If a member of a partnership finds themselves in trouble, shouldn't their partners help them out?
Within reason, yes, absolutely but here's some recent examples where I think people are pushing the barrow a bit far:
> South African games should be broadcast at times better suited to Australian viewers. What about the South African viewers? And are Australian games going to be broadcast at times better suited to South African & New Zealand viewers? I'd rather like Bledisloe 1 to start at 8pm my time rather than yours, thanks mate.
> NZRU should allow their players to sign for Australian teams while retaining their All Blacks eligibility. Does NZRU then get to manage their workloads e.g. "In the next five weeks player 'x' can start up to three matches but can't be in the 23 in all five"? What compensation does NZRU get if you "break" one of our players?
> A Trans-Tasman competition should comprise 'x' Australian teams with New Zealand adding a sixth Super Rugby-like team/ re-organising the well-established and at long last financially viable NPC to accommodate them. Never mind that we can't sustain a sixth Super Rugby-like team any more than you could sustain a fifth (difference being we've not yet been dumb enough to nevertheless try it) & what do we tell, say, Manawatu: "Sorry guys but we've gotta cut you to make room for some Aussie mob"?
Fully in favour of NZ doing what we can to help our Aussie mates but it can't be to the detriment of the NZ game.