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.



  • 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.



  • I was referring more to first tier nations where e.g. some bloke gets a gig because his mammy got in a ship there a hundred years before

    I also think second tier nations - which could also be defined as someone without a proffesional competition - could have different (more relaxed) criteria.



  • @mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Pot-Hale he was referring to poaching

    Eh, no he wasn't.



  • @jegga said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Pot-Hale he was referring to poaching

    Don't they call it making tacit agreements?

    That's what you call it. Don't know anyone else who uses that phrase.



  • @Pot-Hale I got it from an Irish fan , I thought that was what you guys called it?

    Anyway have a great christmas, its been a good year to be an Irish rugby fan and for that matter an ab fan because your guys stepped up and gave us a new rivalry.



  • @jegga said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    a new rivalry.

    Hopefully with the same results as the last 111 years😁
    Funny that Nelson got us in rugby but I can live with a loss every century.



  • @jegga said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Pot-Hale I got it from an Irish fan , I thought that was what you guys called it?

    Anyway have a great christmas, its been a good year to be an Irish rugby fan and for that matter an ab fan because your guys stepped up and gave us a new rivalry.

    Nope - I haven't seen the phrase used. Clearly, every uncapped foreign player who comes to play in Ireland is aware that if they last beyond 3 years they would become eligible - same as any other country under current WR regulations. There's been enough players who didn't last or who are in their 4th/5th year, or regularly injured, without being looked at to undermine any notion of a tacit agreement or understanding they would be considered/ picked.

    Erasmus' comment cited above was in the context of him saying that Munster were not pitching for Ben Smith as was being speculated in media. His brief from Nucifora along with the other provincial coaches is to find and develop Irish-qualified players, not pay out massive wages to a foreign player. The four provincial academies are now stocked with 20 players each, and the investment into the domestic pathway from age-grade upwards is a clear indicator of the domestic development policy from IRFU. Unfortunately, the IRFU haven't banned further use of residency players a la France but they don't seem to be too concerned if WR increase it to 5 or 7 years.

    Anyway, as you say, overall a good year for Irish rugby with nearly a dozen new caps in the last 12 months, with some pearlers amongst them. And yep, matches against NZ in the future will have a new edge.

    Enjoy your Christmas too. Cheers.



  • @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?

    I don't think that is such a big deal and it happens now due to the one country for life. Quade Cooper is a citizen of NZ but can never play for the ABs (cheers around the country) and it's the same with lots of current Samoan internationals too.



  • @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    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.

    There is no Ireland bashing here. They are just a unique case. So when you want other countries to replicate France's policy - it gets tripped up where Ireland have either have a fatal disadvantage (not a country, cannot issue passports) or a clear advantage (two passports possible, one passport makes it very easy to poach from three other countries).

    The aim of Pichot is to try and get player squads to pass the smell test not create different loopholes for the Home Unions to drive a bus through, NZ implementing this doesn't help that in any way.



  • @rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    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.

    There is no Ireland bashing here. They are just a unique case. So when you want other countries to replicate France's policy - it gets tripped up where Ireland have either have a fatal disadvantage (not a country, cannot issue passports) or a clear advantage (two passports possible, one passport makes it very easy to poach from three other countries).

    The aim of Pichot is to try and get player squads to pass the smell test not create different loopholes for the Home Unions to drive a bus through, NZ implementing this doesn't help that in any way.

    Actually, come to think of it, you could use Irish passports in Ireland's case because if you are born on the island of Ireland, you're automatically entitled/eligible to an Ireland passport. A UK passport would not be valid by itself, but rather that a player would qualify for an Ireland one by dint of whether you were born on the island. Parentage rules would apply as the norm.



  • Possible unilateral action from the RFU. I'll believe it only when it happens. However even if futile it sends a good message.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38672116



  • @Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    Possible unilateral action from the RFU. I'll believe it only when it happens. However even if futile it sends a good message.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38672116

    Unsurprising. It was known already that England supported a change and it suits them to announce it now. Politically, it may force other unions into having to give a public comment. Has the NZRU given an indication of its stance?



  • @Pot-Hale No idea about the NZRU but it is starting to become interesting to see which unions are giving support to Pichot's initiative. There's the French saying they will only select those with a French passport, but as discussed earlier, passport eligibility is different in many countries.

    If you recall there was the outcry when Zola Budd was granted a UK passport just in time for the LA Olympics when SA were banned from international sport. Even back then it was considered something of a cynical move with the Daily Mail prodding her Father to get her to apply for British citizenship due to her having a British Garndfather. Whilst the Grandfather rule is still there it was the seemingly indecent haste and the involvement of the Daily Fucking Mail.



  • Yeah I agree. I'm curious that rugby journos have not been asking specific questions of respective unions about their stance on the issue. Or if they have reporting on what answers they were given.

    There's this extract from an article on Stuff:
    "Pumas great Agustín Pichot, the World Rugby vice-chairman, believes three years is too short a qualifying time and believes extending it will help the player drain from the Pacific Islands.

    Scotland, Ireland, France and Wales have been aggressive in targeting overseas players who can help their test cause while England aren't immune to it either with Fijian Nathan Hughes, a former Auckland loose forward, the latest recruit to join their lineup after seeing out his time."

    Leaving aside that it makes no mention of Australia, I'm puzzled about the reference to PI players. Pichot has talked before about PI players pulling on a jersey for Ireland for example. To date, there's been Payne and White from NZ, and Strauss and Stander from SA who've been capped. Scotland have had Maitland (NZ) and Nel (SA). Where are all these players being drained from the PI playing for other countries? France? They're moving to a passport requirement.



  • @Pot-Hale With the general level of rugby journalism following soccer journalism down the toilet it is much easier to pen a few inflammatory words than to ask any real questions that require answering. It seems in relation to the various Unions, all the press do now is report the press releases that the Unions throw them.



  • @Pot-Hale The main difference there is that there is strong belief amongst many that the island nations should be on equal footing with the more established. The narrative that the world loves to walk all over the island boys, steal their players etc is a strongly held one, and what this is all about. Nobody cares much if a second or third string NZ player plays for somebody else, or if a young up and coming NZ player is lured away. NZ is already at the top table., thus no growth there.

    This simply isn't the same for the island nations - how strong they would be if they genuinely were given a seat at the top table, I don't know. But I don't think the eligilbity is the root cause of the problem. I think it's more about clubs not releasing players (or "encouraging" international retirement, and then the big elephant in the room, corruption/mis-management at the top level of the unions.



  • @Pot-Hale I think if Pichot stopped and thought about it he'd probably realise that a lot of those PI players he's thinking about in his head are actually from the Pacific Islands of NZ.

    I expect the NZRU would be in favour of a longer time for residency (maybe they'd want to keep the school arrivals at same period). We're not anti residency players but it's not like they make up a huge number of our teams (remove the school arrival guys and it's only really Rawlinson and Devine in kind of recent times).

    Weird that England is moving on it when they've recently been capping players under that eligibility. They probably should have instructed Eddie not to (or they went the other way, "quick, lock them in now").



  • @Nepia probably include Masoe in that too?

    Would be interesting to see how a no grandparent rule might adversely affect Samoa/Tonga.



  • @Bones said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

    @Nepia probably include Masoe in that too?

    Would be interesting to see how a no grandparent rule might adversely affect Samoa/Tonga.

    I think he went to Wanganui Collegiate?

    Yep, the no granparent rule would hammer the islands in a generation.



  • @Nepia Ah right I thought he'd come after, as you were.


Log in to reply