@Chris-B. said in All Blacks 2026:
@antipodean said in All Blacks 2026:
@Chris-B. said in All Blacks 2026:
@Mr-Fish said in All Blacks 2026:
@Chris-B. said in All Blacks 2026:
@Nepia said in All Blacks 2026:
@Chris-B. said in All Blacks 2026:
@Nepia said in All Blacks 2026:
@Chris-B. said in All Blacks 2026:
@Nepia said in All Blacks 2026:
@Chris-B. said in All Blacks 2026:
@Nepia said in All Blacks 2026:
@Chris-B. said in All Blacks 2026:
If Rennie wants to pick Mo'unga and Frizell, I think NZR are missing a trick by not letting him. OK, we don't pick from overseas, but do we need to be puritanical about it?
Yes. They knew the cut off dates for returning and selection and decided not to return by those dates.
Yeah - but, I couldn't care less about these arbitrary dates and rules. They're signed to play in NZ and that should be enough - we risk shooting our feet off by being pedantic.
Of course you don't, you want your boy Friz in the team.
I couldn't actually give a fuck if Frizz is in the team or not - aside from the fabulous wind-up potential here! 
If he's playing how he did when he left, he'll be quite useful for Ta$man. But, I would like us to have the best possible chance of winning in South Africa, so I think Dave should be able to pick who he wants - within reason.
If he's going to put them on a plane with the first injury (see Big Leicester last year) it's a bit farcical.
It's slippery slope, if you let the players start dictating their availability then what's the point having regulations at all?
I think it is a pointless regulation. "You must have played Super or NPC"... why not just be signed to play Super or NPC?
I'm pretty sure that used to be the way it worked.
Meanwhile, the Jaapies will roll out all their Japanese players with little compunction about their domestic players who are busting their arses...
If they give us a beating it will do a lot more to keep rugby thriving in SA than us carting along a couple of guys to play midweek will do for us.
But, my original point stands for me, the regulations are the regulations and the players know them, if you want to advocate for SA rugby rules then that's a whole other argument (and one that ends with a dead domestic game and the leaguie's feeling very happy).
I'm not advocating for SA rules. But, Captain Kirk could change that elegibility rule as I suggest tomorrow - and I'm advocating for that.
Someone whould ask him how it is that Rennie and Blair can happily finish out their Japanese coaching season and have seats at the front of the plane to SA, but players can't?
What about all the poor coaches in NZ busting their arses....?
We'd be picking from a very small group if we could only select from NZ. It's an acknowledgement of the state of the world. South Africa select from aboard because their economy is terrible. France have a strong economy and a thriving competition so they don't.
I know - and Rennie would probably have told them to get fucked if they'd said he had to spend a season coaching NPC. But, the rule is not consistent.
The rule is consistently applied to the specified groups. Thankfully the adults running rugby in NZ aren't so given to logical fallacies that hiring a bus driver, physiotherapist, cook etc. also need to have provided those services in NZ at NPC/SR level before they can be engaged for the All Blacks.
Yeah - I'm terrified our bus driver is going to fuck off with some critical IP on the benefits of double de-clutching.
Predictably you've missed the point.
As pointed out, the supposed adults running NZR had precisely the same restriction on coaches needing to be coaching in NZ to coach the ABs. Someone woke up and changed it..
You're assuming the player rule and the coaching situation exist for the same purpose. They don't.
The overseas player rule is an economic policy designed to keep elite players contracted to New Zealand franchises and unions for as much of the year as possible. Every exception weakens that incentive because future players will expect similar treatment.
Coaches don't create that market dynamic. There isn't an exodus of hundreds of New Zealand coaches every year threatening the viability of Super Rugby or NPC. The head coach is a single appointment made once every four years. Treating that as an exception has essentially zero impact on the domestic coaching pathway.
So the fact NZR became more flexible about an informal policy on coaching appointments tells us almost nothing about whether player eligibility should be relaxed. They're solving different problems. When NZR opened coaching recruitment, it did not suddenly allow anyone from anywhere to coach the All Blacks. The successful candidate was still a New Zealander with extensive experience in the NZ high-performance system, with a consistent record of success.
What NZR didn't do was lower its standards when it changed its coaching policy. Likewise, it shouldn't bend a clearly written eligibility rule for a player who knowingly made himself ineligible. Especially one that went missing in a World Cup final.