Why should the children be punished for their parents getting
into a heated argument? Not being eligible for the trophy at
the end of the season is a ridiculous punishment for the
children. Maybe things might have happened on the field but
that's what yellow and red cards are for and the children
would get punished on a case by case basis through the rugby
What at a sad reflection on the parents, coaches and clubs.
Parents trying to live their failed sports achievements
through their children, coaches trying to out do other
coaches, clubs trying to out do clubs etc etc. Where do the
kids fit in to this picture, parents and coaches of these two
teams in particular should be totally ashamed of themselves.
Wake up, this ain't Super 15 rugby, kids are not going to get
contracts based on their sucess in the under 13s. This does
not reflect on the game itself, nor other teams in the clubs
involved for I am sure there are those coaches whose focus is
on the kids just having fun and learning confidence and
skills. For these two teams maybe a good punishment would be
to make them ineligible for the trophy at the end of the
"Hey, I'm going to renege on my contract with you guys. Yes,
I know I said I would sign but these guys in Ireland just
offered me truckloads of cash. Anyway, thanks for all the
time and cash you put into developing me, it is sure going to
pay off now.
Oh, BTW, my new bosses don't want me until August next year
so can you pay me to play for the Blues for a few months so I
can stay fit for them.
Dunedin must move on from these sad people who just love to
whinge, they are what is holding Dunedin back, not the
stadium and what a great stadium, thanks all you people who
dont like it but continue to fund it, we rugby supporters
really appreciate it. Food for thought, the stadium is here
use it, enjoy it because it will be here long after you. When
you pack up and go take a photo of it to remind you of the
good times when you lived in Dunedin.
Here is me thinking that if you willingly sign an employment
contract then that is binding on both parties unless both
parties agree to change that contract. This backing out of
contracts by rugby players seems to be quite common and could
be regulated if a transfer fee is payable - in this case if
the NZRU really want this player to stay with NZ then they
would be liable for a hefty fee to Clermont.
I think you're got rose-tinted specs with your rating of
Malakai - apart from his 'runaway' try he had a average to
mediocre game. His defence was not good with the Lions
midfield having a great attacking 2nd half, he tried far too
many risky passes/offloads that did not work and lost
possession, and he keeps on trying his crossfield scything
runs that worked in his first season but all teams know now.
JJ and the AB selectors need to have a quiet chat with him;
he needs to put a bit more coventional play back into his
game - look at Ma'a and Conrad, they aren't doing too much
unorthodox but are setting the 'Canes on fire.
I think the forwards need to lose half a point each for their
inability to combat mauls and their inability to recognise
that the ref was not accepting their scrummaging tactics,
legal or not, and changing. OK, they may not have been
walking the scrum around everytime the ref penalised them but
the ref had made his position clear and they had to change.
[Jeff Cheshirereplies: Good points and fair
enough. I gave Fekitoa a point for his try, because it was
quite timely. I don't disagree with what you said about the