and other things which all hurt the game.

Now of course, it could all be turned the other way, and League could be thought to be revolutionary by allowing these groups to compete, if we could spin it that way, but who are we kidding? In order to do that, we could have to be fortunate enough to land one of the best marketers in the world, cause that would be no small task.

 

[griff]

Joker
I think this has been questioned before BUT SCOTLAND,WALES,ENGLAND and IRELAND are COUNTRIES in their own right,own goverments,

As do NSW, QLD and the other states of Australia. They have little political autonomy however. None of them, bar the Republic of Ireland, is represented at the United Nations. Only the UK is.

AFAIK England does not have its own assembly.

own anthems,

Debatable. It is questionable whether GSTQ has EVER been officially been ratified in a Royal decree or in an Act of Parliament.

own flags,

As do our states.

own language even

Some people would say the same about our states ;p Seriously though, across the different indigenous tribes and peoples, there is a great diversity in language use.

and in the case of Northern Ireland and Scotland their own currency.

Perhaps not for long if you adopt the Euro

QLD and NSW are STATES of Australia just like Teaxas,Oklahoma etc are States of America.

The four COUNTRIES mentioned are part of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and also part of the United Kingdom which includes the likes of Isle of Man (own goverment and currency) Isle of Wight etc etc.

The only think that ties them together is they all have the same Monarch (Queen Elizabeth 2nd)

As I said above, the issue is political autonomy. Wales/Eng/Scot/NI may classify themselves as states, nations, kingdoms, assemblies, fiefdoms, provinces, islands, pirate ships or whatever name you might come up with. The UK has a parliament and its prime minister is Tony Blair. When there are dealings with others on an international basis, Tony Blair does it on behalf of the UK.

The Republic of Ireland gained its independence from the UK in 1924.

In a sporting sense, the people in the UK demand special treatment when it comes to themselves but are happy to discriminate when it comes to others. Why is that?

There has been no strong argument to show that Eng/Wal/Scot constitute a country (insofar as being an independent nation state) any more than NSW/QLD/Vic.

To classify the Maori peoples and ATSI peoples of Aus as just another ethnic group, or just another ethnic minority, just ignores the history and central place that these people occupy in the culture of these countries. They are the indigenous people, the first sentient people in these countries.

The indigenous population undoubtedly has an important role in the social fabric of that country, but there is no reason why that should then mean that they deserve a place in an international sporting event.

We could (and have in the past) debate what constitutes a country until the cows come home. As you say, there are no hard and fast rules, it's not about having a flag, a parliament, a currency, a seat in the UN etc. But other people, more qualified than us and after extensive consultation, have determined internationally recognised definitions. Nowhere, not even New Zealand, recognises the Maori as a country:

http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/ext...ebc3a9158edaff57cc256d8c00719b26?OpenDocument

A country is the current name, either short or official of a country, dependency or other area of particular geopolitical interest.

The term country is defined to include:
- independent countries recognised by the New Zealand Government;
- units which are recognised geographic areas;
- administrative subdivisions of Australia and the United Kingdom;
- overseas dependencies, external territories of independent countries.

England, Wales and Scotland (and Northern Ireland) are therefore all countries, and are recognised as such. New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria are not countries and nowhere is it claimed that they are.

("administrative subdivisions of Australia" merely refers to Australian external territories like Norfolk Island, who compete in the Commonwealth Games and I believe competed in the Pacific Cup in the 80s).

The key element in the definition is a "unit which is a recognised geographic area".

As I've said before, you can stand on the border between Wales and England, but you can't stand on the border between New Zealand and "Maori".

The World Cup is a competition between countries. To have some teams representing geographic areas and some representing ethnic groups is not the way to go as this means there are inconsistent qualification criteria.

The Maori are not a country, but they are a distinct cultural and ethnic group:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...099e891618bc4ed4ca256974007f4b58!OpenDocument

I really hope we can have an Australia v Maori match as a warm up to the 2009 World Cup to celebrate 100 years since the first Maori RL tour of Australia.

I also think they should be one of the first teams invited to the World Sevens. However I also think an Aboriginal side, NSW Country, Western Australia, and the Army, Navy and Air Force should also compete in the World Sevens. This does not mean I think they are countries.

The Maori should have much more of a role in the international RL scene. But they shouldn't be in the World Cup.

 

[In-goal]

Army, Navy, Air Force now thats interesting never thought of that.

 

[AuckMel]

Ahh the madness, make it stop!

Seriously, whilst it can be argued that the Aboriginies and Maori people have a right to compete in a Rugby League World Cup, the problem is when a tournament comes around we don't have the people or the marketing arm to convince the world on why we allowed these teams in, and the benefits they bring.

In this tournament, we have to be considered seriously on the world sports market, and we need to turn it into revenue. I personally feel that the inclusion of Aboriginal or Maori sides in the 2008 tournament could jepodise this abit, especially if you got like an Australia V Aboriginal final. Any form of nit picking and attacks by other sports about our tournament may cost sponsors, good media coverage, and other things which all hurt the game.

Now of course, it could all be turned the other way, and League could be thought to be revolutionary by allowing these groups to compete, if we could spin it that way, but who are we kidding? In order to do that, we could have to be fortunate enough to land one of the best marketers in the world, cause that would be no small task.

The world could call us visionaries. World Leaders. Trend setters. Idiots. Fools.

I wouldn't really care. If it exposed one more player to a level of competition higher than he already is, then IMO our game is onto a winner.

 

[In-goal]

Our biggest problem or should i say the biggest problem we will face is the RU media when we try something they didn't think of or don't agree with.

The rest of the world is no problem at all they don't have a bone to pick with us just that amatuer mob.

 

[AuckMel]

Mate, we should just stop worrying about other sports, and just do what's best for ours.

Bugger the rest, because you know we've got the best.

 

[griff]

Ahh the madness, make it stop!

Seriously, whilst it can be argued that the Aboriginies and Maori people have a right to compete in a Rugby League World Cup, the problem is when a tournament comes around we don't have the people or the marketing arm to convince the world on why we allowed these teams in, and the benefits they bring.

In this tournament, we have to be considered seriously on the world sports market, and we need to turn it into revenue. I personally feel that the inclusion of Aboriginal or Maori sides in the 2008 tournament could jepodise this abit, especially if you got like an Australia V Aboriginal final. Any form of nit picking and attacks by other sports about our tournament may cost sponsors, good media coverage, and other things which all hurt the game.

Now of course, it could all be turned the other way, and League could be thought to be revolutionary by allowing these groups to compete, if we could spin it that way, but who are we kidding? In order to do that, we could have to be fortunate enough to land one of the best marketers in the world, cause that would be no small task.

The world could call us visionaries. World Leaders. Trend setters. Idiots. Fools.

Yakstorm is absolutely right. For all the other arguments about their inclusion, Maori and Aboriginal teams in the World Cup would harm perceptions about the World Cup.

It leave you wide open for negative media coverage. With negative media coverage, less people would go to the games and sponsors will not want to associate themselves with the event.

I wouldn't really care. If it exposed one more player to a level of competition higher than he already is, then IMO our game is onto a winner.

As RL fans, we may not care about the negative media coverage, but the media has a massive influence on how the general public sees the event. How the public sees the event then determines how successful the event will be.

And it doesn't really expose players to a higher level of competition. Players in the Maori and Aboriginal teams are players who already have the opportunity to play in the World Cup by playing for NZ or Australia.

If you then give them a second opportunity, you are denying people from Tonga or Fiji or USA or wherever their only chance to go to the World Cup.

 

[AuckMel]

And it doesn't really expose players to a higher level of competition.

How do you work that out?

Players in the Maori and Aboriginal teams are players who already have the opportunity to play in the World Cup by playing for NZ or Australia.

I see. I must remember that next time I see an Australian playing for Scotland.

If you then give them a second opportunity, you are denying people from Tonga or Fiji or USA or wherever their only chance to go to the World Cup.

So long as this rule is applied to all other players, and not just Maori and Aborigine, then that's fine by me.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I don't thi'nk an Aboriginal side or a Maori side should be in the World Cup. As yakstorm said, it would only make the tournament open to more criticism. I think people have to get away from thinking this is a race issue, because it isn't at all.

If anything having an Aboriginal side compete in the World Cup separate to Austrlia is as if too say that they are two different nations. Which is not what it is at all. Aborigines are a race of people in Australia. If this is the case then there should be a different South Africian Rugby sides, one with Anglo-Saxons and one with Balck South Africians. And that would be crazy.

To compare an Aboriginal or Maori side to Wales, England and Scotland is crazy. These countries compete in international soccer and rugby and no one has a problem.

I think there is a place for more international matches with a Maori and Aboriginal side, but not in the World Cup. And especially not in the first world cup in eight years where RL is trying to get some credibility.

 

[screeny]

Exactly In-goal.

The World Sevens is a fun event while the WC is supposedly the peak of RL's int'l calendar.

The World Cup must be competed by sovereign nations. The NZ Maori is not a nation.

The Maori and Aboriginals should never ever be allowed to participate in the World Cup.

Of course people wouldn't oppose Maori inclusion in the 7s - a comp that is built around the successful inclusion of club sides!!

 

[carlnz]

How bout just have all the International teams only, to play in a world sevens? They go to New Zealand, GB and then maybe a couple of countires like Russia and France....to attrached more people to the game