Eligibility back on the agenda
-
Another article about the eligibility issue. Different approach.
Changing Rugby’s Eligibility Rules: a short-term fix for a long-term problem
-
@antipodean said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
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.
That's one option. Another is that the ex-ABs etc will bring knowledge and experience to the teams and the young players will learn something they otherwise couldn't.
At least some of the whining is about players who somehow get picked once or twice for one country and then fall off the radar. The Sevens loophole gives backs an option which hasn't broken anything yet, so I wonder if there's an option somewhere in the middle. One answer could be to allow changes of allegiance for people with fewer than some number of caps in a qualifying team e.g. 2, so the genuine one-hit wonders don't get stuck, without compromising elsewhere.
-
@godder said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@antipodean said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
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.
That's one option. Another is that the ex-ABs etc will bring knowledge and experience to the teams and the young players will learn something they otherwise couldn't.
At least some of the whining is about players who somehow get picked once or twice for one country and then fall off the radar. The Sevens loophole gives backs an option which hasn't broken anything yet, so I wonder if there's an option somewhere in the middle. One answer could be to allow changes of allegiance for people with fewer than some number of caps in a qualifying team e.g. 2, so the genuine one-hit wonders don't get stuck, without compromising elsewhere.
They can also transfer that knowledge by coaching after they retire.
As the second article that I posted explains, there are a lot of (legal and other) issues that need to be sorted. Maximum number of caps is only one of them. Achieving an eligibility rule that is satisfactory to all nations/players will be very difficult.
-
Another thing I am wondering, is the number of islanders moving to live in NZ much less now? Are teams, specifically Samoa who rely on Kiwis of Samoan decent, going to run out of young people who's grandparents were born in the islands? Not soon, maybe, but eventually a much lesser pool of kiwi born, raised and trained PI players.
-
@godder said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@antipodean said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
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.
That's one option. Another is that the ex-ABs etc will bring knowledge and experience to the teams and the young players will learn something they otherwise couldn't.
As @Stargazer points out, there's different ways to skin a cat.
At least some of the whining is about players who somehow get picked once or twice for one country and then fall off the radar. The Sevens loophole gives backs an option which hasn't broken anything yet, so I wonder if there's an option somewhere in the middle. One answer could be to allow changes of allegiance for people with fewer than some number of caps in a qualifying team e.g. 2, so the genuine one-hit wonders don't get stuck, without compromising elsewhere.
There isn't sufficient time to see if the, IMO stupid, Olympics loophole will cause issues down the track. But professional players electing to represent a Tier 1 nations need to acknowledge that in doing so, the competition is higher and there's no guarantee of longevity. Further, the implication that players can go eligibility shopping once they're no longer competitive irritates me greatly - the idea is you're representing your country.
I do feel some sympathy for players who are dual (or more) eligible and could have had long international careers, but made what in hindsight was a poor choice. However getting the balance right to permit these players to have a second shot is fraught with danger; the end state being Test rugby becomes a mercenary eligibility game.
@machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Another thing I am wondering, is the number of islanders moving to live in NZ much less now? Are teams, specifically Samoa who rely on Kiwis of Samoan decent, going to run out of young people who's grandparents were born in the islands? Not soon, maybe, but eventually a much lesser pool of kiwi born, raised and trained PI players.
I've thought that too. Once the grandparent criteria is largely extinguished as the exodus of the 1960-80s diminishes combined with the stricter ARU conditions, it seems the PI nations could suffer going forward. Obviously Samoa will still beat the Wallabies and Wales on occasion...
-
@machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Another thing I am wondering, is the number of islanders moving to live in NZ much less now? Are teams, specifically Samoa who rely on Kiwis of Samoan decent, going to run out of young people who's grandparents were born in the islands? Not soon, maybe, but eventually a much lesser pool of kiwi born, raised and trained PI players.
We'll get to the stage eventually where the children of PI players can't play for that country. I do find that a bit strange and think that maybe there should be a 'parent' clause where if your parent played for a team (through heritage only) then you are eligible for that team.
-
-
EDIT: Ninja'd!
FFS it makes you annoyed that me, Joe Public noob, can figure out what went on with Pulu and one of our 'respected, leading' rugby writers talks out his arse with click bait headlines
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12103333&ref=rss
Though I do feel sorry for Nacewa tho
-
@nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Another thing I am wondering, is the number of islanders moving to live in NZ much less now? Are teams, specifically Samoa who rely on Kiwis of Samoan decent, going to run out of young people who's grandparents were born in the islands? Not soon, maybe, but eventually a much lesser pool of kiwi born, raised and trained PI players.
We'll get to the stage eventually where the children of PI players can't play for that country. I do find that a bit strange and think that maybe there should be a 'parent' clause where if your parent played for a team (through heritage only) then you are eligible for that team.
I think the Bachop Samoan line was already back to grandmother for Stephen Bachop. So Jackson Garden-Bachop may fit that description unless he has links on the maternal side.
-
From Colin Bourke's instagram:
bourkey8 After initially being granted eligibility on Wednesday to play in this weekends @worldrugby7s London leg for Japan, @worldrugby have decided to renege and deem me ineligible to play a day before the tournament. Disappointed is an understatement. To dismiss going on nearly 8 years living in Japan, gaining Japanese citizenship for them to only to focus on being 7 days over on a 62 day maximum outside Japan ruling, which was an unknown rule to me, is beyond disappointing, its unfair. I get rules are rules and all that but sometimes a case presents itself thats not like others, and that case is mine. I played for New Zealand 7s 15years ago. 私は絶対にあきらめない. -
@Stargazer that is definitely stink and I can empathise. But if you are looking to convert then you think you'd hunt out the relevant rules to ensure you are meeting all the requirements. If he had been given formal advice from WR and that wasn't included then that'd be shit, but otherwise the onus was on him and Japan rugby.
-
@Stargazer said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
From Colin Bourke's instagram:
bourkey8 After initially being granted eligibility on Wednesday to play in this weekends @worldrugby7s London leg for Japan, @worldrugby have decided to renege and deem me ineligible to play a day before the tournament. Disappointed is an understatement. To dismiss going on nearly 8 years living in Japan, gaining Japanese citizenship for them to only to focus on being 7 days over on a 62 day maximum outside Japan ruling, which was an unknown rule to me, is beyond disappointing, its unfair. I get rules are rules and all that but sometimes a case presents itself thats not like others, and that case is mine. I played for New Zealand 7s 15years ago. 私は絶対にあきらめない.15 years ago? Fuck I am old .
-
@Stargazer said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
From Colin Bourke's instagram:
bourkey8 After initially being granted eligibility on Wednesday to play in this weekends @worldrugby7s London leg for Japan, @worldrugby have decided to renege and deem me ineligible to play a day before the tournament. Disappointed is an understatement. To dismiss going on nearly 8 years living in Japan, gaining Japanese citizenship for them to only to focus on being 7 days over on a 62 day maximum outside Japan ruling, which was an unknown rule to me, is beyond disappointing, its unfair. I get rules are rules and all that but sometimes a case presents itself thats not like others, and that case is mine. I played for New Zealand 7s 15years ago. 私は絶対にあきらめない.A bit like the Neil Wagner delay.
-
@Stargazer Colin Bourke - the best Bay of Plenty fullback I've ever seen.
He must be ancient by now.
-
Just in case this discussion comes up during the RWC again, I'm posting this article here.
Note: It's not an opinion piece.Foreign-Born / Raised Players at RWC 2019
20 teams will compete at RWC 2019 in Japan. Of them 17 have selected players from other countries. How then did they come to qualify for the country they are representing? The following article is aimed at explaining who they are and how they qualify. It is not an opinion piece but instead sets out to be informative, giving the reader a greater understanding of how the eligibility process functions. Eligibility must be obtained by meeting Regulation 8 as outlined by World Rugby. Doing so requires a player to (a) be born in the country; (b) have one parent or grandparent from the country; or (c) complete 3 years consecutive residency immediately before representative duty. Changes since RWC 2015 have seen a tightening of the residency qualifying with it having been extended from 3 to 5 years. While this will not begin until the end of 2020 it must be clarified that the change was motivated precisely as a response to the number of foreign-born players at RWC 2015 and the subsequent qualifying of players in 2016 and 2017.The RWC 2019 edition has been compiled to ask and answer the question as to which players were and were not produced by a union. This is connected to the use of a new column which outlines other representative duty to document the comparative history of the players. The events of 2018 which began in Brussels, Belgium, underline why the point from the above paragraph is fundamental for RWC 2019. The aftermath would see Belgium, Romania, and Spain all disqualified for breaching Regulation 8. Russia replaced Romania as Europe 1 after center Sione Faka’osilea was confirmed as having already been captured by Tonga; while Mathieu Bélie and Bastien Fuster were deemed to be captured by France. The punishment was the same though the policy which saw Bélie and Fuster captured no longer exists as countries can no longer nominate their u20 side as their ‘next senior XV’.New Zealand (3) New Zealand has three players from abroad, all of whom qualify via residency. Of them Sevu Reece moved to play rugby in New Zealand on a high school scholarship aged 17. The two others moved in their early teens. Ofa Tu’ungafasi moved to New Zealand aged 14. His father, Mofuike Tu’ungafasi, played for Tonga at RWC 1987.
-
@Stargazer I'm not saying this is 100% accurate but someone posted this up, I have ne reason to doubt it otherwise
**At WRC19, the number of foreign born players per team is:
13: Samoa; 12: Tonga; 11: Wales, Scotland and Japan; 10: France; 6: Australia, Italy, USA; 5: Canada, Ireland, New Zealand; 4: Romania; 3: England, Fiji; 2: Namibia; 1: Georgia, South Africa, Uruguay; 0: Argentina.Meanwhile, 39 NZ born players will be playing for other countries. Including all 13 of Samoa’s foreign contingent**
Not exactly daming for South Sea Island poaching.
-
@Machpants I think that number of 5 non-NZ born players in the ABs was correct for the initial 41-men squad that still included Shannon Frizell and Vaea Fifita, but the RWC squad only has the 3 players mentioned in the article that I posted.
-
@Machpants So if anyone is actually poaching, it is the PI's from us (and maybe a few from Aus).
That whole argument as asinine anyway. Which is no surprise as Stephen Jones perpetuated it - the king of asinine.
-
@Snowy said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Machpants So if anyone is actually poaching, it is the PI's from us (and maybe a few from Aus).
That whole argument as asinine anyway. Which is no surprise as Stephen Jones perpetuated it - the king of asinine.
Which was very much the case at the height of the poaching hysteria anyway.
