Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 652 | 653 | 654 | 655 | 656 | 657 | 658 | 659 | 660 | 661 | 662 | ... | 677

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3437533 25-Nov-2025 22:23

diddler:

The all blacks cannot even rotate or experiment with their match day squad without the Herald and others roasting the players as "dropped" etc.

A big part, I believe holding the all blacks back now is how the first 15 is perceived in NZ and central contracting. How star players dont want bench spots and how the bench is implemented.

RSA & ENG for are examples of how they used the bench to fill any weaknesses they had and build depth.

They dropped quite a few games over the last few years in the process but now reap the rewards.

I especially like how RSA moved alot of they key players and starters to the bench, Marx, Kwagga, le roux.

100%. I remain convinced we are amongst the worst fans in the world. People want change and innovation, without any risk. That's not realistic. If you get it, it's half luck.

People forget what our Rugby was like before the 2010 start of our golden run. We took a lot of hits before we got our magic period, and that was the result of the ground work laid earlier.

We were one match from winning the Rugby Championship. We kept the Bledisloe, we beat SA once this year. We beat Ireland who have had our number lately.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3438916 1-Dec-2025 11:08

What a mess Eben Etzebeth has made of his reputation after what must be about the dumbest thing I've seen on a Rugby Field in a decade (Gouging the eye of a Welsh player in the 77th minute with a 73-0 scoreline).

He's always been a slightly OTT aggression sort of guy, but never crossed a line like that.

I am even more disappointed by Rassie and Kolisi's take on the situation. It required full condemnation. All people involved have dropped in my estimation. There are some things you don't need to be diplomatic about.

Quite a lot of speculation over the penalty, which starts at 12 weeks, though in my view, given the seriousness of it, it should be significantly longer and impact his test career heavily, rather than him being able to claim he'd play 12 games for his club (who must be incandescent with rage right now).

To their credit, most SA fans have been extremely critical of him for it.

141 tests and considered to be amongst the top 5 locks in the world consistently... But as they say, you have relations with 1 goat.....

I hope this follows him for a long long time.

Dairyxox

1595 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 455

#3438939 1-Dec-2025 12:09

Roid-rage perhaps.
You can say the all-blacks are 'nearly there' but there is absolute and obvious daylight between the springboks and all other international teams (especially the all-blacks).
Hopefully the gap can be bridged, but I don't know about our organizational leadership these days. It seems like we're missing something.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3438942 1-Dec-2025 12:18

Dairyxox:

Roid-rage perhaps.
You can say the all-blacks are 'nearly there' but there is absolute and obvious daylight between the springboks and all other international teams (especially the all-blacks).
Hopefully the gap can be bridged, but I don't know about our organizational leadership these days. It seems like we're missing something.

There are some blurry photos doing the circles around some form of incident that led to it, but I can't make out anything clear.

I have often wondered about the Boks and roids honestly. It was the first thing I thought of after watching the video.

Not sure I agree about absolute daylight, and I do wonder if the Boks will peak too early. I recall around 2016/2017 where we still won everything comfortably, and then we kinda fell off a cliff, our cycle was a bit different to what was traditional.

I am interested to see what changes are implemented as a result of the end of year review. There has been a lot of talk about Robertsons role in the team, and I wonder if he ends up more hands on. Foster did the attack for a while, and our attack improved as a result.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the role the head coach plays in an international team.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3440484 5-Dec-2025 15:08

So Eben Ezabeth gets only 12 weeks for his deliberate act of eye gouging in the Wales game. What a joke.

Of that, 8 weeks are for his club side and there are 4 weeks where there will be no impact. Basically, it's a giant rest.

I have lost a good measure of respect for Siya Kolisi who after the matched failed to condemn him, and Savea who provided a character witness statement as mitigation.

Rassie had a half hearted attempt and said 'thats not how we want to play'. I'd lost almost all my respect for him after the behaviour which got him a coaching ban, this does nothing to restore it.

The fact Eben is still a Springbok after that, says everything you'd want to know.

From this point onward, he will be forever known me to as Eben, the eye gounger.

It's a *filthy* act for which he effectively gets no real meaningful punishment.

tukapa1

754 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 238

#3440520 5-Dec-2025 18:34

networkn:

So Eben Ezabeth gets only 12 weeks for his deliberate act of eye gouging in the Wales game. What a joke.

Of that, 8 weeks are for his club side and there are 4 weeks where there will be no impact. Basically, it's a giant rest.

I have lost a good measure of respect for Siya Kolisi who after the matched failed to condemn him, and Savea who provided a character witness statement as mitigation.

Rassie had a half hearted attempt and said 'thats not how we want to play'. I'd lost almost all my respect for him after the behaviour which got him a coaching ban, this does nothing to restore it.

The fact Eben is still a Springbok after that, says everything you'd want to know.

From this point onward, he will be forever known me to as Eben, the eye gounger.

It's a *filthy* act for which he effectively gets no real meaningful punishment.

Not sure why you're so outraged, you haven't made any sensible argument. Have you read the judgement?

The judicial panel are bound by precedent. They explain why it's midpoint (18 weeks) after finding it was deliberate, not reckless as submitted by Etzebeth. They explain why he didn't get the normal 50% discount for someone with his very good record (he didn't accept it was intentional) and gave him a 33% discount because he did admit making contact with the eye and that it warranted a red card. He has played over 140 tests and this was his first red card - a better record than Scott Barrett by far. He has previously had a two week suspension in 2012, apart from that has a clean record.

Somebody who acts out of character should always be able to rely on friends and associates who know his good character to give that information on his behalf. The opposite (which it appears you are advocating for) is the expectation that as soon as you are in trouble all of your support networks should dump you and move on.

It's a bit rough to condemn somebody (Kolisi) who has just played a test match and not yet had an opportunity to study all the evidence you are speaking about and consider it objectively for not coming out and throwing a friend and colleague under the bus on very little information. I'm not sure Rassie gives a flying fart what you think about him, but again expecting a coach to condemn one of his players straight after the game before having a chance to fully consider all of the information.

Why would the Springboks force somebody out that has made a mistake and received his first red card after over 140 tests. Frankly that suggestion is absurd.

Again I'm pretty sure Eben won't care what childish nicknames you give him.

Might pay for you to read the judgement because you say he misses 8 weeks for his club and four weeks of holiday. Not sure how you came to that. Just to clarify, these are the games he is missing:

1. 7 Dec 2025 Toulouse vs Sharks Champions Cup

2. 13 Dec 2025 Sharks vs Saracens Champions Cup

3. 20 Dec 2025 Sharks vs Bulls URC

4. 3 Jan 2026 Lions vs Sharks URC

5. 10 Jan 2026 Sale Sharks vs Sharks Champions Cup

6. 17 Jan 2026 Sharks vs Clermont Champions Cup

7. 24 Jan 2026 Stormers vs Sharks URC

8. 31 Jan 2026 Sharks vs Stormers URC

9. 21 Feb 2026 Sharks v Lions URC

10.28 Feb 2026 Bulls vs Sharks URC

11.21 March 2026 Sharks vs Munster URC

12.27 March 2026 Sharks vs Cardiff URC

If it's the fact he misses club games and not tests, then I don't remember you being so outraged when that has worked in the favour of the AB's. This is the way it has always been, and you not liking that doesn't make it an outrage. It makes it consistent with all previous outcomes, and consistency is all anybody can ask.

You can read the full judgement here at the bottom of the page if you want to educate yourself:
https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/en/discipline

And finally, where was all this outrage in 2018 when a drunk Sevu Reece beat his girlfriend bruised and bloody, to only get a discharge without conviction (undercharged with Common Assault when he should have been charged with Injuring, or Male Assault Female at the least) so he wouldn't lose his Irish contract (which he lost anyway) and then again in 2024 when he used a deadly weapon to cause damage to property while mad at perceived slights and pissed off his tree?

Hypocrisy much?

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3440546 5-Dec-2025 21:58

tukapa1:

Not sure why you're so outraged, you haven't made any sensible argument. Have you read the judgement?

Yes.

The judicial panel are bound by precedent. They explain why it's midpoint (18 weeks) after finding it was deliberate, not reckless as submitted by Etzebeth. They explain why he didn't get the normal 50% discount for someone with his very good record (he didn't accept it was intentional) and gave him a 33% discount because he did admit making contact with the eye and that it warranted a red card. He has played over 140 tests and this was his first red card - a better record than Scott Barrett by far. He has previously had a two week suspension in 2012, apart from that has a clean record.

So Eben tried to defend it, so clearly no remose. He deliberately tried to blind someone in a GAME. It doesn't matter what your prior record is, when you do something this egregious. But its about on brand to defend it, and the whataboutism rife throughout the post.

LOL at giving someone a discount for admitting they did what they were caught on 6 cameras doing. Oh my, what a swell guy, it makes it all better.

Somebody who acts out of character should always be able to rely on friends and associates who know his good character to give that information on his behalf. The opposite (which it appears you are advocating for) is the expectation that as soon as you are in trouble all of your support networks should dump you and move on.

Actually, when someone you care about does something really wrong, you don't go and try and help them get less punishment, you just don't abandon them whilst they are getting what they deserve for said wrongdoing.

This isn't exactly out of character, there is plenty of footage of him hulking out.

It's a bit rough to condemn somebody (Kolisi) who has just played a test match and not yet had an opportunity to study all the evidence you are speaking about and consider it objectively for not coming out and throwing a friend and colleague under the bus on very little information. I'm not sure Rassie gives a flying fart what you think about him, but again expecting a coach to condemn one of his players straight after the game before having a chance to fully consider all of the information.

The evidence they used to convict him was played 30 times on all the screens. There has been plenty of opportunity since, but crickets.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3440547 5-Dec-2025 22:00

Why would the Springboks force somebody out that has made a mistake and received his first red card after over 140 tests. Frankly that suggestion is absurd.

No, it's absolutely not. Some 'mistakes' (and I use that term very loosely indeed considering what he did), are serious enough you don't keep the privileges you previously had. Aaron Smith missed a year+ of leading the Haka because of his infraction, significantly less serious than the absolutely egregious filthy (and potentially life altering) act Eben committed. Intent Matters.

Might pay for you to read the judgement because you say he misses 8 weeks for his club and four weeks of holiday. Not sure how you came to that. Just to clarify, these are the games he is missing:

It was originally reported he would miss 8 Sharks games (which I am sure is absolutely devastated over) and 4 provincial games (which he was never going to play). Instead of a serious consequence, he gets a lovely relaxing summer break in SA. Test Offences should be Punished by missing tests. Do you think Eben gives a flying crap about missing the Sharks matches? Spoiler, nope not one bit.

I bet you he would feel worse if he missed 12 tests though, and that would have been a far far fairer and more appropriate punishment.

You are simply having selective memory. When it comes to thuggery in Rugby, I've been very consistent, ESP with something which is intentional and potentially life altering.

Let me be clear. If Richie McCaw who had a very clean record, tried to gouge the eyes of a player deliberately as Eben did, I would want him banned for at least 1 year (from all rugby including tests), and I would never want to see him in an All Blacks Jersey again. I'd feel exactly the same way if I knew that without him we wouldn't make it out of pool play at a world cup. It was a disgusting egregious act and the punishment is laughable.

I don't much care what precedent exists, I believe almost all rugby judgements are far too lenient and have said so consistently. Intent matters.

Seems like before you get all upset about me educating myself, you could do the same. This is a mischaracterisation of both events. Sevu was also not an AB at the time of his first offence.

tukapa1

754 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 238

#3440569 6-Dec-2025 06:55

networkn:

Why would the Springboks force somebody out that has made a mistake and received his first red card after over 140 tests. Frankly that suggestion is absurd.

No, it's absolutely not. Some 'mistakes' (and I use that term very loosely indeed considering what he did), are serious enough you don't keep the privileges you previously had. Aaron Smith missed a year+ of leading the Haka because of his infraction, significantly less serious than the absolutely egregious filthy (and potentially life altering) act Eben committed. Intent Matters.

Might pay for you to read the judgement because you say he misses 8 weeks for his club and four weeks of holiday. Not sure how you came to that. Just to clarify, these are the games he is missing:

It was originally reported he would miss 8 Sharks games (which I am sure is absolutely devastated over) and 4 provincial games (which he was never going to play). Instead of a serious consequence, he gets a lovely relaxing summer break in SA. Test Offences should be Punished by missing tests. Do you think Eben gives a flying crap about missing the Sharks matches? Spoiler, nope not one bit.

I bet you he would feel worse if he missed 12 tests though, and that would have been a far far fairer and more appropriate punishment.

If it's the fact he misses club games and not tests, then I don't remember you being so outraged when that has worked in the favour of the AB's. This is the way it has always been, and you not liking that doesn't make it an outrage. It makes it consistent with all previous outcomes, and consistency is all anybody can ask.

You are simply having selective memory. When it comes to thuggery in Rugby, I've been very consistent, ESP with something which is intentional and potentially life altering.

Let me be clear. If Richie McCaw who had a very clean record, tried to gouge the eyes of a player deliberately as Eben did, I would want him banned for at least 1 year (from all rugby including tests), and I would never want to see him in an All Blacks Jersey again. I'd feel exactly the same way if I knew that without him we wouldn't make it out of pool play at a world cup. It was a disgusting egregious act and the punishment is laughable.

I don't much care what precedent exists, I believe almost all rugby judgements are far too lenient and have said so consistently. Intent matters.

And finally, where was all this outrage in 2018 when a drunk Sevu Reece beat his girlfriend bruised and bloody, to only get a discharge without conviction (undercharged with Common Assault when he should have been charged with Injuring, or Male Assault Female at the least) so he wouldn't lose his Irish contract (which he lost anyway) and then again in 2024 when he used a deadly weapon to cause damage to property while mad at perceived slights and pissed off his tree?

Seems like before you get all upset about me educating myself, you could do the same. This is a mischaracterisation of both events. Sevu was also not an AB at the time of his first offence.

You're just doubling down and making yourself look silly. If you came out and said "the process stinks, the precedents don't allow for, in my opinion, adequate punishment for this sort of behaviour" then that's an argument. Instead, what you are saying is that all of the years of building the judicial system, the consistencies and precedents, should be thrown out on this particular occasion and that Etzebeth should be banished to Siberia. His lawyers would have a field day with any judicial process that tried working outside of clearly set precedents. That's not how it works, it's not how it works in the Criminal Court in NZ, but could happen in dodgier countries around the world that don't hold the same values about human rights and right to trial etc.

From what I've read the Sharks CEO is pretty pissed they won't have Etzebeth for all those games and is looking at maybe cancelling his contract. So I guess if that happens he will miss out on a whack of income which might affect his lovely relaxing holiday you have him enjoying.

Again, you seem to be upset he is only missing club games and not test matches. The process has always used the next available matches that are missed. Are you suggesting the judicial panel should have ignored all precedents and made it test matches only for Etzebeth? Again, his lawyers would have had a field day. The AB's have benefitted from this numerous times. Most recently:

Sam Cane 2023 (3 matches)

Match 1 – 18.11.2023 – Suntory v Toshiba

Match 2 – 25.11.2023 – Suntory v Panasonic

Match 3 – 2.12.2023 – Suntory v D-Rocks

Angus Ta'avao 2022 (3 matches) - this one is interesting because he was given options

16 July 2022, Ireland v New Zealand

22 July 2022 – Auckland v Hawkes Bay

6 August 2022, New Zealand v South Africa

16 July 2022, Ireland v New Zealand

22 July 2022, Auckland v Hawkes Bay

30 July 2022, Auckland v Counties Manukau

Funnily enough, Auckland said he would have played in that game against Counties Manukau on 30 July (we all know there's no way he would have) and he was therefore free to line up against South Africa on 6 August where he started at tighthead. Maybe you did rail against that decision at the time - I haven't trawled back through this forum to that date to see your opinion on that when it happened.

networkn:So Eben tried to defend it, so clearly no remose. He deliberately tried to blind someone in a GAME. It doesn't matter what your prior record is, when you do something this egregious. But its about on brand to defend it, and the whataboutism rife throughout the post. LOL at giving someone a discount for admitting they did what they were caught on 6 cameras doing. Oh my, what a swell guy, it makes it all better.

He didn't try and defend it. He admitted the act, he admitted it was foul play and he admitted it warranted a red card. He argued that it was reckless rather than intentional and happened as part of the melee. He apologised to the Welsh player directly after the match. Your opinion is that he deliberately tried to blind someone. Not sure how you understand what he intended to be the result of his action. Lots of people carry out actions without fully at the time intending a particular outcome. That's why we have recklessness as a concept.

(quote) networkn:Actually, when someone you care about does something really wrong, you don't go and try and help them get less punishment, you just don't abandon them whilst they are getting what they deserve for said wrongdoing. This isn't exactly out of character, there is plenty of footage of him hulking out.(/quote)

It happens all the time. It happens in judicial panels for employment investigations, it happens in the criminal court. It's a way of judging the character of somebody and helps to make a sound and reasoned decision around punishment level. It is out of character. It is his first red card in over 140 tests. He had a 2 week suspension 13 years ago. What part of that don't you understand? God forbid he be a physical bloke playing a physical game - he should be penalised for 'hulking out' whatever that means.

You also say that the coach and captain should have come out and condemned him between the end of the game and the judicial decision. When have you ever seen an employer come out and condemn somebody before legal proceedings are complete. Time and time again you hear "I can't comment while the investigation is ongoing" or similar, because you risk prejudicing any process. That would be just plain dumb.

Now - Sevu Reece and your double standards:

https://www.1news.co.nz/2018/12/04/hes-made-a-mistake-waikato-winger-sevu-reece-given-lifeline-by-crusaders-after-domestic-violence-scandal/

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/107501255/waikato-rugby-star-sevuloni-reece-discharged-without-conviction-on-assault-charge

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/young-rugby-player-discharged-over-domestic-violence-incident/MDGOTJJSZJBLVJ3JBHZUH2NU5U/

https://www.fijivillage.com/sport/Connacht-pulls-the-plug-on-Sevu-Reece-after-assault-on-girlfriend-allegations-92krs5

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/sport/waikato-rugby-star-sevuloni-reece-loses-irish-club-contract-over-domestic-violence-incident/

I'm not exactly which part of my earlier comment I'm supposed to be educating myself on - the beating her bruised and bloodied, the undercharged and lenient Court outcome only so he wouldn't lose a contract he lost anyway, or using a deadly weapon to cause damage while pissed and angry at what in my opinion seems to teh fact he was asked to leave a party because he was an angry drunk.

https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/12/03/all-black-sevu-reece-discharged-without-conviction-on-wilful-damage-charge/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/535540/all-black-sevu-reece-revealed-as-sports-star-guilty-of-wilful-damage

https://www.thepress.co.nz/sport/360507970/all-blacks-star-winger-sevuloni-reece-sentenced-wilful-damage

https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-christchurch/sevu-reece-avoids-conviction-wilful-damage

So, what you probably should have said was something like "I don't believe that the precedents are strong enough to adequately provide for the sort of act Etzebeth carried out in the weekend. Eye gouging should have a much higher start point. I also don't believe that an international player should be able to miss club games as punishment for an act that is committed in an international match. They should have to sit out international matches. It would be great if World Rugby agreed with me and made a change to the judicial process.

Instead you tried to make an emotive argument with no objectivity and you looked silly.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3440573 6-Dec-2025 08:16

tukapa1:

You're just doubling down and making yourself look silly. If you came out and said "the process stinks, the precedents don't allow for, in my opinion, adequate punishment for this sort of behaviour" then that's an argument. Instead, what you are saying is that all of the years of building the judicial system, the consistencies and precedents, should be thrown out on this particular occasion and that Etzebeth should be banished to Siberia. His lawyers would have a field day with any judicial process that tried working outside of clearly set precedents. That's not how it works, it's not how it works in the Criminal Court in NZ, but could happen in dodgier countries around the world that don't hold the same values about human rights and right to trial etc.

It's you who is being silly, personally insulting and argumentitive.

Everything I have said was clearly based on my opinion of what he got for what he did. It was filthy and one of the worst things I've seen on a rugby field in my watching career (spanning nearly 30 years). The fact it's such a pathetic punishment is what is upsetting. The Maximum penalty is 4 *years*

If that happens, that would be at least something. Do you really think though, that if he had to choose between losing the income or playing test matches, he would seriously consider one as punishment over the other?

They also have the option to come out and say 'we have decided to tear up his contract, his actions were filthy and have no place in Rugby and the Sharks don't want to be associated with such thuggery'

He didn't try and defend it. He admitted the act, he admitted it was foul play and he admitted it warranted a red card. He argued that it was reckless rather than intentional and happened as part of the melee. He apologised to the Welsh player directly after the match. Your opinion is that he deliberately tried to blind someone. Not sure how you understand what he intended to be the result of his action. Lots of people carry out actions without fully at the time intending a particular outcome. That's why we have recklessness as a concept.

He absolutely defends it when he tries to lessen the thing from intentional. You are being absolutely silly if you think that wasn't intentional. Just because he doesn't think the consequences through fully doesn't reduce the intent. He doesn't get into a scuffle make contact with the eyes and then bails out, he goes for his eyes and continues to do so.

The fact YOU are arguing intent makes this entire discussion stupid, it's past the point of reason.

It happens all the time. It happens in judicial panels for employment investigations, it happens in the criminal court. It's a way of judging the character of somebody and helps to make a sound and reasoned decision around punishment level. It is out of character. It is his first red card in over 140 tests. He had a 2 week suspension 13 years ago. What part of that don't you understand? God forbid he be a physical bloke playing a physical game - he should be penalised for 'hulking out' whatever that means.

I'll just leave this right here. Yeah, it's his first red, but it clearly shows a pattern of a lack of control.

Actually, the judiciary is only one avenue for which Eben could have been punished, his employer could have conducted their own investigation, and handed out thier own sanction.

Employers fire people all the time soon after an event completes, for far less serious things than trying to blind someone (and before you bother trying to suggest he wasn't, please come up with a cogent argument for another scenario where in a fit of rage, you put your eyes in someone elses eye socket and have a dig around).

Where is the statement of condemnation subsequently? If you aren't condemning this behaviour, you are condoning it.

This seems to be about you being rubbed the wrong way by my approach and rage resorting to being personally insulting, what is YOUR position on this? Do you think 12 weeks was appropriate?

For your reference:

World Rugby's sanctions for eye-gouging - described as "intentional contact with the eyes" - run from a ban ranging from 12 weeks at the low end, to a maximum of four years. Bans for "reckless contact with the eyes" can range from six weeks to four years.

World Rugby had the scope to punish him far more than they did, if they wanted his ban to affect his test career, they could have made the ban long enough he could not have played for the Springboks for a year quite easily.

Earbanean

1117 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 378

#3441284 8-Dec-2025 09:01

networkn:

The fact Eben is still a Springbok after that, says everything you'd want to know.

Oh pulease. Richard Loe tried to remove Greg Cooper's eyeball on the footy field, but then, after his ban, went on to play lots more tests for the All Blacks, as well as provincial and Super games - including for your Canterbury and Crusaders.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

JPNZ

1719 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 845

#3442019 9-Dec-2025 15:45

Interesting to read that WRFU have sold their 50% stake in the Hurricanes to private ownership. I suppose losing $4 million dollars over the last 3 years, the NZRU had had enough and forced the sale. Will be very interesting to see if NZSI and Malcolm Gillies can turn the ship around. I realise the crowds have been dire in Wellington recently.

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3442576 10-Dec-2025 23:52

Earbanean:

Oh pulease. Richard Loe tried to remove Greg Cooper's eyeball on the footy field, but then, after his ban, went on to play lots more tests for the All Blacks, as well as provincial and Super games - including for your Canterbury and Crusaders.

Richard Loe was before my time, but here's the thing. It was a similarly despicable act and it would have been right to have cut him from the National team (if I was coach I 100% would have). It doesn't matter how good or important a player is, an act like this has no place in the game.

Also, not sure if you are aware of it, but Loes acts of thuggery absolutely followed him his entire career and how many people mention him without mentioning the incidents. I know nothing of his Rugby, but I know of his thuggish acts. Eben will probably escape that level of recognition, but he shouldn't really.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3452325 12-Jan-2026 15:47

Dylan Pledger, one of the most promising players to come through age grade Rugby, will miss 12 months of Rugby due to an ACL injury.

Such a cruel mistress is lady fate, he was a genuinely exciting prospect. The Highlanders will rightfully, be gutted.

JPNZ

1719 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 845

#3452626 13-Jan-2026 15:02

Only 31 days till the start of Super Season. Man that has come around fast.

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

1 | ... | 652 | 653 | 654 | 655 | 656 | 657 | 658 | 659 | 660 | 661 | 662 | ... | 677