Is NZ rugby in crisis?

First topic message reminder :

Red cards, ill disciplined, lack of composure at key times, no goal kicker and NO TRIES, I repeat NO TRIES....... and they get beaten by a bunch of un-coached blokes thrown together at the end of a very long season.

Is NZ rugby in crisis?

whocares wrote:Even if Australia stop playing RU and SA teams bugger off to the Pro12, the All Blacks are such a brand all countries will pay them at a premium to have them touring their backyard. Lack of finance might hurt NZ rugby without a proper club competition? Just create a transfer system by which the club/union that "bred" a player gets a cut of the value of that given player whenever he changes employers.

That might seem a nice idea to you but the French and English clubs who I assume you want to transfer the money keep New Zealand rugby going are not going to agree to it.

Such payments are almost certainly illegal in the EU (and probably in Brexit UK following Great Repeal Act) as a player's earning potential is reduced as his employer has to fund payments to a previous employer. A player is a free agent. They can work for whomever they wish without regard to the interests of previous employers. Attempts to restrict players in this way are a restraint of trade.

eirebilly wrote:Aside from what I wrote earlier I can honestly say that I understand why people not from NZ support the AB's. They are one very big community and a lot of people can relate to that.

The AB supporters (with the exception of a couple on here) are very welcoming and hospitable and as such, you immediately feel part of the family.

 Billy, Brian O'Driscoll doing some reconnaissance in Auckland a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY0rJyWaU6Y

Exiledinborders wrote:

whocares wrote:Even if Australia stop playing RU and SA teams bugger off to the Pro12, the All Blacks are such a brand all countries will pay them at a premium to have them touring their backyard. Lack of finance might hurt NZ rugby without a proper club competition? Just create a transfer system by which the club/union that "bred" a player gets a cut of the value of that given player whenever he changes employers.

That might seem a nice idea to you but the French and English clubs who I assume you want to transfer the money keep New Zealand rugby going are not going to agree to it.

Such payments are almost certainly illegal in the EU (and probably in Brexit UK following Great Repeal Act) as a player's earning potential is reduced as his employer has to fund payments to a previous employer.  A player is a free agent. They can work for whomever they wish without regard to the interests of previous employers. Attempts to restrict players in this way are a restraint of trade.

Seems strange as something similar already exists in Football whereby small clubs that happened to have a now famous footballer in their ranks when he was a kid still receive a small cut of the transfer money years later. For instance near where I live they had Drogba when he was a young teenager and thanks to that rule they earned 760k€ when he was transferred from Marseille to Chelsea (37M€).

incentivising clubs / academies that go through the efforts of producing quality players is the way forward imo.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Aside from what I wrote earlier I can honestly say that I understand why people not from NZ support the AB's. They are one very big community and a lot of people can relate to that.

The AB supporters (with the exception of a couple on here) are very welcoming and hospitable and as such, you immediately feel part of the family.

 Billy, Brian O'Driscoll doing some reconnaissance in Auckland a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY0rJyWaU6Y

Serious question Laurie, do you think it's really much different in other rugby playing countries? I've watched a number of these videos and whole programmes about grass roots rugby in NZ. And while I appreciated that the player numbers are greater at grass roots, it all seems very similar to grass roots in Wales, England, etc. Gareth Thomas did a documentary on BBC Wales the other week where he went to NZ to look at reasons why they were so good, and looked at the grass roots club game. All very welcoming, good camaraderie amongst players, good social scene, etc. But as he found, apart from the sheer numbers (one club ran something like 60 teams!) the feeling was very much like home. In fact, we have our own rugby programme on BBC Wales every week called Scrum V. They show highlights of the Pro12 games and the Welsh premier (semi-pro) league, but also go to a lower league team each week and spend time with the fans, etc. Very similar to what I see in these documentaries on NZ, except with different accents!

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Aside from what I wrote earlier I can honestly say that I understand why people not from NZ support the AB's. They are one very big community and a lot of people can relate to that.

The AB supporters (with the exception of a couple on here) are very welcoming and hospitable and as such, you immediately feel part of the family.

 Billy, Brian O'Driscoll doing some reconnaissance in Auckland a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY0rJyWaU6Y

Serious question Laurie, do you think it's really much different in other rugby playing countries?  I've watched a number of these videos and whole programmes about grass roots rugby in NZ.  And while I appreciated that the player numbers are greater at grass roots, it all seems very similar to grass roots in Wales, England, etc.  Gareth Thomas did a documentary on BBC Wales the other week where he went to NZ to look at reasons why they were so good, and looked at the grass roots club game.  All very welcoming, good camaraderie amongst players, good social scene, etc.  But as he found, apart from the sheer numbers (one club ran something like 60 teams!) the feeling was very much like home.  In fact, we have our own rugby programme on BBC Wales every week called Scrum V.  They show highlights of the Pro12 games and the Welsh premier (semi-pro) league, but also go to a lower league team each week and spend time with the fans, etc.  Very similar to what I see in these documentaries on NZ, except with different accents!

 Griff I have met many Welshmen over the years through rugby and I know that the Welsh are no less passionate about Rugby than New Zealanders, both as kids growing up and how we play for our small suburban and country clubs, many things are the same, there is however one area apparently of difference:

 I am more convinced the difference lies in the quality of the rugby education provided by the big schools, I know  here in Auckland. I know years ago when I was a kid playing 1st and second XV we would often (weekly) have a different guest coach on a particular specialist position and the combinations of that position, and I am talking about Old boys from our school at a level who were All Blacks, the instruction is very detailed, then you repeatedly practise what you have been instructed over and over again it until it becomes an overlearnt skill, this then is applied to fitness, strategy,where you are on the field, where you are on the scoreboard, and where you are on the clock. Once you have taken a skill into the area of overlearnt skill, it means that you play on impluse/sub consciously and execute accurately at pace.

 I know Xavier Rush in the offseason a couple of years ago from his coaching position in wales, came home here and was full time coaching my old schools under 15 age group team. thats not being condescending to Cardiff its more about how serious Xavier, and us Kiwis  regards this part of young Rugby players education and development.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Aside from what I wrote earlier I can honestly say that I understand why people not from NZ support the AB's. They are one very big community and a lot of people can relate to that.

The AB supporters (with the exception of a couple on here) are very welcoming and hospitable and as such, you immediately feel part of the family.

 Billy, Brian O'Driscoll doing some reconnaissance in Auckland a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY0rJyWaU6Y

Serious question Laurie, do you think it's really much different in other rugby playing countries?  I've watched a number of these videos and whole programmes about grass roots rugby in NZ.  And while I appreciated that the player numbers are greater at grass roots, it all seems very similar to grass roots in Wales, England, etc.  Gareth Thomas did a documentary on BBC Wales the other week where he went to NZ to look at reasons why they were so good, and looked at the grass roots club game.  All very welcoming, good camaraderie amongst players, good social scene, etc.  But as he found, apart from the sheer numbers (one club ran something like 60 teams!) the feeling was very much like home.  In fact, we have our own rugby programme on BBC Wales every week called Scrum V.  They show highlights of the Pro12 games and the Welsh premier (semi-pro) league, but also go to a lower league team each week and spend time with the fans, etc.  Very similar to what I see in these documentaries on NZ, except with different accents!

 Griff I have met many Welshmen over the years through rugby and I know that the Welsh are no less passionate about Rugby than New Zealanders, both as kids growing up and how we play for our small suburban and country clubs, many things are the same, there is however one area apparently of difference:

 I am more convinced the difference lies in the quality of the rugby education provided by the big schools, I know  here in Auckland. I know years ago when I was a kid playing 1st and second XV we would often (weekly) have a different guest coach on a particular specialist position and the combinations of that position, and I am talking about Old boys from our school at a level who were All Blacks, the instruction is very detailed, then you repeatedly practise what you have been instructed over and over again it until it becomes an overlearnt skill, this then is applied to fitness, strategy,where you are on the field, where you are on the scoreboard, and where you are on the clock. Once you have taken a skill into the area of overlearnt skill, it means that you play on impluse/sub consciously and execute accurately at pace.

 I know Xavier Rush in the offseason a couple of years ago from his coaching position in wales, came home here and was full time coaching my old schools under 15 age group team. thats not being condescending to Cardiff its more about how serious Xavier, and us Kiwis  regards this part of young Rugby players education and development.

I'm not debating why NZ players are better - I agree it's probably down to the coaching at that level. Just commenting on the 'community' aspect, which I feel is inherent in a lot of other places around the world too. My point being that when you watch a lot of behind the scenes stuff about NZ they seem to be suggesting that the community spirit, community clubs, grass roots, family BBQs, rugby festivals, etc. are in some way unique to NZ. But they happen as the norm here too. It's just that here the player numbers and number of sides that clubs run are a lot smaller (maybe just a couple of sides each on average - e.g. Seniors, seniors 2nds and a junior side perhaps). But this might be because kids here are also interested in other sports - if you take myself and my friends for example, some of our kids play junior rugby, lots though are into soccer and cricket, some into golf, one or two keen cyclists. The girls are all dancing, ballet, gymnastics and a few athletics - none into grass-based sports! But the community and grass roots element is common to all of these sports, in my experience. Apart from maybe golf!

whocares wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

whocares wrote:Even if Australia stop playing RU and SA teams bugger off to the Pro12, the All Blacks are such a brand all countries will pay them at a premium to have them touring their backyard. Lack of finance might hurt NZ rugby without a proper club competition? Just create a transfer system by which the club/union that "bred" a player gets a cut of the value of that given player whenever he changes employers.

That might seem a nice idea to you but the French and English clubs who I assume you want to transfer the money keep New Zealand rugby going are not going to agree to it.

Such payments are almost certainly illegal in the EU (and probably in Brexit UK following Great Repeal Act) as a player's earning potential is reduced as his employer has to fund payments to a previous employer.  A player is a free agent. They can work for whomever they wish without regard to the interests of previous employers. Attempts to restrict players in this way are a restraint of trade.

Seems strange as something similar already exists in Football whereby small clubs that happened to have a now famous footballer in their ranks when he was a kid still receive a small cut of the transfer money years later. For instance near where I live they had Drogba when he was a young teenager and thanks to that rule they earned 760k€ when he was transferred from Marseille to Chelsea (37M€).

incentivising clubs / academies that go through the efforts of producing quality players is the way forward imo.

That was I suspect because the small club had Drogba under contract when he transferred to Marseille and the two clubs agreed that they would share any future transfer payments. That is not illegal because it is just a contingent payment in an agreement to buy out a contract.

What you seemed to be suggesting is that a club or union who do not have a player under contract can have an interest beyond that contract. They cannot. This was one of the implications of the Bosman ruling.

Think about this outside of the context of sport. How would you feel if your first employer got to take a cut of your salary for life?

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Aside from what I wrote earlier I can honestly say that I understand why people not from NZ support the AB's. They are one very big community and a lot of people can relate to that.

The AB supporters (with the exception of a couple on here) are very welcoming and hospitable and as such, you immediately feel part of the family.

 Billy, Brian O'Driscoll doing some reconnaissance in Auckland a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY0rJyWaU6Y

Serious question Laurie, do you think it's really much different in other rugby playing countries?  I've watched a number of these videos and whole programmes about grass roots rugby in NZ.  And while I appreciated that the player numbers are greater at grass roots, it all seems very similar to grass roots in Wales, England, etc.  Gareth Thomas did a documentary on BBC Wales the other week where he went to NZ to look at reasons why they were so good, and looked at the grass roots club game.  All very welcoming, good camaraderie amongst players, good social scene, etc.  But as he found, apart from the sheer numbers (one club ran something like 60 teams!) the feeling was very much like home.  In fact, we have our own rugby programme on BBC Wales every week called Scrum V.  They show highlights of the Pro12 games and the Welsh premier (semi-pro) league, but also go to a lower league team each week and spend time with the fans, etc.  Very similar to what I see in these documentaries on NZ, except with different accents!

 Griff I have met many Welshmen over the years through rugby and I know that the Welsh are no less passionate about Rugby than New Zealanders, both as kids growing up and how we play for our small suburban and country clubs, many things are the same, there is however one area apparently of difference:

 I am more convinced the difference lies in the quality of the rugby education provided by the big schools, I know  here in Auckland. I know years ago when I was a kid playing 1st and second XV we would often (weekly) have a different guest coach on a particular specialist position and the combinations of that position, and I am talking about Old boys from our school at a level who were All Blacks, the instruction is very detailed, then you repeatedly practise what you have been instructed over and over again it until it becomes an overlearnt skill, this then is applied to fitness, strategy,where you are on the field, where you are on the scoreboard, and where you are on the clock. Once you have taken a skill into the area of overlearnt skill, it means that you play on impluse/sub consciously and execute accurately at pace.

 I know Xavier Rush in the offseason a couple of years ago from his coaching position in wales, came home here and was full time coaching my old schools under 15 age group team. thats not being condescending to Cardiff its more about how serious Xavier, and us Kiwis  regards this part of young Rugby players education and development.

I'm not debating why NZ players are better - I agree it's probably down to the coaching at that level.  Just commenting on the 'community' aspect, which I feel is inherent in a lot of other places around the world too.  My point being that when you watch a lot of behind the scenes stuff about NZ they seem to be suggesting that the community spirit, community clubs, grass roots, family BBQs, rugby festivals, etc. are in some way unique to NZ.  But they happen as the norm here too.  It's just that here the player numbers and number of sides that clubs run are a lot smaller (maybe just a couple of sides each on average - e.g. Seniors, seniors 2nds and a junior side perhaps).  But this might be because kids here are also interested in other sports - if you take myself and my friends for example, some of our kids play junior rugby, lots though are into soccer and cricket, some into golf, one or two keen cyclists.  The girls are all dancing, ballet, gymnastics and a few athletics - none into grass-based sports!  But the community and grass roots element is common to all of these sports, in my experience.  Apart from maybe golf!

 I believe that the "Culture" of our teams, clubs and community is very similar, although I have never been to wales, I have even seen in some of your own posts (especially the one on exposure to the Polynesian community) in the past a lot of similarities. New Zealand and Wales have that rugby is our national sport thing going on, which does make the code much more inclusive of the whole community.

Scottrf wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Another thing, Read, poor Captain. His backchat to Garces about being tackled in the air was like something you'd expect from a teenager and another sign of the fact that the New Zelanders just dont like it when the tables are turned on them. McCaw he isn't.

Na he had a good point.

I thought he missed the point.

What he is complaining about, hardly ever happens. It's just unfortunate.

You don't always get the rub of the green from officials and that's just life. However, in such a pivotal moment as that, he is bound to be frustrated. Completely understandable. Where he went wrong for me, was to take that frustration out on Garces and not Faumuina who had just levelled Sinckler with a no armed tackle below the knee. I know NZ as a whole were stressed and tired at that point, but Faumuina was pretty fresh and needed to maintain his discipline.

cascough wrote:
What he is complaining about, hardly ever happens. It's just unfortunate. 

Hardly happens because nobody has figured how to use it to their advantage (except me and Read maybe). That doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Don't have to wait for rules to be abused (Italy vs England?) to address them.

cascough wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Another thing, Read, poor Captain. His backchat to Garces about being tackled in the air was like something you'd expect from a teenager and another sign of the fact that the New Zelanders just dont like it when the tables are turned on them. McCaw he isn't.

Na he had a good point.

I thought he missed the point.

What he is complaining about, hardly ever happens. It's just unfortunate.

You don't always get the rub of the green from officials and that's just life. However, in such a pivotal moment as that, he is bound to be frustrated. Completely understandable. Where he went wrong for me, was to take that frustration out on Garces and not Faumuina who had just levelled Sinckler with a no armed tackle below the knee. I know NZ as a whole were stressed and tired at that point, but Faumuina was pretty fresh and needed to maintain his discipline.

Everyone is conveniently ignoring that bit, whether Sinckler was in the air or not that tackle would/should have been a penalty.

Scottrf wrote:

cascough wrote:
What he is complaining about, hardly ever happens. It's just unfortunate. 

Hardly happens because nobody has figured how to use it to their advantage (except me and Read maybe). That doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Don't have to wait for rules to be abused (Italy vs England?) to address them.

You're not allowed to jump into the tackle though are you? That's in the laws is it not? Sinckler got away with it because he was jumping to receive a pass. Garces must have deemed he jumped before he receives the ball. If he catches it then jumps, it'd be Sinckler that'd be penalised.

I honestly can't see too many people trying to coin it as a tactic, it's too risky and easy to get wrong. If we start to see a rush of players doing it, refs will just start coming down on the side of the tackler whenever it is marginal. I think it will stay as a pretty rare occurrence. But again, that really isn't the point. Faumunia went in with a reckless challenge a crucial moment of the series. To try and pick the ref apart on a technicality is pretty poor form IMO.

cascough wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

cascough wrote:
What he is complaining about, hardly ever happens. It's just unfortunate. 

Hardly happens because nobody has figured how to use it to their advantage (except me and Read maybe). That doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Don't have to wait for rules to be abused (Italy vs England?) to address them.

You're not allowed to jump into the tackle though are you? That's in the laws is it not? Sinckler got away with it because he was jumping to receive a pass. Garces must have deemed he jumped before he receives the ball. If he catches it then jumps, it'd be Sinckler that'd be penalised.

I honestly can't see too many people trying to coin it as a tactic, it's too risky and easy to get wrong. If we start to see a rush of players doing it, refs will just start coming down on the side of the tackler whenever it is marginal. I think it will stay as a pretty rare occurrence. But again, that really isn't the point. Faumunia went in with a reckless challenge a crucial moment of the series. To try and pick the ref apart on a technicality is pretty poor form IMO.

With a few minutes to play in the test, with the kick likely to take the oppo ahead, and when you're down to 14 men it'd be irresponsible for a captain to not try and talk the ref around IMO. Especially given that the jumping in to tackle law exists

There is no law which says you can't jump at any point. It's is something which has started to be used as a tactic to try and buy a pen though and probably something wr needs to look at.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

cascough wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

cascough wrote:
What he is complaining about, hardly ever happens. It's just unfortunate. 

Hardly happens because nobody has figured how to use it to their advantage (except me and Read maybe). That doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Don't have to wait for rules to be abused (Italy vs England?) to address them.

You're not allowed to jump into the tackle though are you? That's in the laws is it not? Sinckler got away with it because he was jumping to receive a pass. Garces must have deemed he jumped before he receives the ball. If he catches it then jumps, it'd be Sinckler that'd be penalised.

I honestly can't see too many people trying to coin it as a tactic, it's too risky and easy to get wrong. If we start to see a rush of players doing it, refs will just start coming down on the side of the tackler whenever it is marginal. I think it will stay as a pretty rare occurrence. But again, that really isn't the point. Faumunia went in with a reckless challenge a crucial moment of the series. To try and pick the ref apart on a technicality is pretty poor form IMO.

With a few minutes to play in the test, with the kick likely to take the oppo ahead, and when you're down to 14 men it'd be irresponsible for a captain to not try and talk the ref around IMO.

Again, missing the point.

It should have been a penalty, because it was clearly a reckless challenge, he hits him with no arms. Read was not in a position to argue that. had the tackle been otherwise legal, then I can see your point, but like I said, Faumuina's discipline has let NZ down at a crucial time and I didn't think it was a good look for the captain to whinge at the ref. Don't forget, Read made his comments about how he can jump into a tackle after the ref had explained his decision and was walking away. The decision had been made and it was pretty clear it wasn't going to be reversed. In fact I think as Read was talking, he was retreating also. He didn't look like he was trying to change his mind, he looked like he was just having a whinge to me. Snide, even.

cascough wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

cascough wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

cascough wrote:
What he is complaining about, hardly ever happens. It's just unfortunate. 

Hardly happens because nobody has figured how to use it to their advantage (except me and Read maybe). That doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Don't have to wait for rules to be abused (Italy vs England?) to address them.

You're not allowed to jump into the tackle though are you? That's in the laws is it not? Sinckler got away with it because he was jumping to receive a pass. Garces must have deemed he jumped before he receives the ball. If he catches it then jumps, it'd be Sinckler that'd be penalised.

I honestly can't see too many people trying to coin it as a tactic, it's too risky and easy to get wrong. If we start to see a rush of players doing it, refs will just start coming down on the side of the tackler whenever it is marginal. I think it will stay as a pretty rare occurrence. But again, that really isn't the point. Faumunia went in with a reckless challenge a crucial moment of the series. To try and pick the ref apart on a technicality is pretty poor form IMO.

With a few minutes to play in the test, with the kick likely to take the oppo ahead, and when you're down to 14 men it'd be irresponsible for a captain to not try and talk the ref around IMO.

Again, missing the point.

It should have been a penalty, because it was clearly a reckless challenge, he hits him with no arms. Read was not in a position to argue that. had the tackle been otherwise legal, then I can see your point, but like I said, Faumuina's discipline has let NZ down at a crucial time and I didn't think it was a good look for the captain to whinge at the ref. Don't forget, Read made his comments about how he can jump into a tackle after the ref had explained his decision and was walking away. The decision had been made and it was pretty clear it wasn't going to be reversed. In fact I think as Read was talking, he was retreating also. He didn't look like he was trying to change his mind, he looked like he was just having a whinge to me. Snide, even.

I'll have to re-watch the vid. At the time I was 4 pints to the good and screaming at the ref as I thought he'd gotten the call wrong

No 7&1/2 wrote:There is no law which says you can't jump at any point. It's is something  which has started to be used as a tactic to try and buy a pen though and probably something wr needs to look at.

In this context it's under law 10.4 something or other. You can't jump into or over a tackle (since it's illegal to tackle a player in the air) to gain an advantage. Therefore it's contrary to good sportsmanship. Which is even clearer when we use your words of "buy a pen".

It's the same way scrum halves aren't allowed to just purposely throw the ball into a retreating defender to buy a pen.

Fact is, it IS penalised and has been for as long as I can remember. The point is, it was a reckless challenge and should have been a penalty to the Lions. Read whinging about that isn't great IMO.

cascough wrote:

Again, missing the point.

It should have been a penalty, because it was clearly a reckless challenge, he hits him with no arms. Read was not in a position to argue that.

No, you're missing the point. The referee didn't penalise for lack of arms.

Well it isn't against a law. It isn't often penalised and very time it comes up like jonny may last year we have the same discussion.

Scottrf wrote:

cascough wrote:

Again, missing the point.

It should have been a penalty, because it was clearly a reckless challenge, he hits him with no arms. Read was not in a position to argue that.

No, you're missing the point. The referee didn't penalise for lack of arms.

Like I've said earlier. I don't think his ire should have been directed at the ref, because ultimately Faumuina was reckless and the correct outcome was reached.

Also, you're speculating that Garces wouldn't have pinged him for no arms. If there are multiple offences, he doesn't have to list them all.

If the Lions had not received a penalty for Faumuina's challenge, it would have been a demonstrable injustice. Therefore I thought it poor form on Read's part.

Sinckler did not jump into the tackle as he did not have possession of the ball before he jumped, therefore he was jumping to reach the ball. If he had the ball and then jumped, it would have been a penalty against the Lion.


A similar incident happened with Dylan Hartley a couple of years ago for England where a player was off the ground before receiving the pass and was hit by Hartley just before he landed. Hartley was penalised and a huge debate ensued about whether it was fair. Personally I feel it is crazy as such challenges are rarely unsafe and if anything are caused by poor play from the guy passing the ball, but that we have gone this long before another such incident occurred suggests it is not a major issue.

Ireland were awarded a penalty against New Zealand a few years ago for a similar incident.

Exiledinborders wrote:

whocares wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

whocares wrote:Even if Australia stop playing RU and SA teams bugger off to the Pro12, the All Blacks are such a brand all countries will pay them at a premium to have them touring their backyard. Lack of finance might hurt NZ rugby without a proper club competition? Just create a transfer system by which the club/union that "bred" a player gets a cut of the value of that given player whenever he changes employers.

That might seem a nice idea to you but the French and English clubs who I assume you want to transfer the money keep New Zealand rugby going are not going to agree to it.

Such payments are almost certainly illegal in the EU (and probably in Brexit UK following Great Repeal Act) as a player's earning potential is reduced as his employer has to fund payments to a previous employer.  A player is a free agent. They can work for whomever they wish without regard to the interests of previous employers. Attempts to restrict players in this way are a restraint of trade.

Seems strange as something similar already exists in Football whereby small clubs that happened to have a now famous footballer in their ranks when he was a kid still receive a small cut of the transfer money years later. For instance near where I live they had Drogba when he was a young teenager and thanks to that rule they earned 760k€ when he was transferred from Marseille to Chelsea (37M€).

incentivising clubs / academies that go through the efforts of producing quality players is the way forward imo.

That was I suspect because the small club had Drogba under contract when he transferred to Marseille and the two clubs agreed that they would share any future transfer payments. That is not illegal because it is just a contingent payment in an agreement to buy out a contract.

What you seemed to be suggesting is that a club or union who do not have a player under contract can have an interest beyond that contract. They cannot. This was one of the implications of the Bosman ruling.

Think about this outside of the context of sport. How would you feel if your first employer got to take a cut of your salary for life?

No am talking about "training compensation" and "solidarity mechanism" which are part of the FIFA regulations on status and transfer of players.
An this applies to the transfer amount not the salary!

LondonTiger wrote:Sinckler did not jump into the tackle as he did not have possession of the ball before he jumped, therefore he was jumping to reach the ball. If he had the ball and then jumped, it would have been a penalty against the Lion.


A similar incident happened with Dylan Hartley a couple of years ago for England where a player was off the ground before receiving the pass and was hit by Hartley just before he landed. Hartley was penalised and a huge debate ensued about whether it was fair. Personally I feel it is crazy as such challenges are rarely unsafe and if anything are caused by poor play from the guy passing the ball, but that we have gone this long before another such incident occurred suggests it is not a major issue.

It hasn't gone this long though. One involving your team when North jumped to receive a pass, and honestly their wasn't much your player could do. If he lets him go North is through.

There have been numerous incidents of players hurdling in super rugby too.

All it takes is players starting to throw flat high passes and they can break the gainline and eliminate rush defences.

North was jumping to get a kick that had bounced was he not? (in the incident with Thompstone I assume)

Throwing flat high passes probably increases the risk of interceptions more than the chance of breaking the line.

LondonTiger wrote:North was jumping to get a kick that had bounced was he not? (in the incident with Thompstone I assume)

Throwing flat high passes probably increases the risk of interceptions more than the chance of breaking the line.

Yeah he was. Whether he needed to is another point, but players do it all the time not to compete but to make themselves invulnerable to tackles and safely gather. It's gaming the laws.

Scottrf wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:North was jumping to get a kick that had bounced was he not? (in the incident with Thompstone I assume)

Throwing flat high passes probably increases the risk of interceptions more than the chance of breaking the line.

Yeah he was. Whether he needed to is another point, but players do it all the time not to compete but to make themselves invulnerable to tackles and safely gather. It's gaming the laws.

Thing is, so is jumping for kicks. No-one ever used to jump for kicks, but when the law was changed with the intention of protecting guys in the lineout savvy coaches spotted the chance to use this elsewhere and soon all were jumping.

I actually agree with you, and feel something should be done with the laws - but worried that as with so many law changes it will have unexpected repercussions.

Gwlad wrote:In a word yes

Hansen is the chief architect.

When SBW went off and he traded Kaino he lost the game.

No point having parity in the backs if you hand an advantage up front. Dreadful tactical error by Hansen.

I'm not quite sure that I'd fully agree. The Williams break (sob try) in the first test showed that the Lions could move the ball wide and attack space. Hansen was concerned by this, and losing Ben Smith (injury), SBW (to the card) and Crotty (injured - also unspoken defensive glue in the back line) would have more question marks on an understrength backline as opposed to a 7-man-pack still containing Read, Cane and his first choice locks.

NZ had the lead for most of the game and built that lead while down a man. Barrett also missed more points with the boot that was greater than the losing margin at the end of the game.

In the build up to the Lions, there was an article where Hansen was planning on how to deal with a man in the bin. NZ adjusted seemlessly, the Lions didn't adjust at all. If anything they played as if the gap was in the backs and that just played to NZ's favour.

Next week will be fascinating.

Are New Zealand over reliant on Read, Retallick and Whitelock? The AB side seems to be built around them and are the only irreplaceable players. Cruden can slot in for Barrett, Perenara for Smith etc.

Given that these three players seem to play 80 minutes every game I wonder how much they will be able to raise their game in the third test of an fairly brutal series?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Are New Zealand over reliant on Read, Retallick and Whitelock? The AB side seems to be built around them and are the only irreplaceable players. Cruden can slot in for Barrett, Perenara for Smith etc.

Given that these three players seem to play 80 minutes every game I wonder how much they will be able to raise their game in the third test of an fairly brutal series?

Whitelock's been subbed in both games.

But otherwise it's a fair point. The Retallick/Whitelock pairing is the best in the world, & Barrett(S) isn't up to their level, or (quite) that of the locks he's up against for the Lions. While Read outplayed Faletau in the first test, and matched up pretty well (considering he was helping cover Kaino's workload after SBW's stupidity) in the 2nd. Savea (A) isn't really a #8. Squire may be fit now, but he's not Read either

Overall NZ has managed ~60% of possession/territory over the 2 tests. Which at least dispels the pre-tour myth that the Lions would have an edge there

duplicate post deleted

(sorry all)

duplicate post deleted

(sorry all)

duplicate post deleted

(sorry all)

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Are New Zealand over reliant on Read, Retallick and Whitelock? The AB side seems to be built around them and are the only irreplaceable players. Cruden can slot in for Barrett, Perenara for Smith etc.

Given that these three players seem to play 80 minutes every game I wonder how much they will be able to raise their game in the third test of an fairly brutal series?

Brutal? First test was one of the most benign tests I've seen for a while. Not a single incident. Second had its elements as you'd expect but I wouldn't call this series brutal by a long shot.

What amazes me more is how much leverage and assumptions some can make out of one loss by three points with 14 for the most of it. Suddenly the ABs are as brittle as chalk?

Take Ireland, theyve lost seven tests in 16/17. Are they too doomed to not be able to handle their next tests? Surely there's far more brittleness there, yet they still think they can knock the ABs off given any chance. The audacity... yet we lose one and the worlds crumbling in? Please...

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Are New Zealand over reliant on Read, Retallick and Whitelock? The AB side seems to be built around them and are the only irreplaceable players. Cruden can slot in for Barrett, Perenara for Smith etc.

Given that these three players seem to play 80 minutes every game I wonder how much they will be able to raise their game in the third test of an fairly brutal series?

Brutal? First test was one of the most benign tests I've seen for a while. Not a single incident. Second had its elements as you'd expect but I wouldn't call this series brutal by a long shot.

What amazes me more is how much leverage and assumptions some can make out of one loss by three points with 14 for the most of it. Suddenly the ABs are as brittle as chalk?

Take Ireland, theyve lost seven tests in 16/17.  Are they too doomed to not be able to handle their next tests? Surely there's far more brittleness there, yet they still think they can knock the ABs off given any chance. The audacity... yet we lose one and the worlds crumbling in? Please...

Taylorman did the voices in your head tell you that the ABs are as brittle as chalk cause I certainly didnt. Not sure where you got that from my post which I questioned specifically if the ABs are over reliant on three key players. You seem to have side stepped that question completely.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Aside from what I wrote earlier I can honestly say that I understand why people not from NZ support the AB's. They are one very big community and a lot of people can relate to that.

The AB supporters (with the exception of a couple on here) are very welcoming and hospitable and as such, you immediately feel part of the family.

 Billy, Brian O'Driscoll doing some reconnaissance in Auckland a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY0rJyWaU6Y

Serious question Laurie, do you think it's really much different in other rugby playing countries?  I've watched a number of these videos and whole programmes about grass roots rugby in NZ.  And while I appreciated that the player numbers are greater at grass roots, it all seems very similar to grass roots in Wales, England, etc.  Gareth Thomas did a documentary on BBC Wales the other week where he went to NZ to look at reasons why they were so good, and looked at the grass roots club game.  All very welcoming, good camaraderie amongst players, good social scene, etc.  But as he found, apart from the sheer numbers (one club ran something like 60 teams!) the feeling was very much like home.  In fact, we have our own rugby programme on BBC Wales every week called Scrum V.  They show highlights of the Pro12 games and the Welsh premier (semi-pro) league, but also go to a lower league team each week and spend time with the fans, etc.  Very similar to what I see in these documentaries on NZ, except with different accents!

 Griff I have met many Welshmen over the years through rugby and I know that the Welsh are no less passionate about Rugby than New Zealanders, both as kids growing up and how we play for our small suburban and country clubs, many things are the same, there is however one area apparently of difference:

 I am more convinced the difference lies in the quality of the rugby education provided by the big schools, I know  here in Auckland. I know years ago when I was a kid playing 1st and second XV we would often (weekly) have a different guest coach on a particular specialist position and the combinations of that position, and I am talking about Old boys from our school at a level who were All Blacks, the instruction is very detailed, then you repeatedly practise what you have been instructed over and over again it until it becomes an overlearnt skill, this then is applied to fitness, strategy,where you are on the field, where you are on the scoreboard, and where you are on the clock. Once you have taken a skill into the area of overlearnt skill, it means that you play on impluse/sub consciously and execute accurately at pace.

 I know Xavier Rush in the offseason a couple of years ago from his coaching position in wales, came home here and was full time coaching my old schools under 15 age group team. thats not being condescending to Cardiff its more about how serious Xavier, and us Kiwis  regards this part of young Rugby players education and development.

I'm not debating why NZ players are better - I agree it's probably down to the coaching at that level.  Just commenting on the 'community' aspect, which I feel is inherent in a lot of other places around the world too.  My point being that when you watch a lot of behind the scenes stuff about NZ they seem to be suggesting that the community spirit, community clubs, grass roots, family BBQs, rugby festivals, etc. are in some way unique to NZ.  But they happen as the norm here too.  It's just that here the player numbers and number of sides that clubs run are a lot smaller (maybe just a couple of sides each on average - e.g. Seniors, seniors 2nds and a junior side perhaps).  But this might be because kids here are also interested in other sports - if you take myself and my friends for example, some of our kids play junior rugby, lots though are into soccer and cricket, some into golf, one or two keen cyclists.  The girls are all dancing, ballet, gymnastics and a few athletics - none into grass-based sports!  But the community and grass roots element is common to all of these sports, in my experience.  Apart from maybe golf!

 I believe that the "Culture" of our teams, clubs and community is very similar, although I have never been to wales, I have even seen in some of your own posts (especially the one on exposure to the Polynesian community) in the past a lot of similarities. New Zealand and Wales have that rugby is our national sport thing going on, which does make the code much more inclusive of the whole community.

Very interesting Laurie....especially about high profile players coming in.

Rugby is quickly becoming second to football in Wales. I have spent 12 months travelling round NZ and spent the last 8 years living and working in Wales. Trust me, there is a huge gulf in culture. I say this because 'culture' and 'popularity' are different things entirely.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Are New Zealand over reliant on Read, Retallick and Whitelock? The AB side seems to be built around them and are the only irreplaceable players. Cruden can slot in for Barrett, Perenara for Smith etc.

Given that these three players seem to play 80 minutes every game I wonder how much they will be able to raise their game in the third test of an fairly brutal series?

Brutal? First test was one of the most benign tests I've seen for a while. Not a single incident. Second had its elements as you'd expect but I wouldn't call this series brutal by a long shot.

What amazes me more is how much leverage and assumptions some can make out of one loss by three points with 14 for the most of it. Suddenly the ABs are as brittle as chalk?

Take Ireland, theyve lost seven tests in 16/17.  Are they too doomed to not be able to handle their next tests? Surely there's far more brittleness there, yet they still think they can knock the ABs off given any chance. The audacity... yet we lose one and the worlds crumbling in? Please...

Taylorman did the voices in your head tell you that the ABs are as brittle as chalk cause I certainly didnt. Not sure where you got that from my post which I questioned specifically if the ABs are over reliant on three key players. You seem to have side stepped that question completely.

Brittle for me IS thinking that three players need to play for 80 minutes to carry the side. How you even get to that thinking is beyond me. There are 15 players and 8 subs. Seven players MUST play 80 minutes, or does that logic pass you by?

Those three don't always play 80. Barrett subbed on for both Read and Whitelock at seventy in this the first two tests. Retallick has a monster engine anyway but he does get subbed now and then.

And with so many stoppages for scrums, lineouts and shots at goal last test there were plenty of recovery periods they wouldn't normally get in more fluid tests.

Vague point at best.

touchy Taylorman. Suggests maybe Im on to something.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:touchy Taylorman. Suggests maybe Im on to something.

Yes you are, inaccuracy and poor assumptions.

Ok you are right Taylorman, the ABs are perfect.

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Are New Zealand over reliant on Read, Retallick and Whitelock? The AB side seems to be built around them and are the only irreplaceable players. Cruden can slot in for Barrett, Perenara for Smith etc.

Given that these three players seem to play 80 minutes every game I wonder how much they will be able to raise their game in the third test of an fairly brutal series?

Brutal? First test was one of the most benign tests I've seen for a while. Not a single incident. Second had its elements as you'd expect but I wouldn't call this series brutal by a long shot.

What amazes me more is how much leverage and assumptions some can make out of one loss by three points with 14 for the most of it. Suddenly the ABs are as brittle as chalk?

Take Ireland, theyve lost seven tests in 16/17.  Are they too doomed to not be able to handle their next tests? Surely there's far more brittleness there, yet they still think they can knock the ABs off given any chance. The audacity... yet we lose one and the worlds crumbling in? Please...

Another rant. Sigh. Cheer up, Taylor.

whocares wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

whocares wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

whocares wrote:Even if Australia stop playing RU and SA teams bugger off to the Pro12, the All Blacks are such a brand all countries will pay them at a premium to have them touring their backyard. Lack of finance might hurt NZ rugby without a proper club competition? Just create a transfer system by which the club/union that "bred" a player gets a cut of the value of that given player whenever he changes employers.

That might seem a nice idea to you but the French and English clubs who I assume you want to transfer the money keep New Zealand rugby going are not going to agree to it.

Such payments are almost certainly illegal in the EU (and probably in Brexit UK following Great Repeal Act) as a player's earning potential is reduced as his employer has to fund payments to a previous employer.  A player is a free agent. They can work for whomever they wish without regard to the interests of previous employers. Attempts to restrict players in this way are a restraint of trade.

Seems strange as something similar already exists in Football whereby small clubs that happened to have a now famous footballer in their ranks when he was a kid still receive a small cut of the transfer money years later. For instance near where I live they had Drogba when he was a young teenager and thanks to that rule they earned 760k€ when he was transferred from Marseille to Chelsea (37M€).

incentivising clubs / academies that go through the efforts of producing quality players is the way forward imo.

That was I suspect because the small club had Drogba under contract when he transferred to Marseille and the two clubs agreed that they would share any future transfer payments. That is not illegal because it is just a contingent payment in an agreement to buy out a contract.

What you seemed to be suggesting is that a club or union who do not have a player under contract can have an interest beyond that contract. They cannot. This was one of the implications of the Bosman ruling.

Think about this outside of the context of sport. How would you feel if your first employer got to take a cut of your salary for life?

No am talking about "training compensation" and "solidarity mechanism" which are part of the FIFA regulations on status and transfer of players.
An this applies to the transfer amount not the salary!

That rule hasn't improved anything though. The clubs get a few extra quick which is equal to a drop in the ocean in today's football market. It hasn't narrowed the financial or competitive gap between footballing teams. Transfer compensations will just create more inequality in rugby.

You can argue it is peanut money in the football world but for a small amateur club it helped to build a new facility (and they called the stadium after Drogba as well).

The issue in pro rugby (in France at least) is that breeding young players in academies to the top level is a big investment so when your new 19-21 years old star decide to bugger off to another club you might as well decide not to bother anymore and hire a couple of cheap journeymen from the SH instead. So for me a transfer system at least for young players would bring more equality.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Are New Zealand over reliant on Read, Retallick and Whitelock? The AB side seems to be built around them and are the only irreplaceable players. Cruden can slot in for Barrett, Perenara for Smith etc.

Given that these three players seem to play 80 minutes every game I wonder how much they will be able to raise their game in the third test of an fairly brutal series?

Brutal? First test was one of the most benign tests I've seen for a while. Not a single incident. Second had its elements as you'd expect but I wouldn't call this series brutal by a long shot.

What amazes me more is how much leverage and assumptions some can make out of one loss by three points with 14 for the most of it. Suddenly the ABs are as brittle as chalk?

Take Ireland, theyve lost seven tests in 16/17.  Are they too doomed to not be able to handle their next tests? Surely there's far more brittleness there, yet they still think they can knock the ABs off given any chance. The audacity... yet we lose one and the worlds crumbling in? Please...

Another rant. Sigh. Cheer up, Taylor.

No more an anti rant, but be placated by the fact that I won't be reporting you either, for the same reasons of course.

Ah, it's an anti-rant when Taylorman does it. Gotcha.

Touché!

whocares wrote:You can argue it is peanut money in the football world but for a small amateur club it helped to build a new facility (and they called the stadium after Drogba as well).

The issue in pro rugby (in France at least) is that breeding young players in academies to the top level is a big investment so when your new 19-21 years old star decide to bugger off to another club you might as well decide not to bother anymore and hire a couple of cheap journeymen from the SH instead. So for me a transfer system at least for young players would bring more equality.

Well why are the young French players leaving? How does it bring more equality when it will just bring even more expenses to already cash strung clubs?

Perhaps this thread should read is Rugby in crisis?,or is SANZAR in crisis?
Is this a 606v2 a Rugby Forum for intelligent discussion or a naïve choir
boys convention?With holier than now homilies.?in the World of the blind
the one eyed man is king.
Since Saturday all I`ve read is the All Blacks conspiracy is the only reason
they win.Is because they haven't been officiated properly,Gatland the
genius will be knighted and the new AB Coach.etc.
The laws of the game are so complex especially with new footnotes and
experimental laws involved.There should be a standard interpretation for
everyone no matter who they are.Where they play not down to an officials
whim.
Rough play?do you ever watch Rugby League?are you aware that until
recently.In that sport the Shoulder charge was not only legal but standard
procedure?that a player under pressure converted to Union.Would do it without thinking.How many times have you seen similar acts go unpunished?
just a penalty,a yellow but never red.Garces applied the letter of the Law well
done to him many refs may have flinched.
For an Irishman to talk about dirty play I find precious that when the 3
roughest games on the planet.Shinty,Hurling,or Gaelic football.
Has he ever heard of Willie John Mc Bride,Noel Murphy,or Bill Mulcahy
not to mention the great backrows of the early 1950`s.OR riot call 99?

The AB`s are the most penalised and yellow carded side in tier 1 rugby
so much for the conspiracy theorists.
Sanzar was created to promote SH Rugby,and expand Super Rugby the
RWC came into being because of them.To date they`ve been either
IRB 1,2,or 3 for most of that time and won 7 RWC`s between them.
When for political reasons a 6th SA was added despite 2 of there sides
were often bottom of the log.The threat was they would leave theSuper
league.BUT it was made plain that it didn't change the Rugby championships.
In my opinion such are the legal hurdles it will remain the Super 18,IF
two sides exit and play in the UK it won`t affect the RC or other games.
The targeting of key players or trying to wind them up to get them sent
off.Standard practice since the year dot,open both eyes turn of the commentary and ignore the big screen.
THEN you will see what really happens,forget euphemisms "Line Speed[offside?]",competing at the lineout"[jumping across or closing the gap]
"Winning penalties"[by implication conning the ref illegally]
Are NZ to reliant on certain players when those players are rated best
in the world in there positions.Retalick,A,Smith,B`Smith,Barrett,Whitelock,
Coles,Read.?
NO but every side in the world is reliant on there own best players and
backups are not yet the same calibre.
This in 2017 what happened in2015 and 2016 is irrelevant are the AB`s
just a cardboard cutout.Made to look good by the strength of the opposition.
Is this 1998 or 2009?the fall from grace of the AB`s and calling for heads
for the coaches.
Good for World rugby short term before the BLACKNESS returns or the
early season series blip,a narrow first match win,a narrow second match
could have gone either way,third match a blow out.
Either way history shows you can`t keep the AB`s down for long.

And that's why you support them. Got it.

Alan

Firstly the rules are the rules. Just because he came from a sport where such rules don't apply doesn't justify it. He's played union off and on for 7 years. No one made him go into union, nobody put a gun to his head.

Remember Ashwin Willemse? Won the world cup in 2007 with SA. If there has been another tier1 rugby player who was brought up in worse conditions I'd be surprised. He grew up in one of the toughest squatter camps in SA, was part of a fearsome gang as a teenage... he was born in the gutter (and that's not an over exaggeration and is true... literally).

Question - would you be more lenient on him on the rugby field because he had a tough childhood, that no one taught him right from wrong?

Of course you wouldn't.. so why with SBW?

As for the act. He charged into a player with zero intention of tackling the player and aimed his shoulder into the guys face. Those are things which causes American footballers, rugby league players, boxers, wrestlers, MMA fighters.. and rugby players serious issues in later life. It was terribly reckless and very dangerous.

Of course it was a red and its pretty bad if you can't call it for what it is. That was 10 times worse than what Mako did (and yes he did wrap his arms around) and many Kiwis were calling for a red for that.

As for the most carded team in rugby... well they haven't received a red card in 50 years. How many retrospective citings have they had... i.e. citing review recommends an actual red. In all those cases where ABs have received bans they've gotten away with it.

You have to take off those blinkers.