Rugby League in NZ schools

[herbert henry1908]

Did you and/or your parrents know, before applying to attend this school and signing its charter, that it had a "Huge history with most sports including football, cricket, athletics, basketball and hockey, but the feather in its cap is without question Rugby Union" and therefore how much emphasis it placed on those teams?

The better question is , does this school like Australian private schools receive government funding?


If so , why should they be allowed to lock out any sport if there is a demand?

 

[Te Kaha]

The better question is , does this school like Australian private schools receive government funding?


If so , why should they be allowed to lock out any sport if there is a demand?

Private schools are just that private... they dont recieve the same funding that public schools get and as such have their own charter. They only have a set minimun they have to abide.. and which sports are offered arent among them... It should also be noted that what is offered is clearly explained before someone applies to enrol.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So bigotry is fine as long as it's disclosed. Only in union.

 

[Thomas]

So bigotry is fine as long as it's disclosed. Only in union.

Bigotry? It's a f**king sport, man. Get a grip.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

I think it is fair to say that in schools, whether it be in Australia, New Zealand, France or England, and in particular private schools, discrimination against league has been witnessed an upteen number of times when there is a significant union culture existing in the school. Fair enough, there is little evidence to prove the NZRU had much to do with it even though the government report suggests they got up to all sorts of rubbish outside of schools.

It is comforting to know that the elitist element that seems to majorly underpin union in just about every union playing country is slowly being whittled away. Still a huge amount of work to do in South Africa and France though.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Private schools are just that private... they dont recieve the same funding that public schools get and as such have their own charter. They only have a set minimun they have to abide.. and which sports are offered arent among them... It should also be noted that what is offered is clearly explained before someone applies to enrol.

If they receive public funding they should be open to sports on a demand basis.


Private schools have to adhere to government protocols , they simply can't do anything they want.


Receiving public funds opens them up to public criticism with regards to non cariculum activities such as sport.

 

[siv]

Until the NZRL get their National Comp backup and running as the #3 comp across the globe the same problem will always be there

 

[Te Kaha]

If they receive public funding they should be open to sports on a demand basis.

Private schools have to adhere to government protocols , they simply can't do anything they want.

Receiving public funds opens them up to public criticism with regards to non cariculum activities such as sport.

Only if they get the funding for those sports... if they recieve external funding from the NZRU or benefactors to fund a Rugby program when the govt doesnt fund sports in schools, and they dont receive any funding for other sports why should a school have to offer any other sport when they cant pay for it? on the flip side of that they shouldnt be able to block pupils from participating in those sports for local clubs... which for the most part they dont.

 

[docbrown]

The first part cant be justified, unless when they joined the school, they agreed to be bound by the school charter.

It hasn't been clarified one way or the other.

The cancelling of the sponosrship tho is a no brainer, no organisation can have competeting sponsorship, especially in this case where there were two codes sponsorship at risk.

This is purely a flow on effect from the first issue.

In the scenario where the school has no clause in its charter and no legal safety net for banning rugby league, then denying the students uniforms/equipment/players is objectionable and the players shouldn't have been forced down that path in the first place.

However like you said yourself, it all depends.

I will state though that I find this practice of any school - private or public - outright prohibiting/inhibiting a sport and trying to hide behind its charter to be practicing a form of discrimination. If there are enough REAL people that want to play it and more than another sport that already gets funding from the school, then at least give them a choice rather than just hoping they'll find another way to play it.

 

[Te Kaha]

It hasn't been clarified one way or the other.

No it hasnt.. and until it is anything is just congecture

This is purely a flow on effect from the first issue.

In the scenario where the school has no clause in its charter and no legal safety net for banning rugby league, then denying the students uniforms/equipment/players is objectionable and the players shouldn't have been forced down that path in the first place.

However like you said yourself, it all depends.

There wont be ANY clause in its charter to ban RL or any sport. as that is discrimination. it will say that the school will only offer certain sports to the students and they have to accept that if they wish to enrol. They only instance where a school can ban pupils from going outside of school to play a sport is where they are boarders and the school become de facto legal guardians.

I will state though that I find this practice of any school - private or public - outright prohibiting/inhibiting a sport and trying to hide behind its charter to be practicing a form of discrimination. If there are enough REAL people that want to play it and more than another sport that already gets funding from the school, then at least give them a choice rather than just hoping they'll find another way to play it.

"prohibiting/inhibiting" is the fundemental point. Schools are under no obligation to offer any extra curricular activities, sport included... but they should not prohibit students from participating elsewhere if the school cant provide that sport due to lack of funding or resources.

 

[docbrown]

No it hasnt.. and until it is anything is just congecture

Hence why I said "In the scenario"... :roll:

There wont be ANY clause in its charter to ban RL or any sport.

I didn't say there would be a clause to specifically ban rugby league. I said - in the scenario where the school has no clause in its charter and no legal safety net for banning rugby league.

They don't have to issue a public statement banning rugby league in order to produce the exact same effect. Nor would they.

All they need to is to set up the school as a Rugby Union school in its charter and then cry poor on sports funding. It creates the exact same result.

That's the legal safety net. They can hide behind the charter as a defence however it's a coward's defence.

"prohibiting/inhibiting" is the fundemental point. Schools are under no obligation to offer any extra curricular activities, sport included... but they should not prohibit students from participating elsewhere if the school cant provide that sport due to lack of funding or resources.

It all depends on whether you believe that it's purely a matter of funding/resources as claimed.

Whilst it may be the genuine case at SOME schools, it's not necessarily the real case at EVERY school. Therefore to use it as a broad sweeping excuse for EVERY school is folly unless the finances are made available for closer scrutiny.

Having assisted at a state high school in a country area where resources are easily shared between the Union & League teams (as being forced moreso by pure necessity), I tend to question any school that can fund a seconds union side and not a single league side...

The charter & funding excuses are easy to hide behind.

But again there's a real case here - Manurewa_Marlins - a real person with a real experience. I'm interested in finding out more.

If Manurewa Marlins can show some just cause that there was no charter and no problem with finances, are you willing to concede that his case (& perhaps some others) may indeed be genuine rather than dismissing it outright?

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Having assisted at a state high school in a country area where resources are easily shared between the Union & League teams (as being forced moreso by pure necessity), I tend to question any school that can fund a seconds union side and not a single league side...

Or, say, a string of union teams and most uncharacteristically, an AFL team or two...

 

[Te Kaha]

Hence why I said "In the scenario"... :roll:



I didn't say there would be a clause to specifically ban rugby league. I said - in the scenario where the school has no clause in its charter and no legal safety net for banning rugby league.

They don't have to issue a public statement banning rugby league in order to produce the exact same effect. Nor would they.

All they need to is to set up the school as a Rugby Union school in its charter and then cry poor on sports funding. It creates the exact same result.

That's the legal safety net. They can hide behind the charter as a defence however it's a coward's defence.



It all depends on whether you believe that it's purely a matter of funding/resources as claimed.

Whilst it may be the genuine case at SOME schools, it's not necessarily the real case at EVERY school. Therefore to use it as a broad sweeping excuse for EVERY school is folly unless the finances are made available for closer scrutiny.

Having assisted at a state high school in a country area where resources are easily shared between the Union & League teams (as being forced moreso by pure necessity), I tend to question any school that can fund a seconds union side and not a single league side...

The charter & funding excuses are easy to hide behind.

But again there's a real case here - Manurewa_Marlins - a real person with a real experience. I'm interested in finding out more.

If Manurewa Marlins can show some just cause that there was no charter and no problem with finances, are you willing to concede that his case (& perhaps some others) may indeed be genuine rather than dismissing it outright?

They may have a second 15 instead of a league team purely based on demand.. just because a school doesnt have a league team doesnt mean there is demand for one... in MM's case it is because of that particular school and its clear they didnt want one... doesnt mean it was most schools just means it was that one.

Added to that... say a school creates a team.. then what? with no school comp running its then been a waste of money until the NZRL has viable local school leagues any new team will not have much in the way of game time... given there is already a club structure in most areas it would make more sense for those pupils to play for the local club instead.. Should a school be foreced to create a team when there is already a viable alternative i.e a fully fledged and functional club scene?

 

[docbrown]

They may have a second 15 instead of a league team purely based on demand..

just because a school doesnt have a league team doesnt mean there is demand for one...

And it doesn't necessarily prove that there is absolutely no demand either... do you have a point with this statement? :roll:

Clearly in MM's case there was a demand for a rugby league side at a school with enough resources to support a seconds Union side.

So this argument speculating about there even being a demand is irrelevant.

in MM's case it is because of that particular school and its clear they didnt want one... doesnt mean it was most schools just means it was that one.

If it happens in a discriminatory manner at even ONE school then that's one school too many.

Added to that... say a school creates a team.. then what? with no school comp running its then been a waste of money until the NZRL has viable local school leagues

How do you expect a school comp to come into existence when people like yourself - when presented with examples from real people - continue to deny that the situation even exists or try to reduce its significance?

You firstly bury your head in the sand when it comes to the problem and then blame Rugby League for failing to have overcome it.

 

[Te Kaha]

And it doesn't necessarily prove that there is absolutely no demand either... do you have a point with this statement? :roll:

You first cite a specific case then go in general terms.. i was answering in the general sense... if there is demand, there is resource available and there is a comp for them to play in then they should.. however.. citing this specific example... if there is resource for a League team OR say a second 15 Rugby team, but not both... and there are more wanting to play Rugby than League which team should the school fund? Demand IS important.

Clearly in MM's case there was a demand for a rugby league side at a school with enough resources to support a seconds Union side.

So this argument speculating about there even being a demand is irrelevant.

No it isnt.. in a school has to choose wether to support a second fifteen OR a first 13 when there is more demand for Rugby than League which team should be funded? If the NZRL or an outside source could fund the League team, which didnt conflict with excisting school commitments as in this case, then it would be descrimination for the school NOT to allow the League team.. If there was more demand for a League team than the Second 15 again that would be discrimination.. that has yet to be established.

If it happens in a discriminatory manner at even ONE school then that's one school too many.

IF is a big word.. if it happened then yes even one school is too many.

How do you expect a school comp to come into existence when people like yourself - when presented with examples from real people - continue to deny that the situation even exists or try to reduce its significance?

You dont know exactly what happened, so far there is only a little information.. you are making assumptions based on incomplete information.

You firstly bury your head in the sand when it comes to the problem and then blame Rugby League for failing to have overcome it.

Bullshit.. pull the other one.. its got bells on it.

 

[docbrown]

i was answering in the general sense...

It's irrelevant in either sense. Your statement -

just because a school doesnt have a league team doesnt mean there is demand for one...

At no point did I state or insinuate that "a school without a league team always means that there's a demand being suppressed". Nor does it prove that there isn't a demand or that the demand is weak.

I have always said 'in the scenario' or 'some cases' and even if it's only 'one' case.

I do have to question your motives here as to why you feel the need to downplay the actual demand of students wanting to play RL in the schools in the first place.

If there was more demand for a League team than the Second 15 again that would be discrimination.. that has yet to be established.

Hence why I said IF... :roll:

Did this paragraph totally escape you?

But again there's a real case here - Manurewa_Marlins - a real person with a real experience. I'm interested in finding out more.

If Manurewa Marlins can show some just cause that there was no charter and no problem with finances, are you willing to concede that his case (& perhaps some others) may indeed be genuine rather than dismissing it outright?

You dont know exactly what happened, so far there is only a little information.. you are making assumptions based on incomplete information.

I have made no assumptions whatsoever. Do not mistake my opinions on discrimination in general for an assumption that Manurewa Marlins was genuinely discriminated against. All we have is his one post... I have only ever said that Manurewa Marlins is a real person with a real experience and that more information is required.

Why are you so desperate to spin it as if I've already said it's 100% true?

 

[Te Kaha]

It's irrelevant in either sense. Your statement -

At no point did I state or insinuate that "a school without a league team always means that there's a demand being suppressed". Nor does it prove that there isn't a demand or that the demand is weak.

I have always said 'in the scenario' or 'some cases' and even if it's only 'one' case.

Fine... I was only seeking clarification.

I do have to question your motives here as to why you feel the need to downplay the actual demand of students wanting to play RL in the schools in the first place.

I am not downplaying it at all. In some areas there is huge demand for League teams in schools.. in others there is not. Just the same as Rugby or Soccer or basketball. It was just apoint to earliier posters that just because a school doesnt have a League team doesnt automatically mean they should. Just like if a school doesnt have a Rugby team it doesnt automatically mean they should.

I have made no assumptions whatsoever. Do not mistake my opinions on discrimination in general for an assumption that Manurewa Marlins was genuinely discriminated against. All we have is his one post... I have only ever said that Manurewa Marlins is a real person with a real experience and that more information is required.

Why are you so desperate to spin it as if I've already said it's 100% true?

No spin just making a point using your post to point out to others that there MAY have been discrimination but it just as easily could have been another reason.

 

[taipan]

Not according to quite a few on here its not.. its apparently the NZRU thats the sole cause.. when clearly its not.


How the hell should i know.. this thread is about schools in NZ.. what do the Sydney GPS schools have to do with that?



What a load of bollox... if there is suffecient demand and support/funding then yes they do.. if one of those two is missing then no they shouldnt have to.. just like any other school activity.


News flash.. there are no govt sports grants in NZ. Sparc fund the governing bodies who fund the junior programs. The govt funds the schools budget and its upto the schools board of trustees what they spend that on... if there is suffecient demand thats League.

I) You quoted a statement involving the nZRL circa 2009.Latest reports this is 2012.Relevance today go figure.

2) How can a school gauge demand ,if they are not open to it in the first place.That has not been established 100%.You prove otherwise.


3) I am fully aware of Sparcs involvement,and the NZRL had to get its act together in order to secure funding.That has stuff all to do with kids being allowed to play a sport in a school,which possibly wont allow it.
My GPS/Assoc schools analogy was exactly to show why the ru collar and tie influence has such an influence in these ru schools.NZ schools similar set up.

My point was simply to show ru influence extends through school systems in both NZ and Australia.If you can't handle that,well go leap in a lineout.I have yet to find a union tragic,take ownership on this matter.

 

[papabear]

To be honest league needs to pump resources into its school problems and stop whinging about union prejudice. Yes it exists but it can be changed, whinging about it wont change it, putting money and people into setting up competitions and building a stronger league culture will change things.

 

[papabear]

Fine... I was only seeking clarification.



I am not downplaying it at all. In some areas there is huge demand for League teams in schools.. in others there is not. Just the same as Rugby or Soccer or basketball. It was just apoint to earliier posters that just because a school doesnt have a League team doesnt automatically mean they should. Just like if a school doesnt have a Rugby team it doesnt automatically mean they should.




No spin just making a point using your post to point out to others that there MAY have been discrimination but it just as easily could have been another reason.

in the private schools in sydney the only reason there is demand for union is because it is forced on you, much like the religion in schools.

Take away the forcing it down peoples throats and i think you would find a different result. Bitching about union isnt the solution but ignoring the private schools wont start league teams because they are afraid of union dieing is just burying your head in the sand.

Union should die. A sport only for the rich has no place in this world unless it involves horsies.