• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Eligibility back on the agenda

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
335 Posts 51 Posters 63.4k Views
Eligibility back on the agenda
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • NepiaN Offline
    NepiaN Offline
    Nepia
    replied to semper on last edited by
    #184

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @NTA said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    I think the grandparent rule probably needs retiring - with a bit of notice.

    Would you prohibit a citizen of a country playing rugby for that country?

    I don't think that is such a big deal and it happens now due to the one country for life. Quade Cooper is a citizen of NZ but can never play for the ABs (cheers around the country) and it's the same with lots of current Samoan internationals too.

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • rotatedR Offline
    rotatedR Offline
    rotated
    replied to semper on last edited by
    #185

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    Someone else brought up the point that we are proposing a higher standard to play rugby for a country than to fight for that country. It's not a point that I care for, hence my comments which you appear to have entirely misread but well done on some further Ireland bashing. In relation to your general point, it would reduce the number of serious rugby playing nations by a third.

    There is no Ireland bashing here. They are just a unique case. So when you want other countries to replicate France's policy - it gets tripped up where Ireland have either have a fatal disadvantage (not a country, cannot issue passports) or a clear advantage (two passports possible, one passport makes it very easy to poach from three other countries).

    The aim of Pichot is to try and get player squads to pass the smell test not create different loopholes for the Home Unions to drive a bus through, NZ implementing this doesn't help that in any way.

    D 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    Derm McCrum
    replied to rotated on last edited by
    #186

    @rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    Someone else brought up the point that we are proposing a higher standard to play rugby for a country than to fight for that country. It's not a point that I care for, hence my comments which you appear to have entirely misread but well done on some further Ireland bashing. In relation to your general point, it would reduce the number of serious rugby playing nations by a third.

    There is no Ireland bashing here. They are just a unique case. So when you want other countries to replicate France's policy - it gets tripped up where Ireland have either have a fatal disadvantage (not a country, cannot issue passports) or a clear advantage (two passports possible, one passport makes it very easy to poach from three other countries).

    The aim of Pichot is to try and get player squads to pass the smell test not create different loopholes for the Home Unions to drive a bus through, NZ implementing this doesn't help that in any way.

    Actually, come to think of it, you could use Irish passports in Ireland's case because if you are born on the island of Ireland, you're automatically entitled/eligible to an Ireland passport. A UK passport would not be valid by itself, but rather that a player would qualify for an Ireland one by dint of whether you were born on the island. Parentage rules would apply as the norm.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CatograndeC Offline
    CatograndeC Offline
    Catogrande
    wrote on last edited by
    #187

    Possible unilateral action from the RFU. I'll believe it only when it happens. However even if futile it sends a good message.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38672116

    D 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    Derm McCrum
    replied to Catogrande on last edited by
    #188

    @Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    Possible unilateral action from the RFU. I'll believe it only when it happens. However even if futile it sends a good message.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38672116

    Unsurprising. It was known already that England supported a change and it suits them to announce it now. Politically, it may force other unions into having to give a public comment. Has the NZRU given an indication of its stance?

    CatograndeC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CatograndeC Offline
    CatograndeC Offline
    Catogrande
    replied to Derm McCrum on last edited by
    #189

    @Pot-Hale No idea about the NZRU but it is starting to become interesting to see which unions are giving support to Pichot's initiative. There's the French saying they will only select those with a French passport, but as discussed earlier, passport eligibility is different in many countries.

    If you recall there was the outcry when Zola Budd was granted a UK passport just in time for the LA Olympics when SA were banned from international sport. Even back then it was considered something of a cynical move with the Daily Mail prodding her Father to get her to apply for British citizenship due to her having a British Garndfather. Whilst the Grandfather rule is still there it was the seemingly indecent haste and the involvement of the Daily Fucking Mail.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    Derm McCrum
    wrote on last edited by
    #190

    Yeah I agree. I'm curious that rugby journos have not been asking specific questions of respective unions about their stance on the issue. Or if they have reporting on what answers they were given.

    There's this extract from an article on Stuff:
    "Pumas great Agustín Pichot, the World Rugby vice-chairman, believes three years is too short a qualifying time and believes extending it will help the player drain from the Pacific Islands.

    Scotland, Ireland, France and Wales have been aggressive in targeting overseas players who can help their test cause while England aren't immune to it either with Fijian Nathan Hughes, a former Auckland loose forward, the latest recruit to join their lineup after seeing out his time."

    Leaving aside that it makes no mention of Australia, I'm puzzled about the reference to PI players. Pichot has talked before about PI players pulling on a jersey for Ireland for example. To date, there's been Payne and White from NZ, and Strauss and Stander from SA who've been capped. Scotland have had Maitland (NZ) and Nel (SA). Where are all these players being drained from the PI playing for other countries? France? They're moving to a passport requirement.

    CatograndeC MajorRageM 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • CatograndeC Offline
    CatograndeC Offline
    Catogrande
    replied to Derm McCrum on last edited by
    #191

    @Pot-Hale With the general level of rugby journalism following soccer journalism down the toilet it is much easier to pen a few inflammatory words than to ask any real questions that require answering. It seems in relation to the various Unions, all the press do now is report the press releases that the Unions throw them.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • MajorRageM Offline
    MajorRageM Offline
    MajorRage
    replied to Derm McCrum on last edited by
    #192

    @Pot-Hale The main difference there is that there is strong belief amongst many that the island nations should be on equal footing with the more established. The narrative that the world loves to walk all over the island boys, steal their players etc is a strongly held one, and what this is all about. Nobody cares much if a second or third string NZ player plays for somebody else, or if a young up and coming NZ player is lured away. NZ is already at the top table., thus no growth there.

    This simply isn't the same for the island nations - how strong they would be if they genuinely were given a seat at the top table, I don't know. But I don't think the eligilbity is the root cause of the problem. I think it's more about clubs not releasing players (or "encouraging" international retirement, and then the big elephant in the room, corruption/mis-management at the top level of the unions.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • NepiaN Offline
    NepiaN Offline
    Nepia
    wrote on last edited by
    #193

    @Pot-Hale I think if Pichot stopped and thought about it he'd probably realise that a lot of those PI players he's thinking about in his head are actually from the Pacific Islands of NZ.

    I expect the NZRU would be in favour of a longer time for residency (maybe they'd want to keep the school arrivals at same period). We're not anti residency players but it's not like they make up a huge number of our teams (remove the school arrival guys and it's only really Rawlinson and Devine in kind of recent times).

    Weird that England is moving on it when they've recently been capping players under that eligibility. They probably should have instructed Eddie not to (or they went the other way, "quick, lock them in now").

    BonesB rotatedR 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • BonesB Offline
    BonesB Offline
    Bones
    replied to Nepia on last edited by
    #194

    @Nepia probably include Masoe in that too?

    Would be interesting to see how a no grandparent rule might adversely affect Samoa/Tonga.

    NepiaN CatograndeC 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • NepiaN Offline
    NepiaN Offline
    Nepia
    replied to Bones on last edited by
    #195

    @Bones said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Nepia probably include Masoe in that too?

    Would be interesting to see how a no grandparent rule might adversely affect Samoa/Tonga.

    I think he went to Wanganui Collegiate?

    Yep, the no granparent rule would hammer the islands in a generation.

    BonesB RapidoR 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • BonesB Offline
    BonesB Offline
    Bones
    replied to Nepia on last edited by
    #196

    @Nepia Ah right I thought he'd come after, as you were.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CatograndeC Offline
    CatograndeC Offline
    Catogrande
    replied to Bones on last edited by
    #197

    @Bones Is removal of the Grandparent rule really on the cards though? I agree it would be to the detriment of the PIs or any country that had a large economic migrancy situation.

    D rotatedR 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    Derm McCrum
    replied to Catogrande on last edited by
    #198

    @Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Bones Is removal of the Grandparent rule really on the cards though? I agree it would be to the detriment of the PIs or any country that had a large economic migrancy situation.

    Yep agree. I'd say IRFU would object to that.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • rotatedR Offline
    rotatedR Offline
    rotated
    replied to Nepia on last edited by
    #199

    @Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
    (remove the school arrival guys and it's only really Rawlinson and Devine in kind of recent times).

    And Taumoepeau. So it's about 20 tests all up, a majority of which were off the bench and often injury call ups.

    The biggest change that could benefit the ABs is eliminating the grandfather rule as it would stop depth from converting to Samoa/Tonga/Fiji and being ineligible for NZ. However for the good of the game no one from NZ would be pushing for this.

    Residency also helps the islands, but to a larger extent just helps give the international game some integrity.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • rotatedR Offline
    rotatedR Offline
    rotated
    replied to Catogrande on last edited by
    #200

    @Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @any country that had a large economic migrancy situation.

    Such as New Zealand -> Australia. Although the likelihood of them actually targeting guys in the NRL U20s system or Aussie schoolboys rugby based on their parents/grandparents being Kiwis is unlikely given the wealth of talent back home. More of a don't call us we will call you type thing.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • RapidoR Offline
    RapidoR Offline
    Rapido
    replied to Nepia on last edited by
    #201

    @Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Bones said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Nepia probably include Masoe in that too?

    Would be interesting to see how a no grandparent rule might adversely affect Samoa/Tonga.

    I think he went to Wanganui Collegiate?

    Yep, the no granparent rule would hammer the islands in a generation.

    Wanganui City College.
    The poor school in, 3rd ranked rugby school in the city, a declining provincial city.

    I've seen him included as a scholarship migrant in various internet discussions . But personally I doubt it, based purely on the school, no evidence either way.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • R Offline
    R Offline
    Rugger Quizzes
    wrote on last edited by
    #202

    Spent years in Japan, and as everyone knows they use the 3 year residency thing very freely indeed. Interesting thing though is the likes of Michael Leitch, Luke Thompson and Hendrix Tui have all naturalised anyway. Dual citizenship is not recognised as such but my experiences there suggest that it's very much a case of don't ask, don't tell. Kids born in an international marriage can have both passports to age 21 at which time they are supposed to decide, but in practice many don't. I would imagine someone like Kotaro Matsushima, the outside back, would still hold both South African and Japanese

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • DuluthD Offline
    DuluthD Offline
    Duluth
    wrote on last edited by
    #203

    The stricter residency rules are expected to pass

    Gavin Mairs  /  Mar 29, 2017  /  Rugby Union

    Why Denny Solomona is poised to make history with England switch

    Why Denny Solomona is poised to make history with England switch

    The Rugby Football Union may have confirmed that Denny Solomona has this week become the latest player to qualify for England on the three-year residency rule - but behind the scenes the governing body's support for the campaign to extend the qualifying period to five years appears to have been...

    Agustin Pichot, the World Rugby vice-chairman, made it clear on his appointment last year that he felt three years was too short amid concerns that it was undermining the fabric of the international game and fuelling the player drain from the Pacific Islands.
    
    The RFU openly declared its support for the position in January and several international sources have indicated that Pichot will now get enough backing to get the amendment over the line.
    
    "There is a very good chance of it being adopted," said RFU chief executive Ian Ritchie.
    
    There could yet be a period of grace for those players already serving a qualification period for their adopted country but it is almost certain that if the extension is voted in, it could be in place for the start of next season.
    
    1 Reply Last reply
    0

Eligibility back on the agenda
Sports Talk
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.