All Blacks XV 2022
-
@Rapido said in All Blacks XV:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:
@Dan54 I dont think it matters what they call it, they just need to designate it as our 2nd team for that purpose...I think many years back Fiji had looked at doing that for thier U21 side, but dont think they did.
They could designate the NZ U18 team as our 2nd team if they wanted to.
They cant anymore. Have youth teams as 2nd XVs. That has changed, after the 1st Spain eligibility debacle.
It's as clear as mud.
But, maybe, one day, a team which Levi Aumua is playing for(if in next 3 years, and it is not NZ) may be the subject of an appeal by the opposition. Better take a 36th man in their squad, a lawyer. Maybe they'll win, maybe they'll lose, maybe it will never happen.
But. End of day. Maybe NZRU should be better at not creating unnecessary problems.
This sounds like a job for an NZ Barbarians team to me.
Regs are quite clear from WR. There is a list published each year of the designated 'second senior side' for each country. Anything outside of that can't be argued as qualifying.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks XV:
@Rapido said in All Blacks XV:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:
@Dan54 I dont think it matters what they call it, they just need to designate it as our 2nd team for that purpose...I think many years back Fiji had looked at doing that for thier U21 side, but dont think they did.
They could designate the NZ U18 team as our 2nd team if they wanted to.
They cant anymore. Have youth teams as 2nd XVs. That has changed, after the 1st Spain eligibility debacle.
It's as clear as mud.
But, maybe, one day, a team which Levi Aumua is playing for(if in next 3 years, and it is not NZ) may be the subject of an appeal by the opposition. Better take a 36th man in their squad, a lawyer. Maybe they'll win, maybe they'll lose, maybe it will never happen.
But. End of day. Maybe NZRU should be better at not creating unnecessary problems.
This sounds like a job for an NZ Barbarians team to me.
Regs are quite clear from WR. There is a list published each year of the designated 'second senior side' for each country. Anything outside of that can't be argued as qualifying.
Have you ever seen this list?
Must be on their intranet, or sent by fax.The rules have been 'quite clear' for ages, yet Spain twice, Romania, Belgium, Tahiti have managed to get themselves disqualified in the last 2 RWC qualifying campaigns over ineligible players.
The rules are no clearer now, just different.
NZRU have just added another level of complexity. Nothing we'll need to worry about though, but I'd be wary for the less resourced unions who may pick one of these ambiguous All Blacks XV players in the next 3 years in a RWC qualifying match and leave themselves open to potential disqualification if a lawyer interprets it differently.
-
Also. I remember previous time NZRU thought they were smarter than IRBs lawyers. Didnt end well (for us).
I wouldn't take an NZRU reply tweet to some twitter trolling as a definitive legal answer. As tbh, the competence of the current NZRU seems even lower than the Rutherford and Whathisname? Days.
-
If Hong Kong or South Korea prefer to play Niue, rather than Cook Islands, in 2027 RWC qualifying, and they're prepared to do down a dirty lawyer route to progress.... well. They'd do well to keep an eye on these ambiguous All Blacks XV players and see if Samoa or Tonga give them an opportunity for a potential free pass.
-
Have you tried searching the WR site? Here are the regs. Quite clear.
How do I know which team is a Union’s next senior fifteen-a-side
National Representative Team?
(a) There should be no uncertainty over which team constitutes a
Union’s next senior National Representative Team. Unions are
required to notify World Rugby of the name of their nominated next
senior National Representative Team. The team nominated remains
the Union’s next senior National Representative Team unless the
Union notifies World Rugby of a change in this nomination. A Union
is entitled to notify World Rugby no more than once per calendar
year of a change to its next senior National Representative Team
provided that in doing so it shall take account of any Matches such
team may be scheduled to play and shall advise the Union of any
senior or next senior National Representative Team it is scheduled
to play reasonably in advance of such Match. The identity of a
Union’s next senior National Representative Team can be verified
with the Union concerned and/or World Rugby.(b) Unions must ensure that all persons involved in an International
Match (Players and team management including coaching staff) are
made aware of the status of their team as the next senior National
Representative Team and that of their opposing team where it is the
senior or next senior National Representative Team of another
Union and what that means from a capturing perspective under
Regulation 8. Notwithstanding the Union’s obligation to inform the
Player and team management it shall be the sole responsibility of
each Player to ensure that he is aware of the status of every Match
in which he plays and the implications of playing in an International
Last update: 1 July, 2016 160
REGULATION 8 EXPLANATORY GUIDELINES
Match involving the senior or next senior National Representative
Teams of two Unions.(c) In addition to (a) and (b) above, Unions who designate their Under
20s National Representative Team as their next senior National
Representative Team have a particular onus to clearly make the
Team Players aware of the consequences of being captured for that
Union at age grade level. Effective 1 July 2014, the Players on any
such Team which participates in the World Rugby Junior World
Championships, World Rugby Junior World Trophy or the Six
Nations U20 Championship (where they are present at the Match
played by that Team either as a replacement, substitute or playing
member of that Team and has, at the time of the Match, reached the
age of majority) will be captured. In this regard the status of the
opposition teams in any Match in these named tournaments is not a
factor to be considered. -
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:
@Dan54 I dont think it matters what they call it, they just need to designate it as our 2nd team for that purpose...I think many years back Fiji had looked at doing that for thier U21 side, but dont think they did.
They could designate the NZ U18 team as our 2nd team if they wanted to.
Yep mate, understand that, but suspect they may not of called this our second team to avoid capturing players, to remove the need for players (say Levi Aumua) to decide they will or won't risk things until they can see how it goes. I would of been happier to see PGS tried this way. I think with the number we see getting tests etc now do we need to 'capture' more players?
-
Is our second team not Ireland?
-
@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks XV:
Is our second team not Ireland?
Would be bloody funny if NZR nominated that.
-
So, if those saying that because Levi is playing for MP he is therefore not available for NZ are right, then the decision to select Levi in this team is next level stupid. Or am I missing something?
-
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks XV:
So, if those saying that because Levi is playing for MP he is therefore not available for NZ are right, then the decision to select Levi in this team is next level stupid. Or am I missing something?
The way I see it
He’s not ineligible to play for the ABs (or OZ or the others he is qualified to play for due to heritage) because he plays for MP. MP is in no way a capture side. It’s just a franchise. Was there some type of preference arrangement when MP started regarding PI nations?
Additionally, he will not be ineligible to play for the other non-NZ nations he is eligible for because he has been selected for AB XV because AB XV is not a capture side as far has been communicated to date.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks XV:
So, if those saying that because Levi is playing for MP he is therefore not available for NZ are right, then the decision to select Levi in this team is next level stupid. Or am I missing something?
It is dangling an option in front of him without commitment from either party. For him it is a good situation in that he can still decide whether to represent the country of his birth (NZ) or one that he is otherwise eligible for (Fiji/Samoa).
What is next level stupid about that?
It was announced early on that MP could have a small number of NZ eligible players. Levi fits into that group even though he is also eligible for other countries. -
@Crucial I understand he may be eligible for OZ as well.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial I understand he may be eligible for OZ as well.
I think he would have to reside in OZ for 5 years ACT? I know he was raised there, but birthplace, lineage are I think the main ones, and residency I believe if you don't have the others expires after leaving a country for a few years.
I would add I think I read that somewhere, and could well be wrong. -
@Crucial said in All Blacks XV:
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks XV:
So, if those saying that because Levi is playing for MP he is therefore not available for NZ are right, then the decision to select Levi in this team is next level stupid. Or am I missing something?
It is dangling an option in front of him without commitment from either party. For him it is a good situation in that he can still decide whether to represent the country of his birth (NZ) or one that he is otherwise eligible for (Fiji/Samoa).
What is next level stupid about that?
It was announced early on that MP could have a small number of NZ eligible players. Levi fits into that group even though he is also eligible for other countries.I thought the team was to give players a run in the lead up to the world cup, players that may be close to selection or in the minds of the selectors if injuries strike. If I am wrong about that then fair enough. But if I am not wrong why would you select a player who wasn't eligible or unable or unwilling to play for the ABs because of some technicality with MP. Wouldn't we be better off looking at someone else?
Edit: my argument is based solely on the claims that he cannot play for the ABs while he is with MP. I have no idea if those claims are right.
-
@Crazy-Horse no technicality with MP mate, you anyone can play for them, I mean Joe Royal played hooker for them, but couldn't play for Island team if he wanted, not eligible, not even sure if Lincoln McClutchie has Island heritage.
-
@Dan54 has that (edit: that the ABs can select him from MP) been confirmed? I thought it was speculation from both sides of the arguement.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks XV:
Edit: my argument is based solely on the claims that he cannot play for the ABs while he is with MP. I have no idea if those claims are right.
Playing for MP does not exclude you from playing for NZ (technically). In reverse they are meant to have 80% pasifika eligible players and can top up with NZ contracted. They are even allowed 3 that are NZ only eligible. Aumua falls into a category of being eligible but not locked to 3 countries. He is either expected by MP to front up if called on by a Pasifika country OR is one of the NZ players but by consequence is also eligible for elsewhere.
The restrictions are only about the makeup of MP so that they aren't a default 6th NZ side ie a Pasifika eligible player takes selection precedence over one that isn't.Edit: If selected for the ABs he needs to make a decision AND MP need to decide if they have him in the 3 NZ only eligible player allowance.
Eligibility Regulation | World Rugby
