Last Sat. saw the first test match between the British and Irish Lions and the New Zealand All Blacks. I made a brief mention of it, but haven’t really commented on it since.
My main reason for not saying anything is that I didn’t see the match *insert a whine and moan about evil sky sports here :) * but also because I think the whole thing has been blown out of all proportion, and I blame Woodward.
I’m bringing it up today because of some letters in The Irish Times (sub req’d).
Such behaviour – which could have fatal results – cannot be glossed over as part of the game of rugby … How the test series can continue following that assault beggars belief. … The Haka used to be entertaining. It has now gone beyond that and into tribal warfare with a vengeance. It belongs to a different world and no longer serves a proper purpose. It should be finished with for the sake of the game
And another letter:
Do we accept a very dangerous spearing injury, wait for a catastrophic neck injury, or do we make a moral stand and bring Brian O’Driscoll and his warriors home?
Should he consider legal advice regarding his assault? –
Honestly, how can anyone respond to these viewpoints without pointing and laughing?
After seeing the replays of the tackle on Sky News I would say that it was a dangerous tackle, that it shouldn’t have happened, and that the two NZ players were in the wrong. However, Woodward has whipped up this media frenzy for one reason, to deflect attention away from the scoreline. 21-3. And they were blown away by the All Blacks. Ignore the result against Manawatu,
it doesn’t signify.
And as for that letter denouncing the Haka, well of course it belongs to a different world. It is from the Maori culture, not the rugby one. But the All-Blacks are a NZ team, don’t they have the right to express their Maori heritage? And why on earth should it be gotten rid of? Yes, it is used to intimidate, but so what? Can anyone give me one good reason why the Haka was even brought up in this letter? Coz I don’t see one.