World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules
-
@crucial said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
TV headlines seem to think that you can only move to tier 2 countries but there’s nothing in that WR release that says that is the case.
We may well find that some AB discards end up in 6N squads through grandparents.The way things are going we may find some 6N discards in AB squads through grandparents.
-
But will it stop the French clubs 'persuading' PI players to make themselves unavailable for internationals like they have done previously.
-
@machpants said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@crucial said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
Does this mean we can get Ben Teo and Brad Shields back?
Don’t see much advantage in that.And sixty odd percent of the Tongan and Samoan squads
This might have the perverse effect of having a lot of Bunce, Bachop, Vidiri types going the other way
-
@majorrage said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
You can now play for the country of your birth, you parents or grandparents birth if you've played for another country after 3 year stand down.
Right now Eddie Jones is checking where George Bridge's grandparents were born - hopefully.
-
@victor-meldrew said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@majorrage said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
You can now play for the country of your birth, you parents or grandparents birth if you've played for another country after 3 year stand down.
Right now Eddie Jones is checking where George Bridge's grandparents were born - hopefully.
Well he already meets the criteria of not playing any rugby for the last three years.
-
Big win for the PI unions, and rightly so IMO. Anything that raises the standards of teams is good for the health of the sport.
Interesting last line where a committee can approve seperate from the links, I assume that's for edge cases but could be abused.
-
@daffy-jaffy said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
But will it stop the French clubs 'persuading' PI players to make themselves unavailable for internationals like they have done previously.
True but that mostly affects 'bubbling under' type players who are desperate to keep their jobs. The better the player is, the more power they have.
Pat Lam faces the possibility of seeing Piutau, Luatua, Afoa,Nathan Hughes, Leiua, and Radarada all unavailable in the window. That's a big chunk of the A team. Which of them has the most power with contract renewals coming up?
-
I think stretching it out to a grandparent is too far.
-
@crazy-horse said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
I think stretching it out to a grandparent is too far.
In western terms I generally agree (as in 'my granny was born in Scotland and moved to NZ as a child), but in the PI diaspora I think it is fair enough. The country ties are very strong.
-
@crazy-horse said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
I think stretching it out to a grandparent is too far.
I agree, although it depends on migration trends how long the PI nations (and other nations) will be able to benefit from this new rule. If fewer and fewer people migrate from the Islands to NZ (and Oz or other countries), in three generations, fewer and fewer players will have a PI born grandparent.
For example, a son of Caleb Clarke could still make use of this new rule, because Eroni Clarke was born in Samoa, but a grandson of Caleb cannot.
-
@crucial said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@crazy-horse said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
I think stretching it out to a grandparent is too far.
In western terms I generally agree (as in 'my granny was born in Scotland and moved to NZ as a child), but in the PI diaspora I think it is fair enough. The country ties are very strong.
You may have a point - I admit I don't have the clearest understanding of the PI way of life.
-
@crazy-horse said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@crucial said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@crazy-horse said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
I think stretching it out to a grandparent is too far.
In western terms I generally agree (as in 'my granny was born in Scotland and moved to NZ as a child), but in the PI diaspora I think it is fair enough. The country ties are very strong.
You may have a point - I admit I don't have the clearest understanding of the PI way of life.
I don't mean 'way of life', just that when you are small migrant nations with much of your family not living at home in order to earn a living then 'home' is still the islands even if your parents were born overseas. In fact you were possibly even brought up by those grandparents for aperiod.
-
@crucial said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
TV headlines seem to think that you can only move to tier 2 countries but there’s nothing in that WR release that says that is the case.
We may well find that some AB discards end up in 6N squads through grandparents.this was my big question, i couldn't see it listed in that graphic
-
By the way, I've seen reactions from both (former) players and fans from countries like Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Georgia, who are very disappointed about the change, because those countries have made a big effort of developing their own players and have rosters of players that are 100% home grown and this rule change favours countries that have not.
You could indeed argue that this rule change may have some consequences for player development and pathways.
A homegrown/developed Samoan player may miss out on a spot in the Samoan squad, because Samoa can now select players like Luatua, Vito, J Savea and Nonu.
Tonga is already heavily dependent on NZ developed players for its national squad. This rule change makes it even less necessary for countries like Tonga to invest in player development at home, like Fiji has done. Just pick the Fekitoa's and Piutau's.
Not sure how valid these arguments are, but I've also seen people's comments that this rule change encourages "rugby mercenaries" among future/current ABs and Wallabies as being an AB/Wallabie increases their market value in Europe/Japan, they can go for the big coin contracts there after being NZ/Oz capped and after three years, switch allegiance.
-
@stargazer i think on the surface they're probably pretty valid
but i also think the reality is Tonga and Samoa just can't/weren't going to invest much more, those counties you list all have mch biggest populations and so more scope for growth so i dont think its quite apples and apples
-
@stargazer said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
Not sure how valid these arguments are, but I've also seen people's comments that this rule change encourages "rugby mercenaries" among future/current ABs and Wallabies as being an AB/Wallabie increases their market value in Europe/Japan, they can go for the big coin contracts there after being NZ/Oz capped and after three years, switch allegiance.
Not convinced they wouldn't just go for the money regardless. I mean, they already have.
ABs losing games will diminish the allure and available cash more than anything.
-
@kiwiwomble said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@stargazer i think on the surface they're probably pretty valid
but i also think the reality is Tonga and Samoa just can't/weren't going to invest much more, those counties you list all have mch biggest populations and so more scope for growth so i dont think its quite apples and apples
Agree. It will make it a little harder - more competitive - for the Uruguays and Georgias, but it's not hindering them at all, just means that their opponents might be a little stronger.
The other arguments against seem logical, but I just don't think they're realistically going to happen much, if at all. Any Pasifika player weighing up whether to pursue a career with the ABs/Wallabies or Samoa/Tonga is going to have pretty much the same choice before as after. The opportunity to take a 3 year break so they can play for both wouldn't change that decision.
-
@stargazer said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
By the way, I've seen reactions from both (former) players and fans from countries like Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Georgia, who are very disappointed about the change, because those countries have made a big effort of developing their own players and have rosters of players that are 100% home grown and this rule change favours countries that have not.
You could indeed argue that this rule change may have some consequences for player development and pathways.
A homegrown/developed Samoan player may miss out on a spot in the Samoan squad, because Samoa can now select players like Luatua, Vito, J Savea and Nonu.
Tonga is already heavily dependent on NZ developed players for its national squad. This rule change makes it even less necessary for countries like Tonga to invest in player development at home, like Fiji has done. Just pick the Fekitoa's and Piutau's.
Not sure how valid these arguments are, but I've also seen people's comments that this rule change encourages "rugby mercenaries" among future/current ABs and Wallabies as being an AB/Wallabie increases their market value in Europe/Japan, they can go for the big coin contracts there after being NZ/Oz capped and after three years, switch allegiance.
You make valid points though the thing is that any set of rules will be open to abuse and manipulation. I think the most important thing is whether or not the new rules are better overall than the previous. There will always be winners and losers in such changes and maybe it is being viewed that the winners are probably more deserving. My worries are that she these new rules might benefit the PIs in the short term, will it be detrimental in the longer term.
