Eligibility back on the agenda



  • @semper nothing substantive or meaningful about a guy who already moved to another country vs a guy who moved just to play rugby? Sure ok. Not on the troll at all.



  • @kiwiinmelb said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    I see the difference as
    (a)
    to deliberately look overseas for players ,

    (B) And to pick players in your backyard that are already there ,

    While (b) still needs looking at with guys that are questionable , to poach from another country is on another level ,

    In the case of (a) it is a flow of players who can't play with better rugby countries to weaker rugby countries and in the case of (b) it is a flow of players from weaker rugby countries to better rugby countries.

    One is intentional and the other apparently is not, although I suspect the NZRFU were as knees deep in Fekitoa's contract with Highlanders as anything the IRFU have done.



  • @Bones said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper nothing substantive or meaningful about a guy who already moved to another country vs a guy who moved just to play rugby? Sure ok. Not on the troll at all.

    Fekitoa moved to New Zealand to play rugby. Nothing more or less. He wasn't in New Zealand because of family or any nonews rugby related reasons. His alternative option according to himself appears to have been to go to Australia to play league but a school scholarship seems to have been more attractive. Hmmm....



  • I'll be curious to see how far the Irish push it if Pichot's reforms fail wouldn't put it past them to try and sneak Saili through the 7s loophole if/when the time comes.

    Saili would have to firstly not be injured all the time, and get a good run of games in where he was more than a show pony. Once he did that then he would need to go back in time and stop himself getting his two senior All Black caps.



  • There won't be any changes to the residency rules while countries highlight other people's behaviour as the problem and don't acknowledge any issue with their own.

    The only top tier country that has clean hands on this is Argentinia and that is because they didn't have any professional structures that would have meant there were any foreigners hanging around there for three years plus playing rugby.



  • @semper what a 15/16yr old school boy vs a guy in his 20's and already a pro rugby player, righto, although I guess they both play rugby, so valid comparison afterall.

    I wonder why they dont tie schoolboys to the country they play for at 7s or 15s...



  • @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being eligible...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?

    @taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being ...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?

    So one is about a kid being moved from their home place to ...

    Hmmm ... That language is reminiscent of the type of argument used around poaching in the 00s. Fekitoa was not forced to move. Seems indicative of an in grained attitude.



  • @taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper what a school boy vs a guy in his 20's and already a pro rugby player, righto.

    I wonder why they dont tie schoolboys to the country they play for at 7s or 15s...

    Presumably because as a kid you have diminished decision making capacity?



  • @semper and yet you are comparing the 2 situations saying there is no substantiative difference?



  • @booboo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being eligible...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?

    @taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being ...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?

    So one is about a kid being moved from their home place to ...

    Hmmm ... That language is reminiscent of the type of argument used around poaching in the 00s. Fekitoa was not forced to move. Seems indicative of an in grained attitude.

    No one said he was forced to move and it has worked out very well for him.

    As a rule I think moving youngsters around to play rugby or soccer or Aussie rules isn't in their general best interests - they've about 50 years to live after they stop playing sport and a proper education will help them more in the vast majority of cases.



  • @taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper and yet you are comparing the 2 situations saying there is no substantiative difference?

    A fair point, but a reason why schooling should not count towards residency in either the actuality or the subsequent justifications?

    I'm also interested in the three years after school where he was on various rugby contracts by bodies controlled by the NZRFU. Do you think that Fekitoa would have, prior to getting residncy

    (A) Received exactly the same contracts if he had declared for Tonga;

    (B) received a better one if he had declared for Tonga; or

    (C) received a worse one if he had played for Tonga?

    In the case of Aki, if he was to announce tomorrow he was to play for another country, he would probably receive the same contract from Connacht but would be operating under a system where he would only have a two year horizon before being moved on.



  • @semper who knows, it is all hypothetical, plus some use that pathway of getting into super rugby, get the exposure for a big Euro contract too.

    NZ Rugby has had plenty of players over the years that have forged out careers in NPC and Super rugby while playing for another country early on.



  • @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @kiwiinmelb said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    I see the difference as
    (a)
    to deliberately look overseas for players ,

    (B) And to pick players in your backyard that are already there ,

    While (b) still needs looking at with guys that are questionable , to poach from another country is on another level ,

    In the case of (a) it is a flow of players who can't play with better rugby countries to weaker rugby countries and in the case of (b) it is a flow of players from weaker rugby countries to better rugby countries.

    One is intentional and the other apparently is not, although I suspect the NZRFU were as knees deep in Fekitoa's contract with Highlanders as anything the IRFU have done.

    My point was different levels of being morally wrong , both wrong though , and both need to be looked at .
    Most in NZ welcome the idea of eligibility rules being tightened , maybe if our depth wasn't great you would see some opposition to that , I'm not sure , but the general feeling here is it needs to be tighter, we welcome it .



  • @taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper who knows, it is all hypothetical, plus some use that pathway of getting into super rugby, get the exposure for a big Euro contract too.

    NZ Rugby has had plenty of players over the years that have forged out careers in NPC and Super rugby while playing for another country early on.

    Hmmm. I just find the unwillingness to see any issues with players like Fekitoa in the national team odd. There seems to be a defensiveness about this whole topic that in unwarranted.

    The only person who seems willing to acknowledge any issue is MajorRage.



  • Can I flick back on topic here for a sec rather than arguing semantics about who is the moe egregious poacher (when it's obviously Ireland).

    The fact that we're having this argument at all confirms the system is currently open to abuse.

    It needs tightening up and even if the full raft of changes don't come in this time any tightening is a move in the right direction and we can hope additional rrestrictions get added incrementally.

    Also, @semper with regard to passport/citizenship whilst I agree with your intent i can see thst open to abuse where rules are bent. Add it as a criterria to the criteria set by WR but not as the single qualifying standard.



  • @kiwiinmelb said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @kiwiinmelb said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    I see the difference as
    (a)
    to deliberately look overseas for players ,

    (B) And to pick players in your backyard that are already there ,

    While (b) still needs looking at with guys that are questionable , to poach from another country is on another level ,

    In the case of (a) it is a flow of players who can't play with better rugby countries to weaker rugby countries and in the case of (b) it is a flow of players from weaker rugby countries to better rugby countries.

    One is intentional and the other apparently is not, although I suspect the NZRFU were as knees deep in Fekitoa's contract with Highlanders as anything the IRFU have done.

    My point was different levels of being morally wrong , both wrong though , and both need to be looked at .
    Most in NZ welcome the idea of eligibility rules being tightened , maybe if our depth wasn't great you would see some opposition to that , I'm not sure , but the general feeling here is it needs to be tighter, we welcome it .

    A very fair point. You would find few people in other rugby countries unwilling to engage with such an approach and rationale.



  • @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @booboo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being eligible...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?

    @taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being ...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?

    So one is about a kid being moved from their home place to ...

    Hmmm ... That language is reminiscent of the type of argument used around poaching in the 00s. Fekitoa was not forced to move. Seems indicative of an in grained attitude.

    No one said he was forced to move and it has worked out very well for him.

    As a rule I think moving youngsters around to play rugby or soccer or Aussie rules isn't in their general best interests - they've about 50 years to live after they stop playing sport and a proper education will help them more in the vast majority of cases.

    "being moved" suggests someone is impelling him to do so. "moving" would have been more appropriate if you didn't want to give the impression that he was being forced.



  • @semper I never said I was comfortable or uncomfortable with the likes of Fekitoa, Tamanivalu or Sivivatu before him, that wasnt the point you made iniitially that I responded to.



  • Also, @semper with regard to passport/citizenship whilst I agree with your intent i can see thst open to abuse where rules are bent. Add it as a criterria to the criteria set by WR but not as the single qualifying standard.

    3 years adult residency and a passport;
    Birth;
    Parent born in the country and holding a passport;
    Grandparent born in the country and holding a passport.

    UK countries use the same principles as in soccer.



  • @booboo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @booboo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being eligible...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?

    @taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper Aki was already a professional rugby player, unattached to any nation when he went to Ireland, Fekitoa was a school boy when he came to NZ, at which time he was a good 4+years off being ...that is a substantial difference I'd of thought?

    So one is about a kid being moved from their home place to ...

    Hmmm ... That language is reminiscent of the type of argument used around poaching in the 00s. Fekitoa was not forced to move. Seems indicative of an in grained attitude.

    No one said he was forced to move and it has worked out very well for him.

    As a rule I think moving youngsters around to play rugby or soccer or Aussie rules isn't in their general best interests - they've about 50 years to live after they stop playing sport and a proper education will help them more in the vast majority of cases.

    "being moved" suggests someone is impelling him to do so. "moving" would have been more appropriate if you didn't want to give the impression that he was being forced.

    Fair enough.



  • @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    Also, @semper with regard to passport/citizenship whilst I agree with your intent i can see thst open to abuse where rules are bent. Add it as a criterria to the criteria set by WR but not as the single qualifying standard.

    3 years adult residency and a passport;
    Birth;
    Parent born in the country and holding a passport;
    Grandparent born in the country and holding a passport.

    UK countries use the same principles as in soccer.

    Yes. But make it 5 years ๐Ÿ™‚



  • @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
    I suspect the NZRFU were as knees deep in Fekitoa's contract with Highlanders as anything the IRFU have done.

    You suspect wrong. For a kid who was MVP of the national 7s tournament in 2012 he didn't get a Super contract until 2013. That contract was with the Blues and he got absolutely no support from his own franchise coaches let a lone the national set up. Went to the Clan and things started from there.



  • @booboo no problem for me.



  • @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    I'm also interested in the three years after school where he was on various rugby contracts by bodies controlled by the NZRFU. Do you think that Fekitoa would have, prior to getting residncy

    (A) Received exactly the same contracts if he had declared for Tonga;

    (B) received a better one if he had declared for Tonga; or

    (C) received a worse one if he had played for Tonga?

    In the case of Aki, if he was to announce tomorrow he was to play for another country, he would probably receive the same contract from Connacht but would be operating under a system where he would only have a two year horizon before being moved on.

    A) Yes. Of course he would be ineligible to be central contacted - but there have been ineligible players that have made the max at Super and Mitre 10 Cup level. The problem is that max is ~$230k Super Rugby + ~$75k for Mitre 10 Cup. You have no way to double that by making the ABs with a central contact or match payments, nor Maori ABs etc.

    So he would be in a position where he is earning ~$300k here, but could be paid double that in Europe and use his Tongan passport do get around the international restrictions. So that's why they leave. They don't leave because their $200k Super contract is cut in half after declaring. It's because they stop sacrificing in hope/dream of playing for NZ.

    It's the lack of opportunities that will do them in here though. By declaring for another nation he would be ineligible for the two quickest ways to go from rookie to top paid player - the ABs and 7s and a lesser extent the JABs and Maori.

    So if we take Anton Leinart Brown for example. If he is ineligible for the ABs he misses the last 6 months of opportunities that have taken him from a name on the sheet in Super Rugby to someone who can likely command the max Super Rugby contact. Playing for Tonga in a couple of EOYT games against Canada, Scotland and Georgia plus half an ITM Cup season can't build the resume as quick.

    Quicker answer would be Nanai-Williams and Osbourne did not appear to take pay cuts after declaring for other nations after being on the fringes of the ABs.



  • @booboo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    Also, @semper with regard to passport/citizenship whilst I agree with your intent i can see thst open to abuse where rules are bent. Add it as a criterria to the criteria set by WR but not as the single qualifying standard.

    3 years adult residency and a passport;
    Birth;
    Parent born in the country and holding a passport;
    Grandparent born in the country and holding a passport.

    UK countries use the same principles as in soccer.

    Yes. But make it 5 years ๐Ÿ™‚

    Four years - miss a RWC cycle. Adopting a no grandparent rule will impact the PI Islands in the short term.

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @antipodean said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    No. Fekitoa's scholarship made no difference to his eligibility to play for NZ. He was ineligible. He only became eligible because he was given three years of professional work in NZ - he got a significant portion of that work from two Super Rugby teams.

    The NZR actually provides professional pathways for PI eligible players.

    Ah. My apologies. If Fekitoa had played for Tonga in 2013 it would have made no odds to his future in New Zealand rugby.

    Agreed. Didn't hurt Nadolo.



  • On the minor part of the discussion a few pages back, in university scholarships.

    I doubt any restrictions apply, and are included in case someone is 18 and on a uni scholarship.

    The reason for me thinking this is relationship there appears to be with Tongans at Japanese universities. Eg Moekiola at this years u20 World Cup.

    No hard facts, just assumptions.
    Plus it would be ridiculous for any body to assess a 19 year old in residence because of uni to be 'wrong' but a 19 year old in residence because of an academy or full time rugby contract to be 'right'.



  • How about:

    1. scrap the one country only rule
    2. every player has to declare for a country at 18/20 (if they don't declare then they are deemed to declare for their birth nation)
    3. three year stand down to switch country
    4. new country has to pay old country a transfer fee. Transfer fee would depend on IRB ranking (with the top ranked teams paying a lot)

    Basically make it a very expensive for tier one unions to recruit offshore.



  • At what level do you declare? Not sure that really works, there are a lot of players that don't come through until well after 18.



  • Terrible idea. Young Samoan kid declares for NZ at age 18 because his "advisors" tell him he could be an AB one day. Never quite reaches that standard but could be a good international for Samoa who can't afford to pay out the NZRU



  • @Crucial I think you missed the bit about lower ranked nations paying less. And why shouldn't they pay something? The NZRU developed the player. Better than them being capped once by NZ and never being available again.



  • @Calf said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    How about:

    1. scrap the one country only rule
    2. every player has to declare for a country at 18/20 (if they don't declare then they are deemed to declare for their birth nation)
    3. three year stand down to switch country
    4. new country has to pay old country a transfer fee. Transfer fee would depend on IRB ranking (with the top ranked teams paying a lot)

    Basically make it a very expensive for tier one unions to recruit offshore.

    Could you declare for a country you don't currently qualify for? Presumably not? So this would only really impact 20 year olds of mixed heritage who have to choose between country of heritage and country of birth?



  • @semper Yes, didn't explain myself very well. You can only declare for someone you qualify for.

    But the transfer fee would apply to all players. So if Ireland want to naturalise a kiwi born and bred super rugby centre with no Irish heritage, he would need three years residency plus a transfer fee to the NZRU.



  • @Calf So if your union has loads of cash then they're sweet? Don't like the sound of that - and my union has bucketloads of the stuff.



  • @Catogrande With the number of foreign players your union caps it wouldn't be rich for long. ๐Ÿ˜Š



  • @Pot-Hale Good on him, genuinely happy for him that he found his niche up there, after struggling with the Blues.



  • French rugby players only to be considered for international selection if they have French passports

    French rugby has changed the eligibility rule for it's international team, stipulating that players must have French passports if they're to be considered for selection.
    
    The decision was announced at a meeting in Paris between the French Rugby Federation and World Rugby on Tuesday.
    
    Currently, players are deemed eligible for French international selection after living in the country for three consecutive years.
    
    However under the new changes, players must hold French passports and, under French law, they are only eligible to do so if they live in the country for over five years.
    
    "Our real desire is to promote the French sector, and play as many French players as possible," former Toulon boss Bernard Laporte told World Rugby during their meeting.
    
    France has been criticised in the past for flooding it's domestic leagues with foreign-born players which has been said to damage the international side. Former Blues and Hurricans winger David Smith was ruled ineligible for the French side earlier this year.
    
    Countries are formally bound by World Rugby regulations when it comes to eligibility laws. However Laporte said that for the good of French rugby, it was important they enforced their own regulations.
    
    "We told Rugby World that we had made a decision not to select foreign players even if the regulation allows us.
    
    "The regulations could change, but in our minds we do not want to use it, except in case of force majeure, our real will is to favor the French players, to play as many French players as possible.
    
    And be very careful about not impoverishing the Fijian federations, Georgian, Samoan, Tongan otherwise it impoverishes the international game, the interest is to have maximum competitive teams."
    
    The decision will likely cause some initial drama with current international players like Noa Nakaitaci not holding a French passport therefore ruled ineligible for France ahead of the 2017 Six Nations.
    

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/sport/2016/12/french-rugby-players-only-to-be-considered-for-international-selection-if-they-have-french-passports.html

    I must say I find it astonishing that they seem to change the policy without a transition period. I doubt Nakaitaci is the only international affected by this rule change and they're not even given any time to consider their options. The 6 Nations already starts in 6 weeks!

    Personally, I also disagree with the requirement of having/obtaining a passport of the country you represent if either that country or the country of birth doesn't allow dual citizenship. Knowing several expats, I know there can be plenty of good reasons to hold on to your original citizenship if you accept a new one.

    Edit: Just read about it in the French media and, apparently, players without a French passport who have already been selected for the French team until now, will still be eligible. So, for example, Scott Spedding, Virimi Vakatawa, Noa Nakaitaci et Uini Atonio (explicitly named in an interview with Guy Novรจs) will still be able to play for France. Seems Newshub has missed that - not so minor - detail.

    http://rmcsport.bfmtv.com/rugby/xv-de-france-fini-les-etrangers-au-sein-du-xv-de-france-1072419.html



  • Bravo to France, the first country to take concrete steps to resolving the issue.

    Shows that all the countries could take unilateral action themselves if they were serious about it too.



  • That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.

    This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!



  • @rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.

    This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!

    Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.

    I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.

    If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.



  • Personally, I also disagree with the requirement of having/obtaining a passport of the country you represent if either that country or the country of birth doesn't allow dual citizenship. Knowing several expats, I know there can be plenty of good reasons to hold on to your original citizenship if you accept a new one.

    Other than Japan and Georgia, do any of the top dozen or so rugby countries have an issue with dual citizenship/subject status?

    To the best of my knowledge it is not an issue for Ireland, the UK, Argentina, Australia, New Zeland, Canada or the USA. I haven't a notion about Fiji, Samoa or Tonga.


Log in to reply