Eligibility back on the agenda
-
@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. -
@Catogrande I agree Eddie and Hughes did nothing wrong. It's the current rules that have become wrong.
Just as back in the 80s and 90s when the eligibility rules needed to change to reflect the increased migration and prevent immediate switches, and the 3 year stand down was introduced.
Then they needed to change to lock in players to the one country.
Now they need to change to reflect the current circumstances which is migration that is purely due to professional rugby.
Just think also Cato ... England would have been shorn of the talents of Jamue Salmon had the one country rule been in place in thd early 80s ...
-
@booboo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Catogrande I agree Eddie and Hughes did nothing wrong. It's the current rules that have become wrong.
Just as back in the 80s and 90s when the eligibility rules needed to change to reflect the increased migration and prevent immediate switches, and the 3 year stand down was introduced.
Then they needed to change to lock in players to the one country.
Now they need to change to reflect the current circumstances which is migration that is purely due to professional rugby.
Just think also Cato ... England would have been shorn of the talents of Jamue Salmon had the one country rule been in place in thd early 80s ...
Dammit. The three year rule would have saved us a degree of mediocrity.
-
@Crucial Not a bad idea. The concern though, and this applies to any changes, is that there are a whole load of very bright people looking to exploit whatever rules are put in place and it must be very difficult to get all the various national unions to agree on something that is not going to have all sorts of loopholes.
It's just a bloody nightmare really.
However, I'd have your idea over the current set up straight away.
-
@Catogrande and I wouldn't have spelled his name wrong ... " Jamie".
-
@booboo Oh HIM. He was even worse.
-
@Catogrande It was a completely fair swap. We got John Gallagher, you got Jamue...
-
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Pulver about a month ago said was happy with status quo. Someone needs to tell him that 10 Fijian wingers is no more useful than 2 Fijian wingers
If we have them distributed across every Super franchise then it's extremely helpful.
-
From research online, the status of foreign players currently in Ireland would appear to be:
Ulster
Louis Ludik (30) - 3 year contract extension to June 2020 - uncapped full-back/wing- could qualify for Ireland June 2017.
Wiehahn Herbst (28) - 3 year contract ends in Autumn 2017 - uncapped TH prop - could qualify for Ireland in October 2017Franco van der Merwe - 1 year contract extension ends in June 2017 - SA capped lock
Marcel Coetzee - 3 year contract until June 2019 - SA capped flanker
Ruan Pienaar - contract ends June 2017 - SA capped scrum-half
Charles Piutau - 2 year contract ends in June 2018 - NZ capped full-back/wingLeinster
Hayden Triggs (34) - one year contract exstension ends in June 2017 - uncapped lock. Likely to retire.
Jamison Gibson Park (24) - 3 year contract that ends in June 19. - uncapped scrum-half. Would qualify for Ireland in Sept/Oct 2019Zane Kirchner - 2 year contract extension ends in June 2017 - SA capped full-back/wing
Isa Nacewa - 1 year contract extension ends June 2017 - Fiji capped full-back/wingMunster
Rhys Marshall (24) - 3 year contract that ends in June 2019 - uncapped hooker. Could qualify in October 2019
Jean Kleyn (23) - 3-year contract ends in June 2019. - uncapped lock. Could qualify in Sept 2019
Tyler Bleyendaal (26) - 3 year contract ending Nov 2017 - uncapped out-half/12. Could qualify in Jan 2018.Francis Sailii - 2 year contract ends in June 2017 - NZ capped centre
Mark Chisholm - 2-year contract ends in June 2017. Aus capped lockThomas du Toit - 3 month contract - ends in December 2016
Te Aihe Toma - short-term contract - uncapped scrum half
Jaco Taute - 4 month contract ending December 2016 - uncapped centreConnacht
Daniel Poolman (27) - 2-year contract extension ends in June 2017. Uncapped wing. Qualified by residency in June 2015.
Jake Heenan (24) - 2 year contract extension ends in June 2018 - uncapped flanker - qualified for Ireland in June 2016Bundee Aki (26) - 3 year contract extension ends in June 2020 - uncapped centre. Would qualify for Ireland in October 2017
Tom McCartney (31) - 3-year contract ends in June 2017. uncapped hooker. Could qualify in November 2017Marnitz Boshoff - 2 year contract ends in June 2018 - SA capped out-half
Stacey Ili - rolling contract only - uncapped utility backNaulia Dawai - 2 year contract ends in November 2018. Fiji- capped flanker
Nepia Fox-Matamua - 2-year contract ends in June 2017 - uncapped flanker -
This post is deleted!
-
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@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?
Clearly the clubs are motivated by their own success - although I think everyone would be in agreeance that a strong showing by the national team lifts the sport, the premiership etc. But the path to success if very much set by the negotiations with the RFU in regards to rules for English eligible players, incentives for academies, funding etc.
Also you assume the the clubs are one cohesive unit, the bottom clubs have different motivations to the blue ribbon franchises with European business to attend to.
But I would reject the notion that the clubs are completely ambivelant to the national teams success and would even cannibalise the national teams success if it benefited their club.
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.
The Super League and granny imports have not been disincentivized. The academy set up is about creating another stream of imports at a younger level - otherwise there would be caps on the number of non-English qualified players allowed in the academies. The academy incentive structure is about developing the best players possible who are England qualified once they hit the Premiership or soon after - whether they begin their academy stint from Salford, Suva or Stewart Island it is irrelevant to the RFU and clubs.
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.
If Michael Jones made his decision aware of the current rules (i.e. playing for Samoa would end his hopes of being an All Blacks) it is fair to say he would have rejected the selection for Samoa.
Frank Bunce given his age may have played for Samoa though if given the chance under the current rules. Granted he was Niuean and had no Samoan lineage and was allowed to play at the time.
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.
I don't take it as on offence to NZ. I just think we have to begin accepting that some unions are so desperate for success that they have little regard for any concept of "purity" or "sensibleness" when it comes to national selection - Australia, England and Ireland being the prime offenders.
South Africa is the only country that can have a problem with NZ as a net exporter of talent over Mehrts and Rawlinson. Although given Mehrts ironically was born while is dad was a club import over there - probably best left alone.
-
Does anyone actually have any figures for foreign academy players at English clubs? I really don't think it's very many. Certainly in terms of players who moved to the UK to play rugby.
At London Irish for example (last year's unbeaten U18 Academy League champions), the Senior Academy this year has 12 players signed. Of those there's one Fijian guy who moved to the UK as a toddler as his old man was in the army and one Scottish guy who moved to England in his early teens. That's it really. Genuine question really, are there hoards of SH kids in the English academy structure?
-
"Clearly the clubs are motivated by their own success - although I think everyone would be in agreeance that a strong showing by the national team lifts the sport, the premiership etc. But the path to success if very much set by the negotiations with the RFU in regards to rules for English eligible players, incentives for academies, funding etc."
Of course, a strong showing by the national side will be supportive of rugby in general, but the path to success for the clubs is a very immediate issue. It is all about today, be it winning the league, qualifying for Europe or avoiding relegation. The RFU is trying to promote England qualified young guys through effectively bribing the clubs, this is not an altruistic stance from the clubs. The situation in England and France is totally different to more or less anywhere else. None of the other 6N countries have an issue with relegation and in reality there's not much of an issue in qualifying for Europe. In the SH every franchise knows that next season they will be playing in the pre-eminent competition that they are eligible for. Accordingly they can plan longer term. For the English clubs (and French) it is all about now.
"Also you assume the the clubs are one cohesive unit, the bottom clubs have different motivations to the blue ribbon franchises with European business to attend to.
'I wouldn't say cohesive, but without a doubt they all have the same concerns, the only thing that differentiates them is the degree of last season's success.
"The academy set up is about creating another stream of imports at a younger level - otherwise there would be caps on the number of non-English qualified players allowed in the academies. The academy incentive structure is about developing the best players possible who are England qualified once they hit the Premiership or soon after - whether they begin their academy stint from Salford, Suva or Stewart Island it is irrelevant to the RFU and clubs."
I call BS on the first bit, the imports bit. I'd like to see your evidence to support this as I have not seen anything that would suggest such a thing, as Margin Walker states earlier. The assertion that the country of origin is irrelevant and the implication that there is a drive to find potential imports at academy level is something that I've seen no evidence for.
Your points about Michael Jones and Frank Bunce are completely valid and I have no problem with either position - and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
Your last point about purity or sensibleness has traction but we are none of us whiter than white, nor blacker than each other in reality. We all have our shameful history and we'd be blind to think otherwise. We could all spend hours pouring through historical selections both at club/provincial level as well as national level, we can all point out attempts to assimilate players. However that is not the problem, the problem is trying to make things work in the future.
-
The biggest issue I have with the 3 year residency rule is that is the average term of a pro contract.
You are contracted to a club for 3 years
, don't break it and you will qualify for an English/French jumper.It should involve more commit,net to a country than an initial contract that you have obtained a work permit for.
-
@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 AgustÃn 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.)So Canada gets the same number of votes as Fiji, Samoa, Tonga (and other lesser Pacific rugby powers) combined.
That's Tui Statement if ever there was one
World Rugby - Wikipedia
