Yes, it's....Another Haka Thread!

[Cowshot]

First topic message reminder :

A Maori Theatre Company is performing their version of Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida at the Globe. Now it's all well and good showing how Bill speaks across Time and Culture to what is innately human in all of us, but is it fair, I ask you, that they should start the performance with a Haka?

Will the audience be able to give a truly critical response to the show if they are stunned into submission for the first ten minutes? Should the audience respond with chorus of "Jerusalem" or link arms and advance on the stage?

Link to article below, for any expats feeling like a touch of home from home

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17769799

[Biltong]

Billy, read the post of Aukster, and a number others who all complain about how the IRB is favouring the All Blacks in the Haka.

It is all about perception, not really the Haka itself, look at Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, no complaints about theirs.

[eirebilly]

I wasnt having a dig biltong

I was just confused as to why people think that the IRB favour certain sides over others. I have never seen any evidence in that.

[mystiroakey]

Its naivity to think certain sides arnt slightly favoured or that certain teams arnt protected or looked after better by the governing body. Its just life- the all blacks are a brand name of rugby union- it helps bring the game to other parts of the world. And yes they have been favoured as have other top nations only last year(lets not even bring the haka into this) with the ruling on fund distribution.

[Biltong]

I wasnt having a dig biltong

I was just confused as to why people think that the IRB favour certain sides over others. I have never seen any evidence in that.

I haven't seen any evidence myself billy, but there are posters who seem to think so, unless of course we are talking about my dearest friend Bruce Lawrence.

[Hood83]

The problem Hood83 with finding offense and having your idea on how should be the protocols is that is just your idea too. Other people might be offended too at your idea that home anthem is most important thing.

So this way all unions negotiate on protocol and come to agree. And this is working nicely with only one or two problems. So mostly a good job. Is really such tiny issue that I dont get my mind to how is growing up the problem for some peoples. For me worst is drugs, eye gouging, pretend blood injury and many other devious affair and less problem somebody do a little performance before a kick off time.

Yep, i can definitely accept that. Although i would say i think it would be consistent with the concept as it stands e.g. the home team's anthem goes last as it is deemed to part of the advantage of playing at home, alongside having more fans. I think most people would think that is fair, although I accept it could just be me and perhaps players themselves enjoy having the haka just before kick off.

[The Great Aukster]

I wasnt having a dig biltong

I was just confused as to why people think that the IRB favour certain sides over others. I have never seen any evidence in that.

The IRB allow some countries to express their culture, but refuse others to do so, therefore that inconsistency shows favour to certain sides.

[aucklandlaurie]

Maybe the IRB's favouritism shown to some countries is reflective of the massive contribution those countries make to the game. You reap what you sow.

[Guest]

Its naivity to think certain sides arnt slightly favoured or that certain teams arnt protected or looked after better by the governing body. Its just life- the all blacks are a brand name of rugby union- it helps bring the game to other parts of the world. And yes they have been favoured as have other top nations only last year(lets not even bring the haka into this) with the ruling on fund distribution.

This is a good point. In life in general, as a participant in the non-communist free world, I don't have a problem that the top performers are rewarded accordingly. The top teams aren't there by chance/right, it requires talent, smarts and a big effort. These traits in life are usually rewarded.

Doesn't the IRB distribute more to tier one countries after WCs as compensation for lost games/income caused by attending, that's fair isn't it?

Also, the WC, 6N, and 3N, are only popular because of the tier one teams, not the tier two teams. It's great the WC includes tier 2, but they don't draw the crowds($), or perhaps show case the game as much. I appreciate we need to grow the game, but it is unrealistic to think tier 2 deserve as much $ as tier 1, simply because they're weaker and need dragging up. You could throw all the money in the world at a team, and it'd still be poor, and for many reasons.

I personally don't think the IRB play favorites, they're just enacting good common/business sense.

[mystiroakey]

they are offcourse using there minds and as you say it is busniess sense- but that doesnt mean its morally fair.

Lets look at other sports- football .

Italy and france were made favorites v ireland and who ever the other team was- that was criminally unfair(basically if you dont know what happened all 4 teams finished 2nd in there qualy groups- therefore they must play a play off- france and italy would have been drawn under the system as it stood- meaning only one of them could have progressed- they switched the play off games up at last minute and both progressed).

In regards to my point about NZ, tthe IRB had made a decision to bakc lesser tier nations and last year it seemed as if the All blacks blackmailed the irb into giving them more funding at a cost of everyone else- remeber that NZ's root problem is domestic losses anyway.

Point is simply this-It would be very naive to suggest that if a tier 1 team like scotland or even france or england- begged or blackmailed for more money that it would have worked.

Yes it is business sense to protect the best and the biggest brand- but that isnt fair is it!

The haka is also a brand in rugby these days- and yes it is protected as seen by the france fine.

I have no problem with the haka at all. i dont like the protection of it- But it is being protected for business reasons.

People jump on this topic and see it as people attacking NZ, its simply not the case.

The IRB have seen to be shortsighted in regards to NZ on a few occasions and because of that it puts less pressure on NZ sorting out there own domestic issues. It is also shortsighted to suggest that the growth of the game can come from other fans around the world buying other nations merchandise. The only way those countries will get big is if they buy there own players shirts and there own teams get better on the world stage. The all blacks are an asset to world rugby but at some point we have to give back and grow this game and not allow it to put a strangle hold on the game

[eirebilly]

Call me naïeve but i cant see how:

a/ The IRB are showing predjudice to teir 1 teams, the funding has stricht calculations behind it. You cannot provide countries like, Romania, with the same amount of funding as their Union would become incredibly rich without the depth in their game to utilise it. The IRB actually provide these countries with pretty decent funding based on their player and teams basis.

b/ The IRB being shortsighted in regards to NZ. They are the current world champs and world number one so of course they will be used as a marketing tool. It happens in all sports if i am not mistaken. In 1995, the focus of rugby was highly on Sth Africa and they were promoted globally, just as New Zealand are now.

Back on the topic of the HAKA, the only restriction placed by the IRB is that players dont cross the halfway line. Thats a little strange but i can understand it as well. That said, this rule is also is also in place for challenging the Samoan, Fiji etc displays as well so the rule is hardly specifically designed for New Zealand. Ireland are allowed two national anthems as well so forgive me when i seriously do not see any extra bias being shown to New Zealand.

[aucklandlaurie]

MYSTIR.

I think your problem is that you are anti New Zealand,Dont accuse the IRB of favouritism, and use it as grounds for you to indulge in a tall poppy harvesting exercise.

[The Great Aukster]

Back on the topic of the HAKA, the only restriction placed by the IRB is that players dont cross the halfway line.

Teams must also face the haka and remain motionless.

It is interesting how the IRB don't see any conflict between the haka and their own code of conduct.
20.1 All Unions, Associations, Rugby Bodies, Clubs and Persons:
20.1.12 shall not do anything which is likely to intimidate, offend, insult,
humiliate or discriminate against any other Person on the ground of their
religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin;

[Taylorman]

Agree with Billy in that half these posts would be pointless if the team at the centre of it were Fiji or Samoa, and both do the same as NZ.

Opposition teams and perhaps fans link the NZ haka with its performance yet at the same time are more likely to see the Fijian and Samoan hakas as 'mildly amusing' rather than intimidatory, purely on the basis that their performance levels are lower in comparison.

Hypocrasy at its best.

Same action, different reaction.
Treat it as its meant. A challenge and as a mark of respect, not offense, to the opposition.

Do agree on the IRB ruling about doing nothing though. Stupid and shows a lack of respect for teams who are capable of deciding for themselves the best response in a way that things dont get out of hand.

[anotherworldofpain]

Make a fun of the cultural preformance showing just lack of maturity and respectful for the different culture.

If fans of other country were booing and yelling and sing down the national anthem of the european country or players running up to the players during the anthem and try to disrupting it then these same peoples would be complain a lot about the situation is my mind.

So stand still and sing the anthem and wave the flag is european idea to start the challenge on the game and perform challenge with movements and words is more pacific way.

For me is easy to understanding. It makes my eyes roll that some persons cant.

[mystiroakey]

MYSTIR.

I think your problem is that you are anti New Zealand,Dont accuse the IRB of favouritism, and use it as grounds for you to indulge in a tall poppy harvesting exercise.

lol, i think your problem is your lack of understanding on this subject. I am not anti new zealand in the slightest

[aucklandlaurie]

MYSTIR.

I think your problem is that you are anti New Zealand,Dont accuse the IRB of favouritism, and use it as grounds for you to indulge in a tall poppy harvesting exercise.

lol, i think your problem is your lack of understanding on this subject. I am not anti new zealand in the slightest

Well i'm very pleased to read that your not anti New zealand.

[mystiroakey]

I said that the all blacks are a massive asset to this game in my post. Therefore i have no idea where your sentiment has come from

[aucklandlaurie]

Mystir
my sentiments came from your unsubstantiated assertions that not only does the IRB favour New Zealand but also gives into blackmail initiated by New Zealand. iI thats not what you implied above then fine. but clarification would be nice..

[mystiroakey]

I did slightly imply that but I dont blame new zealand - only the weak establishment that is the IRB

[aucklandlaurie]

And you wonder why I dont understand???????

Perhaps you need to know that the IRB is made of representatives of all the major tier 1 countries, its not a gang of Kiwis who also have control of the cheque book.

[mystiroakey]

I really dont understand your point at all auckland- the NZRU are different to the IRB.

IRB had a system where by there wanted to apportion more of 'the pot' to lower tier nations.

New Zealand said unless you give us more of the pot we wont play in the next world cup.

the IRB gave into the demands and as a result the lesser tier nations will recieve less funding

what is so hard to understand..

I am just stating fact. If you dont like it then fine, but dont call me anti new zealand.

[aucklandlaurie]

Mystir

Sorry buddy but its easier for me to call you anti New zealand, rather than explain it all to you. its 3.40 in the mornng and I'm off to bed.

[mystiroakey]

Well it sounds more like an aknowledgment of defeat to me. Have a good sleep pal

[Guest]

Well it sounds more like an aknowledgment of defeat to me. Have a good sleep pal

Sounds more like an acknowledgement of, 'I'm flipping tired cause it's 3:40am and I'm tired of banging my head against a wall'.

If the WC was held in the middle of the 6N tournament, would that go down very well? Just scrap it for the year, no big deal. The IRB certainly doesn't favour NZ, think you'll find the relationship is more frosty than you'd expect.

And the incident re WC money involved SA and Oz to, why do you not mention them? Just like you don't mention Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, in your haka debate. Your argument of NZ favoritism by the IRB is a little hollow.

[mystiroakey]

EBOP you are miles of the plot with your assesment pal. Just like your mate you are being over sensitive . I mentioned tier 1 countries being led by the 'big asset' the all blacks(my exact words were the IRB favouring the top nations not just the all blacks). And that to the IRB they have the most bargaining power. If you cant see what is right in front of your nose you are very naive, and dont try and win an argument by flipping it into something it isnt. If you wanna argue that the IRB dont favour teams that can apply pressure then thats ok i suppose- naive but ok. But dont try and make out i am anti new zealand because of my statements- its ridiculas and as i said before your being over sensitive

[The Great Aukster]

Back on the topic of the HAKA, the only restriction placed by the IRB is that players dont cross the halfway line.

Teams must also face the haka and remain motionless.

It is interesting how the IRB don't see any conflict between the haka and their own code of conduct.
20.1 All Unions, Associations, Rugby Bodies, Clubs and Persons:
20.1.12 shall not do anything which is likely to intimidate, offend, insult,
humiliate or discriminate against any other Person on the ground of their
religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin;

[mystiroakey]

anyway back on to the haka.

It boils down to some simple truths.

The haka is a mouri tradition, and is used these days for kiwi sporting sides that have a percentage of mouri representatives as a show of national pride(a national anthem for the mouri population)

this type of national pride is also done by other island teams in the vicinity.

It has elevated from its original usage as a challenge to visting tribes or whatever from the good ole days to a national anthem but now to something very different- and that is a new found rugby tradition which the irb protects- i am very sure that casual viewers from non playing countries treat the haka as if it is part of rugby- its protected for its branding usage. Every time someones sees the haka these days on the whole we think of one thing and that is rugby union(great business sense really- cant fault it). The IRB likes that for obvious reasons- it realises that its a decent bit of propaganda it can utilise, therefore it protects it and has again missed the point of what it actual represents- a challenge- which the opossing team should be able to respond to if it feels like it!

the problem is simple and its hypocrsy from the IRB. But on the whole do i really care- No offcourse not, because it happens in all sports as it does in all big business. But as the word hollow has been thrown about on these boards recently by posters with a distinct lack of understanding in regards to international sport and the power of the 'big team', or in the small business sense the top sales person or in the large business sense the top shareholder.. I will use hollow in its correct sense and it is now. The way the IRB TREAT the haka is very hollow and the haka isnt represented as it should be or for what it originally was for.

[Guest]

Actually mystir, you mention nz specifically when it came to hand outs, never once mentioned SA/Oz. They were part of it to. You also allude to, or mentioned blackmail in relation to this, again, it was just NZ. Not sensitive mate, just agreeing with Laurie that maybe there's some anti NZ sentiment.

Aukster, apologies for my blindness, can you please bold the words in the code of conduct rules that conflict. Is it intimidate/offend?

[mystiroakey]

i said very clearly in the post above that the big teams are favoured in regards to the distribution of funds- i then went on only mentioning new zealand - because they hold the most power- if new zealand wernt a part of the 'proposal' or 'blackmail' or whatever you wanna call it , it wouldnt have held as much weight!

[blackcanelion]

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you about pretty much everything.

I do agree that the IRB favours the traditional nations. This is now 9 or 10 (which is an improvement on 8 from 10 years ago, and the home natioos for most of its history). The quaetion of the world cup isn't simply about the NZRFU saying pay us more or we wont play. What they actually was we cant sustain rugby union in this country if we lose our commercial revenue every four years. We wont be able to afford to compete. It wasn't neccesarily a case of straight funding. It's important to remember that the model used by rugby is significantly different to other major sporting events such as football. For instnacein the football world cup there are still plenty of opportunities to meet the needs of the sponsors. The world cup is recognised as being unsustaibly financially for a number of reasons. They will have to address these over the next few years.

The issue of small nations and funding is real. At the very least, the IRB should look to guarentee a minimum player payment for the tournrment so that teams aren't out of pocket, and to work towards integrated regional competitions.

On the topic of the haka. Quite happy for it to go, and not exactly overwhelmed by the IRB's rules. However the haka is one of rugby's oldest traditions, it goes back over 100 years. I can understand why they put in placve the current rules. I think you have the the wrong end of the stick.

i said very clearly in the post above that the big teams are favoured in regards to the distribution of funds- i then went on only mentioning new zealand - because they hold the most power- if new zealand wernt a part of the 'proposal' or 'blackmail' or whatever you wanna call it , it wouldnt have held as much weight!

[eirebilly]

Back on the topic of the HAKA, the only restriction placed by the IRB is that players dont cross the halfway line.

Teams must also face the haka and remain motionless.

It is interesting how the IRB don't see any conflict between the haka and their own code of conduct.
20.1 All Unions, Associations, Rugby Bodies, Clubs and Persons:
20.1.12 shall not do anything which is likely to intimidate, offend, insult,
humiliate or discriminate against any other Person on the ground of their
religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin;

I could be clearly wrong but the rules you have quoted are general for the game are they not? Could you please provide any IRB rules where the HAKA is specifically mentioned?
I was led to believe that opposing teams may approach the HAKA but may not cross the halfway line?

[The Great Aukster]

There are no IRB "rules" regarding the haka AFAIK. Rather there is a "protocol" which Unions have been made aware of and if they breach that they get fined. It would be interesting if any Union actually challenged the IRB and refused to pay the fine, whether this protocol had any legal basis.

With regards to the "Code of conduct", would most people (outside the IRB) not view a war dance with throat slitting gestures as intimidating behaviour?

[eirebilly]

Oh ok, Aukster, now i get where you are coming from. You meant the contents of the HAKA could be seen as intimidating.

I dont think that people see it as being intimidating as such as its been explained on numerous occasions what it actually means.

I have stood across from a HAKA and although slightly scary, was also highly motivational. It really got my blood pumping.

[dallym]

Is this right?

Many years ago when the All Blacks went on tour their hosts would beg and beg for them to perform the haka even if it looked like a dodgy morris dance. Starting with Buck, over the last 25 years the haka has been transformed into one of the great spectacles and traditions in world sport. Now the same countries that begged for the ABs to perform the haka are now crying and saying that it shouldn't be performed.

[The Great Aukster]

Who's saying it shouldn't be performed?
The problem is with the IRB's hypocrisy over the issue, by favouring some countries at the expense of others.

[RubyGuby]

It remains one of the greatest sights in world rugby - Can the others just get over it, applaud and enjoy it for what it is. Absolute theatre and a privelage to witness

[sugarNspikes]

It remains one of the greatest sights in world rugby - Can the others just get over it, applaud and enjoy it for what it is. Absolute theatre and a privelage to witness

Enough about Ashton's swallow dive. What about the Haka?

[Effervescing Elephant]

It remains one of the greatest sights in world rugby - Can the others just get over it, applaud and enjoy it for what it is. Absolute theatre and a privelage to witness

Enough about Ashton's swallow dive. What about the Haka?

Made me laugh!

[Guest]

It remains one of the greatest sights in world rugby - Can the others just get over it, applaud and enjoy it for what it is. Absolute theatre and a privelage to witness

Enough about Ashton's swallow dive. What about the Haka?

Shouldnt Ashton's swallow dive be banned on grounds of humiliation as outlined in condition 20.1.12? I mean come on, it's borderline offensive

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

It remains one of the greatest sights in world rugby - Can the others just get over it, applaud and enjoy it for what it is. Absolute theatre and a privelage to witness

Enough about Ashton's swallow dive. What about the Haka?

Shouldnt Ashton's swallow dive be banned on grounds of humiliation as outlined in condition 20.1.12? I mean come on, it's borderline offensive

Careful EBOP, Zac Guildford did a "Splashton" on Saturday - the Crusaders were 40-odd points up and well and truly had the 4 try bonus point nailed so it wouldn't have mattered too much if he dropped it.

Of course, someone could point out to Ashton that he's being imitated by a bloke who had a worse record of off-pitch "incidents" in 2011 than the entire England RWC squad ...

[RubyGuby]

I think Ashtons swallow dive has been banned already

[sugarNspikes]

I think Ashtons swallow dive has been banned already

It's just resting...

[RubyGuby]

I think Ashtons swallow dive has been banned already

It's just resting...

Long may it rest

[Guest]

I think Ashtons swallow dive has been banned already

It's just resting...

Long may it rest

Amen, rest in peace

ps. If fines are handed out by the IRB for inappropriate haka responses, a similar fine should be handed down for the splashton, for humiliating oneself.

[mystiroakey]

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you about pretty much everything.

I do agree that the IRB favours the traditional nations. This is now 9 or 10 (which is an improvement on 8 from 10 years ago, and the home natioos for most of its history). The quaetion of the world cup isn't simply about the NZRFU saying pay us more or we wont play. What they actually was we cant sustain rugby union in this country if we lose our commercial revenue every four years. We wont be able to afford to compete. It wasn't neccesarily a case of straight funding. It's important to remember that the model used by rugby is significantly different to other major sporting events such as football. For instnacein the football world cup there are still plenty of opportunities to meet the needs of the sponsors. The world cup is recognised as being unsustaibly financially for a number of reasons. They will have to address these over the next few years.

The issue of small nations and funding is real. At the very least, the IRB should look to guarentee a minimum player payment for the tournrment so that teams aren't out of pocket, and to work towards integrated regional competitions.

On the topic of the haka. Quite happy for it to go, and not exactly overwhelmed by the IRB's rules. However the haka is one of rugby's oldest traditions, it goes back over 100 years. I can understand why they put in placve the current rules. I think you have the the wrong end of the stick.

i said very clearly in the post above that the big teams are favoured in regards to the distribution of funds- i then went on only mentioning new zealand - because they hold the most power- if new zealand wernt a part of the 'proposal' or 'blackmail' or whatever you wanna call it , it wouldnt have held as much weight!

Sorry black i think you have the worng end of stick- i stand by everything i said. NZ make money from international rugby- they run a profit even when we include the world cup year, the problem is you subsidise those profits towards they domestic losses, and they still run a loss. Sort out the domestic end or stop putting money in to it- NZ are just robbing peter to pay paul.

[anotherworldofpain]

Who are peter and paul? I don't understanding this point.

[Biltong]

anotherworldofpain, in this example Peter is international earnings, used to subsidise domestic rugby (paul).

[Biltong]

Sorry black i think you have the worng end of stick- i stand by everything i said. NZ make money from international rugby- they run a profit even when we include the world cup year, the problem is you subsidise those profits towards they domestic losses, and they still run a loss. Sort out the domestic end or stop putting money in to it- NZ are just robbing peter to pay paul.

Mystir, is that not the case with most Unions?

[anotherworldofpain]

Mark Peter or Wayne Peter?

[mystiroakey]

Sorry black i think you have the worng end of stick- i stand by everything i said. NZ make money from international rugby- they run a profit even when we include the world cup year, the problem is you subsidise those profits towards they domestic losses, and they still run a loss. Sort out the domestic end or stop putting money in to it- NZ are just robbing peter to pay paul.

Mystir, is that not the case with most Unions?

i am english pal

[Sponsored content]