Eligibility back on the agenda
-
@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Just a thought on the grandparents rule. It's probably decidedly not in the interests of Pacific Island Unions for those rules to be tightened.
If it becomes parents only by birth place, you get weird situations where Umaga, Weepu and Nonu's kids cannot represent Samoa - yet Mehts' can represent South Africa and Ben Franks' Australia right out of the gate. Which seems... less than ideal.
Is Weepu's wife Samoan? If not then Maori/Niuean Weepu's kids shouldn't be allowed to represent Samoa.
Fair point, I originally had Masoe there but forgot he was born in Samoa. I guess Weepu qualifies for Samoa under the Bunce provision.
-
In regards to switching countries - the IIHF has a pretty decent solution, a 4 year stand down period plus you must be a citizen of the new country you wish to represent.
Making the qualification criteria stricter for the second nation seems the best solution to me - although I would tweak it slightly.
A 3 or 4 year stand down period from whichever is the later of playing your last fixture for a previous country or gaining citizenship. This would facilitate players with dual nationalities through their parents (citizenship via grandparents is being widely phased out) to switch relatively easily, but would slow down players qualifying via professional contacts.
-
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
In regards to switching countries - the IIHF has a pretty decent solution, a 4 year stand down period plus you must be a citizen of the new country you wish to represent.
Making the qualification criteria stricter for the second nation seems the best solution to me - although I would tweak it slightly.
A 3 or 4 year stand down period from whichever is the later of playing your last fixture for a previous country or gaining citizenship. This would facilitate players with dual nationalities through their parents (citizenship via grandparents is being widely phased out) to switch relatively easily, but would slow down players qualifying via professional contacts.
The problem with that is that you are building in a dependency on various citizenship requirements around the world that can have differing degrees of difficulty that can sometimes be blanket and sometimes differ according to country of origin.
eg citizenship through parentage could still range from months to years depending on immigration policy and red tape. Also opens up 'fast-tracking' arrangements.
Australian Citizenship by descent is fairly simple. Show you weren't born there but your parents were citizens, provide a police clearance, pay the nominal fee and you are home in about a month.
UK Citizenship by descent has the same but a lot more bureaucracy and the process takes anywhere from 6 months plus.
The Oz system has a provision to fast track for 'compelling reasons' whereas the UK one makes everyone join the same queue.Any rules in place should create a fairly equitable playing field or you are defeating the purpose of trying to create balance throughout the rugby world
-
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Any rules in place should create a fairly equitable playing field or you are defeating the purpose of trying to create balance throughout the rugby world
You raise some good points although to me that is the quirk in the system. If you want to represent England let's say - then being beholden to their citizenship process seems reasonable. I don't think that we need to ensure each Damascus Road conversion takes the same amount of time. The rule would be designed to ensure as a whole players with natural dual nationalities are able to convert quicker than those who find them later in life.
Yes, Samoan citizenship can be granted very quickly (SBW went there and picked it up during his bye week with the Bulldogs in preparation to escape to Toulon) and Japanese citizenship is impossible to attain without relinquishing all others - but maybe that just makes the national teams a better reflection of their nations - which seems reasonable to me.
Even in international sport the playing field is not level - the Boks have quotas, NZ will not select from overseas etc. Home Unions present an issue when citizenship comes up though.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)
He was 23 when he first played for the abs so it must have been 5 years after he turned 18. He definitely would have been selected earlier if available. Seems a bit unfair.
Moving under the age of 18 without parents (eg a scholarship, boarding school arrangement) doesn't count towards residency. Therefore starts once left school, as an adult.
Someone like Sivi probably repeats a year (second language, good at rugby so incentive for school to keep him on) so maybe 19 or almost when they leave.
Other scholarship kids like Fekitoa, Tamanivalu just weren't 'even in consideration' in those 3 years after school as they weren't as good.
-
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)
He was 23 when he first played for the abs so it must have been 5 years after he turned 18. He definitely would have been selected earlier if available. Seems a bit unfair.
Moving under the age of 18 without parents (eg a scholarship, boarding school arrangement) doesn't count towards residency. Therefore starts once left school, as an adult.
Someone like Sivi probably repeats a year (second language, good at rugby so incentive for school to keep him on) so maybe 19 or almost when they leave.
Other scholarship kids like Fekitoa, Tamanivalu just weren't 'even in consideration' in those 3 years after school as they weren't as good.
I seem to recall Sivivatu represented Fiji in Soccer as a junior not rugby ,
Rugby became his forte after moving to NZ , so if had stayed in Fiji , chances are , he would not have ever been much of a rugby player anyway ,
I remember that story , doing the rounds , not sure how much truth is in it , ???
NZ gained a good rugby player, but Fiji didnt lose one
-
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper I think you raise some valid points but then again there is the situations like Rockoduguni in England. I'm not sure that he currently has citizenship or has applied for it for that matter. Yet he is a member of our armed forces and could be called upon to fight or die for our country. If he can do that he can fucking well play rugby for us that's for sure.
If the UK government don't believe the likes of Rockoduguni deserve UK subject status then they really shouldn't be allowed represent one of the UK territories in rugby.
Not speaking specifically about his case, but what I presume the intention of reforming the rules is to remove 'mercenaries' from the international game. People who are willing to fight and risk their lives for a foreign country due to pay and conditions offered are mercenaries.
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Not speaking specifically about his case, but what I presume the intention of reforming the rules is to remove 'mercenaries' from the international game. People who are willing to fight and risk their lives for a foreign country due to pay and conditions offered are mercenaries.
Disagree. People who have no allegiance other than to a pay cheque are mercenaries.
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)
He was 23 when he first played for the abs so it must have been 5 years after he turned 18. He definitely would have been selected earlier if available. Seems a bit unfair.
Moving under the age of 18 without parents (eg a scholarship, boarding school arrangement) doesn't count towards residency. Therefore starts once left school, as an adult.
Someone like Sivi probably repeats a year (second language, good at rugby so incentive for school to keep him on) so maybe 19 or almost when they leave.
Other scholarship kids like Fekitoa, Tamanivalu just weren't 'even in consideration' in those 3 years after school as they weren't as good.
I seem to recall Sivivatu represented Fiji in Soccer as a junior not rugby ,
Rugby became his forte after moving to NZ , so if had stayed in Fiji , chances are , he would not have ever been much of a rugby player anyway ,
I remember that story , doing the rounds , not sure how much truth is in it , ???
NZ gained a good rugby player, but Fiji didnt lose one
The Internet suggests he took up rugby at the age of 13 properly in school. It also notes that at age 15 he was granted a scholarship to Wesley College. The Internet also suggests that his family were aggrieved that when he was 15 he did not get support from the Fijian Union ( an odd one if he was a soccer player). The final aspect which suggest this story about him being a soccer player is odd, is that in the Wesley College annals he appears to have been on the Rugby XV for at least two years but never featured on the soccer XI. An odd one for a soccer player. Pretty amazing that between getting off the plane and the end of his first school year he had been introduced to rugby, leapfrogged dozens of kids playing the game locally for years and was making the grade for the schools rep teams. Mad really. Some coaching structure at that school.
-
Like anything, I think the key to finding the answer is to define the problem.
In my eyes the problem is when players that have been developed by one country have circumstances where they can use the current rules to benefit themselves and another country.
Secondly there is the issue of stronger/richer countries sucking potential talent from weaker/poorer countries which only serves to maintain the situation and promotes an elite level in the game.The trick is then writing rules that relieve these issues without unfairly capturing genuine player movement and restraining trade.
-
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Like anything, I think the key to finding the answer is to define the problem.
In my eyes the problem is when players that have been developed by one country have circumstances where they can use the current rules to benefit themselves and another country.
Secondly there is the issue of stronger/richer countries sucking potential talent from weaker/poorer countries which only serves to maintain the situation and promotes an elite level in the game.The trick is then writing rules that relieve these issues without unfairly capturing genuine player movement and restraining trade.
It's taken us a long while to get there, but that's it really.
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper I think you raise some valid points but then again there is the situations like Rockoduguni in England. I'm not sure that he currently has citizenship or has applied for it for that matter. Yet he is a member of our armed forces and could be called upon to fight or die for our country. If he can do that he can fucking well play rugby for us that's for sure.
If the UK government don't believe the likes of Rockoduguni deserve UK subject status then they really shouldn't be allowed represent one of the UK territories in rugby.
Not speaking specifically about his case, but what I presume the intention of reforming the rules is to remove 'mercenaries' from the international game. People who are willing to fight and risk their lives for a foreign country due to pay and conditions offered are mercenaries.
To be honest I don't know whether or not Rockoduguni has attained UK citizen status, whether he has even applied for it or whether or not the UK Government has refused it or does not allow it, but notwithstanding any of that, if he or anyone else is willing to serve in our armed forces then he's also welcome to represent us in something a little less dangerous. Like rugby.
There is a long tradition of Fijian service in the UK forces, as there is Nepalese, NZ, Australia etc etc. If these blokes have an affinity with serving in a standing army, on the same pay, conditions and duties as the rest of the standing army, that makes them soldiers not mercenaries. If someone decides to fight as a non-regular soldier, for a specially collated force at different pay and conditions for s short term contract, then you are entitled to call them mercenaries. And if you do I hope you get the response you want from them. Good luck with that.
-
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper I think you raise some valid points but then again there is the situations like Rockoduguni in England. I'm not sure that he currently has citizenship or has applied for it for that matter. Yet he is a member of our armed forces and could be called upon to fight or die for our country. If he can do that he can fucking well play rugby for us that's for sure.
If the UK government don't believe the likes of Rockoduguni deserve UK subject status then they really shouldn't be allowed represent one of the UK territories in rugby.
Not speaking specifically about his case, but what I presume the intention of reforming the rules is to remove 'mercenaries' from the international game. People who are willing to fight and risk their lives for a foreign country due to pay and conditions offered are mercenaries.
To be honest I don't know whether or not Rockoduguni has attained UK citizen status, whether he has even applied for it or whether or not the UK Government has refused it or does not allow it, but notwithstanding any of that, if he or anyone else is willing to serve in our armed forces then he's also welcome to represent us in something a little less dangerous. Like rugby.
There is a long tradition of Fijian service in the UK forces, as there is Nepalese, NZ, Australia etc etc. If these blokes have an affinity with serving in a standing army, on the same pay, conditions and duties as the rest of the standing army, that makes them soldiers not mercenaries. If someone decides to fight as a non-regular soldier, for a specially collated force at different pay and conditions for s short term contract, then you are entitled to call them mercenaries. And if you do I hope you get the response you want from them. Good luck with that.
I disagree but if that's your view fair enough.
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@kiwiinmelb said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)
He was 23 when he first played for the abs so it must have been 5 years after he turned 18. He definitely would have been selected earlier if available. Seems a bit unfair.
Moving under the age of 18 without parents (eg a scholarship, boarding school arrangement) doesn't count towards residency. Therefore starts once left school, as an adult.
Someone like Sivi probably repeats a year (second language, good at rugby so incentive for school to keep him on) so maybe 19 or almost when they leave.
Other scholarship kids like Fekitoa, Tamanivalu just weren't 'even in consideration' in those 3 years after school as they weren't as good.
I seem to recall Sivivatu represented Fiji in Soccer as a junior not rugby ,
Rugby became his forte after moving to NZ , so if had stayed in Fiji , chances are , he would not have ever been much of a rugby player anyway ,
I remember that story , doing the rounds , not sure how much truth is in it , ???
NZ gained a good rugby player, but Fiji didnt lose one
The Internet suggests he took up rugby at the age of 13 properly in school. It also notes that at age 15 he was granted a scholarship to Wesley College. The Internet also suggests that his family were aggrieved that when he was 15 he did not get support from the Fijian Union ( an odd one if he was a soccer player). The final aspect which suggest this story about him being a soccer player is odd, is that in the Wesley College annals he appears to have been on the Rugby XV for at least two years but never featured on the soccer XI. An odd one for a soccer player. Pretty amazing that between getting off the plane and the end of his first school year he had been introduced to rugby, leapfrogged dozens of kids playing the game locally for years and was making the grade for the schools rep teams. Mad really. Some coaching structure at that school.
The problem with school imports are that they aren't under any control of the rugby bodies. If a 17 year old Fijian kid gets offered a scholarship to an NZ (or England) school and then later declares they want to represent that country the national unions are placed in a situation not of their making. Their job is to select the best eligible players and they can't be expected (probably both morally and legally) to turn down obvious candidates because they think it is 'a bit off'.
If they were encouraging schools to create this situation then, yes, it is a problem coming from the top but these schools act independently. -
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@kiwiinmelb said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)
He was 23 when he first played for the abs so it must have been 5 years after he turned 18. He definitely would have been selected earlier if available. Seems a bit unfair.
Moving under the age of 18 without parents (eg a scholarship, boarding school arrangement) doesn't count towards residency. Therefore starts once left school, as an adult.
Someone like Sivi probably repeats a year (second language, good at rugby so incentive for school to keep him on) so maybe 19 or almost when they leave.
Other scholarship kids like Fekitoa, Tamanivalu just weren't 'even in consideration' in those 3 years after school as they weren't as good.
I seem to recall Sivivatu represented Fiji in Soccer as a junior not rugby ,
Rugby became his forte after moving to NZ , so if had stayed in Fiji , chances are , he would not have ever been much of a rugby player anyway ,
I remember that story , doing the rounds , not sure how much truth is in it , ???
NZ gained a good rugby player, but Fiji didnt lose one
The Internet suggests he took up rugby at the age of 13 properly in school. It also notes that at age 15 he was granted a scholarship to Wesley College. The Internet also suggests that his family were aggrieved that when he was 15 he did not get support from the Fijian Union ( an odd one if he was a soccer player). The final aspect which suggest this story about him being a soccer player is odd, is that in the Wesley College annals he appears to have been on the Rugby XV for at least two years but never featured on the soccer XI. An odd one for a soccer player. Pretty amazing that between getting off the plane and the end of his first school year he had been introduced to rugby, leapfrogged dozens of kids playing the game locally for years and was making the grade for the schools rep teams. Mad really. Some coaching structure at that school.
The problem with school imports are that they aren't under any control of the rugby bodies. If a 17 year old Fijian kid gets offered a scholarship to an NZ (or England) school and then later declares they want to represent that country the national unions are placed in a situation not of their making. Their job is to select the best eligible players and they can't be expected (probably both morally and legally) to turn down obvious candidates because they think it is 'a bit off'.
If they were encouraging schools to create this situation then, yes, it is a problem coming from the top but these schools act independently.Firstly I am not commenting on the rights or wrongs of Sivivatu playing for New Zealand, rather just this notion that he only became a rugby player when he got a soccer scholarship to one of the top NZ rugby schools.
As a principle, I'm against kids under 18 being taken abroad to play sports, be it on a rugby scholarship to a school or a soccer contract to a club. Those are their formative years and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the focus should be on getting a good education that will stand by them after their sporting poweress fade.
New Zealand rugby does okay because their schools offer sporting scholarships to young Fijians and Tongans. The Union obviously hasn't a problem with this as it is still happening. Every recent generation produces through this system a regular All Black who would otherwise not qualify. It works out for the few that make it, but are the kids who don't best served?
I'm no fan of project players and am happy to see the rules on that changed. But I think there is a difference worth contemplating between relocating someone for three years when they are at least 21 and you are signing a cheque for at least 100k per annum, than having loads of schools doing it under your remit whispering dreams of playing for the best team in the world in 15 year olds ears.
Hence at least if your a citizen it all balances out. One aspect of the residency requirement to be non educational is that it discourages players going down the full time tertiary education route post secondary school. Therefore the educational value of their scholarship is already diminishing.
-
Residency requirements aren't non educational,
They just exclude U18s who move without parents.
So that English guy at a welsh university is serving a qualification period but the English boy at a welsh boarding school isn't. (Or Fijian kid on an NZ school scholarship or French T14 academy isn't)
-
@Rapido that's not my understanding based on this http://www.worldrugby.org/news/155038?lang=en
I recall a case from the US where they tried to qualify a player who was on a college scholarship but we're turned down. However the Internet is not turning that up so it could have been my imagination.
-
From that site. A relevant part is here: (and yes it does mention university )
-
What is the position of students? As far as students are concerned, particularly those that are not financially independent, being resident, as a full time student, in another country, is likely to be considered as a series of temporary absences from the parental home. It is anticipated that in the majority of cases involving students the parental home is likely to continue to constitute the student’s permanent and primary home. Accordingly, attendance at college/university in such circumstances is unlikely to break a Player’s consecutive period of Residence. However, as in all matters of eligibility, the overriding concern of the Regulations Committee in assessing any such case will be to ensure that there remains a close, credible and established link with the country in which the Player claims to have retained his primary and permanent home. There could be circumstances in which a student living in another country may be deemed to have interrupted his Residency period.
But earlier on, was also this part;
*7. What is the age of majority?
For the purposes of the Regulations (including, but not limited to Regulation 8), the age of majority is deemed to be acquired on a Player’s 18th birthday.*Clear as mud.
-
-
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Clear as mud.
It isn't cut and dry for sure, but it gives a pretty clear picture really.
That's why they explicitly state the importance of things like the family home, financial independence, load of study etc.
Earning 60k a year in a WTG at 18 while picking up a few papers at Uni (many Super players do this) likely counts toward residency. Studying full time on a scholarship (potentially on a student visa), relying on stipend or money from home, living in the dorms likely does not count as those factors indicate the permanent residence is elsewhere.
The way it reads financial independence, living space independence and the presence of deep(ening) roots all count for a lot. Study doesn't necessarily count or not count - except to say that full time study generally makes it difficult to achieve those earlier criteria.
In semper's example US will never be able to qualify players through their scholarships as NCAA players have to be amateurs and on students visas. Similarly time on a Rhodes scholarship wouldn't count due to the full-time study element plus the fact your selection in the program is predicated on being from another country.
