Munster v Maori 11-11-2016

former total

Am I the only one who sees this?

It's a joke, a wind-up.

FrancieBrady

swiwi_ wrote: »

Nah, I think you are ignorant in the extreme. It's up to the Maoris to decide if the Maori ABs is a racist construction, not some Irish lad miles away from NZ. The Maoris have no problem with the concept. Like I said though I'm not going to successfully educate someone who has rape in his username.

People wouldn't tolerate the Boer Springboks for a good reason - it would hark back to racist apartheid times, which non-white (and many white) South Africans strongly abhorred.

I don't tell Ireland how to run its country and social constructs, you can leave the Maori ABs to NZ to decide whether it's a racist concept or not. For NZers we are actually proud of the Maori ABs.

The cult of Katie Hopkins Troll For Hire hits the rugby thread.
Is there a single Maori voice complaining about racism here?

irishbucsfan

former total wrote: »

Am I the only one who sees this?

It's a joke, a wind-up.

Surely it's only a minority of people who think otherwise... my faith in the people demands I believe that

Felix Jones is God

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Surely it's only a minority of people who think otherwise... my faith in the people demands I believe that

I don't think anybody sees the maori's as a racist entity

The Rape of Lucretia

swiwi_ wrote: »

It's up to the Maoris to decide if the Maori ABs is a racist construction.
you can leave the Maori ABs to NZ to decide whether it's a racist concept or not.

What ??? :eek:

Its up to the discriminator to decide if he is being racist ???

The Maoris are discriminating against non-Maori.

Did people listen when the Boer South Africans, or whites in Alabama told the rest of the world, "mind your own business, we will decide whether our policy is racist or not" ? Beacuse they were happy with the situation didnt mean there wasnt something wrong and their eyes had to be opened.

Just saying "it isnt racism because it isnt", is not a very strong argument, to say the least.

lazybones32

Nice way to spend a Fri. evening but man, the weather and traffic...
The haka was a sight and I noticed even the sideline staff (medics, waterboys) were doing the haka from the sideline in perfect unison with the men on the pitch.
Maybe someone can correct this, but was this the first time a visiting Team did a lap after to thank the crowd? Teams often come out to thank their fans but it was nice to see the interaction between players and supporters.

I think it was ThreeRedKings who cited that each year Munster played a visiting Nation/Team, we ended up winning the league that year: NZ 08, AUS 10 and now the Maori AB....

lazybones32

Nice way to spend a Fri. evening but man, the weather and traffic...
The haka was a sight and I noticed even the sideline staff (medics, waterboys) were doing the haka from the sideline in perfect unison with the men on the pitch.
Maybe someone can correct this, but was this the first time a visiting Team did a lap after to thank the crowd? Teams often come out to thank their fans but it was nice to see the interaction between players and supporters.

I think it was ThreeRedKings who cited that each year Munster played a visiting Nation/Team, we ended up winning the league that year: NZ 08, AUS 10 and now the Maori AB....

DDC1990

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

What ??? :eek:

Its up to the discriminator to decide if he is being racist ???

The Maoris are discriminating against non-Maori.

Did people listen when the Boer South Africans, or whites in Alabama told the rest of the world, "mind your own business, we will decide whether our policy is racist or not" ? Beacuse they were happy with the situation didnt mean there wasnt something wrong and their eyes had to be opened.

Just saying "it isnt racism because it isnt", is not a very strong argument, to say the least.

It's a rugby team for players with Maori heritage!

Why would they let non-Maori's play?

Previously they allowed non-Maori's to play presumably to ensure they had a big enough squad to cover for injuries, and then (amusingly) they allowed Maori looking players to play, but now there are plenty of players with Maori heritage so they go for a Maori only squad.

It's like complaining that the u20's won't let over 20's play, and that it's discrimination against the over 20's.

If it was a specific NZ A team, and they denied non-Maori's the chance then you'd have a point, but seriously it's in the name MAORI All Blacks! Not the Maori and Wannabe Maori All Blacks.

kub

Is it much different to GAA?

durthacht

I have the perfect solution this controversial debate - Project Players for the Maori All Blacks! Three years and you qualify as Maori. Or maybe five. Or maybe seven.

Project Players have never been controversial right...?!

:-)

durthacht

I have the perfect solution this controversial debate - Project Players for the Maori All Blacks! Three years and you qualify as Maori. Or maybe five. Or maybe seven.

Project Players have never been controversial right...?!

:-)

CMOTDibbler

swiwi_ wrote: »

Nah, I think you are ignorant in the extreme. It's up to the Maoris to decide if the Maori ABs is a racist construction, not some Irish lad miles away from NZ. The Maoris have no problem with the concept. Like I said though I'm not going to successfully educate someone who has rape in his username.

Umm, The Rape of Lucretia is the name of an opera by Benjamin Britten. The initials entirely coincidentally almost spell something that's just been done to you. :pac:

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

They certainly weren't last night. Even the Italian PRO12 sides would have been embarrassed by some of what the Maori guys were doing. You'd swear they'd never seen rain before. I had to laugh at comments from Toland talking about things like Conways supreme dominance in the air. He had a complete armchair ride as the Maori lads had no interest in competing most of the time. A couple of their players put themselves about a bit but overall they were rubbish.

That said Munster still had to beat them in woeful conditions. Their relatively low error rate and appetite for it were impressive. Scannell and Sweetnam continue to impress in the back line. Those guys have very serious futures. Keatley went well too I thought while Williams mixed the good with the bad. If he can start eliminating some of the sloppiness from his game he'd be a decent back up to Murray.

It's kind of hard to judge the pack tbh. Copeland looked really good, but it isn't the first time he has. He tends to look really good against average opposition. So did he step up yesterday or was his performance more reflective of the opposition? It's really hard to say. And that then applies to the rest of the pack. TOD and Oliver were both good too, and in fairness the Maori 7 & 8 seemed interested. Would worry that a couple of times the Maori 7 man scrum got a slight edge on an 8 man Munster scrum, but there seemed to be a deliberate tactic there to delay getting the ball in on Munster ball to force penalties.

I've yet to see it in TV but there were 3 scrums while their No6 was in the bin.

Srum 1 - was 8 v 8 (their outside centre took up the blindside position), can't really remember anything about what happened in the scrum but Williams got a turnover from their scrum half as he took the ball from the back of the scrum.

Scrum 2 - resulted from the turnover in scrum 1. They had only 7 men in the scrum and we got a penalty


Scrum 3 - their scrum, the kept the 7 man scrum and won their own ball.


We had lost Cronin from about 25min mark and were down to playing out 3rd choice loosehead.

Over the course of the game I was very happy with our scrum, I think we we won our own put ins, got at least two free kicks and two penalties from the scrum.

Spudmonkey

Was delighted for Keatley once he landed the last conversion. Thought he had a good night considering the conditions.

If he is staying on I'd prefer to see Scannell taking on kicking duties and allow Keats to focus on his running game. Scannell had one great kick into the corner late on in the second half.

leakyboots

I don't buy it that the Maori aren't very good... look back at their history of results. Theyre capable of big scalps regularly. We never let them play. Bar that 5 min spell where they showed their class we had their number for the rest of the game by keeping it tight and swarmed them in defence - Neenbauyer is making his mark.

What a match to be at, another great night in Thomond. The Haka was incredible and the rapturous reception after it. Class acts so they are the Maori. Their 8 looks to be a future international.

Both second rows were superb, Sweetnam really is a class act and has pace and skills to burn. Robocope stepped up (bar that balls up for a definite try). Conway was great in the air, the biblical rain and the greasy ball, he did very well. TOD sent a timely reminder to Schmidders. Rory Scannell is a gem of a player. We won plenty of penalties in the scrum too (their 3 was a MONSTER)

Delighted for Keatley when he nailed that kick from the touchline and gave a big fist coming back.

Great night.

molloyjh

They may well be very good generally. They weren't last night. They were downright terrible last night.

phog

The full game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmrNL3RRvK0

phog

WTV's blog of the game


TRK's Wally Ratings

The Rape of Lucretia

DDC1990 wrote: »

It's a rugby team for players with Maori heritage!

Why would they let non-Maori's play?

Without getting into defending attacks on those of us unfortunately monikered, the above is no justification.

If, under the auspices of the IRFU there were to be a 'Catholic Ireland' team, touring a serious squad of players, would there not be an outcry ? 'Sure, its a rugby team for playerswith Catholic heritage. Why would they let non Catholics play?' just wouldnt cut it.
Anyway, I note that no one is offering any reasoned defence of the accusation of racism by the NZ Maoris.

Jump_In_Jack

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Without getting into defending attacks on those of us unfortunately monikered, the above is no justification.

If, under the auspices of the IRFU there were to be a 'Catholic Ireland' team, touring a serious squad of players, would there not be an outcry ? 'Sure, its a rugby team for playerswith Catholic heritage. Why would they let non Catholics play?' just wouldnt cut it.
Anyway, I note that no one is offering any reasoned defence of the accusation of racism by the NZ Maoris.

I actually assumed all along this was a tongue in cheek argument but now I'm not so sure.

Of course it's not racism.
There's no malice or prejudice involved.
It is a novelty team.
They don't play any competitions, just challenge matches.

Catholicism is not an ethnicity. Anyone can join it if they were so willing.

The Maori team is perhaps similar to the Lions, where Italians and French etc aren't allowed play.
Or the Pacific Islanders team.
Or a team of red-haired people!

It excludes others without any negativity, as the team is a representative team, if you're not one of the people it represents then it shouldn't affect you.

The South African Boer team would not be racist either in my view, as it would not be representing the country in competitions.
It would not be well received though due to historical issues with racism in SA.

pickarooney

I've always thought the same of Athletic Bilbao, FWIW, albeit they're a professional outfit and, for me, in clear breach of EU employment law. Nobody would hear a bad word said against them though. On the other hand, Rangers' Catholic ban is still held against them 25 years on.

Although it essentially amounts to the same thing, picking players based on X as opposed to excluding players based on Y is accepted as fair game, unless the former is deemed to tacitly mean the latter, which it always will if the group in question have a chequered history.

Felix Jones is God

You can't compare Bilbao and Rangers. Rangers are Scottish and identify as Scottish...Bilbao are Basque and identify as so, not Spanish. They essentially pick home grown players only, same as the Irish provinces not signing NIQ players

sydthebeat

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Or a team of red-haired people!
.

I was just going to post this very thing.
Inequality and discrimination exist where a certain section of the society are excluded, like a men's only golf club for example.

However there is no discrimination when everyone can play a sport, but you set up a specialist team within that sport, say for red heads only, or an over 40s team etc.

The maoiris are absolutely ok to play add they do because a white, black, red, yellow, young old man woman whatever is not excluded from playing rugby in New Zealand.

No racism exists.

dregin

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Without getting into defending attacks on those of us unfortunately monikered, the above is no justification.

If, under the auspices of the IRFU there were to be a 'Catholic Ireland' team, touring a serious squad of players, would there not be an outcry ? 'Sure, its a rugby team for playerswith Catholic heritage. Why would they let non Catholics play?' just wouldnt cut it.
Anyway, I note that no one is offering any reasoned defence of the accusation of racism by the NZ Maoris.

Because you can be catholic by choice and not ancestoral heritage.

pickarooney

sydthebeat wrote: »

I was just going to post this very thing.
Inequality and discrimination exist where a certain section of the society are excluded, like a men's only golf club for example.

However there is no discrimination when everyone can play a sport, but you set up a specialist team within that sport, say for red heads only, or an over 40s team etc.

I've read this five times now and have had five different reactions to it. Finally, I think you're right.

The Rape of Lucretia

sydthebeat wrote: »

I was just going to post this very thing.
Inequality and discrimination exist where a certain section of the society are excluded, like a men's only golf club for example.

However there is no discrimination when everyone can play a sport, but you set up a specialist team within that sport, say for red heads only, or an over 40s team etc.

The maoiris are absolutely ok to play add they do because a white, black, red, yellow, young old man woman whatever is not excluded from playing rugby in New Zealand.

No racism exists.

How are the first and last paragraphs consistent ?

You say inequality and discrimination exist if you have a golf club that women cannot play, even though women are not excluded from playing golf on other courses, and, its not inequality and discrimination to have a maori rugby team which excludes others, but that OK because they can play for other teams in NZ ?????

There is no logic there.

Sex and age divisions are essential to the nature of safe and competitive sport. Division according to race is not essential - and by definition, cannot be, anything but racism. The Maori NZ situation is exactly the same as South African rugby of the past. Which recognised its inherent racism and has moved on. It would seem there is a dual standard - if you are majority, racism is not OK - if you are a minority, racism is OK.

pickarooney

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It would seem there is a dual standard - if you are majority, racism is not OK - if you are a minority, racism is OK.

Whites and Afrikaners are both minorities in South Africa so that doesn't compute.

sydthebeat

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

How are the first and last paragraphs consistent ?
.

You are bringing it to the n th degree and therefore making your argument ridiculous. You may as well be arguing that men's rugby is sexist as women can't play with them, or over 40s is ageist against younger people. Maori rugby is simply another classification of a rugby team.

You only need to be 1/8th Maori to ffs.

This is a empty vessel argument.

budhabob

phog wrote: »

The full game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmrNL3RRvK0

Brilliant, fire on, sitting down to watch it now.

phog

budhabob wrote: »

Brilliant, fire on, sitting down to watch it now.

Still haven't got a chance to watch it again, hopefully later tonight.