Eligibility back on the agenda
-
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...
-
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
-
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
-
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.
Other than Japan and Georgia, do any of the top dozen or so rugby countries have an issue with dual citizenship/subject status?
To the best of my knowledge it is not an issue for Ireland, the UK, Argentina, Australia, New Zeland, Canada or the USA. I haven't a notion about Fiji, Samoa or Tonga.
-
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.
We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.
I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.
-
@Kirwan said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.
We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.
I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.
I'd guess that most unions would do what they feel they need to do to overcome perceived weakness. NZ are fortunate in that they have little in the way of such things. Aus less so.
We are none of us saints.
-
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kirwan said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.
We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.
I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.
I'd guess that most unions would do what they feel they need to do to overcome perceived weakness. NZ are fortunate in that they have little in the way of such things. Aus less so.
We are none of us saints.
speak for yourself...
