He really is a bitter twat.

He goes in the air and lands on his head - throws a hissy fit and its the crime of the century.
BB goes in the air and lands on his head and BOD is making every excuse as to why it shouldn't be a red card

Irish journo Brendan Gallagher is having ago at Gardner on Twitter now for having “long,cosy chats” with the AB captain whereas he couldn’t extend the same to Morgan Parra because Parra doesn’t speak english.FFS.

They’ll be running out of refs willing to officiate All Black tests soon.Pathetic.

I saw that. He was insisting that officials appointed should speak the language of both teams as the appointments "Are known well in advance". It'll make those Fiji versus Japan or Uruguay versus Romania tests difficult to staff correctly.

He was also bagging the ref of the Wallaby vs. Ireland game. Who is a Kiwi.

If you look at the footage of this incident though,you’ll see Fall never looks anywhere but at the ball and then barely jumps before he takes out Barretts legs.The onus is on him to realise where he is (which he so easily could have by taking a split second eye off the ball as players usually do in his situation) so as far as these types of Red cards go this one is pretty straight forward.
I just don’t understand why people are so confused and unhappy about this particular example of a Red Card for this type of offence when it was so easily avoided and caused injury.

You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.

All the talk about Fall not looking...

did Barrett?

Yes you can. And it's a penalty if someone tackles you when you do.

No you can't, that is dangerous play. Just think about the implications of what you suggest. A player is on attack, there is only one defender between him and the line. All he would need to do is jump into the tackle and the defender either has to let him past and score or it will be a penalty try.

It's mildly interesting to watch the rationalising going on over McKenzie.

it's all 'yeah but'...

he's currently a utility selection. If he was a recognised 10 with a proven track record in Soup rugby then his selection would stand on that but he's at best a 'mercurial' player at 10 who doesn't yet naturally direct a game and from my viewing, still tries to do too much himself.

So does Barrett to a degree.

Coincidentally, we've yet again got a Test team that doesn't really gel in the backs. Results flatter to deceive, and last night a 14 man French team got that whole AB side rattled and out of kilter.

Comparing with RichieMo, you've got an experienced 10 at Soup level who doesn't usually play fullback. I dunno if he ever has, to be fair. Apparently, the 'luxury' of playing behind the Crusaders pack is his weakness and we should extrapolate from that, that the ABs pack would be inferior to the Saders. We should just cap the Crusaders and be done with it, perhaps...

but Mo'unga will distribute and take the line on. He can also pass in the traditional manner as opposed to the DMac netball two handed push pass.

We're a year out from the RWC and this is a good time to be challenged. BB will probably miss next week due to concussion so I would be starting Mo'unga and leaving DMac on the bench as utility cover again. Mo'unga has to be given a run and assessed because we all know you can end up down to your 4th choice player in a RWC and it'd be handy to actually have options outside one specialist and one utility lined up.

All the talk about Fall not looking...

did Barrett?

If you are referring to my point, I am pointing out that things have changed, and in the past (i.e. before the advent of strict liability) Fall not taking his eyes off the ball would be a critical factor in assessing culpability, regardless of what Barrett did.

It's interesting that Hansen made the horseracing analogy in regards to Moody, Whitelock, Squire, Cane and Franks, of their 'second-up' being too close to their first start back. It's good too that he has owned up to that selectorial issue. Someone said that his team are 'yes-men,' and that may prove to be a genuine weakness in the zoo.

Looking forward, maybe the backline will depend upon combinations? If the start Mounga, then Crotty will be at 12, but if it's D Mac, then SBW at 12. Matt Todd at 7 surely, but with Frizzell at 6, who plays 8? Luke at 8 isn't really a ball carrier is he? Does Naholo come in and if so, who plays 15? Probably B Smith with Jordie to the bench. Rest Sam? Or go to the well again? Start KT and give Moody an impact role?Lots, LOTS to ponder, I suspect.

It's interesting that Hansen made the horseracing analogy in regards to Moody, Whitelock, Squire, Cane and Franks, of their 'second-up' being too close to their first start back. It's good too that he has owned up to that selectorial issue. Someone said that his team are 'yes-men,' and that may prove to be a genuine weakness in the zoo.

Looking forward, maybe the backline will depend upon combinations? If the start Mounga, then Crotty will be at 12, but if it's D Mac, then SBW at 12. Matt Todd at 7 surely, but with Frizzell at 6, who plays 8? Luke at 8 isn't really a ball carrier is he? Does Naholo come in and if so, who plays 15? Probably B Smith with Jordie to the bench. Rest Sam? Or go to the well again? Start KT and give Moody an impact role?Lots, LOTS to ponder, I suspect.

The trouble is too many possible combinations and I reckon that's the attraction to them of throwing McBarrett and DMac into the team. They've got the look of selections made in hope that potential becomes real.

It's the same across the park.

What's our starting 15 for the RWC looking like now?

We should know that at this stage. I reckon we haven't got a clue.

Imma gonna let you finish but first...

You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.