Eligibility back on the agenda
-
@antipodean said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
75% of votes to amend. So with 6N pillaging the SH, it will never be changed.
The Home Nations + France represent an agonizing 25.5% of the votes. Clearly by design. But also that assumes that Georgia, Italy and all the continental unions fall an the reform side of things.
I wouldn't say all is lost though, there is a very strong case for Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales to vote in favour of this.
France, England and Ireland are still poaching the better players and have more clubs to "stock" them while they complete residency. Strictly looking at competition in the 6N - the current laws actually put them at a relative disadvantage. If those three unions lost their international players the gap between them and the Scots/Welsh would close.
-
I think there is a good chance a watered down version would pass. I don't think France and England are so "desperate" for players that they would be against 5 years for example to qualify.
I really don't like the 2-country rule which is patronizing to the Pacific Islands: it's basically a rule to to let SANZAR/6N players return to play for fiji etc once they are based their use by date.
We see what happens, but I'm predicting with some confidence that the 3-year rule will be somewhat extended. Not sure about the grandparent rule and others.
-
I think you have to separate club/province/school etc from country. There are a number of clubs in England and France that are very aggressive in searching out SH talent and let's be sure here, this is SH, not just poaching in the islands. However this is specific to and for the benefit of that club, not a concerted national policy. Where this benefits the national sides is that you have guys that then qualify on residency. However, far from poaching - for that you'd have to believe in a concerted joint effort between club and country and as they can agree on sweet fuck all this is unlikely.Both France and England benefit from the 3 year rule but it's not an active policy.
The Irish project player thing is something different and the Scottish policy of chasing grandparenting is also pretty poor, but to my mind the worst example was Wales back in the day of Grannygate when they didn't even abide by the rules' although it wasn't a Welshman in charge then.
-
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I think you have to separate club/province/school etc from country.
Which is a great idea where you either don't count time as a professional rugby player in another country toward residency for national selection or do so at a reduced rate.
-
@Billy-Tell yeah I dunno...someone like Taimanivalu isn't past his best, but I don't see him getting more than a few more caps, whereas he would be of value to Fiij
Maybe with dual nationality, you can have a 2 year stand down if you have played less than 5 tests in say 2 years...am sure there is a way...obviously for some to get the dual option sees them out of action for a long period.
-
That's my point though. It's patronising to say he is value to Fiji but not to NZ. It never goes the other way where a guy is washed up with Fiji but makes the NZ side.
The main thing is to make it attractive to declare for Fiji in the first place but that is becoming more and more of a financially dud choice.
-
@Billy-Tell I don't see it like that.
He was fortunate/unfortunate to have some good form this year that got him capped for the AB's when they were looking at long term options, now, he is no longer available for Fiji, I might be wrong, but I would be surprised if he plays any more tests for the ABs, so giving him the option in say 2018 of going to Fiji, if they wanted him and he wanted to go, seems fair to me.
-
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I think you have to separate club/province/school etc from country.
Which is a great idea where you either don't count time as a professional rugby player in another country toward residency for national selection or do so at a reduced rate.
Which the rest of my post looked at. You have the English and French clubs recruiting from all over but and this is a big but, it is for the benefit of the club and the club only. They don't give a shit about recruiting for the national side. You have NZ schools recruiting aggressively for their rugby sides but again this is for their own benefit not the national side. We can all argue about economic migration but tell me, what is someone moving abroad for higher wages other than economic migration?
The real point is that the current rules on residency are crap and need to be addressed. How this is done is a whole different can of worms.
Grandparenting is another problem and I hate the idea of stuff like Waldrom qualifying for England or the Leslie brothers et all for Scotland. But there is another side to this, my mother-in-law was Maltese and they are genetically and habitually the most obese (by BMI) in Europe. If they can't access blokes by Grandparenting or residency they'll never get anyone from 4-8 ever. The would be totally fucked.
There are different problems for different tiers of nations and how this can be addressed globally is a nightmare.
-
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Billy-Tell I don't see it like that.
He was fortunate/unfortunate to have some good form this year that got him capped for the AB's when they were looking at long term options, now, he is no longer available for Fiji, I might be wrong, but I would be surprised if he plays any more tests for the ABs, so giving him the option in say 2018 of going to Fiji, if they wanted him and he wanted to go, seems fair to me.
I suppose if there is a decent stand by period.
I wouldn't rule him out of further ab honours just yet. He's not that far off fekitoa for example. Doubt he will be regular 1st XV material though.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That's my point though. It's patronising to say he is value to Fiji but not to NZ. It never goes the other way where a guy is washed up with Fiji but makes the NZ side.
Nacewa.
-
The voting structure:
(16) The eight "foundation unions" have two votes each: Australia, England, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and Wales.
(6) Three additional unions have two votes each: Argentina, Canada, and Italy.
(4) Four unions have one vote each: Georgia, Japan, Romania, and the USA.
(12) The six regional associations representing Europe, Americas North, South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania each have two votes.
(2) The Chairman and Vice Chairman each have one vote. (These two individuals generally come from two of the eight foundation unions; as of June 2016, these positions are respectively held by Bill Beaumont of England and Agustín Pichot of Argentina.)
(In total, European countries have 16 permanent votes and 17 in all; Oceanian countries have 6 votes; North American countries have 5 votes; South American countries have 4 permanent votes and 5 in all; African countries have 4 votes; and Asian countries have 3 votes.) -
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Billy-Tell said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That's my point though. It's patronising to say he is value to Fiji but not to NZ. It never goes the other way where a guy is washed up with Fiji but makes the NZ side.
Nacewa.
He wasn't washed up with Fiji. He just would have preferred NZ in the end.
-
My assumptions, taking on Cato's point that Eng and France may waver either way, and are comfortable due to their size.
For:
NZ -2
Arg -2
Saf - 2
Pichot - 1
Oceania - 2
Georgia -1
South America -2Against:
Aus 2
Ire 2
Wal 2
Sco 2
Jap 2Unsure:
Beaumont - 1
Eng - 2
FRA - 2
Asia 2
Europe 2
Canada 2
USA 1
Romania 1
North America 2
Africa 2So many in the unsure as lumping residency rules with grandparent rules means many conflicting agendas.
If pichot was politically smart from his argentine perspective he would be trying to make this a residency rules review only, not a review of the whole qualification criteria. For this reason I reckon it will stall, then eventually die.
-
@Rapido I'm hoping that Beaumont will vote with his conscience. Likely that England will vote against change, just because that's what we do. Mind you, every now and then we pull out a Brexit decision, so who knows? Nah, we're talking the RFU here. Status quo all the way.
-
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
The voting structure:
(16) The eight "foundation unions" have two votes each: Australia, England, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and Wales.
(6) Three additional unions have two votes each: Argentina, Canada, and Italy.
(4) Four unions have one vote each: Georgia, Japan, Romania, and the USA.
(12) The six regional associations representing Europe, Americas North, South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania each have two votes.
(2) The Chairman and Vice Chairman each have one vote. (These two individuals generally come from two of the eight foundation unions; as of June 2016, these positions are respectively held by Bill Beaumont of England and Agustín Pichot of Argentina.)
(In total, European countries have 16 permanent votes and 17 in all; Oceanian countries have 6 votes; North American countries have 5 votes; South American countries have 4 permanent votes and 5 in all; African countries have 4 votes; and Asian countries have 3 votes.)Don't think you've got the voting structure right. Think the major unions all have 3 votes.
Latest News | World Rugby
The latest World Rugby news, including about the World Rankings, Tournaments, Player Welfare and the Laws of the Game
-
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I think you have to separate club/province/school etc from country.
Which is a great idea where you either don't count time as a professional rugby player in another country toward residency for national selection or do so at a reduced rate.
Which the rest of my post looked at. You have the English and French clubs recruiting from all over but and this is a big but, it is for the benefit of the club and the club only. They don't give a shit about recruiting for the national side. You have NZ schools recruiting aggressively for their rugby sides but again this is for their own benefit not the national side. We can all argue about economic migration but tell me, what is someone moving abroad for higher wages other than economic migration?
The incentive structure of the Premiership is negotiated between both the RFU and the owners. The shift in past years towards heavy funding and incentives for academies and the players they produce has been completely in consultation with the clubs. Absolutely no safe gaurds have been made to ensure predatory practices are occurring offshore, nor are there any incentives to ensure young ENGLISH players are targeted specifically (funny that).
I guess I applaud the English efforts for being more forward thinking than the Irish - but I'm not ignorant enough to miss the real reasons behind these moves from an RFU perspective.
Yes NZ schools do scout and bring talent over but the direct relationship between the NZRU and schools is far more distant than that of the RFU and the clubs.
If the NZRU next year offered up a $10 million dollar annual prize pool for the national schools tournament would they not be directly complicit in the arms race (and benefit) that followed from there?
-
NZ Herald article only mentioned NH unions yet Australian rugby fans are acutely aware that the issue applies to their team as well.
The article's assumptions about NH unity on voting are also wide of the mark in my view. England wouldn't lose any sleep about residency changing from 3 years to 5 years. They have sufficient depth.
The IRFU CEO and Director of Rugby have both publicly said this year that if it changes to 5 years, they don't have a problem. Given their recent policy decision to invest heavily in the domestic pathway in the coming years, they recognise that the 2012 Player Succession Strategy is going to be altered anyway which currently states the 4+1 policy for three of the provinces. I suspect that quota number will be reduced further. The union doesn't identify the players, the provinces do. And what's driving the identification and selection of young uncapped players is as much about the rising salary scales being given to capped foreign players, including Irish, Welsh and Scottish and Italian players moving to French and English clubs.
I think this change is a case of when it happens rather than if. If the decision is for 5 years, then what are the consequences - intended or unintended - for uncapped players from the migrating countries?
The grandparent rule is more concerning in my view. For countries who have regular emigration of its people, and who have strong tie-backs to their countries through culture and family, I think this would be harsh on some players. But if it has to be, so be it. I would query whether it would be enforceable due to potentially conflicting with citizenship criteria for obtaining passports.
I'd be quite happy if next year any non-Irish player (does not have or is not entitled to an Irish passport) in Irish rugby was told you have no chance of qualifying or playing for Ireland. Or if the Pichot Rule passes they are told you have to be resident here for five years playing at least registered club rugby.
-
@rotated Yeah I see where you're coming from here and fair enough, though I would question as to who has the upper hand between union and club owners and also what the motives are for the club owners - to help England or to make their clubs successful businesses?
The academy incentive is a good step forward by the RFU and is in itself a back door disincentive towards importing players. It's not enough on its own but a step in the right direction.
Yes England have benefitted, the selection of Hughes being the latest and one of the better examples. I don't agree with his inclusion but I can understand both his motives and Eddie Jones' motives. The problem is the rules and both Hughes and Jones are acting within the rules. Many years ago NZ capped a player that had already been capped by another country. Just as with Hughes this was within the rules as they were then. The rules have moved on (and I hope they move on a bit more), but if today's rules had applied back then, NZ would have lost one of their greatest players in Michael Jones.
Please don't take this as a dig against NZ, it isn't. If anything it is a dig at World Rugby and their failure to address an increasing problem.
-
@Pot-Hale not that it changes anything, but the journo who wrote the article for the Herald is a Scotsman. Who may be subject to a slight case of Stockholm Syndrome given he's been at the Herald for a few years but is still Scottish enough to go all Wayne Barnes on Joubert after last year's QF.
-
What I wouldn't mind seeing is a two country rule based on number of games played over a period for country number number one.
eg NZ selects a player of Tongan descent to fill an injury gap but doesn't continue to use them past that time. Their whole international career is now screwed when they could be adding to the quality of internationals if allowed to change country.
It will also curtailthe deliberate selection of players to lock them i.
World Rugby - Wikipedia
