Eligibility back on the agenda



  • @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.



  • @semper I think South Africa used to be one passport only, but not sure about now. I think the PI's would have no issue with dual citizenship given their makeup and ties with NZ and Oz.



  • @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @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.

    True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.

    We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.

    I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.



  • @Kirwan said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @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.

    True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.

    We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.

    I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.

    I'd guess that most unions would do what they feel they need to do to overcome perceived weakness. NZ are fortunate in that they have little in the way of such things. Aus less so.

    We are none of us saints.



  • @Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Kirwan said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @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.

    True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.

    We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.

    I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.

    I'd guess that most unions would do what they feel they need to do to overcome perceived weakness. NZ are fortunate in that they have little in the way of such things. Aus less so.

    We are none of us saints.

    speak for yourself...



  • Good on France for unilaterally setting their own standard above the ridiculously low IRB standard.



  • @mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Kirwan said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @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.

    True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.

    We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.

    I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.

    I'd guess that most unions would do what they feel they need to do to overcome perceived weakness. NZ are fortunate in that they have little in the way of such things. Aus less so.

    We are none of us saints.

    speak for yourself...

    Easy to say when you're top dog. Less so when you're chasing the bronze medal and have your shoe-laces tied together.



  • @Catogrande i was just speaking personally, but your response was equally valid



  • I'll just leave this quote here

    according to Munster's director of rugby Rassie Erasmus. "One of my briefs is to get Irish-qualified players well coached and available for Joe (Schmidt). All four provinces are the same

    A South African trawling the world for players who have an Irish nanna (ish) so he can sign them to play for a kiwi coach. How very cosmopolitan



  • I think the grandparent rule probably needs retiring - with a bit of notice.



  • @Stargazer

    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.

    No doubt, but personally, I wouldn't have much sympathy for anyone in this dilemma.

    If, for example, you're going to play for France - you should be a Frenchman. So it would be a test of commitment.

    There are, in my mind, far too many people playing international rugby under flags of convenience, so things that dissuade this are all good in my opinion.



  • @Nepia IIRC both Sivivatu and Rokocoko travelled on a Fijian passport even when in the ABs. That helped them when they moved to France.

    It would be interesting to know if Fekitoa and Naholo have a NZ passport or still use a Tongan/Fijian passport.



  • @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    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.

    Your bullishness to linking national armies to test nationality is pretty novel. By extending that logic shouldn't we be using the strictest test when it comes to what qualifies as a country in International Rugby? No national anthem, no national flag - no international rugby team. if you don't have the confidence to become your own sovereign nation then you shouldn't have a rugby team, surely?

    The team now known as Ireland is a particular mess because here because you have players who theoretically could be on opposite sides of the battlefield at war. How is this allowed to happen? If you are able to join your nations army you should not play against those you may one day fight against.

    As for New Zealand following in France's footsteps I'm theoretically fine with it. I would just want a common-sense rule for unique situations. For example giving the unique link between Aus/NZ, many families will not pursue Permanent Residency or Citizenship because there is no need.

    As an example if Nathan Cleary for whatever reason wanted to convert and play rugby for NZ I would have no issues with that given he spent about half his life in NZ. But, unless his family completed citizenship/PR path while he was here (unlikely, but they theoretically could have) he would have to start a new 5 year continuous residency to get citizenship now - which seems unnecessary given he spent the bulk of his youth growing up in Auckland.

    NZ don't need to spend too much brain power on this one. But it's something to keep an eye on. Without knowing what specific visas guys like Fekitoa, Sivivatu and Seta were on and when it's hard to say when they would have been eligible for citizenship under the French rule. At most 2 years later than they did, but likely less. Devine, Taumoepeau and Rawlinson are the only others effected in the pro era who wait approximately 2 years longer. So we are talking approximately 30 test caps, from six players, over the past 22 years. Hardly a concern.



  • @mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    I'll just leave this quote here

    according to Munster's director of rugby Rassie Erasmus. "One of my briefs is to get Irish-qualified players well coached and available for Joe (Schmidt). All four provinces are the same

    A South African trawling the world for players who have an Irish nanna (ish) so he can sign them to play for a kiwi coach. How very cosmopolitan

    Why did he say that? And what was he referring to?



  • @Pot-Hale he was referring to poaching



  • @mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Pot-Hale he was referring to poaching

    Don't they call it making tacit agreements?



  • @Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper I think South Africa used to be one passport only, but not sure about now. I think the PI's would have no issue with dual citizenship given their makeup and ties with NZ and Oz.

    South Africa allows dual.



  • Your bullishness to linking national armies to test nationality is pretty novel. By extending that logic shouldn't we be using the strictest test when it comes to what qualifies as a country in International Rugby? No national anthem, no national flag - no international rugby team. if you don't have the confidence to become your own sovereign nation then you shouldn't have a rugby team, surely?

    Someone else brought up the point that we are proposing a higher standard to play rugby for a country than to fight for that country. It's not a point that I care for, hence my comments which you appear to have entirely misread but well done on some further Ireland bashing. In relation to your general point, it would reduce the number of serious rugby playing nations by a third.



  • @NTA said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    I think the grandparent rule probably needs retiring - with a bit of notice.

    Would you prohibit a citizen of a country playing rugby for that country?



  • @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @NTA said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    I think the grandparent rule probably needs retiring - with a bit of notice.

    Would you prohibit a citizen of a country playing rugby for that country?

    If the basis of citizenship was only that one grandparent was born in a country: yes.


Log in to reply