Eligibility back on the agenda
-
-
@arhs said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Ridiculous article. He played the Scottish sevens on the IRB circuit in 2012! End of story.
Ridiculous article.
Ridiculous ignorance by Blommeties and his management.For more ignorance, check out this article.
Although I'm not sure if it is just the ignorance by the journalist on the effective date of the new residency eligibilty rulesThe Cheetahs fullback will arrive in Llanelli in time for the start of next season and believes Wayne Pivac’s side will be the perfect fit for his attacking brand of rugby.
The South African will arrive in Wales before World Rugby raises its residency qualification period for international players from three to five years in 2020.
“Everything I am going to do at the Scarlets will be geared towards becoming a Wales international.”
No, if he wasn't already nation-tied to SAF - he would have needed to have moved before December 31 2017,
-
The Olympic loophole is slightly different. The residency period still seems to be 3 years. He would, however, have to change nationality.
8.7 A Player who is a national of the country or Union for which he has been captured under Regulation 8.2 and who holds the nationality of another country or Union, may apply to participate in an Olympic Event to represent his new country or Union subject to the following conditions; 8.7.1 The application of a Player under this Regulation 8.7 must be submitted by the Union which the Player wishes to next represent in an Olympic Event (or a Union associated with the Olympic Sevens Team the Player wishes to represent) to the Regulations Committee with all relevant supporting documentation at least one month in advance of the Player’s intended first participation for the new Union or Olympic Sevens Team. The application shall be pre-notified to the Player’s Union (namely the Union whose National Representative Team the Player represented or a Union associated with the Olympic Sevens Team, as applicable); 8.7.2 The Player as at the time of the consideration of his application by the Regulations Committee must have observed and be able to demonstrate a stand down period of at least three (3) years since the time the Player last represented his former Union and the time the Player first plays for the second Union or country, which must be in an Olympic Event. The Player may not represent the second Union in any other form of the Game until after he has participated in such Olympic Event. 8.7.3 The Player’s new Union or Olympic Sevens Team must not have already qualified for the Olympic Games (in the same gender as the Player) as at the time of the Player’s intended first participation for the new Union or Olympic Sevens Team, as applicable.And then, of course, he'd have to comply with all requirements of the Olympic loophole, to be allowed to play XVs for Wales. So same legal situation as Charles Piutau playing for Tonga ... only without the family and cultural ties.
-
This is complete horseshit from Blommetjies. Jurie Roux made it clear last August that players in PRO14 SA teams would automatically be considered for selection to the Boks. Erasmus has now widened this to include every SA player no matter where they play. Erasmus would have seen him play first hand in the Cheetahs games vs Munster home and away as well as the usual paths for selection.
I can’t see Wales selecting a 31 year old 10/15 although Hadleigh Parkes might disagree.
-
A bit similar to the Brad Shield and Pete Samu stories
Toni Pulu, Jimmy Tupou on Tonga radar
Chiefs winger Toni Pulu and Blues utility forward Jimmy Tupou want to play rugby for Tonga but an international call-up remains on ice while they sort their playing futures. 'Ikale Tahi coach Toutai Kefu has selected six new caps in his squad for next month's Pacific Nations Cup, including former Highlanders captain Nasi Manu. He said Pulu and Tupou were among a group of players who were also keen to be involved but their situation was complicated because their current Super Rugby deals expire in a couple of months. "Those players haven't acquired a club yet when Super Rugby is finished so the scenario for them is they could still be playing Super Rugby next year so it's just that uncertainty for them," he said. "Certainly if they acquired a club at the end of this year up in the Northern Hemisphere I think the process of them coming to play for us this campaign - and they were definitely out of the All Blacks radar - that would have been an easier process for them to come and play for us." Toutai Kefu said they had a similar situation last year with former Chiefs prop Siegfried Fisiihoi, who was released from his New Zealand contract to represent Tonga in June after signing a deal with Stade Francais. "This year because some of these players haven't acquired a club yet just that process is a little bit harder but if something does come up in the next month or so they're definitely available for November," said Kefu. "We're still looking at that and hopefully something happens positively for them and I'm in contact with their agents all the time." New Zealand Super Rugby teams are each permitted to contract three players not eligible for New Zealand selection, of which one of those places is reserved for a Pacific Islands-eligible players. Toutai Kefu confirmed that, like Hurricanes captain Brad Shields' recent release to play for England next month, contracted players with dual eligibility do require New Zealand Rugby's pemissision to play for another country. "As long as they're not on the All Blacks radar - which they all aren't - New Zealand Rugby Union are more than happy to release them for this campaign," he said. -
The pressure on NZ to sort these contracts out to ensure a larger player base for the PI's being involved in super rugby is only going to increase.
There is certainly a balance to be found between ensuring NZ rugby and the All Blacks are what the funding goes to, and being fair to NZ born and bred players (and school scholarship players) who may want to represent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji etc.
All Black squads are about what 30-35, and given he current injury toll, it's probably fair to expect up to 50 to be used. So given that there are 150 signed super rugby players in NZ, to only have 15 allowed to play elsewhere seems a little stingy.
Would love to see a question posed to PI team players if they would rather play their domestic rugby in SH or NH.
-
@majorrage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
The pressure on NZ to sort these contracts out to ensure a larger player base for the PI's being involved in super rugby is only going to increase.
There is certainly a balance to be found between ensuring NZ rugby and the All Blacks are what the funding goes to, and being fair to NZ born and bred players (and school scholarship players) who may want to represent Samoa, Tonga, Fiji etc.
All Black squads are about what 30-35, and given he current injury toll, it's probably fair to expect up to 50 to be used. So given that there are 150 signed super rugby players in NZ, to only have 15 allowed to play elsewhere seems a little stingy.
Would love to see a question posed to PI team players if they would rather play their domestic rugby in SH or NH.
Agree.
I'm actually a bit disappointed to learn how restrictive the NZRU could ntravtscappear to be.
But it's hard to support multiple national teams with just 5 pro teams.
-
Nz rugby below the ABs is a money sink, we can't afford to pay for the training and development of PI players and still fight off the NH clubs. I think two or three in a squad is very generous, as that's what most have - there's only a few non PI non. NZ players about, like Ardron
-
@machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Nz rugby below the ABs is a money sink, we can't afford to pay for the training and development of PI players and still fight off the NH clubs. I think two or three in a squad is very generous, as that's what most have - there's only a few non PI non. NZ players about, like Ardron
Ioane another (has he even played this year?)
-
@majorrage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
All Black squads are about what 30-35, and given he current injury toll, it's probably fair to expect up to 50 to be used. So given that there are 150 signed super rugby players in NZ, to only have 15 allowed to play elsewhere seems a little stingy.
Maybe there are only 15 (if that) at Super Rugby standard. The average PI capped player in Super Rugby is a bench player. A majority of the development work NZ does for the Islands is through the Mitre 10 Cup where if you look through the Tongan/Samoan sides you will see most broke through.
There is absolutely no need to open up more Super Rugby slots when there are virtually limitless spots at ITM Cup level.
The 15 number also fails to include the dozens of players who play as NZer for several seasons then after not achieving AB selection defect - Fotuiali'i, Jack Lam, Lee-lo, Paul WIlliams, Lee-lo, Shields etc.
-
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@majorrage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
All Black squads are about what 30-35, and given he current injury toll, it's probably fair to expect up to 50 to be used. So given that there are 150 signed super rugby players in NZ, to only have 15 allowed to play elsewhere seems a little stingy.
Maybe there are only 15 (if that) at Super Rugby standard. The average PI capped player in Super Rugby is a bench player. A majority of the development work NZ does for the Islands is through the Mitre 10 Cup where if you look through the Tongan/Samoan sides you will see most broke through.
There is absolutely no need to open up more Super Rugby slots when there are virtually limitless spots at ITM Cup level.
The 15 number also fails to include the dozens of players who play as NZer for several seasons then after not achieving AB selection defect - Fotuiali'i, Jack Lam, Lee-lo, Paul WIlliams, Lee-lo, Shields etc.
That is because the Super Rugby standard dual-qualified players sign restritive NZRU central contracts. there are dozens and dozens of Super Rugby standard dual-qualified players in the comp.
NPC level dual-qualified players don;t sign restrictive central contracts and the players have nothing to 'lose'. In fact it is to their advantage to get some PI caps for visibility and European work permit reasons
-
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is because the Super Rugby standard dual-qualified players sign restritive NZRU central contracts. there are dozens and dozens of Super Rugby standard dual-qualified players in the comp.
NPC level dual-qualified players don;t sign restrictive central contracts and the players have nothing to 'lose'. In fact it is to their advantage to get some PI caps for visibility and European work permit reasons
Of course but Super Rugby is high performance unit that exists in large part to produce and prepare the All Blacks. Being ineligible for the All Blacks is counter productive to that goal.
-
Interesting blog post on the "Tier 2 Rugby" website:
The Pacific Islands desired eligibility reforms will never happen
-
@stargazer Thanks, that was interesting. I guess it really highlights what a can of worms eligibility has become. The painful truth that for every winner there will be a loser is very much on point. There is no panacea.
-
The reality is such a policy would only worsen things for PI nations as eligible players would elect to play for Tier One nations in the prime of their careers and then elect to take the place of younger players once they're bypassed.
-
Yeah, I don't really agree with Dan Leo and his approach here - although I will concede that is far more likely than what I would push for.
Basically I think test match fees should be set at the game level, not the side. So for each game that is played, the percentage of gate takings and then match fees (for both sides) are decided there. So for example, the Samoan vs England game at Twickers was where this really kicked off, in that the 23 England players were taking 22k each vs 0k each for the Samoan.
So lets say 35 in the squad, plus 10 admin (coach, physio etc) which means 90 people in total. Using the England wage of 22k each, then that costs around 2mm GBP. Twickers, capacity 80,000, average direct ticket sale (excluding marketing, catering etc) probably somewhere around 100 GBP, so 8mm GBP. Thus it would be nearly 50% of gate take - perhaps unrealistic there, but why should England players get 22k, Samoan get zilch? If you halve this (11k per player) then it's only 25% of total gate, which still leaves plenty of rooms for unions to profit (remember this number doesn't include profits from catering, beers, broadcast right etc).
If there is zero financial difference between playing for Samoa/Tonga and playing for England / New Zealand, then surely this gap should close somewhat.
