Please World Rugby, ban the Haka

[smartcooky]

Time to let it go brother. I just looked at how many post he has an how long he's been on here, you're not gonna get the win bro.

Yep, typical keyboard warrior. He has about the same number of posts as me... I've been here nearly eight years, he's been here less than a year... that speaks volumes

However, its not about "the win" or getting the last word, its about not letting his bullsh¡t co unchallenged. In this case, I have successfully shown him up for the bullsh¡t artist that he his. I'm happy enough with that.

 

[Noodle]

Yep, typical keyboard warrior. He has about the same number of posts as me... I've been here nearly eight years, he's been here less than a year... that speaks volumes

However, its not about "the win" or getting the last word, its about not letting his bullsh¡t co unchallenged. In this case, I have successfully shown him up for the bullsh¡t artist that he his. I'm happy enough with that.

What does it speak volumes about? You are the one cursing and calling names?

 

[William18]

Nice!



New Zealand WERE invited to do the Haka in 2006. However Wales wanted to respond with the Anthem as they had done on the 100 year celebration the year before but apparently that wasn't good enough for Richie and the boys so we got a level four New Zealand sulk and they slunk off to the changing rooms. Leaving thousands of fans disappointed.



It's really quite funny how New Zealander's such as yourself portray the All Blacks as the persecuted victims in all of this. People along this discussion have said it is the same for all nation's but that people are focusing on the Haka as it's the highest profile one out of all of them, very few have said don't do it.

You have clearly either not understood the issue people have, or not read the thread and are now just trolling (I think it's likely the latter).

Again I ask all of the NZ posters why should the Haka be the last thing that happens before kick off if NZ are the away team?



I don't think anyone disputes that das, i think what people are fed up with is the fact that a piece of NZ culture rides rough shod over everyone else

It's a magnificent thing to see, and experience up close but the film crews, the mic up the constant moaning about what teams should be allowed to do and not allowed to do, and people are being disingenuous if they say NZ are not involved in the consultation process.

Every performance goes into the Adidas vaults and is used for sponsorship and promotional purposes- but then it's onyl done for the boys in the team "we do it for ourselves".



I wouldn't say we aren't a particularly religious country at all... we're a christian nation and the fundamentals of our society are rightly or wrongly based on christianity.

Additionally it's just a blooming beautiful bit of poetry/hymn etc... and could be taken to mean a lot of things. Ultimatley the words are just stunning and we'd clearly have the best anthem in world rugby if it became the England RFU anthem :

The thing is we still have the right to decide whether or not we want to perform the haka. The WRU created certain terms as to when the haka is allowed to be performed. At a home game they have every right to set those terms and demand that the haka is done before their National Anthem or whatever. They are allowed to do this. The haka should only be the last thing which is performed before kickoff should the host nation agree to those terms. If the host nation wants to stop those terms or change those terms then this is also acceptable. However, we can then react to those terms however we want to. Surely we have the right to not perform the haka. Yes, it looked churlish but surely we have the right to look churlish?

Are you really saying that in 2006 the All Blacks should have been forced to do the haka? Surely you can accept that the All Blacks are quite within their rights to not perform the haka if we choose not to.

 

[McTallshort]

Yep, typical keyboard warrior. He has about the same number of posts as me... I've been here nearly eight years, he's been here less than a year... that speaks volumes

However, its not about "the win" or getting the last word, its about not letting his bullsh¡t co unchallenged. In this case, I have successfully shown him up for the bullsh¡t artist that he his. I'm happy enough with that.

Keyboard warrior? From someone calling people cnuts you are a clown

 

[Draggs]

Any further cnut-calling will close this thread.
Either keep the discussion on the actual topic, or leave the thread (or I'll close it).

 

[smartcooky]

The thing is we still have the right to decide whether or not we want to perform the haka. The WRU created certain terms as to when the haka is allowed to be performed. At a home game they have every right to set those terms and demand that the haka is done before their National Anthem or whatever. They are allowed to do this. The haka should only be the last thing which is performed before kickoff should the host nation agree to those terms. If the host nation wants to stop those terms or change those terms then this is also acceptable. However, we can then react to those terms however we want to. Surely we have the right to not perform the haka. Yes, it looked churlish but surely we have the right to look churlish?

Are you really saying that in 2006 the All Blacks should have been forced to do the haka? Surely you can accept that the All Blacks are quite within their rights to not perform the haka if we choose not to.

100%. This is what the anti-Kiwi lot fail to understand; this is OUR cultural thing, OUR preparation and we choose to share that with others under conditions that WE set. Its our way or the highway.

The All Blacks have the absolute right to perform the haka before the match, and no-one, not the Welsh, nor the English nor World Rugby can prevent that. We choose to share it under the condition that it is the last thing before kick-off. If the host union doesn't want to meet those conditions, then we take it to the sheds.

This is really simple. I can't understand why the haka haters don't get it.

 

[William18]

Any further cnut-calling will close this thread.
Either keep the discussion on the actual topic, or leave the thread (or I'll close it).

I think largely this has been a good respectful discussion. My two cents is that if people want to come into a thread and ruin it then those people should be banned or removed from the thread. Let's not punish those who want to discuss something sensibly.

 

[goodNumber10]

The thing is we still have the right to decide whether or not we want to perform the haka. The WRU created certain terms as to when the haka is allowed to be performed. At a home game they have every right to set those terms and demand that the haka is done before their National Anthem or whatever. They are allowed to do this. The haka should only be the last thing which is performed before kickoff should the host nation agree to those terms. If the host nation wants to stop those terms or change those terms then this is also acceptable. However, we can then react to those terms however we want to. Surely we have the right to not perform the haka. Yes, it looked churlish but surely we have the right to look churlish?

Are you really saying that in 2006 the All Blacks should have been forced to do the haka? Surely you can accept that the All Blacks are quite within their rights to not perform the haka if we choose not to.

No, of course they choose to do it when they want, but the fundamental point i'm making in all of this isn't that in 2006 they or the WRFU did this or that, Smartcooky is deliberately moving away from the point I originally made, which is that it is New Zealand dictate who dictate how it is responded to or else they don't do it etc... so it's completely wrong to say New Zealand don't care because that is a prime example of them caring very much.

There is absolutely no chance the IRB formulated that protocol without consulting the NZRFU, that's just not how diplomacy works it will have been discussed and an agreement will have been agreed with NZRFU and the WR/IRB.

All I've said through out this thread is that I think that is unfair. My belief is that the home nation should have the final interaction with the crowd before kick off, in NZ that could be the Haka or their anthem their choice (not i'm not saying one or the other they should do both) at Twickenham that should be the English Anthem, or in Cardiff the Welsh anthem not the NZ Haka.

hope that makes more sense.

 

[Shaggy]

No, of course they choose to do it when they want, but the fundamental point i'm making in all of this isn't that in 2006 they or the WRFU did this or that, Smartcooky is deliberately moving away from the point I originally made, which is that it is New Zealand dictate who dictate how it is responded to or else they don't do it etc... so it's completely wrong to say New Zealand don't care because that is a prime example of them caring very much.

There is absolutely no chance the IRB formulated that protocol without consulting the NZRFU, that's just not how diplomacy works it will have been discussed and an agreement will have been agreed with NZRFU and the WR/IRB.

All I've said through out this thread is that I think that is unfair. My belief is that the home nation should have the final interaction with the crowd before kick off, in NZ that could be the Haka or their anthem their choice (not i'm not saying one or the other they should do both) at Twickenham that should be the English Anthem, or in Cardiff the Welsh anthem not the NZ Haka.

hope that makes more sense.

Consultation on how to respond to the Haka and the NZRU dictating how other teams respond to it are two very different things. To imply that one equates to the other is at best, unintentionally misleading.

Assuming WR did consult NZRU on setting WR's rules on how close the two teams can get to one another during the Haka, it seems very unlikely that no other nation was consulted during the process. It just seems highly unlikely that even if they did want separation of the teams etc (and I don't think that they wanted that), that they would have more influence and decision power than all of the other WR members,

To complain about the unfairness of the All Blacks having the last interaction with the crowd prior to kick off seem a little petty to me, considering the home side (generally) has the majority of the crowd on it's side, and gets the benefit of their support for the entire match.

As a general comment on meddling with things of cultural significance to a nation (not a specific response to your post GN10), it's up to that nation to decide if it's relevant or not, and other nations/cultures don't have the right to decide what's appropriate or not.

 

[goodNumber10]

Consultation on how to respond to the Haka and the NZRU dictating how other teams respond to it are two very different things. To imply that one equates to the other is at best, unintentionally misleading.

Just to be clear I'm not trying to imply that, it's two very different points.

Assuming WR did consult NZRU on setting WR's rules on how close the two teams can get to one another during the Haka, it seems very unlikely that no other nation was consulted during the process. It just seems highly unlikely that even if they did want separation of the teams etc (and I don't think that they wanted that), that they would have more influence and decision power than all of the other WR members,

To complain about the unfairness of the All Blacks having the last interaction with the crowd prior to kick off seem a little petty to me, considering the home side (generally) has the majority of the crowd on it's side, and gets the benefit of their support for the entire match.

As do New Zealand when they play at home. That's the point of home advantage imho.

I completely agree that in terms of formulating the protocol all would have been consulted including NZ, that's exactly what I've been saying so it's disingenuous to claim, as Smartcooky, is that the whole stand off thing is entirely down to WR and that NZ had no input into it.

As a general comment on meddling with things of cultural significance to a nation (not a specific response to your post GN10), it's up to that nation to decide if it's relevant or not, and other nations/cultures don't have the right to decide what's appropriate or not.

That I totally understand and agree, i don't think it should be done away with at all.... but in the same way is not saying the Haka must be last doing the exact same thing in reverse and riding roughshod over another team/Nations culture?

 

[smartcooky]

I completely agree that in terms of formulating the protocol all would have been consulted including NZ, that's exactly what I've been saying so it's disingenuous to claim, as Smartcooky, is that the whole stand off thing is entirely down to WR and that NZ had no input into it.

As is par for the course for you, you have totally misrepresented what I said.

In no way did I ever say or imply that World Rugby were solely responsible for the situation we have now, and it is completely disingenuous of you to suggest that. What have been saying, what I am saying, and what I will continue to say, is that World Rugby ARE responsible for the separation between teams and the no-advancing rule. I refuse to believe that this was the NZRU's idea and that they dictated such to World Rugby, which is what YOU have been implying. Ultimately World Rugby is the international governing body so it has the final say

Also, I need toi make this very clear as regards 2005 & 2006 and Hakagate.

The WRU claimed that they consulted Kaumatua about a response and that they replied that the singing of the anthems would be acceptable. However, WRU only told part of the truth, and misrepresented what Kaumauta actually said.

"One of two kaumatua consulted by the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) over Maori protocol surrounding the haka said he had never envisaged the All Blacks being asked to perform it in between the two national anthems.
WRU chief executive Roger Lewis said today the union had liaised with Victoria University professor Piri Sciascia and New Zealand Olympic Committee cultural attache Amster Reedy over whether the national anthem would be an appropriate response to the haka.
He said their confirmation underpinned WRU's decision to ask the All Blacks to perform the haka after the New Zealand national anthem -- instead of the traditional time just prior to kick off. "

"He recalled corresponding with the WRU before last year's centennial test in Wales.

The correspondence had never made any reference to the idea of performing the haka in between the anthems, he said.
"It was simply whether an anthem would be an appropriate response and I said of course it would be, and I would still say that."
However, he said he did not think it would be appropriate to perform the haka in between the anthems, and the All Blacks were right not to bow down to the WRU.
If Wales chose to sing the anthem for a second time following the haka, that would be an appropriate and powerful response to the challenge -- especially if the entire crowd joined in.
"The haka is a statement about who we are and how we honour the people who we go into battle with and play this wonderful football.

"The national anthems of the two countries are a statement on another level.

Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/blogs/rugby/story/67028.html#Rgcx4J7Op1yH6D1p.99

Looks to me like they asked a deliberately vague question designed to elicit the response they wanted. Very crafty!

I think teams should be allowed to respond while the Haka is in progress, like the French, the Irish and the English have done before. Do away with this stupid 10m rule and let the teams approach each other to within a couple of metres. Let them get in each-other's faces; let the crowd sing anthems (national or otherwise), let the players sing if they want to.

 

[goodNumber10]

As is par for the course for you, you have totally misrepresented what I said.

In no way did I ever say or imply that World Rugby were solely responsible for the situation we have now

except here:

A myth and a strawman of World Rugby's making!

It is the WR (formerly the iRB who have dictated how opponents must respond, so stop blaming Kiwis for this state of affairs... it was not our doing and we generally do not agree with it.

I refuse to believe that this was the NZRU's idea and that they dictated such to World Rugby, which is what YOU have been implying.

Nope. I've implied nothing of the sort, I've said they would have been consulted which you finally seem to agree with me on.

 

[smartcooky]

except here:

Exactly! WR have dictated how opponents must respond (i.e. stand on the 10m line and not advance) BUT THAT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether it not the Haka is the last thing before kick-off which is the entire thrust of your argument.


Just becasue the NZRU agree with this does not mean they like it. I agree to lot of things I don't want to do or don't like doing. That is life!

 

[goodNumber10]

Oh, for gods sake....... Honestly I give up. You win.

 

[smartcooky]

Its that what it is about for you? Winning?

For me its about truth!

 

[dasNdanger]

The horse has been beaten, nothing more to prove.
Bottom line (for me) is this - ABs fans love the haka, as do many non-ABs fans. And some don't like it - they don't like the restrictions and whatnot. They will never be 100% happy. Change the rules, and then the fans of the former arrangement will be unhappy, and the argument will probably turn into something like, 'bring back the old haka rules!'

In other words, there is no way that everyone the world over will ever see eye-to-eye on this one, so why get bunchy knickers over it? Not worth it, and it does nothing to promote appreciation for the game.

Also...this....







das

 

[JayBlaze]

World Rugby have no idea. If you watch 1st XV hakas in NZ, a lot of them usually end up face to face, the whole stand 10m back thing is rubbish. Teams should be able to walk up to it.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Genuine question:
What would the All Blacks do if, after the Haka, the opposition start singing their anthem again? Not with the band, and singer, etc. but the 23 players (plus however many in the crowd).

 

[Thingimubob]

See I have to agree with @goodNumber10 in a few things here. Its not about the pre match giving one side an advantage, never has been! Its about the spectacle and the atmosphere, and responding to the Haka just adds to it if you ask me.

Also with the stuff about the WRU consulting a Maori professor about responding with the anthem - there is nothing sneaky at all about what they asked! If the WRU are asking that, then its fairly damn obvious why they're asking - they want to do it! I'm not trying to say the WRU are squeaky clean, we all know that's not true, but don't paint them out to be a underhand organisation trying to get one over on NZ culture for personal gain.

Also, his comments about the haka being a completely different statement to the anthems - I'm not sure that's true, at least when it comes from a welsh perspective. Our anthem is a statement of who we are, in our own language which has somehow survived everything thrown at it, so I don't see why we shouldnt be able to do it as a response?

I love the haka, but I don't like the "our way or not at all" mentality, that comes with it. There were definitely a few grumblings after the '08 stand off in Cardiff - I think I even read a comment from Nonu saying he thought it was a little disrespectful. The majority however seemed to enjoy it at least.

Genuine question:
What would the All Blacks do if, after the Haka, the opposition start singing their anthem again? Not with the band, and singer, etc. but the 23 players (plus however many in the crowd).

I was thinking that myself!

 

[dasNdanger]

Genuine question:
What would the All Blacks do if, after the Haka, the opposition start singing their anthem again? Not with the band, and singer, etc. but the 23 players (plus however many in the crowd).

I think it would be quite inspiring - emotionally stirring - the first time. Something like that could only be done once for it to be truly effective. (Like, say...final game at the WC, provided the ABs are in the final, etc).



das