Eligibility back on the agenda
-
It would be interesting to see, for say the last series of internationals, how many players in each match 23 were qualified by virtue of residency.
By my count in the 2016 November matches between the 6N and Rugby Championship teams, it would appear that Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, England, France, Scotland, South Africa and Italy all fielded players who qualified by virtue of residency. Wales and Argentina are the only two that appear to me not have fielded players by virtue of residency qualification (where the person qualified for residency as an adult). So it is a rule that every major rugby playing country appears to be willing to take advantage of with the exception of Argentina. Wales have taken advantage of this rule in the recent past.
You can come up with a hundred reasons why one type of residency qualified player is better than another, but I'd favour a five year qualification period over the age of 18 and require the person has citizenship or subject status of the country/ies where the Union is situated. I'd also favour a system whereby if the country of players birth calls them up during that the three year period, then they any residency qualification has been bilaterally approved by the two countries.
One loophole that I would be wary of is, is where a talented player is identified at 14 or 15 in another country, and they and their family are encouraged to move to the country where they are to be given an academy place or scholarship. Normally schooling cannot qualify for residency, but if the family moves the residency requirements are reduced for kids. In soccer this has happened and I could see how a unscrupulous union, club or school would avail of this for their own benefit.
In terms of changes to the residency rules, by my reckoning the main losers in the medium term would be Japan, Italy and the US. They have the largest differential between the residency qualified players and the rest of the playing squads. Fiji and Tonga would appear to me to be the main winners as there are players from both countries playing for much higher ranked countries purely by virtue of residency.
I would be strongly against any attempt to get rid of the so-called granny rule. Provided that country allows for that person to be a citizen or subject, it should be continued with. For countries with traditions of large scale forced emigration like Ireland or Italy, there is a sustained relationship with many of the disapora and they are entitled to citizenship. Removing those players eligibility would be essentially taking a view point of the world in which people only arrive and never leave.
Allowing players to double back on their country would only encourage the residency qualification efforts relating to players from second tier countries. I think the double back rule could be employed for Tier Two countries where they qualify by birth for a Tier One country, play for that country, but can double back for the familial country. However, if it is allowed in residency cases, it will just encourage your Fijian or Tongan player to try their luck with the Tier One nation because they have the freedom to double back - the emotional blackmail of playing for the country of your birth is reduced.
-
The more I think about it, the more residency qualification should be linked to citizenship or subject status. If you are not a citizen or a subject of a particular country, why should you be playing for it? Obviously in the Irish case, you could be a citizen of the Republic and/or a subject of the Crown to qualify but in general if you can't produce a passport from the territory of the country you are playing, then you should not be playing for that country.
That's the FIFA basis - their rules are set out below.
**5 Principle
1.
Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain Country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that Country.With the exception of the conditions specified in article 8 below, any Player who has already participated in a match (either in full or in part) in an Official Competition of any category or any type of football for one Association may not play an international match for a representative team of another Association.
6 Nationality entitling Players to represent more than one Association
- A Player who, under the terms of art. 5, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfi ls at least one of the following conditions:
a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
d) He has lived continuously on the territory of the relevant Association for at least two years.** -
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Just a thought on the grandparents rule. It's probably decidedly not in the interests of Pacific Island Unions for those rules to be tightened.
If it becomes parents only by birth place, you get weird situations where Umaga, Weepu and Nonu's kids cannot represent Samoa - yet Mehts' can represent South Africa and Ben Franks' Australia right out of the gate. Which seems... less than ideal.
Is Weepu's wife Samoan? If not then Maori/Niuean Weepu's kids shouldn't be allowed to represent Samoa.
-
@semper I think you raise some valid points but then again there is the situations like Rockoduguni in England. I'm not sure that he currently has citizenship or has applied for it for that matter. Yet he is a member of our armed forces and could be called upon to fight or die for our country. If he can do that he can fucking well play rugby for us that's for sure.
-
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper I think you raise some valid points but then again there is the situations like Rockoduguni in England. I'm not sure that he currently has citizenship or has applied for it for that matter. Yet he is a member of our armed forces and could be called upon to fight or die for our country. If he can do that he can fucking well play rugby for us that's for sure.
That just highlights how 'nationality' is entirely differently judged depending on circumstances.
-
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper I think you raise some valid points but then again there is the situations like Rockoduguni in England. I'm not sure that he currently has citizenship or has applied for it for that matter. Yet he is a member of our armed forces and could be called upon to fight or die for our country. If he can do that he can fucking well play rugby for us that's for sure.
That just highlights how 'nationality' is entirely differently judged depending on circumstances.
Yeah, it's a dog's breakfast alright. You have citizenship, right of residency, residency, ordinary residency, domicile, nationality and that's without going down the route of kolpak, EU membership, freedom of movement for employment.
It really needs to be looked at totally afresh and has to take into account migrancy and the various human rights type laws that will affect things. I honestly don't think there is an answer.
-
@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Just a thought on the grandparents rule. It's probably decidedly not in the interests of Pacific Island Unions for those rules to be tightened.
If it becomes parents only by birth place, you get weird situations where Umaga, Weepu and Nonu's kids cannot represent Samoa - yet Mehts' can represent South Africa and Ben Franks' Australia right out of the gate. Which seems... less than ideal.
Is Weepu's wife Samoan? If not then Maori/Niuean Weepu's kids shouldn't be allowed to represent Samoa.
Fair point, I originally had Masoe there but forgot he was born in Samoa. I guess Weepu qualifies for Samoa under the Bunce provision.
-
In regards to switching countries - the IIHF has a pretty decent solution, a 4 year stand down period plus you must be a citizen of the new country you wish to represent.
Making the qualification criteria stricter for the second nation seems the best solution to me - although I would tweak it slightly.
A 3 or 4 year stand down period from whichever is the later of playing your last fixture for a previous country or gaining citizenship. This would facilitate players with dual nationalities through their parents (citizenship via grandparents is being widely phased out) to switch relatively easily, but would slow down players qualifying via professional contacts.
-
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
In regards to switching countries - the IIHF has a pretty decent solution, a 4 year stand down period plus you must be a citizen of the new country you wish to represent.
Making the qualification criteria stricter for the second nation seems the best solution to me - although I would tweak it slightly.
A 3 or 4 year stand down period from whichever is the later of playing your last fixture for a previous country or gaining citizenship. This would facilitate players with dual nationalities through their parents (citizenship via grandparents is being widely phased out) to switch relatively easily, but would slow down players qualifying via professional contacts.
The problem with that is that you are building in a dependency on various citizenship requirements around the world that can have differing degrees of difficulty that can sometimes be blanket and sometimes differ according to country of origin.
eg citizenship through parentage could still range from months to years depending on immigration policy and red tape. Also opens up 'fast-tracking' arrangements.
Australian Citizenship by descent is fairly simple. Show you weren't born there but your parents were citizens, provide a police clearance, pay the nominal fee and you are home in about a month.
UK Citizenship by descent has the same but a lot more bureaucracy and the process takes anywhere from 6 months plus.
The Oz system has a provision to fast track for 'compelling reasons' whereas the UK one makes everyone join the same queue.Any rules in place should create a fairly equitable playing field or you are defeating the purpose of trying to create balance throughout the rugby world
-
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Any rules in place should create a fairly equitable playing field or you are defeating the purpose of trying to create balance throughout the rugby world
You raise some good points although to me that is the quirk in the system. If you want to represent England let's say - then being beholden to their citizenship process seems reasonable. I don't think that we need to ensure each Damascus Road conversion takes the same amount of time. The rule would be designed to ensure as a whole players with natural dual nationalities are able to convert quicker than those who find them later in life.
Yes, Samoan citizenship can be granted very quickly (SBW went there and picked it up during his bye week with the Bulldogs in preparation to escape to Toulon) and Japanese citizenship is impossible to attain without relinquishing all others - but maybe that just makes the national teams a better reflection of their nations - which seems reasonable to me.
Even in international sport the playing field is not level - the Boks have quotas, NZ will not select from overseas etc. Home Unions present an issue when citizenship comes up though.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)
He was 23 when he first played for the abs so it must have been 5 years after he turned 18. He definitely would have been selected earlier if available. Seems a bit unfair.
Moving under the age of 18 without parents (eg a scholarship, boarding school arrangement) doesn't count towards residency. Therefore starts once left school, as an adult.
Someone like Sivi probably repeats a year (second language, good at rugby so incentive for school to keep him on) so maybe 19 or almost when they leave.
Other scholarship kids like Fekitoa, Tamanivalu just weren't 'even in consideration' in those 3 years after school as they weren't as good.
-
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)
He was 23 when he first played for the abs so it must have been 5 years after he turned 18. He definitely would have been selected earlier if available. Seems a bit unfair.
Moving under the age of 18 without parents (eg a scholarship, boarding school arrangement) doesn't count towards residency. Therefore starts once left school, as an adult.
Someone like Sivi probably repeats a year (second language, good at rugby so incentive for school to keep him on) so maybe 19 or almost when they leave.
Other scholarship kids like Fekitoa, Tamanivalu just weren't 'even in consideration' in those 3 years after school as they weren't as good.
I seem to recall Sivivatu represented Fiji in Soccer as a junior not rugby ,
Rugby became his forte after moving to NZ , so if had stayed in Fiji , chances are , he would not have ever been much of a rugby player anyway ,
I remember that story , doing the rounds , not sure how much truth is in it , ???
NZ gained a good rugby player, but Fiji didnt lose one
-
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper I think you raise some valid points but then again there is the situations like Rockoduguni in England. I'm not sure that he currently has citizenship or has applied for it for that matter. Yet he is a member of our armed forces and could be called upon to fight or die for our country. If he can do that he can fucking well play rugby for us that's for sure.
If the UK government don't believe the likes of Rockoduguni deserve UK subject status then they really shouldn't be allowed represent one of the UK territories in rugby.
Not speaking specifically about his case, but what I presume the intention of reforming the rules is to remove 'mercenaries' from the international game. People who are willing to fight and risk their lives for a foreign country due to pay and conditions offered are mercenaries.
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Not speaking specifically about his case, but what I presume the intention of reforming the rules is to remove 'mercenaries' from the international game. People who are willing to fight and risk their lives for a foreign country due to pay and conditions offered are mercenaries.
Disagree. People who have no allegiance other than to a pay cheque are mercenaries.
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)
He was 23 when he first played for the abs so it must have been 5 years after he turned 18. He definitely would have been selected earlier if available. Seems a bit unfair.
Moving under the age of 18 without parents (eg a scholarship, boarding school arrangement) doesn't count towards residency. Therefore starts once left school, as an adult.
Someone like Sivi probably repeats a year (second language, good at rugby so incentive for school to keep him on) so maybe 19 or almost when they leave.
Other scholarship kids like Fekitoa, Tamanivalu just weren't 'even in consideration' in those 3 years after school as they weren't as good.
I seem to recall Sivivatu represented Fiji in Soccer as a junior not rugby ,
Rugby became his forte after moving to NZ , so if had stayed in Fiji , chances are , he would not have ever been much of a rugby player anyway ,
I remember that story , doing the rounds , not sure how much truth is in it , ???
NZ gained a good rugby player, but Fiji didnt lose one
The Internet suggests he took up rugby at the age of 13 properly in school. It also notes that at age 15 he was granted a scholarship to Wesley College. The Internet also suggests that his family were aggrieved that when he was 15 he did not get support from the Fijian Union ( an odd one if he was a soccer player). The final aspect which suggest this story about him being a soccer player is odd, is that in the Wesley College annals he appears to have been on the Rugby XV for at least two years but never featured on the soccer XI. An odd one for a soccer player. Pretty amazing that between getting off the plane and the end of his first school year he had been introduced to rugby, leapfrogged dozens of kids playing the game locally for years and was making the grade for the schools rep teams. Mad really. Some coaching structure at that school.
-
Like anything, I think the key to finding the answer is to define the problem.
In my eyes the problem is when players that have been developed by one country have circumstances where they can use the current rules to benefit themselves and another country.
Secondly there is the issue of stronger/richer countries sucking potential talent from weaker/poorer countries which only serves to maintain the situation and promotes an elite level in the game.The trick is then writing rules that relieve these issues without unfairly capturing genuine player movement and restraining trade.
-
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Like anything, I think the key to finding the answer is to define the problem.
In my eyes the problem is when players that have been developed by one country have circumstances where they can use the current rules to benefit themselves and another country.
Secondly there is the issue of stronger/richer countries sucking potential talent from weaker/poorer countries which only serves to maintain the situation and promotes an elite level in the game.The trick is then writing rules that relieve these issues without unfairly capturing genuine player movement and restraining trade.
It's taken us a long while to get there, but that's it really.
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper I think you raise some valid points but then again there is the situations like Rockoduguni in England. I'm not sure that he currently has citizenship or has applied for it for that matter. Yet he is a member of our armed forces and could be called upon to fight or die for our country. If he can do that he can fucking well play rugby for us that's for sure.
If the UK government don't believe the likes of Rockoduguni deserve UK subject status then they really shouldn't be allowed represent one of the UK territories in rugby.
Not speaking specifically about his case, but what I presume the intention of reforming the rules is to remove 'mercenaries' from the international game. People who are willing to fight and risk their lives for a foreign country due to pay and conditions offered are mercenaries.
To be honest I don't know whether or not Rockoduguni has attained UK citizen status, whether he has even applied for it or whether or not the UK Government has refused it or does not allow it, but notwithstanding any of that, if he or anyone else is willing to serve in our armed forces then he's also welcome to represent us in something a little less dangerous. Like rugby.
There is a long tradition of Fijian service in the UK forces, as there is Nepalese, NZ, Australia etc etc. If these blokes have an affinity with serving in a standing army, on the same pay, conditions and duties as the rest of the standing army, that makes them soldiers not mercenaries. If someone decides to fight as a non-regular soldier, for a specially collated force at different pay and conditions for s short term contract, then you are entitled to call them mercenaries. And if you do I hope you get the response you want from them. Good luck with that.
-
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper I think you raise some valid points but then again there is the situations like Rockoduguni in England. I'm not sure that he currently has citizenship or has applied for it for that matter. Yet he is a member of our armed forces and could be called upon to fight or die for our country. If he can do that he can fucking well play rugby for us that's for sure.
If the UK government don't believe the likes of Rockoduguni deserve UK subject status then they really shouldn't be allowed represent one of the UK territories in rugby.
Not speaking specifically about his case, but what I presume the intention of reforming the rules is to remove 'mercenaries' from the international game. People who are willing to fight and risk their lives for a foreign country due to pay and conditions offered are mercenaries.
To be honest I don't know whether or not Rockoduguni has attained UK citizen status, whether he has even applied for it or whether or not the UK Government has refused it or does not allow it, but notwithstanding any of that, if he or anyone else is willing to serve in our armed forces then he's also welcome to represent us in something a little less dangerous. Like rugby.
There is a long tradition of Fijian service in the UK forces, as there is Nepalese, NZ, Australia etc etc. If these blokes have an affinity with serving in a standing army, on the same pay, conditions and duties as the rest of the standing army, that makes them soldiers not mercenaries. If someone decides to fight as a non-regular soldier, for a specially collated force at different pay and conditions for s short term contract, then you are entitled to call them mercenaries. And if you do I hope you get the response you want from them. Good luck with that.
I disagree but if that's your view fair enough.
