• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Time for a Super Rugby rule change

Well it depends, at the moment it are just two players who could benefit from it. But as ( please correct me if i'm wrong) have a higher budget then most NZ teams it could mean a player drain to AUS and SA. The NZ Super franchises wouldn't benefit from it.
 
Well it depends, at the moment it are just two players who could benefit from it. But as ( please correct me if i'm wrong) have a higher budget then most NZ teams it could mean a player drain to AUS and SA. The NZ Super franchises wouldn't benefit from it.

At the moment yes it looks like it but if this rule was passed i'm sure many other kiwi would opt for this option,Yes maybe a player drain but at least we get to see them play rugby at the highest domestic level.
 
True, but it might completely reshape the NZ franchise. Don't know how many players would chose heart above $
 
it's an interesting call, I pondered it the other day and it's surely off the back of the fact since Australia got it's extra two teams their talent has been diluted somewhat and only one or two of them are really competitive and they are bringing in more and more overseas players like. Anesi who was one of the First, David Smith who is now one of the Forces best players and the 3-4? Kiwi's at the rebels. And Toby Lynn is joining the force? next year from the chiefs wider training group.

It could help NZ in some ways but the games will mean less and less to me if the players in the teams aren't mostly from the regions they are playing for. I never understood Northern Club football & Rugby where they players are from everywhere, hardly any of them are local - maybe a token handful in each squad? I'd hate super rugby to become like that. I'm already starting to think I'd rather watch ITM cup.

Just look at the kings vs Grammer game recently. Over 10,000 people watching and loads of local celebs, it's not long till colledge rugby in NZ is as popular as super rugby in terms of it's interest in NZ. the less Super rugby teams represent the people of their region the less popular they will be. I think New Zealanders are like that.
 
It's time for Super Rugby exemptions

The All Blacks should be able to select New Zealand players involved in Super Rugby franchises in Australia and South Africa.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/5194385/Its-time-for-Super-Rugby-exemptions

What do you guys think???

It seems to be the next logical step to me, and I would not have a problem with it. If this rule had been in place last year, I have no doubt that Daniel Braid (who was then playing for the Reds) wiould have been picked in the AB squad.

Well it depends, at the moment it are just two players who could benefit from it. But as ( please correct me if i'm wrong) have a higher budget then most NZ teams it could mean a player drain to AUS and SA. The NZ Super franchises wouldn't benefit from it.

No, because the Aussie Franchises have a limit on the number of non-Australia eligible players in their teams (two I think, one plus a "marquee" player). I think SA may have a similar limitation, or if they haven't, and there was a sudden influx of Kiwis, they would get one up and running PDQ.

Just look at the kings vs Grammer game recently. Over 10,000 people watching and loads of local celebs, it's not long till college rugby in NZ is as popular as super rugby in terms of it's interest in NZ.

That Kings v Grammar match was a ripper wasn't it? When you see the skill level and sheer quality of that game, it isn't any wonder that the U20's continue to dominate the JWC.

The less Super rugby teams represent the people of their region the less popular they will be. I think New Zealanders are like that.

Especially when they ditch the meaningful jersey,, with historical significance for the region, and replace it with some meaningless, garish coloured outfit that don't mean Jack Schitt to anyone!!
 
Last edited:
I am already at the stage where I follow the ITM cup more than super rugby.
 

Latest posts

Top