Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary
-
@Rapido said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
This is the current WR voting structure.
51 votes, divided (unevenly) among 24 unions/ continental organisations.
Tonga doesn't have a direct vote, it hasn't met the criteria (the governance part).
in all honesty, that seems pretty fair.
-
I am in favour of 1 country , 1 vote.
But I am also in favour of restricting that by certain criteria (as they currently do: Governance, performance, financial).Using the current 24 organisations with votes. I doubt that the 'homecoming' rule would get accepted.
But what you would probably get would be a a larger World Cup qualifying system. Which would bring Tier 2s into more contact with Tier 1s. And, if, the TV Rights for qualifying were to be owned by WR it could be collected in a single pot and distributed. Maybe even enough to cover the loss of hosting tests in Apia or Nukualofa.
So that would go some way to solving the revenue sharing, and the not playing away v T2 nations issues.
-
The use of the word 'almost slavery' in the documentary, I admit, gets my hackles up and makes me defensive.
Use of the term neo-colonialism is probably pretty smart.
Plenty of the current voting power is in countries who feel a bit of pressure from anything with a whiff of neo-colonialsim accusations about it. More chance of passing a 'homecoming' rule if the voting power of places like Georgia, Romania, Spain, Russia, Uruguay etc is also still weak.
So more chance of passing with current uneven voting structure that with 1 country, 1 vote.
-
On potential ‘homecoming’ rule. How do you guys feel about it?
I am sort of no. Sort of yes.
This rule, and variations of it, have been discussed several time on here. In general my impression is NZ fans, including probably majority on here, NZ media and the NZRU (Definitely, on record proposing this) are in favour. NZ mostly see Tier 2 rugby through the prism of Pacific Islands. Maybe most of the Anglosphere does actually.
Current rule. If play test, ‘A’ or 7s. You are tied to that country for life – unless use Olympic 7’s loophole.
I don’t think you should be tied for life by ‘A’ level rugby. Not that NZ have played it for over a decade. So not many examples, but Nick Williams, North Harbour No8, NZ born with Samoan ancestry, spent decade playing in Europe – would be example of guy blocked from playing for Samoa if he had wanted, by playing for Junior All Blacks.
7s. I care little about the format, guys selected for this are often very young. I don’t mind if this doesn’t tie you to a country.
Test level, I say no.
Not sure what was proposed in documentary? But in past it has been pot forward that there is a caps threshold. So under 10 caps for example – then can switch later on.
3 year stand down?
In the documentary 2 NZ Pasifika players interviewed on the subject. Charles Piutau and Lima Sopoaga.
They evoke very different emotions in me. I have no beef with Charles Piutau’s decision to leave NZ, disappointed he was so young, but he has his priorities. I was disappointed Hansen didn’t take to world cup on a principle, thank god Naholo wasn’t needed for a crunch game. Crazy risk.
Lima Sopoaga I feel very let down by. NZ were lucky we didn’t have a first-five crisis. The timing of his move was awful, played the system a bit IMO (or incompetent contracting by the NZRU). Is half Samoan / half Cook Island. I admit I would resent it if he had a second international career after they way he treated the NZ system and fans.
I think Piutau would/should be ruled out of a ‘homecoming’ criteria by playing too many caps. While I think Sopoaga would fit a likely homecoming criteria, despite ‘only’ being half Samoan and treating his first nation like crap. Bad examples to use to win me over. Should have interviewed someone like Lolagi Visinia .....
-
i think i am against it.
it should be renamed the Pacific Islands rule, and it's basically to allow kiwis to have two test careers.
I would be happy to remove the sevens and secondary teams qualifiers, but if you play a test that should lock you in.
I am uneasy with a career progression of play a test for NZ, use that cap to pump up your price overseas. move to Europe, become inelligible for NZ, have a back-up career for another country.
-
@mariner4life said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
I am uneasy with a career progression of play a test for NZ, use that cap to pump up your price overseas. move to Europe, become inelligible for NZ, have a back-up career for another country.
While there is an element of colonialism about it all, the way we talk about these Islander players sometimes gets me.
In Australia we've picked a few guys who, from where I sit, probably didn't consider themselves to be Australian. Taqele Naiyarovoro and Eto Nabuli spring to mind, Isi Naisirani may be another. It doesn't sit too well with me, as they are better suited playing for their home country.
But they weren't forced into the Wallaby jersey against their will. They opted to play and were handsomely rewarded for doing so. The two wingers have parlayed that into lucrative foreign deals.
Portraying this all as the big bad 3N/6N countries and big bad World Rugby doesn't work with me. Yes there are ways we could improve the system but the reality is much more complex than Islands good, rest bad.
JB from the Eggchasers pod touched on some of this in this article, which I think is a good read: https://www.rugbypass.com/news/professional-rugby-is-poison-to-the-pacific-islands/
-
@barbarian Thanks Barbs, that article explained my concerns a lot better than I could.
-
@barbarian I take real exception to a couple of points in this column.
Yet it is fair to point out that discrimination still exists. Australia’s highest-paid player was erased from the sport because he upset white liberal sensibilities. Maybe Leo is correct – the colonial mindset has not disappeared, it’s simply changed its clothes.
This has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. Nothing.
There needs to be reforms and fairer distribution from the big unions, but trying to solve a problem that stems from money and power with more money and power is wrong-headed. If it was truly the case this was a money problem, World Rugby would have written a cheque long ago.
This isn't a money problem? So the crumbling architecture, rugby HQ's of a room with two ageing laptops wasn't in the doc? In countries where supposedly 20% of GDP is from rugby? And Dan Leo mentioning probably 50 times about fairer share of gate takings?
The loudest, most moralistic voices of the rugby commentariat make the horribly patronising and potentially racist assumption that because a nation is small or less prosperous then its politicians are somehow inferior. This could not be further from the truth. They might be self-interested, they might be corrupt and, in some cases, criminally so, but they are not incapable.
Actually, most of the corrupt claims from ex-players. Who witnessed corruption / missing funds. Who flew in the back of the plane and slept in makeshift dorms in gyms, whilst their admins flew in the front and slept at the 4 seasons. I think corrupt politicians are inferior, yes.
Apart from the above, I think the article is a dribbling mess of opinions, without any real structure or fact based conclusion. Surprised it's enjoyed and agreed with by so many.
-
@MajorRage Yeah the Folau thing was a total red herring. Though I thought many of the other points were valid. The crumbling infrastructure of island rugby could be restored at relatively little cost , didn’t the NZ Government redo the stadium in Samoa? The view that it’s not just a money issue holds water IMO, it’s very much how that money gets used is the problem. A viewpoint that what is the use of simply providing more cash if it gets abused and entrenches the existing poor governance.
-
@Catogrande Sure. But then how does that view correlate with the last quoted paragraph?
They might be corrupt, but they are not incapable? So they shouldn't be sent more money, as it's likely it won't get used properly, but the politicians are not incapable?
Personally, it comes across me that the author is trying to say something without saying it. And in places, even flatly denying what he's trying to say.
-
@MajorRage I took that paragraph to mean that is is incorrect to assume a less capable politician simply because they are islanders. That some of these guys are in fact consummate politicians(that’s an insult wrapped in a compliment if ever I heard one) and that it would be naive to think all that was needed would be a different person nominally in charge. You can argue morally inferior due to the levels of corruption but in this instance inferior would not mean incapable.
In all this though you should be aware that I am arguing backed up by my intimate knowledge of island life, politics etc and further bolstered by significant research through watching one documentary and reading the musings of a bunch of Polish chicks on an Internet forum.
-
@Catogrande Of course. I'm no expert on the situation of course, but I would consider myself much better informed than many others that claims to be so. IT seems many people were surprised there has been corruption at the top of Island rugby. And some of these the most vocal about supporting them. I'm not sure how much you need to have your head in the sand to not know that, if rugby journalism is your entire life.
I suspect you're right, but for me, anybody who writes that a politician maybe corrupt, but then not less capable, is way off kilter with any of my views.
-
-
@MajorRage said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
@Catogrande Of course. I'm no expert on the situation of course, but I would consider myself much better informed than many others that claims to be so. IT seems many people were surprised there has been corruption at the top of Island rugby. And some of these the most vocal about supporting them. I'm not sure how much you need to have your head in the sand to not know that, if rugby journalism is your entire life.
I suspect you're right, but for me, anybody who writes that a politician maybe corrupt, but then not less capable, is way off kilter with any of my views.
That’s all I really need to take away from this post.
-
@Bones said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
@Rapido said in Island Rugby - Dan Leo Documentary:
7s. I care little about the format, guys selected for this are often very young. I don’t mind if this doesn’t tie you to a country.
What are the olympics rules on changing country?
The player must
- be a national of the country he wants to represent at the Olympics (Reg 8.6)
- 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 (Reg 8.7.2)
- the time the Player first plays for the second Union or country, play in an Olympic Event (Reg 8.7.2)
- not represent the second Union in any other form of the Game until after he has participated in such Olympic Event (Reg 8.7.2)
Reg 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 (save in the case of a pre-qualified team of the host nation of the Olympic Games).
Reg 8.12 Once the Player has represented the Union or Olympic Sevens Team of which he is a national, in an Olympic Event, he shall thereafter be tied to that Union (or an underlying Union of the Olympic Sevens Team) for all forms of the Game and in all events but shall only be eligible to participate in an International Match in such other forms of the Game in addition to seven-a-side if:
(a) he participates as a Player in no less than half of the tournaments in a series of World Rugby or Regional Association Olympic qualification tournaments ...; and/or
(b) he participates as a Player in at least half of the matches in a standalone World Rugby or Regional Association Olympic qualification tournament ...
Those are the most important requirements. There are also notification requirements and World Rugby's Regulations Committee takes the final decision.
-
@Stargazer ahh right, so not really a possible issue of players being "bought" for olympic purposes. Ta.
-
Haven't really thought it through, but a couple of things around legibility that to me make sense are: (a) a five-year qualification period, and (b) the ability to change after a three-year stand down, but only back to the country in which you were born. This latter measure would allow, say, Vaea Fifita to represent Tonga, but would not allow Kiwi-born "Samoans" like Sopoaga to have a late-career switch to Samoa. I would probably also scrap the grandparent rule, as it's produced some absolutely ridiculous outcomes.
I'm not sure if this would solve the issue, because I'm not really sure what the issue is that is trying to be solved. To me, these just seem to be "fair" measures that, on the one hand, recognise that people move countries and become naturalised citizens of their new nations while, on the other hand, maintaining close connections to the country in which one was born (with the prospect that they may want to move back their one day to raise and family and continue to make a living).
-
@junior The thing I find potentially concerning about the proposal to allow switching from Tier 1 to Tier 2 is of unintended consequences, which I see as twofold. Firstly if any young guy knows he can always revert to say Samoa with little consequence it could see a flood of younger guys opting for a chance at a Tier 1. Secondly if much older guys, however good come back what does that do for the motivation of the younger guys who don’t then get a look in?
Maybe I’m overthinking this but I just can’t see it not having ramifications.
-
So, the stat about "Money from rugby coming into the Islands is equal to 20 per cent of the Pacific Island GDP" is also crap.
From the rugbpass JB article:
Massy University in 2014 ....... total remittances then accounted for around 20 per cent of GDP but the majority came from normal jobs like nurses working in Australia, for example.
Pretty insulting for hundreds of thousands of soldiers, doctors, bus drivers, teachers, scaffolders etc who remittance money either directly or via their churches to have that money claimed as rugby remittences.
(although things get fuzzy when you have things like the symbiotic relationship of the Whanganui bee-keeper training and employing Heartland level rugby players for the local club and eventually provincial union)
I understand the mis-representing of the 25% of pro rugby players are from the islands stat. PRW is a pan-pacific 'union' advocating for players with PI-ethnicity regardless of nation of origin. It makes their point more powerful and media will (have) lap that stat up unquestionably.
I don't understand mis-representing rugby's size in proportion to the remittances economy though, apart from more dramatic film making.
