Rugby League really gives me the shits

[Hell West & Crooked]

History is written where the history of a team or whatever one look are stated. But one have to look what happen in that time as well in the world and see what happened at the same time. History is almost like reading the Quaran. On its own it will not make a lot of sense but with the Sunnah and Hadith it does as the in between the lines are filled in.

What an absolute Shower of Shite.

 

[Antony]

Taking your point seriously, why do u factor-in the question of minorities and majorities?

This is perhaps an issue in politics, but has nothing to do with Sport (in australia). It is intellectual trollop to suggest that a Minority excluding others on the basis of race, is in any way more noble than a majority doing the same.

It is not about Power, because a case cannot be plausibly made for people of any race being held-back in Australian Sport in an institutional manner.

A Whites-only Springbok team is no More Offensive than a Blacks-only Sprinbok team, and each should be treated with equivalent Contempt.

I have no real opinion on a Gay Rugby World Cup. (apart from the obvious pointlessness of the exercise - it makes about as much sense as a Red-Haired-One-Legged RWC). But in principle, the idea of a gays-only Sporting Team is equally as reprehensible as a Sporting Team which does not allow Blacks. or does not allow Whites.

I am totally confident that You can understand the Logic which says "I will oppose a Whites-Only Springbok Team as being morally reprehensible, but I will support your right to have an Aboriginals-only Rugby Team". as being at once; Duplicitous, Condescending in the Extreme, and Hypocritical - even in Politically-correct circles.

You may as well just pat the players on the Head, and feed them a Biscuit!

Calm your farm mate. Braveheart pointed out that we've had this debate before, so I won't get into the minutiae of it, but there is a huge difference between:

1. having an event/side/whatever that allows a celebration of people of a particular group who have overcome adversity; and
2. having an event/side/whatever that excludes another group arbitrarily.

If you genuinely find it "DEEPLY offensive" or "reprehensible" that a group of people (who have traditionally been discriminated against) might try to overcome that by playing rugby together, then you seriously need to get a real problem.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

Its simply a contempt for double standards... pure and simple...

and a celebration of a group who have overcome adversity? wow - that is really easily satisfied. Have you ever been further West than Penrith?

and yes - I do think that high profile sporting bodies selecting teams along racial lines is an attitude that belongs in a past century - possible two centuries. I would point out also, that selecting teams along these lines is more likely to have exactly the opposite effect to the one you ascribe. Why should an aboriginal lad in 2013 need to be selected in a separate team? condescending and out of date.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

You are right - I will express no opinion on the Maori Union side - but the Indignous League team is nothing more than a cynical exercise in money raising by the NRL - and they trot out these Aboriginal Lads telling them they are somehow honouring their aboriginality.

Its cheap and tacky - and the Aboriginal Boys should have told them to &*$% OFF.

In the absence of any genuine competition beyond the incestuous club games, the NRL have to invent some slight variations on a theme to try and convince the punters that there is something more to Rugby Lite than what happens in the NRL.

The reality is that the game has ZERO international relevance, and this number is reducing and is in danger of going negative.
The biggest game in the world in Rugby Lite is a match between people who at some stage in their lives visited Queenslander, and another mob who have played "5 kick" in New South Wales. <Yawn>

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

I agree - I am going to say no more on this subject past this post - perhaps I have put my point poorly, but you are correct - it really IS just a made-up "me-too" game for Marketing purposes, and for people to then read-in all this other "Celebration of Aboriginality" subtext is annoying - and falling for it hook, line & sinker...

Even more annoying is the fact that if any aboriginal connected with the game was to say so, they would be villified with all kinds of slurs, and burnt at the stake by the politically correct amongst the media.

I am opposed to any and all initiatives in our society which seek to emphasis the 'differences' in our society, and I have enough respect for indigenous people to expect them to (in this context) come through the very best of our sporting structures, and to succeed on their own terms, without the 1930s concept of 'special aboriginal teams'...

They have some serious and real problems in current society, and portraying them as some 'special case' seperate to the rest of us is a mighty step backwards... The idea that things are somehow improved by this annual game of league is just foolish.

Somelike Cathy Freeman, running in a green & gold uniform, and carrying BOTH flags on her shoulder to show her Pride, is a million miles away from this awful concept. It does not speak about the 'other' it speaks about the 'us'.

Anyhow, enough - this is not a Social Welfare forum.

 

[Bullrush]

Bullrush, I noticed that you have some involvement in NZ Gridiron or whatever, how would I go about joining one of these clubs?

Do you live in Auckland or Wellington? Those were the only 2 places that played gridiron when I lived back home 4 yrs ago but PM me if you want and I can give you some more info....

 

[Bullrush]

I have no opinion on the NZ Maori team - it seems to have been around for ever - and it's up to the Kiwis what they choose to do.

I do however, have an issue with the NRL Indiginous team - not the players per se - they are merely the naive meat in the sandwich - I have an issue with the NRL and whoever came up with this appalling concept.

To put it another way: Why don't they play an Australian Whites Team? - (No Wogs, No Dagos, No Abos or Sand Niggers. No eyties or abbysinians, in fact, no-one with an non Anglo-Saxon name).

We all know about how long that idea might fly. It would never see the light of day, because it is an instinctively offensive notion. The concept of an Indigenous team in australia playing against the 'other' is no less offensive and neanderthal to me - and most people I know with an educated opinion on life.

They trot these poor bastards out in front of the cameras and get them to say "I am so proud to be representing my people" - and they probably genuinely Are. The problem is, that if the same NRL put together Whites-Only team these are the very same players who would be first to be screaming like banshees that these other Australian - Welsh/English/Irish/Scottish/Canadian/German/ French/New Zealanders MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE by representing THEIR People.

If I had a few more dollars in the Bank, I think I would take them to the International Human Rights Tribunal, and get them to pay out a shed-load of money as reparation - don't much care to whom. Racially specific teams in Auatralia ought to be scrubbed out immediately.

Its an excrable condescending joke, played out on an unsuspecting minority.

The are representing their indigenious culture. I struggling to see why this is a big issue. It's about identity and I think it should be embraced.

I've noticed this attitude in Australia. It seems like Aussies don't want to make a distinction between the indigenious Aussies and those who migrated here in the last few centries. They just want to lump everyone in together and call them all Aussies.

Being a Kiwi it's been a bit of culture shock because I think NZers are more likely to recognise and acknowledge that Maori do hold a special place in NZ. There is even a NZ Maori team in the RL World Cup.

 

[Braveheart81]

Even more annoying is the fact that if any aboriginal connected with the game was to say so, they would be villified with all kinds of slurs, and burnt at the stake by the politically correct amongst the media.

On what basis? I have heard nothing but support from indigenous NRL players for this concept. Preston Campbell has been widely lauded for his contribution in coming up with the concept and getting it off the ground.

I think you are jumping at shadows suggesting that indigenous footballers who didn't like the concept would be vilified if they spoke out about it when there seems to be no evidence to suggest anyone is against it.

I am opposed to any and all initiatives in our society which seek to emphasis the 'differences' in our society, and I have enough respect for indigenous people to expect them to (in this context) come through the very best of our sporting structures, and to succeed on their own terms, without the 1930s concept of 'special aboriginal teams'.

I think a big part of it is encouraging indigenous kids and highlighting how successful they can be in sport if they work hard. Clearly indigenous Australians on average possess great sporting ability as is shown by their disproportionately high representation in the NRL and in particular the AFL.

They have some serious and real problems in current society, and portraying them as some 'special case' seperate to the rest of us is a mighty step backwards. The idea that things are somehow improved by this annual game of league is just foolish.

Yes, they do have serious and real problems. There are many areas in society where indigenous Australians are below the average and there are some excellent programs addressing these. Take for instance the rate at which indigenous students finish high school and make it to university. The organisation AIME - The Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience does an incredible job or getting indigenous kids through high school and into university. Their results are truly astounding given they have only been operating for a few years.

Whilst a game of rugby league might not address these issues, it certainly doesn't hurt them.

Arguments against double standards and treating some people differently (by positively discriminating) seem to come from a position that suggests that treating everyone equally works out better for everyone.

I've never seen the position of a vulnerable and disadvantaged minority improved through doing nothing.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

../...snip.../
There is even a NZ Maori team in the RL World Cup.

That team is only there to keep the pretence going that the game has some sort of international relevance, unlike the Tasmanian wedding that it really is.

It also gets rid of The Bye so the latter can focus on their campaign to get readmitted to NSW AAGPS rugby. Can you imagine the shame of having to invent teams just to avoid the embarrassment of having a Bye in Rugby Lite World Cup?

The Mungoball World cup brought to you by Rugby Lite and Five kick. Come and see which of Auckland and Northern England will qualify to play Australia in the Final.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

i will comment on this thread one last time.
league is the worst 'major' sport around....i would almost rather watch handball between belgium and the netherlands.

 

[terry j]

So WHY then, does the sport have such a following in australia?

I happen to share the views on how 'lame' the game is (and I guess that can only be viewed against our game, ie it does not make much sense else) but we all have to admit that our game is by far the less popular.

Could it be that it is US that is blind, do not know what we are talking about? Yeah, I get the common comeback like 'just because mcdonalds is most widely eaten does not make it a good meal' stuff but that is the thing that I find most interesting.

Maybe we have to simply accept that for any 'average joe' league will be preferred? If not, then how to explain the relative popularities.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

terry j, it only has a following in the eatern states of Australia.

Why? Poker machines and FTA coverage.

Think about 18 foot skill racing. There was a time where this "sport" was the biggest thing around. It was on FTA and fueled by gambling interests.

If it is us who are blind to how awesome Rugby Lite is, then why is Rugby played worldwide with Mungoball only followed in NSW, QLD, Auckland and parts of Northern England.

Mungoball is the NATIONAL game in ZERO countries. A wedding in rural Tasmania is less incestuous and sychophantic.

 

[Dan54]

So WHY then, does the sport have such a following in australia?

I happen to share the views on how 'lame' the game is (and I guess that can only be viewed against our game, ie it does not make much sense else) but we all have to admit that our game is by far the less popular.

Could it be that it is US that is blind, do not know what we are talking about? Yeah, I get the common comeback like 'just because mcdonalds is most widely eaten does not make it a good meal' stuff but that is the thing that I find most interesting.

Maybe we have to simply accept that for any 'average joe' league will be preferred? If not, then how to explain the relative popularities.

Terry, I wouldn't ask that question, why is it so popular in Australia, without someone pointing out how maybe the number of deadheads in Oz is high
Of course that just something that jumps into my mind, and I don't know anyone that would even think that

 

[Train Without a Station]

Exactly. It appeals to the bogans of Australia. From the tattoos to the advertising emblazoned jerseys, every details appears trashy.

 

[wamberal]

Loig is popular because it has always been popular, or at least, we can say that it has been more popular than rugby since 1907.

If you grow up watching and playing loig (and, let's face it, the majority of the population falls somewhere in that camp) then rugby is very much an acquired taste.

So are oysters, of course, and the more discerning of us soon learn to love oysters. But not everybody.

 

[terry j]

hugh and dan, thanks (edit, and others who have answered whilst my clumsy finger errors needed correcting!)

yep, I get that it is only a small regionally specific equation, and even if I did not make that clear it in this subtext I was asking. I have no idea if it is true (I made some points along these lines earlier, re dally m etc yet thanks to some answers I found my view was quite myopic and trivial) but I somehow think the popularity (let's call it NSW shall we?) here has to be found in the history of this competition between codes, going back to the split and from there into the murky world of media and vested interests(??).

From there (esp given that it was phrased as working mans sport) we then get family (ie tribal) followings-my father was a league man therefore so am I-and it get's handed down father to son?

Not only is this interesting in and of itself (to me at least, given that I grew up in league and then found union, so it is a personal question to some degree I spose, 'why was it that for the first fifteen years of my life I only thought there was the one game??') but maybe if we can truly understand how it happened then that is also some solution to growing the game in aus??

That has to be of some importance to us in aus, else we would not have threads such as 'the dying of rugby (in aus)'.

It might be intellectually satisfying to say 'everywhere else in the world union is the more popular' but that does not really help us here on the eastern seaboard of aus.

 

[jay-c]

terry j,

If it is us who are blind to how awesome Rugby Lite is, then why is Rugby played worldwide with Mungoball only followed in NSW, QLD, Auckland and parts of Northern England.

Mungoball is the NATIONAL game in ZERO countries. A wedding in rural Tasmania is less incestuous and sychophantic.

might wanna check papua new guinea

 

[Elfster]

terry j, it only has a following in the eatern states of Australia.

A wedding in rural Tasmania is less incestuous and sychophantic.

Quite like this line, though is the wedding in question a same sex wedding or one of the more traditional ones? Though going to such detail whilst discussing League is probably a moot point regardless.

 

[Antony]

i will comment on this thread one last time.
league is the worst 'major' sport around..i would almost rather watch handball between belgium and the netherlands.

You mean proper handball right? That's an awesome sport. I would definitely rather watch that.

 

[wamberal]

Not only is this interesting in and of itself (to me at least, given that I grew up in league and then found union, so it is a personal question to some degree I spose, 'why was it that for the first fifteen years of my life I only thought there was the one game??')

Probably because you went to a loig playing school, all your mates played the game, if you played junior sport it would have been loig, loig was on FTA, loig was prominent in the sporting pages and the evening news, there were a lot more loig teams and competitions (we should never forget that the Jim Beam Cup gets more coverage than the Shute Shield, far more actually), and the chances are that the biggest licensed club in your neighbourhood was either a loigs club, or prominently sponsored loig teams.

Sydney has always been saturated with the game.


There was no real competition between loig and rugby after 1907, the mungoes had a more attractive game to the big proportion of the population. Rugby went through some dire times, 10 man rugby, etc, plus of course it was amateur, which meant we lost most of our most attractive players every year to the opposition.

The wonder is that rugby in Australia survived all this. Actually, it almost didn't -- it was saved by a couple of Fijian tours in the early to mid fifties.