All Blacks 2021
-
@booboo It was briefly discussed on the Breakdown. This article on Rugbypass followed:
New eligibility laws could prevent Folau Fakatava from playing for the All Blacks upon return from injury
Folau Fakatava's ACL injury suffered in the Highlanders' loss to the Chiefs was a blow to the in-form halfback, but it could have far-reaching consequences due to an impending World Rugby law change.
-
@stargazer said in All Blacks 2021:
@booboo It was briefly discussed on the Breakdown. This article on Rugbypass followed:
New eligibility laws could prevent Folau Fakatava from playing for the All Blacks upon return from injury
Folau Fakatava's ACL injury suffered in the Highlanders' loss to the Chiefs was a blow to the in-form halfback, but it could have far-reaching consequences due to an impending World Rugby law change.
“Folau Fakatava’s ACL injury suffered in the Highlanders’ loss to the Chiefs...”
They fuck up the first sentence...
-
@booboo said in All Blacks 2021:
@dan54 said in All Blacks 2021:
@crucial said in All Blacks 2021:
@stargazer said in All Blacks 2021:
@crucial That backup was meant to be Fakatava, but then he got injured. I haven't seen any other young player who is of the same level as Fakatava.
Nor have I but would I make TJ a low short term offer in order to have the money to offer Fakatava a long term one plus room to add in A.Nother?
Yep.What's Taufa Funaki doing progression wise? He was one for the future wasn't he?
Only trouble with that Crucial, Fakatave maybe out for year, and apparently if doesn't represent ABs this year he miises window and can't play until 2023. Eligibilty rues or something.
Can anyone confirm this, or did this originate on The Breakdown? (refer earlier discussion about TJP.)
Yep mate I admit it came from Breakdown, but had heard someone say somewhere else about the need to get him in for eligibilty reasons, but had't really taken much notice. I heard something similar about another player (I bauugered if I can remember who) on a podcast, but once again just went over my head a bit .
-
So weird that they have to play - just make a cut off date. If a player meets that date, he can declare for the country and be selected in the future.
WR are just opening the door for unwarranted caps in 2021 by teams wanting to ensure a players eligibility.
-
@nepia Yep, one of the reasons underlying this strange rule is to ensure that the residency is uninterrupted by "longish" stays in the player's country of origin before they represent their new country.
If they just checked whether a player hasn't been back to his home country in the period between the date he has met the 3-year residency period and the date on which he represents his new country for the first time, that should be enough. Instead, they want the player to immediately represent the new country when the residency requirement is met. That's just silly if players - due to circumstances beyond anyone's control (pandemic, injury) - can't represent their new country immediately.
-
@nepia said in All Blacks 2021:
WR are just opening the door for unwarranted caps in 2021 by teams wanting to ensure a players eligibility.
I was even going to suggest that we sent Fakatava onto the field v Italy wearing black and using crutches. His selection wouldn't be unwarranted but it would solve this stupid problem.
-
@nepia said in All Blacks 2021:
So weird that they have to play - just make a cut off date. If a player meets that date, he can declare for the country and be selected in the future.
WR are just opening the door for unwarranted caps in 2021 by teams wanting to ensure a players eligibility.
I don't know why WR couldn't have made it clear that if a player would've been available prior to the rule change then the new regs still shouldn't apply to that player.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks 2021:
@nepia said in All Blacks 2021:
So weird that they have to play - just make a cut off date. If a player meets that date, he can declare for the country and be selected in the future.
WR are just opening the door for unwarranted caps in 2021 by teams wanting to ensure a players eligibility.
I don't know why WR couldn't have made it clear that if a player would've been available prior to the rule change then the new regs still shouldn't apply to that player.
World rugby acting in a logical fashion?
-
-
@stargazer said in All Blacks 2021:
If they just checked whether a player hasn't been back to his home country in the period between the date he has met the 3-year residency period and the date on which he represents his new country for the first time, that should be enough.
I don't think that would work unless I have misunderstood.
Restricting players from going home? When injured? In Fakatava's case that could be a long time away from his family when he could be with them recuperating.Our tax laws have total days in country to overcome these sorts of thing as well as how recent it was. I spent two weeks in Tahiti because I couldn't set foot in NZ (even though I was / am a citizen) because I would have to pay tax on overseas income. It was a choice of give the tax to the IRD or the Tahitian people. I had no ulterior motive in my decision and Tahiti was very nice.
They just need to make exceptions for these sorts of things. Injuries suck, but they happen, and it won't change the rule. If someone tries to fake an injury it's pretty simple to put a date on their eligibility. What have I missed?
-
@stargazer said in All Blacks 2021:
I guess a cap for the Wheel Blacks doesn't count?
Creative thinking but wheelchair rugby is an Olympic sport so then that would surely tie a player to that country.
-
@stargazer said in All Blacks 2021:
I guess a cap for the Wheel Blacks doesn't count?
Worth a try. WR have done worse.
-
@snowy No, I'm not suggesting that it would be impossible to have short visits home. WR already have rules around what constitutes an interruption of residency, and what not. IMO they should/could apply similar rules to those in this situation.
Btw, I don't think Fakatava will go to Tonga to recuperate. He has all the assistance with his rehab here in NZ (doctors, physios, conditioning coach etc). I expect him to mostly stay in Dunedin for the duration of SR and then Hawke's Bay for the rest of the year, with maybe short visits to Tonga and Aussie (where he also has family) if the COVID situations allows it.
-
@stargazer said in All Blacks 2021:
WR already have rules around what constitutes an interruption of residency, and what not. IMO they should/could apply similar rules to those in this situation.
Yes, an exemption due to injury would be reasonable, as mentioned.
As for his specific case and going to Tonga to be with family, or whatever, he should be allowed to do so, without the new / delayed eligibility rules applying. He's broken, he can't play, but he was eligible at the time of breaking. Whether he wants to is up to him.
The tax laws use "domicile" rather than "residency". There is a difference and can be used in law. WR might be better to use it as well.
-
@snowy This is what the Explanatory Guidelines on the Implementation of Guideline 8 (Eligibility) says:
- Will short breaks interrupt a period of Residence?
Short breaks in Residence, for example, for holidays, attending family/friends in other countries who may be ill etc., are unlikely to change the place/location of a Player’s primary and permanent home and are, therefore, unlikely to interrupt a Player’s period of Residence. By way of a guideline, however, as a minimum requirement, it is likely that, save in exceptional circumstances, at least 10 months actual physical presence of the Player in the country concerned throughout any qualifying year of the Residency period, will be required to demonstrate that the country is the place where the Player has his primary and permanent home.
It uses the term "residence", not "residency", which is something else.
- Will short breaks interrupt a period of Residence?
-
@stargazer said in All Blacks 2021:
It uses the term "residence", not "residency", which is something else.
Yes it is. Is also why they have the very last bit which is where they are domiciled.
-
@snowy said in All Blacks 2021:
@stargazer said in All Blacks 2021:
WR already have rules around what constitutes an interruption of residency, and what not. IMO they should/could apply similar rules to those in this situation.
Yes, an exemption due to injury would be reasonable, as mentioned.
As for his specific case and going to Tonga to be with family, or whatever, he should be allowed to do so, without the new / delayed eligibility rules applying. He's broken, he can't play, but he was eligible at the time of breaking. Whether he wants to is up to him.
The tax laws use "domicile" rather than "residency". There is a difference and can be used in law. WR might be better to use it as well.
Surely we should be able to put in writing that we would have selected him if fit, at the very least have him travel with the squad this year to learn, even if he can't play.
That would be us putting our money where our mouth is and stop silliness getting around the rules.
-
@kirwan said in All Blacks 2021:
@snowy said in All Blacks 2021:
@stargazer said in All Blacks 2021:
WR already have rules around what constitutes an interruption of residency, and what not. IMO they should/could apply similar rules to those in this situation.
Yes, an exemption due to injury would be reasonable, as mentioned.
As for his specific case and going to Tonga to be with family, or whatever, he should be allowed to do so, without the new / delayed eligibility rules applying. He's broken, he can't play, but he was eligible at the time of breaking. Whether he wants to is up to him.
The tax laws use "domicile" rather than "residency". There is a difference and can be used in law. WR might be better to use it as well.
Surely we should be able to put in writing that we would have selected him if fit, at the very least have him travel with the squad this year to learn, even if he can't play.
That would be us putting our money where our mouth is and stop silliness getting around the rules.
Absolutely. Common sense should prevail but well, life. It does apply in other situations as well, a signed declaration of intent along with funds paid is usually enough.
If we did it all the time I would understand questions could be asked, but this is pretty obvious (and reasonable).
-
@booboo said in All Blacks 2021:
No discussion about 7/8 options to replace Ardie?
Well, 7 options really.
Cane
Savea
Papalii
??Boshier?
