Eligibility back on the agenda
-
@gibbon-rib said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Concern I'd have with this is that it could go the wrong way - a young player who'd represented a PI nation might get a contract in Europe, then opt out of playing international rugby for 3 years before turning up in a French / English jersey.
I think that scenario is already covered. They'd need to have been born or have parents born in England France etc. Not residency.
It's basically the Olympic loophole, but without the bother of having to go through the loophole.
There is the contradiction that residency does allow you to choose your first country but not hop to your second. (if this passes)
-
@gibbon-rib said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Concern I'd have with this is that it could go the wrong way - a young player who'd represented a PI nation might get a contract in Europe, then opt out of playing international rugby for 3 years before turning up in a French / English jersey.
I saw a proposal years ago that players could switch from tier 1 to tier 2, but not the other way around. Wouldn't that be a better rule?
i have t admit i had always assumed these suggestions were based on the idea of you could go from tier 1 to 2 but not the other way around
-
From the bbc artcile on previous page.
What is being proposed?
Under the new plans, a player would be eligible for a nationality switch once they have not played international rugby for three years.
If they then have a "close and credible link" to another country - through birth or the birthplace of parents or grandparents - then they would be able to change nationality. Players would only be able to switch once in their careers.
So, the olympic loophole unleashed.
-
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
From the bbc artcile on previous page.
What is being proposed?
Under the new plans, a player would be eligible for a nationality switch once they have not played international rugby for three years.
If they then have a "close and credible link" to another country - through birth or the birthplace of parents or grandparents - then they would be able to change nationality. Players would only be able to switch once in their careers.
So, the olympic loophole unleashed.
OK. This would make it less likely that PI players would switch to European nations. Could still result in PI players changing to Aus / NZ though?
-
I think it would be a reasonable, but inelegant, solution.
It doesn't really address the real problem, but it compensates for the fact the real problem isn't solvable.
I don't think Charles Piutatu or Israel Folau etc have any particular moral right to play for Tonga nor think that Tonga have any particular moral right to have those players.
However.
Seeing as the real problem is that players such as Fekitoa, Fakatava, Taniela Tupou, Nathan Hughes etc are channelled away from PI nations and into tier 1 by the financial and eligibility rules at club and franchise level. And the only compensation the other way nowadays is of the more journeyman quality such as a Leon Fukafuka or a Valentino Mapapalangi. We aren't talking Pat Lam and Stephen Bachop quality for 20 years now.
This seems a reasonable compromise at the only level that WR actually have any control over.
-
@gibbon-rib said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
From the bbc artcile on previous page.
What is being proposed?
Under the new plans, a player would be eligible for a nationality switch once they have not played international rugby for three years.
If they then have a "close and credible link" to another country - through birth or the birthplace of parents or grandparents - then they would be able to change nationality. Players would only be able to switch once in their careers.
So, the olympic loophole unleashed.
OK. This would make it less likely that PI players would switch to European nations. Could still result in PI players changing to Aus / NZ though?
Yes, almost impossible in current generation to European nations. Maybe talking about examples like any Vunipola children in a generation's time etc.
Yes, could still result in PI players changing to Aus / NZ in theory. But reality is they already do get hoovered up and the overseas player limits in SR makes dual-qualified players very cautious. I can't foresee any practical unintended consequence at the NZ/Aus level.
-
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I think it would be a reasonable, but inelegant, solution.
It doesn't really address the real problem, but it compensates for the fact the real problem isn't solvable.
I don't think Charles Piutatu or Israel Folau etc have any particular moral right to play for Tonga nor think that Tonga have any particular moral right to have those players.
However.
Seeing as the real problem is that players such as Fekitoa, Fakatava, Taniela Tupou, Nathan Hughes etc are channelled away from PI nations and into tier 1 by the financial and eligibility rules at club and franchise level. And the only compensation the other way nowadays is of the more journeyman quality such as a Leon Fukafuka or a Valentino Mapapalangi. We aren't talking Pat Lam and Stephen Bachop quality for 20 years now.
This seems a reasonable compromise at the only level that WR actually have any control over.
How is the italics/bolded above the real problem? Those losses are more than offset by NZ and Oz born, bred, developed players turning out for the PIs - the difference in quality isn't as big as you make out. The compensation for Samoa in the 2019 RWC was most of the squad - they had one tight forward born in the islands, the rest were from NZ and Oz.
Furthermore, we've even helped Tonga by taking that dud Frizell off their hands.
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Maybe talking about examples like any Vunipola children in a generation's time etc.
The Vunipola's are interesting in that under the current regulations their grandchildren will theoretically be eligible for England, NZ (Mako), and Australia (Billy) but not for Tonga. I've always found that a weird situation. Kind of like how the Williams boys both played for Samoa but their kids can't.
-
@nepia
Depends what you think the problem is I guess.If you think the problem is Tongan's should be playing for Tonga and NZers playing for NZ etc, so that international sport reflects where players are from. Then the fact that people like Brad Shields, Nathan Hughes, Folau Fakatava , Melani Nanai etc are more valuable to their employers and therefore themselves if they don't get capped by their country of origin. Then it doesn't address it. It doesn't address the incentives that pervert team makeups.
If you think they problem is 3 PI nations don't provide as strong a match up as theoretically possible if based on ethnic origin of global player pool, then this will go some way to address it, especially for Samoa.
I don't think Samoa being weak at rugby is a problem, because they are weak, that is a reflection of reality. They produce almost no players. They are rotten.
If they could retain their "produced" players then I think
- Fiji could be a little stronger (and weaken their opponents).
- Tonga could be way stronger.
- Samoa shouldn't even be in the conversation.
If they can attract former tier 1 player's as per this proposed rule change , regardless of birth / "production":
- they'd all 3 be stronger.
-
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@nepia
Depends what you think the problem is I guess.If you think the problem is Tongan's should be playing for Tonga and NZers playing for NZ etc, so that international sport reflects where players are from. Then the fact that people like Brad Shields, Nathan Hughes, Folau Fakatava , Melani Nanai etc are more valuable to their employers and therefore themselves if they don't get capped by their country of origin. Then it doesn't address it. It doesn't address the incentives that pervert team makeups.
If you think they problem is 3 PI nations don't provide as strong a match up as theoretically possible if based on ethnic origin of global player pool, then this will go some way to address it, especially for Samoa.
I don't think Samoa being weak at rugby is a problem, because they are weak, that is a reflection of reality. They produce almost no players. They are rotten.
If they could retain their "produced" players then I think
- Fiji could be a little stronger (and weaken their opponents).
- Tonga could be way stronger.
- Samoa shouldn't even be in the conversation.
If they can attract former tier 1 player's as per this proposed rule change , regardless of birth / "production":
- they'd all 3 be stronger.
I don't think it's zero sum, there's bits of all. It's preferable if all the island born and raised players play for the islands, aside from Wharau Whakatawa of course, that guy's Hawkes Bay to the core, we shouldn't deny him his lifelong dream of being the next Magpie All Black.
Not sure how much stronger Fiji would be, they mostly export wings, and all of their wings are awesome, so their improvement would be in depth, they could have 7 wings get injured and still have two awesome ones.
Why do you think Samoa not produce players, in the same way Tonga does? Although the interesting thing about Tonga's squad is that although they produce, or birth, a lot of home grown players (yet still probably not a majority), lots of them get schooling, and with it rugby development, in Oz or NZ.
-
@nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@nepia
Depends what you think the problem is I guess.If you think the problem is Tongan's should be playing for Tonga and NZers playing for NZ etc, so that international sport reflects where players are from. Then the fact that people like Brad Shields, Nathan Hughes, Folau Fakatava , Melani Nanai etc are more valuable to their employers and therefore themselves if they don't get capped by their country of origin. Then it doesn't address it. It doesn't address the incentives that pervert team makeups.
If you think they problem is 3 PI nations don't provide as strong a match up as theoretically possible if based on ethnic origin of global player pool, then this will go some way to address it, especially for Samoa.
I don't think Samoa being weak at rugby is a problem, because they are weak, that is a reflection of reality. They produce almost no players. They are rotten.
If they could retain their "produced" players then I think
- Fiji could be a little stronger (and weaken their opponents).
- Tonga could be way stronger.
- Samoa shouldn't even be in the conversation.
If they can attract former tier 1 player's as per this proposed rule change , regardless of birth / "production":
- they'd all 3 be stronger.
I don't think it's zero sum, there's bits of all. It's preferable if all the island born and raised players play for the islands, aside from Wharau Whakatava of course, that guy's Hawkes Bay to the core, we shouldn't deny him his lifelong dream of being the next Magpie All Black.
Not sure how much stronger Fiji would be, they mostly export wings, and all of their wings are awesome, so their improvement would be in depth, they could have 7 wings get injured and still have two awesome ones.
Why do you think Samoa not produce players, in the same way Tonga does? Although the interesting thing about Tonga's squad is that although they produce, or birth, a lot of home grown players (yet still probably not a majority), lots of them get schooling, and with it rugby development, in Oz or NZ.
Whakatawa...
-
@nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Why do you think Samoa not produce players, in the same way Tonga does? Although the interesting thing about Tonga's squad is that although they produce, or birth, a lot of home grown players (yet still probably not a majority), lots of them get schooling, and with it rugby development, in Oz or NZ.
Maybe it is a way for the Tongans to get over here and earn reasonable money at first so they can support their families back home. If they turn out real good they can the make the ABs and earn riches beyond their dreams, either here or up in Japan or Europe. They also have the second option of making the 'Ikale Tahi which is another way of getting a permit to play in Europe. If you think about it it looks like many of the Tongans (and Fijians) running round in the NPC and Hartland Championship have come out to NZ simply for the rugby (and associated work) opportunities (many of the rural clubs would be really struggling without them) and are aware of the outcomes available if they really apply themselves. The Samoans look to be the other way with most seemingly born in NZ. There appear to be heaps of "imported" Fijians and Tongans playing NPC/Heartland so maybe the have the incentive that other PIs who were born in NZ do not quite have? Whatever it is we are certainly lucky to have such a rich pool of rugby talent either here already or just waiting for a "scholarship" to boost the rugby stocks here in NZ.
-
@booboo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@nepia
Depends what you think the problem is I guess.If you think the problem is Tongan's should be playing for Tonga and NZers playing for NZ etc, so that international sport reflects where players are from. Then the fact that people like Brad Shields, Nathan Hughes, Folau Fakatava , Melani Nanai etc are more valuable to their employers and therefore themselves if they don't get capped by their country of origin. Then it doesn't address it. It doesn't address the incentives that pervert team makeups.
If you think they problem is 3 PI nations don't provide as strong a match up as theoretically possible if based on ethnic origin of global player pool, then this will go some way to address it, especially for Samoa.
I don't think Samoa being weak at rugby is a problem, because they are weak, that is a reflection of reality. They produce almost no players. They are rotten.
If they could retain their "produced" players then I think
- Fiji could be a little stronger (and weaken their opponents).
- Tonga could be way stronger.
- Samoa shouldn't even be in the conversation.
If they can attract former tier 1 player's as per this proposed rule change , regardless of birth / "production":
- they'd all 3 be stronger.
I don't think it's zero sum, there's bits of all. It's preferable if all the island born and raised players play for the islands, aside from Wharau Whakatava of course, that guy's Hawkes Bay to the core, we shouldn't deny him his lifelong dream of being the next Magpie All Black.
Not sure how much stronger Fiji would be, they mostly export wings, and all of their wings are awesome, so their improvement would be in depth, they could have 7 wings get injured and still have two awesome ones.
Why do you think Samoa not produce players, in the same way Tonga does? Although the interesting thing about Tonga's squad is that although they produce, or birth, a lot of home grown players (yet still probably not a majority), lots of them get schooling, and with it rugby development, in Oz or NZ.
Whakatawa...
Good catch, I need to proof better clearly.
-
More (amateur) digging happening into Italian Great-Grandparents (rather than grandparents), after the Castrogiovanni thing last week.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/widgxz/t2rugby_has_spotted_up_to_8_potentially/
Edit: Castrogiovanni - was discussed on this thread: https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/post/751105
