Hi all,

I was a little surprised by the ruling by the referee in the second Bledisloe test between the Wallabies and the All Blacks that Samisoni T could not be replaced by Cody Taylor until a scrum had set and that once Taylor came on, the All Blacks had to reduce their player numbers to 14 on the field. This seems like an error to me under the laws?

Here is a description of what happened.

- Cody Taylor is replaced by Samisoni T early in the second half. I believe this was a tactical substitution rather than an injury substitution otherwise Taylor would not have been able to eventually come back on.

- Samisoni gets injured and has to leave the field. The referee says that Taylor cannot come onto the field to throw in the lineout and that they have to wait for a scrum.

- The All Blacks knock the ball on at the lineout immediately and Taylor comes on. However, the referee says that the All Blacks have to stay at 14 players so Timoci Tavatavanawai goes off.

According to Law 3.33 (reproduced below), it seems that there is no requirement to wait for a scrum or for the All Blacks to go down to 14 players. Could someone please enlighten me what laws the referee/officials were using? I can't find them anywhere. By my reading of the laws, Taylor should have been able to replace Samisoni??

Law 3.33: Tactically replaced players may return to play only when replacing:

a. An injured front-row player.

b. A player with a blood injury.

c. A player with a head injury.

d. A player who has just been injured as a result of foul play (as verified by the match officials).

e. The nominated player when applying Laws 3.18-3.20.

f. A teammate who has received a qualifying red card, after 20 minutes playing time has elapsed. (Elite rugby only).

Watching two of them bat now.

I started tuning in a while ago because finding quality NZ rugby content can be a bit of a mission if you don't live locally. At first, I actually found them pretty refreshing. They had a distinct energy, but over time, the cracks have really started to show. Instead of evolving, it feels like they’ve just doubled down on their worst habits. Here is what’s been grinding my gears lately: • Polarizing for the sake of it: It feels like they chase controversy rather than actual nuance. • Reductive reasoning: Complex tactical matches are boiled down to incredibly simplistic, lazy takeaways. • Inconsistent arguments: What’s a cardinal sin for one player or team is completely excused for another whenever it suits their narrative. • Severe tunnel vision: They get hyper-focused on specific pet peeves or players and completely miss the bigger picture of the game. • Zero objectivity: It feels less like an analytical rugby show and more like a platform for unchallenged, biased takes. I really wanted to like this show, but it’s exhausting to watch experts just dig their heels into bad takes week after week. For those of you closer to the ground or plugged into local fan networks: how is this show actually perceived in NZ rugby spaces and by the general public? Is it widely criticized for this stuff, or do the masses actually buy into it?

Imagine requesting the great John danaher into the allblacks .
I think this May supersede the great genius aura of the Rassie cult . The allblacks have John danaher

I can see the ruck cleaners being alien and efficient

The complete opposite of the current praised hero god of like Jacobson (napalm man )

I can see a wrist control and hand fighting with small footwork leading up to the protection of ball

P.s it’s the sick obsession with rash shirts that reminded me (for those who don’t know bjj etc etc )