Do the NRL want a Club from NZ their Competition?

[Balmain1969]

1 hour ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

Okay a lot to deconstruct here but I’ll do it nonetheless. 

The analogy is absolutely accurate. What makes you think the NZ Super Rugby teams and the Warriors are competing? Most of the time, fans are overlapping and it’s not a mutually exclusive decision to follow one or the other. Same goes from buying from the Supermarket and buying from the fast food restaurant. Of course you’ll get the group who exclusively follow one but they are not a huge factor here considering that it’s NZ which I’ll elaborate on. 

As someone who has been to NZ, I found that for the most part, code tribalism is not really as strong as what it is in Australia. Kiwis are a patriotic bunch therefore will support any teams representing the country or city regardless of the code.

This is a huge contrast to Australia where the code tribalism is much more prevalent and blatant. I’ve seen and read instances where Aussies actually hope that their own national teams in other codes don’t do well because “it’s good for our game”. It’s even apparent in the Aussie media. For instance, you’ll often have the Victoria media only covering the AFL while not giving the time of day to anyone else. And if they do cover other competing sports, it’s usually to highlight the negatives. Football in Australia knows this very well, always being on the receiving end of such propaganda by the AFL media. 

It’s no secret that code tribalism in Australia, to an extent, is drawn along state lines. You have the rugby league hotbeds of NSW and Queensland, and AFL dominance in Victoria, SA, WA etc. So taking into account the strong tribalistic aspect, it’s then no surprise to see that the Melbourne Storm are smaller than all the other AFL teams in Melbourne. 

Getting back to NZ, it is much easier for the less popular sports to gain public support. The NZ media plays its part as well by giving coverage to other sports. You even have a former Warriors player Monty Betham who watches the All Blacks. You had a former All Black like Carlos Spencer who was involved in the Auckland 9s. The Warriors recently adopted a breathing technique of the All Blacks. There was a picture of the current All Blacks captain wearing a Warriors jersey and who has attended training sessions at the Warriors. These are just some of the examples which proves my point. I’m yet to see anything remotely close to that in Australia. 

With that in mind it should become more apparent why, in the unique case of NZ, it’s inaccurate to compare one team representing the whole country to 5 teams who directly compete with each other.

Comparing the All Blacks and Warriors makes for a much more accurate comparison. 

 

[Yorkshire Knight]

52 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Everybody else: "the New Zealand Warriors is the biggest rugby team in New Zealand "

Yorkshire Knight: "Yes, but when you add them together, the Union teams are bigger"

Everyone: "Yes, we know but that's not what we are saying, we are saying that the Warriors are the biggest individual team"

YK: "Yes, but when you add them together, the Union teams are bigger"

Everyone: "Yes, everyone is happy to concede this and that Union is the bigger sport but the original point was that the Warriors are individually the biggest rugby team in New Zealand"

YK: "Yes, but when you add them together, the Union teams are bigger"

and repeat. 

All you need to do is look at the social media following to see that the All Blacks are the biggest rugby team in NZ

[Click]

8 minutes ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

All you need to do is look at the social media following to see that the All Blacks are the biggest rugby team in NZ

The All Blacks are their national team... They are not a club team like the 5 union teams, or the Warriors...

I don't understand what point you are trying to make, but it is failing.

[Yorkshire Knight]

25 minutes ago, Click said:

The All Blacks are their national team... They are not a club team like the 5 union teams, or the Warriors...

I don't understand what point you are trying to make, but it is failing.

Read;

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Everybody else: "the New Zealand Warriors is the biggest rugby team in New Zealand "

Yorkshire Knight: "Yes, but when you add them together, the Union teams are bigger"

Everyone: "Yes, we know but that's not what we are saying, we are saying that the Warriors are the biggest individual team"

YK: "Yes, but when you add them together, the Union teams are bigger"

Everyone: "Yes, everyone is happy to concede this and that Union is the bigger sport but the original point was that the Warriors are individually the biggest rugby team in New Zealand"

YK: "Yes, but when you add them together, the Union teams are bigger"

and repeat. 

It went from being the biggest club team to being the biggest team overall. That is false 

[DoubleD]

2 hours ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

Okay a lot to deconstruct here but I’ll do it nonetheless. 

The analogy is absolutely accurate. What makes you think the NZ Super Rugby teams and the Warriors are competing? Most of the time, fans are overlapping and it’s not a mutually exclusive decision to follow one or the other. Same goes from buying from the Supermarket and buying from the fast food restaurant. Of course you’ll get the group who exclusively follow one but they are not a huge factor here considering that it’s NZ which I’ll elaborate on. 

As someone who has been to NZ, I found that for the most part, code tribalism is not really as strong as what it is in Australia. Kiwis are a patriotic bunch therefore will support any teams representing the country or city regardless of the code.

This is a huge contrast to Australia where the code tribalism is much more prevalent and blatant. I’ve seen and read instances where Aussies actually hope that their own national teams in other codes don’t do well because “it’s good for our game”. It’s even apparent in the Aussie media. For instance, you’ll often have the Victoria media only covering the AFL while not giving the time of day to anyone else. And if they do cover other competing sports, it’s usually to highlight the negatives. Football in Australia knows this very well, always being on the receiving end of such propaganda by the AFL media. 

It’s no secret that code tribalism in Australia, to an extent, is drawn along state lines. You have the rugby league hotbeds of NSW and Queensland, and AFL dominance in Victoria, SA, WA etc. So taking into account the strong tribalistic aspect, it’s then no surprise to see that the Melbourne Storm are smaller than all the other AFL teams in Melbourne. 

Getting back to NZ, it is much easier for the less popular sports to gain public support. The NZ media plays its part as well by giving coverage to other sports. You even have a former Warriors player Monty Betham who watches the All Blacks. You had a former All Black like Carlos Spencer who was involved in the Auckland 9s. The Warriors recently adopted a breathing technique of the All Blacks. There was a picture of the current All Blacks captain wearing a Warriors jersey and who has attended training sessions at the Warriors. These are just some of the examples which proves my point. I’m yet to see anything remotely close to that in Australia. 

With that in mind it should become more apparent why, in the unique case of NZ, it’s inaccurate to compare one team representing the whole country to 5 teams who directly compete with each other.

Comparing the All Blacks and Warriors makes for a much more accurate comparison. 

 

I can’t wait to see this breathing technique they’ve adopted. 

Is it something revolutionary such as ‘inhale, exhale. Inhale, exhale’ ?

[RP London]

On 11/08/2019 at 13:10, Yorkshire Knight said:

Warriors are one team representing the whole of NZ whereas there are 5 NZ union teams. Not really an accurate comparison. Combine those 5 teams then compare them. When you do combine them, you get the All Blacks. And at this stage, it’s not really a contest anymore 

why did you decide to compare them to all the other teams in NZ? Copas original quote that you quoted in your post above mentioned them being the "most popular rugby club in NZs largest city" so the only comparison is the Blues is it not? He hasnt said they are the "most popular in NZ" but just they are the most popular in Aukland which is "NZs largest city".. you started to bring up the rest of NZ which is odd in the extreme.

are they or are they not the most popular Rugby club in Aukland? (I do not know the answer BTW but trying to get the argument back to where it started).

 

[ckn]

1 hour ago, Yorkshire Knight said:

All you need to do is look at the social media following to see that the All Blacks are the biggest rugby team in NZ

This is a RUGBY LEAGUE sub-forum of a RUGBY LEAGUE website.  We have kindly provided you with a nice little hole in which you can talk union all day if you wanted. Please keep it off the main forum though.

You've been around long enough that you know this and are running the risk of formal moderation action against you if you continue.

[ckn]

Just now, SuperMario said:

 

I think RL and RU will invariably grow much closer in one way or another (no - there will never be a hybrid game) in the future the way things are going with events outside the control of both codes. It does sometimes appear very narrow-minded to keep pretending it doesn't exist on the main forum.

No, no it doesn't.

Rugby league is a separate sport to rugby union. We've developed this policy over the last 20 years following more than a few consultations with forum members.  The overwhelming view is that forum members don't want to read about rugby union in any way on this specific sub-forum.

Every time we have tried relaxing that rule it just attracts union trolls like flies to excrement. So, no, we're not going to relax this.

[ckn]

Right, please stop with the union posts. I don't want to have to waste the time going through and pruning the entire thread of union stuff and am relying on you playing nicely.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

13 minutes ago, ckn said:

Right, please stop with the union posts. I don't want to have to waste the time going through and pruning the entire thread of union stuff and am relying on you playing nicely.

Not wanting to be pedantic here, ckn and I agree this thread has certainly gone off tangent but just so I'm clear, are you saying (in this post and your previous replies) that union shouldn't be mentioned at all - even when clearly in relation to league, in this sub forum? 

[ckn]

4 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Not wanting to be pedantic here, ckn and I agree this thread has certainly gone off tangent but just so I'm clear, are you saying (in this post and your previous replies) that union shouldn't be mentioned at all - even when clearly in relation to league, in this sub forum? 

No, not at all, it's all about context. I'll explain the difference:

Scenario 1 (acceptable for this forum): union has brought in new tackling laws, do you think this would work in rugby league? (followed by a conversation fully in the context of rugby league without discussing/criticising union further beyond absolutely necessary)

Scenario 2 (not acceptable): union has brought in new tackling laws, their sport is rubbish now. (followed by posts about how rubbish union is)

Scenario 3 (not acceptable): union has brought in new tackling laws, we need to do the same otherwise they'll take over our sport. (followed by rabble-rousing posts about how evil union is)

Scenario 4 (not acceptable): union has brought in new tackling laws, their sport is better than ours now (usual troll posting that often gets a summary ban from the forum)

Scenario 5 (not acceptable): rugby league has brought in new tackling laws, that's irrelevant because the All Blacks are a bigger brand and rugby league should know its place (again, trolling and beyond annoying)

Scenario 6 (acceptable): Do the NRL want a club from NZ? (followed by a discussion that never mentions union at all because it's utterly irrelevant to the conversation).

[hunsletgreenandgold]

2 minutes ago, ckn said:

No, not at all, it's all about context. I'll explain the difference:

Scenario 1 (acceptable for this forum): union has brought in new tackling laws, do you think this would work in rugby league? (followed by a conversation fully in the context of rugby league without discussing/criticising union further beyond absolutely necessary)

Scenario 2 (not acceptable): union has brought in new tackling laws, their sport is rubbish now. (followed by posts about how rubbish union is)

Scenario 3 (not acceptable): union has brought in new tackling laws, we need to do the same otherwise they'll take over our sport. (followed by rabble-rousing posts about how evil union is)

Scenario 4 (not acceptable): union has brought in new tackling laws, their sport is better than ours now (usual troll posting that often gets a summary ban from the forum)

Scenario 5 (not acceptable): rugby league has brought in new tackling laws, that's irrelevant because the All Blacks are a bigger brand and rugby league should know its place (again, trolling and beyond annoying)

Scenario 6 (acceptable): Do the NRL want a club from NZ? (followed by a discussion that never mentions union at all because it's utterly irrelevant to the conversation).

That's what I hoped you meant. Cheers mate. 

[RP London]

10 hours ago, Allora said:

Easy fix, get Henry Perenara to be one of the Refs that always officiate the Warriors games.

That will cut out some of the cries of Bias.

 

@ckn can you also do something about this as the photo is frightening!!

[ckn]

9 minutes ago, SuperMario said:

 

Which side are the trolls in these scenarios? 

Either and both

[ckn]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

@ckn can you also do something about this as the photo is frightening!!

Having grown up in the era of properly lived-in faces in rugby, this is merely "oh dear" level

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, ckn said:

Having grown up in the era of properly lived-in faces in rugby, this is merely "oh dear" level

its the eyes and the weird "smile" that just look...unnerving 

[ckn]

27 minutes ago, RP London said:

its the eyes and the weird "smile" that just look...unnerving 

It looks like he's just been told he's being seconded to Super League for next season and being put up in a bedsit in Bradford.

[Allora]

14 minutes ago, ckn said:

It looks like he's just been told he's being seconded to Super League for next season and being put up in a bedsit in Bradford.

Maybe he is worried about living up the the higher level of proficiency and scrutiny in England as demanded by the fans in England.

A bedsit in Bradford may be luxury compared with some parts of Auckland.

 

 

[The Great Dane]

13 hours ago, kier said:

There are two parts to the argument.

This season it is without doubt that the Warriors have suffered three losses that have been down to referee errors. In these three cases there have been official apologies from the NRL management and in many cases refs/touchies have been sanctioned for the errors.The six competition points however, remain lost and what could/should have been a good season is now looking like a failure (such is the competitive nature of the NRL.

That's not something that is unusual in the NRL or that has exclusively happened to the Warriors, in fact this is the only the first time that it's seriously affected the Warriors where other clubs have had chronic problems with being duded by reffing mistakes going back years.

Last year the Raiders lost three or four games due to refereeing errors, most famously the game against Cronulla which is probably the worst example of refs stuffing a game that exists. There have been other times when it's completely stuffed the clubs season up. It was either 2013 or 14 (I'd have to go back and check to be sure) where we missed the finals because of a handful of games that we should have won but lost because of reffing mistakes. 

The Knights have lost a few this year due to refereeing errors, but when they went on their run of three spoons in a row from 2015-17 they were duded egregiously multiple times.  

The Tigers were victims a few years ago, Cowboys have had their troubles with losing games because of ref mistakes (peanalty Broncos anybody?!), etc, etc, I could go on.

Were all of them because of bias as well, or could it be that there's something deeper going on and that trying to blame it on xenophobic bias isn't helpful!

13 hours ago, kier said:

The recent comments by Blake Green have been echoed by other Australian players such as Steve Price, Kevin Campion and Brent Tate. All experienced footballers who have been dismayed by the officiating while playing for the Warriors, and are convinced that there is a bias in the overall decision making.

11 hours ago, kier said:

Obviously all teams have experienced incorrect calls. They're the expected outcome of any officiated sport. The difference with the players I mentioned (and I actually got to speak to Kevin Campion in person about this) is that they are able to compare the reffing that they experienced as Warriors to playing (as seasoned professionals) for other clubs in the NRL.

They have all stated that it's different.

Again, as I mentioned, it's to be expected....it's a bias that exists in all human beings. I suppose the only real way to remove it would be to bring UK/French refs over to officiate all NRL games?

Frankly, those players are biased, stupid, looking for an excuse or somebody to blame, or a mixture of all of the above, because the evidence is right there in front of them to show that the Warriors don't get it any worse then anybody else. 

Also the science on unconscious/implicit bias (whatever you want to call it) is at best dodgy to begin with, especially when it comes to measuring it.

Put simply it's accepted by sociologists that it exists (and I agree that it exists in some form, especially the evolutionary aspect, though that is a little different), but even they accept that not only have all of their way's of measuring it completely failed to measure it (to the point that at least a couple of the creators of the IAT have disowned it as an actual measurement of implicit bias), but have also accepted that it is basically impossible to measure and that even if we could measure it it seems to have basically no effect on discriminatory behaviour whatsoever anyway.

So considering that it's broadly accepted that even if implicit bias does exist (which again we all agree it does to at least some extent) it's effect is so small that it's basically completely inconsequential anyway, so I wouldn't be hanging my hat on it if I was you.

Here's a link if you want one.