Whatever happens i hope Goodhue stays at 13. The ABs need him to stay there long term. Not too fussed who Jordie ends up playing for, but if moving to the Crusaders and playing 12 gets him in his “best” position and he improves as a player that is good for NZ rugby.

@jegga said in SR Final: Crusaders v Jaguares: iet , was it something I said? You;re fine I've just finished replying to all the fan mail I received All in the name of openness and transparency

@canefan said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes: @Rapido said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes: @pakman said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes: @taniwharugby said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes: @WillieTheWaiter it is ridiculous that a prop hooker or anyone other than the guy with 9 on his back are fair game in that situation At the risk of raking over old coals, isn't it the case that the Laws don't make distinction? I realise that there is an official interpretation which stipulates that the ball is out when halfback picks it. In the modern real world of refereeing. If you bump the arm of a halfback about to spin it wide and cause him to drop the ball you could get carded, if you bumped the arm of a prop in the same position but about to pick and go - you would get chess pumps from your teammates for forcing a turnover. Ruby laws should be interpreted and applied that encourage forwards to congregate at a breakdown (IMO); The defending team to attempt to win possession and if not then disrupt clean possession. The attacking team forwards should need to congregate to ensure possession is maintained and is then clean. At no point should one of the above actions, performed legally (or even just slightly mis-timed) risk incurring a card because refs don't understand the essence of rugby. In other words It ain't tiddlywinks mate!!! Rather it ain't League mate !!!! What next, illegal strips, and sit in protests blocking Queens Street for a week?

@Yeetyaah said in QF1: Crusaders v Highlanders: Bloody Landers. Was backing them for the slim chance of a Chiefs home final. First half was great from both teams. Squire ruined the chances. Dunno what was up with Franklin swearing at the ref either. Crusaders too good. Rebuilding time for the Landers. Thanks for the memories Bender. @Jaguares4real See how I've written slim chance? I'm backing my boys but I know it's going to be a hard slog.

@Crucial said in Crusaders v Rebels: @Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels: @Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels: @Chester-Draws said in Crusaders v Rebels: @Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels: @Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels: That is an example when advantage should be over in my book. Rebels might have gone 80m if that pass had stuck. They had a clear advantage. Instead we go back for a scrum 10 metres back from where the lineout would have been. Especially since it was only a scrum advantage. PK advantage would be different. And again. Scrum advantage should be over once a team gets clean ball and are free to use it as they wish. Except that's not what the rules say. And I prefer referees who play to the actual rules, not dodgy commentators on chat groups. Oh yeah. What does the law say? Enlighten me. Fudge it. Can't resist: Law 7(1): Advantage: a. May be tactical. The non-offending team is free to play the ball as they wish. b. May be territorial. Play has moved towards the offending team’s dead-ball line. c. May be a combination of tactical and territorial. d. Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient. I think that d. is the bit that annoys most viewers. This is exactly the previously described scenario where a player in the clear is passed to but drops the ball. Laws say that opportunity is not sufficient but to the viewer it looks like the team has already experienced an advantage to the point where they could have done well. The other annoying one doesn't happen that often but can be awful. That is when a team is on attack in the 'red zone' and they keep making small inroads breaking down the defence. It can go on for ever giving them every chance to score a try before a handling error dictates going back. There is a school of thought that if a team gets a PK advantage in the opposing teams 22m line, then the referee should never call 'advantage over'. Either the attacking team scores a try, or the attacking team comes back for a PK. I don't know if I quite subscribe to it, but I can see the logic for a PK advantage.

@shark It's not hard to understand, it's merely wrong. Each of Havili'i, Bridge, Reece and Ennor are in possible AB contention. They would not care less about the guys behind them, because the guys behind are far worse than they are. They will play every game as well as they can, because they are looking at higher honours, not over their shoulders. Meanwhile other teams have their best players not being fielded. That's a far worse situation that worrying that some of your also-rans can't make the team. I would love it if the Chiefs could field Damien McKenzie, at the cost of not being able to field Etene Nanai-Seturo.

I think that another fast outside would be useful, but also having a halfback who makes a big effort there would be good. It’s an important part of TJ, Weber, and Smith’s games.

@nzzp said in Stormers v Crusaders: @Billy-Webb said in Stormers v Crusaders: Given where the pass took place, the ball clearly traveled forward a good few yards so one can understand the inclination to want to call it as forward. But one would expect a TMO to know the laws of the game well enough to know that it is actually about whether the ball leaves the passing player "backwards out of the hand". So yes, disappointing and frustrating that Jonkers got it wrong. Mate, if a TMO doesn't know basic laws, how the hell do the provide advice to the onfield ref? It's just bizarre. Wayne Barnes got this one wrong at Eden park a while ago too. Wait for a terrible call like this to influence a game at the RWC and see what happens. The standard of refs is poor at the moment, and the laws don't help them. Yup. That's what I am saying nzzp And you can bet the farm there will be at least one of these in the RWC. You just have to hope that it isn't against the team you're supporting.

@shark said in Bulls v Crusaders: @Machpants said in Bulls v Crusaders: @shark yeah don't need him and Franks broken. Not with a lot of the ABs backups looking average. Mo'unga tho, man as long as him and Beaudy stay fit, paired with Smith and TJ - that's a good axis. Read coming back, Ardie a better explosive option off attacking scrums, bender in 15 & Taylor still great at hooker. Spine is looking fine Spine? Aaargh. Can you not?? Come on shark, the Warriors had a win on the weekend, league references are ok - until next week when we revert

@Chris-B said in Crusaders vs Sharks: I have a sneaking thought in the back of my mind that we should perhaps be pretty desperate to win this Cup, because who knows whether we'll have teams capable of winning in the future. If you use Nonu as being the yardstick of a "Golden Generation", this is the last hurrah. But, more particularly, four more years of Whitelock and Retallick looks some distance off and I don't see many obvious replacements coming through - other than size-wise Triple-P. Yeah - but if you threw Piutau and Luatua into this team, they'd probably go to that next level. We have thrown up the talent, we just struggle to keep it.

@Nepia Well there's a challenge maybe he might become a superstar or stay shit

Okeefe HaHaha

@sparky Yeah Jordan reminds me a little of how good Bridge was last season. Don't think Bridge has been quite as good in 2019 for whatever reason (play not going his way perhaps) - butJordam has been impressive , I like his attitude - we are lucky to have both.

@taniwharugby said in Hurricanes vs Crusaders: @Stargazer maybe Jordie took the last piece of pavlova when they were last home? Brilliant eh, Jordie looked pissed like Scott really sticks it to him after a win.

I left the Chiefs alone but had the Blues winning and thought that was the strangle leg!!

"None of the current considerations are seeking to undo any part of our proud history..." No, apart from the name and logo they're not seeking to change anything. What a ridiculous joke.

I need to qualify what I meant by my comment about NPC form meaning nothing. It can certainly play you into a Super Rugby squad, but doesn’t neccessarily mean you can translate that form into SR, and some find that step up much harder than expected. It’s relatively easy to dominate at the lower level but then the next step is becoming harder by the year as our depth is eroded. Problem being, how often in the NPC is a freshie coming up against an established Super Rugby player, or veteran, in ten rounds?

@Bones said in Reds v Crusaders: @booboo I'd say yes he is and I wouldn't be surprised if that changes pronunciation. The vowels sounds would likely stay the same but the emphasis on the vowels would change. In Maori we adopted an 'english' pronunciation where we put emphasis on the first vowel, while the PI's still put emphasis on the second (according to my linguist mate). We'd put emphasis on the Petaia whereas the PI's put emphasis on the Petaia.