Exodus 2017
-
Coltman
-
@pukunui said in Exodus 2017:
Probably won't be a popular view on here but this Whetu Douglas thing is why i don't like players like Leitch being long term players in NZ super rugby teams. In this case you could pretty much draw a direct line between Leitch being contracted and Douglas missing out and fucking off overseas. How he has played at the Crusaders is proof that some players just need an oportunity to go to the next level.
Joe Tupe is another one who springs to my mind. He could have earned a Chiefs call instead of Leitch. I understand NH clubs' recruitment of foreign players in order to be competitive and earn trophies, but I can't understand why NZ federation's franchises paying foreign players when so many NZ players are available.
-
I don't think a NZ-born Japanese player is any different to selecting Samoan/Fijian/Tongan/Australian players in your squad. None are eligible to play for NZ if that is your criteria for selection.
So either NZR says that all NZ Super rugby players have to be eligible to play for the ABs with no exceptions, or you allow 1 or 2 per squad, as is the rule currently.
-
@Bovidae said in Exodus 2017:
I don't think a NZ-born Japanese player is any different to selecting Samoan/Fijian/Tongan/Australian players in your squad. None are eligible to play for NZ if that is your criteria for selection.
So either NZR says that all NZ Super rugby players have to be eligible to play for the ABs with no exceptions, or you allow 1 or 2 per squad, as is the rule currently.
I don't have a problem with Island and Japan players but I draw the line at Ockers - I'd rather Jonah Lowe (or some local Ta$man/Chch kid) be at the Crusaders (spit) than Digby Ioane.
-
@Nepia Disagree entirely. Better for the tournament as a whole to have players of various nationalities across the teams.
Although the central structure of NZ has certainly contributed to the success of the All Blacks, and the NZ super rugby teams are strong, it's detrimental to the tournament that NZ super rugby teams are effectively only feeder teams to the All Blacks.
-
@MajorRage said in Exodus 2017:
@Nepia Disagree entirely. Better for the tournament as a whole to have players of various nationalities across the teams.
Although the central structure of NZ has certainly contributed to the success of the All Blacks, and the NZ super rugby teams are strong, it's detrimental to the tournament that NZ super rugby teams are effectively only feeder teams to the All Blacks.
I disagree with your disagree entirely, entirely. I don't want Super rugby to turn into a version of the French and English comps and NFL and Soccer. I want to cheer for NZ players in NZ teams. I also don't want NZR money being spent on older foreign players when that money can be used on a young player waiting for his chance.
But then, I think we should have our cake and eat it too and allow any NZer who players for a Super team eligible for the ABs (as long as they sign with a NZ province for NPC).
Also, I don't know why it is detrimental for the tournament that the NZ Super teams are feeders to the ABs. We still win most of the time. That's the other point of the competition.
-
@Nepia said in Exodus 2017:
I don't have a problem with Island and Japan players but I draw the line at Ockers - I'd rather Jonah Lowe (or some local Ta$man/Chch kid) be at the Crusaders (spit) than Digby Ioane.
Agreed. Ioane should be playing for an Aust team not a NZ team.
My response was related to the criticism of selecting Leitch, who currently is no different to TNW in the Chiefs squad.
-
Edited:
The rules are what they are and they allow a (NZ born) player who is not eligible for the ABs to play for a NZ team regardless for which other country he qualifies. No double standards. I'm fine with players like Ioane and Leitch playing in NZ if players from other countries are permitted to play here.
Where insufficient NZ players are available in a certain position or of a certain type or with the required experience, then I think it's okay to go for a foreign player.
I could explain this better if I wasn't watching a game at the moment.
-
@MajorRage said in Exodus 2017:
@Nepia Disagree entirely. Better for the tournament as a whole to have players of various nationalities across the teams.
Although the central structure of NZ has certainly contributed to the success of the All Blacks, and the NZ super rugby teams are strong, it's detrimental to the tournament that NZ super rugby teams are effectively only feeder teams to the All Blacks.
That is a strange statement. Would anyone really notice if guys like Leitch, TNW, Alaalatoa and Digby weren't playing for NZ teams? I would suggest the fact that the NZ teams are feeders to the ABs is one of the best thing for the comp right now and very important for the future of Super rugby and the All Blacks.
@Bovidae said in Exodus 2017:
@Nepia said in Exodus 2017:
I don't have a problem with Island and Japan players but I draw the line at Ockers - I'd rather Jonah Lowe (or some local Ta$man/Chch kid) be at the Crusaders (spit) than Digby Ioane.
Agreed. Ioane should be playing for an Aust team not a NZ team.
My response was related to the criticism of selecting Leitch, who currently is no different to TNW in the Chiefs squad.
Except TNW hasn't directly contributed to a player who plays in a position of relatively poor depth for the ABs and is clearly up to super rugby level signing overseas because he was overlooked for the squad.
Personally i don't mind the odd pacific islands player being used by a NZ team. Rich countries like Japan or Tier 1 countries like Aust/England can pay their own players though. That should be something that is understood by players, especially kiwi players, when they decide to qualify for another country.
-
@pukunui said in Exodus 2017:
Except TNW hasn't directly contributed to a player who plays in a position of relatively poor depth for the ABs and is clearly up to super rugby level signing overseas because he was overlooked for the squad.
I don't think it's simple as that. Luatua is leaving, and it's got nothing to do with a lack of opportunity at Super rugby level. Nasi Manu went overseas a few years ago himself.
Of course I would prefer that Douglas stayed in NZ - he plays for the team I support. But in hindsight Whetu was probably too quick to sign the first professional contract put in front of him. I can certainly understand why he did, but unfortunately it was from an overseas club.
-
@Bovidae said in Exodus 2017:
@pukunui said in Exodus 2017:
Except TNW hasn't directly contributed to a player who plays in a position of relatively poor depth for the ABs and is clearly up to super rugby level signing overseas because he was overlooked for the squad.
I don't think it's simple as that. Luatua is leaving, and it's got nothing to do with a lack of opportunity at Super rugby level. Nasi Manu went overseas a few years ago himself.
Of course I would prefer that Douglas stayed in NZ - he plays for the team I support. But in hindsight Whetu was probably too quick to sign the first professional contract put in front of him. I can certainly understand why he did, but unfortunately it was from an overseas club.
That is the point, we struggle to hold on to these guys as it is because the pull of money from up north is so strong.
We need as many NZ qualified players staying as we can get. Giving NZ super rugby spots, particularly as starters, to international players reduces our ability to do that. -
@Chris-B. said in Exodus 2017:
@antipodean "That guy who reads the final copy, before it goes to print...why do we need him?"
The irony is that the ODT is one of the few papers in the country to still have "check subs" (to check both the writer and the sub-editor's work). I'm guessing it was a case of pressing "Replace" rather than "Ignore" on autopilot (reference fully intended) when they ran the spellcheck. It's happened before in the same esteemed publication.
-
@Bovidae said in Exodus 2017:
I don't think a NZ-born Japanese player is any different to selecting Samoan/Fijian/Tongan/Australian players in your squad. None are eligible to play for NZ if that is your criteria for selection.
So either NZR says that all NZ Super rugby players have to be eligible to play for the ABs with no exceptions, or you allow 1 or 2 per squad, as is the rule currently.
The NZRU have to be quite careful to stay inside employment law. To cut out Leitch on the basis that he isn't eligible for the All Blacks isn't going to fly legally, I fear, because the job is #8 at the Chiefs, not at the All Blacks. (This assumes he still has a NZ passport.)
-
@Chester-Draws be interesting to see how that would play out, as I understand what you are saying, but at the end of the day, selecting a rugby team is pretty subjective, I mean the fact we have a forum dedicated to talking rugby and discussing said selections and games says it all really.
-
@Chester-Draws Will be interesting to know that. Leitch is a Japanese citizen and has been for some years. Japan's nationality laws are quite clear, if you naturalise you have to give up your original citizenship.
Will be interesting to see if Leitch has actually taken that step though, or whether or not Japan has turned a blind eye given he represents them.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Exodus 2017:
@Bovidae said in Exodus 2017:
I don't think a NZ-born Japanese player is any different to selecting Samoan/Fijian/Tongan/Australian players in your squad. None are eligible to play for NZ if that is your criteria for selection.
So either NZR says that all NZ Super rugby players have to be eligible to play for the ABs with no exceptions, or you allow 1 or 2 per squad, as is the rule currently.
The NZRU have to be quite careful to stay inside employment law. To cut out Leitch on the basis that he isn't eligible for the All Blacks isn't going to fly legally, I fear, because the job is #8 at the Chiefs, not at the All Blacks. (This assumes he still has a NZ passport.)
Doesn't work like that. I'll post it up later on, but Leitch would be classed as an overseas player same as Tanaka because he doesn't play under a full NZ Rugby contract.
-
@Crucial what about TNW, who has played in NZ pretty much all his life, had the Olympic loophole to play for Samoa...but I guess, being able to prove he is not being offered a contract solely on the basis of who he plays for would be tough to wouldnt it?
-
It's been a while since I looked at the contract info on the NZRPA, but I see it has all been revamped and they have included a summary document as well so you don't have to read through all of the legalese http://www.nzrpa.co.nz/pdf/Collective-Agreement-and-MOU-Summary.pdf
This is the key part you guys are after
- A Super Rugby squad can only include (subject to certain
parameters) up to three non NZ eligible Players
Also this for some players (not Leitch or TNW obviously)
- Only NZ eligible Players who have played 80 Super rugby games
and/or 40 test matches, can look to negotiate the ability to play
overseas and return for Super Rugby only.
- A Super Rugby squad can only include (subject to certain
-
@Crucial said in Exodus 2017:
It's been a while since I looked at the contract info on the NZRPA, but I see it has all been revamped and they have included a summary document as well so you don't have to read through all of the legalese http://www.nzrpa.co.nz/pdf/Collective-Agreement-and-MOU-Summary.pdf
This is the key part you guys are after
- A Super Rugby squad can only include (subject to certain
parameters) up to three non NZ eligible Players
Also this for some players (not Leitch or TNW obviously)
- Only NZ eligible Players who have played 80 Super rugby games
and/or 40 test matches, can look to negotiate the ability to play
overseas and return for Super Rugby only.
Those parameters are quite interesting, and distinguish between:
*players who are not NZ eligible, but are eligible to represent a Pacific Island nation, and
*players who are not NZ eligible but are eligible to represent another foreign International team other than a Pacific Island nation.Other parameters relate to their playing position.
See section 45 in this document: http://www.nzrpa.co.nz/pdf/2016-NZR-RPC-CEA-DIGITAL.pdf
- A Super Rugby squad can only include (subject to certain
-
Yep that has always been the case. No more than two non-eligible, non PI players.
There is an extra position for PI eligible players.Also note the limit on one per position so that we don't end up with blocks.
NZR can also waive these rules if applied for and granted. I guess this would be the case if a long term Super rugby player played for a PI team and their status changed even if they are NZ residents and previously available for NZ selection. This is where the likes of TNW might come in if the Chiefs had filled their overseas quota already. They could apply for dispensation.
It would be pretty tough to not allow a guy that always lived in NZ with his family and only played for a PI country once NZ aspirations had gone.
