Eligibility back on the agenda
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@booboo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being eligible...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being ...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?
So one is about a kid being moved from their home place to ...
Hmmm ... That language is reminiscent of the type of argument used around poaching in the 00s. Fekitoa was not forced to move. Seems indicative of an in grained attitude.
No one said he was forced to move and it has worked out very well for him.
As a rule I think moving youngsters around to play rugby or soccer or Aussie rules isn't in their general best interests - they've about 50 years to live after they stop playing sport and a proper education will help them more in the vast majority of cases.
"being moved" suggests someone is impelling him to do so. "moving" would have been more appropriate if you didn't want to give the impression that he was being forced.
-
Also, @semper with regard to passport/citizenship whilst I agree with your intent i can see thst open to abuse where rules are bent. Add it as a criterria to the criteria set by WR but not as the single qualifying standard.
3 years adult residency and a passport;
Birth;
Parent born in the country and holding a passport;
Grandparent born in the country and holding a passport.UK countries use the same principles as in soccer.
-
@booboo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@booboo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being eligible...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being ...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?
So one is about a kid being moved from their home place to ...
Hmmm ... That language is reminiscent of the type of argument used around poaching in the 00s. Fekitoa was not forced to move. Seems indicative of an in grained attitude.
No one said he was forced to move and it has worked out very well for him.
As a rule I think moving youngsters around to play rugby or soccer or Aussie rules isn't in their general best interests - they've about 50 years to live after they stop playing sport and a proper education will help them more in the vast majority of cases.
"being moved" suggests someone is impelling him to do so. "moving" would have been more appropriate if you didn't want to give the impression that he was being forced.
Fair enough.
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Also, @semper with regard to passport/citizenship whilst I agree with your intent i can see thst open to abuse where rules are bent. Add it as a criterria to the criteria set by WR but not as the single qualifying standard.
3 years adult residency and a passport;
Birth;
Parent born in the country and holding a passport;
Grandparent born in the country and holding a passport.UK countries use the same principles as in soccer.
Yes. But make it 5 years
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I suspect the NZRFU were as knees deep in Fekitoa's contract with Highlanders as anything the IRFU have done.You suspect wrong. For a kid who was MVP of the national 7s tournament in 2012 he didn't get a Super contract until 2013. That contract was with the Blues and he got absolutely no support from his own franchise coaches let a lone the national set up. Went to the Clan and things started from there.
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I'm also interested in the three years after school where he was on various rugby contracts by bodies controlled by the NZRFU. Do you think that Fekitoa would have, prior to getting residncy
(A) Received exactly the same contracts if he had declared for Tonga;
(B) received a better one if he had declared for Tonga; or
(C) received a worse one if he had played for Tonga?
In the case of Aki, if he was to announce tomorrow he was to play for another country, he would probably receive the same contract from Connacht but would be operating under a system where he would only have a two year horizon before being moved on.
A) Yes. Of course he would be ineligible to be central contacted - but there have been ineligible players that have made the max at Super and Mitre 10 Cup level. The problem is that max is ~$230k Super Rugby + ~$75k for Mitre 10 Cup. You have no way to double that by making the ABs with a central contact or match payments, nor Maori ABs etc.
So he would be in a position where he is earning ~$300k here, but could be paid double that in Europe and use his Tongan passport do get around the international restrictions. So that's why they leave. They don't leave because their $200k Super contract is cut in half after declaring. It's because they stop sacrificing in hope/dream of playing for NZ.
It's the lack of opportunities that will do them in here though. By declaring for another nation he would be ineligible for the two quickest ways to go from rookie to top paid player - the ABs and 7s and a lesser extent the JABs and Maori.
So if we take Anton Leinart Brown for example. If he is ineligible for the ABs he misses the last 6 months of opportunities that have taken him from a name on the sheet in Super Rugby to someone who can likely command the max Super Rugby contact. Playing for Tonga in a couple of EOYT games against Canada, Scotland and Georgia plus half an ITM Cup season can't build the resume as quick.
Quicker answer would be Nanai-Williams and Osbourne did not appear to take pay cuts after declaring for other nations after being on the fringes of the ABs.
-
@booboo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Also, @semper with regard to passport/citizenship whilst I agree with your intent i can see thst open to abuse where rules are bent. Add it as a criterria to the criteria set by WR but not as the single qualifying standard.
3 years adult residency and a passport;
Birth;
Parent born in the country and holding a passport;
Grandparent born in the country and holding a passport.UK countries use the same principles as in soccer.
Yes. But make it 5 years
Four years - miss a RWC cycle. Adopting a no grandparent rule will impact the PI Islands in the short term.
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@antipodean said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
No. Fekitoa's scholarship made no difference to his eligibility to play for NZ. He was ineligible. He only became eligible because he was given three years of professional work in NZ - he got a significant portion of that work from two Super Rugby teams.
The NZR actually provides professional pathways for PI eligible players.
Ah. My apologies. If Fekitoa had played for Tonga in 2013 it would have made no odds to his future in New Zealand rugby.
Agreed. Didn't hurt Nadolo.
-
On the minor part of the discussion a few pages back, in university scholarships.
I doubt any restrictions apply, and are included in case someone is 18 and on a uni scholarship.
The reason for me thinking this is relationship there appears to be with Tongans at Japanese universities. Eg Moekiola at this years u20 World Cup.
No hard facts, just assumptions.
Plus it would be ridiculous for any body to assess a 19 year old in residence because of uni to be 'wrong' but a 19 year old in residence because of an academy or full time rugby contract to be 'right'. -
How about:
- scrap the one country only rule
- every player has to declare for a country at 18/20 (if they don't declare then they are deemed to declare for their birth nation)
- three year stand down to switch country
- new country has to pay old country a transfer fee. Transfer fee would depend on IRB ranking (with the top ranked teams paying a lot)
Basically make it a very expensive for tier one unions to recruit offshore.
-
@Calf said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
How about:
- scrap the one country only rule
- every player has to declare for a country at 18/20 (if they don't declare then they are deemed to declare for their birth nation)
- three year stand down to switch country
- new country has to pay old country a transfer fee. Transfer fee would depend on IRB ranking (with the top ranked teams paying a lot)
Basically make it a very expensive for tier one unions to recruit offshore.
Could you declare for a country you don't currently qualify for? Presumably not? So this would only really impact 20 year olds of mixed heritage who have to choose between country of heritage and country of birth?
-
@semper Yes, didn't explain myself very well. You can only declare for someone you qualify for.
But the transfer fee would apply to all players. So if Ireland want to naturalise a kiwi born and bred super rugby centre with no Irish heritage, he would need three years residency plus a transfer fee to the NZRU.
-
@Catogrande With the number of foreign players your union caps it wouldn't be rich for long. 😊
-
@Pot-Hale Good on him, genuinely happy for him that he found his niche up there, after struggling with the Blues.
-
French rugby players only to be considered for international selection if they have French passports
French rugby has changed the eligibility rule for it's international team, stipulating that players must have French passports if they're to be considered for selection. The decision was announced at a meeting in Paris between the French Rugby Federation and World Rugby on Tuesday. Currently, players are deemed eligible for French international selection after living in the country for three consecutive years. However under the new changes, players must hold French passports and, under French law, they are only eligible to do so if they live in the country for over five years. "Our real desire is to promote the French sector, and play as many French players as possible," former Toulon boss Bernard Laporte told World Rugby during their meeting. France has been criticised in the past for flooding it's domestic leagues with foreign-born players which has been said to damage the international side. Former Blues and Hurricans winger David Smith was ruled ineligible for the French side earlier this year. Countries are formally bound by World Rugby regulations when it comes to eligibility laws. However Laporte said that for the good of French rugby, it was important they enforced their own regulations. "We told Rugby World that we had made a decision not to select foreign players even if the regulation allows us. "The regulations could change, but in our minds we do not want to use it, except in case of force majeure, our real will is to favor the French players, to play as many French players as possible. And be very careful about not impoverishing the Fijian federations, Georgian, Samoan, Tongan otherwise it impoverishes the international game, the interest is to have maximum competitive teams." The decision will likely cause some initial drama with current international players like Noa Nakaitaci not holding a French passport therefore ruled ineligible for France ahead of the 2017 Six Nations.I must say I find it astonishing that they seem to change the policy without a transition period. I doubt Nakaitaci is the only international affected by this rule change and they're not even given any time to consider their options. The 6 Nations already starts in 6 weeks!
Personally, I also disagree with the requirement of having/obtaining a passport of the country you represent if either that country or the country of birth doesn't allow dual citizenship. Knowing several expats, I know there can be plenty of good reasons to hold on to your original citizenship if you accept a new one.
Edit: Just read about it in the French media and, apparently, players without a French passport who have already been selected for the French team until now, will still be eligible. So, for example, Scott Spedding, Virimi Vakatawa, Noa Nakaitaci et Uini Atonio (explicitly named in an interview with Guy Novès) will still be able to play for France. Seems Newshub has missed that - not so minor - detail.
XV de France: Fini les étrangers chez les Bleus
Dans les colonnes du Midi Olympique, Guy Novès est revenu sur son entrevue de lundi dernier avec Serge Simon, bras droit du nouveau président de la FFR, Bernard Laporte. Le sélectionneur du XV de France se montre satisfait de cette rencontre et trouve logique la décision des nouveaux dirigeants...
