Posts made by semper

@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?

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.

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.

@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.

@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?

@booboo no problem for me.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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 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?

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.

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.

@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....

@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.

@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@semper you asked if there was a substantive difference, I provided it, you then changed tact.

I don't see that as being a substantive, meaningful difference.

@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@MajorRage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@semper Firstly, to be clear, I am not a fan of Fekitoa playing for the All Blacks either. I understand that people make life choices for whatever reason and I respect that - just like I respect Aki's decison.

But what you are talking about is not the same situation. I've seen early interviews with Fekitoa which I've not been comfortable with either - those a young man from Tonga stating clearly that he wants to play for the All Blacks, and also saying that he would only play for Tonga, if he could't make the All Blacks. I don't really like that either.

Are you comfortable with the ones that go the other way. Guys like Kahn Fotuali'i have interview where they talk about when they decided to give up on chasing the AB dream, TNW basically said during the 2015 Super season he was going to use the 7s loophole if he didn't make the ABs this year.

For every Fekitoa or Seta there are 10 Winston Stanleys and Paul Williams.

I've no problem with it. Improves the competitiveness of world rugby and rights a wrong of globalisation and colonialism.

@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@Pot-Hale said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@Nepia of course he is. The Irish are remarkably sensitive about their state-sanctioned poaching agenda.

Probably because most of their poaches are decidedly average

State-sanctioned? The Irish government has nothing to do with how professional sport is run in the country.

They do have to issue the visas and work permits that make it possible though.

That's rubbish. If you are paid more than about 35k a year and your employer can string a sentence together about how you can't recruit some one locally with that skill set you'll get an Irish visa. For a rugby player that is not a hard bar to jump.

Would a work permit have been required in Fekitoa's case?

@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.

@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

Do you have any idea at all about the demographic of the NZ make up? Here's a heads up. Tonga has a population of 100,000. NZ has a Tongan population of around 75,000. No familial ties you say?

There are something like 6m people in Great Britain with Irish passport entitlements.

You do realise that Irish citizenship is one of the easiest in the world to be eligible for?

The bit you possibly fail to understand is the unusual dynamic between NZ and some Pacific Islands. A young player could be born second generation in NZ but still have a very strong identity with their pacific heritage. They could even be sent over to the islands in their pre-school years to be looked after by members of the extended family. Their rugby heroes and team affiliation can be to both their country of birth and that of family.
I imagine that as a kid Fekitoa grew up worshipping the likes of NZ born Tongan Jonah Lomu and would aspire to being like him.
If he was setting himself a goal in life it would be the highest achievable and knowing he could become NZ eligible while gaining experience that would be a valid target.
A longer eligibility period isn't going to help much in these cases. If a kid from Tonga wants to play professional rugby they still have to get experience somewhere. By the time their experience is at a level for possible further honours a lot of the time has already been served so their choice is to play immediately for their birth country or wait another year and have a better option.

I get the logic entirely. Irish cricketers go through this a lot, if they want to make it big, declare for England. The one difference I suppose is that Irish cricketers can not play Test cricket.

Irish citizenship isn't even one of the easiest to get in the EU never mind the world.

@mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@Nepia of course he is. The Irish are remarkably sensitive about their state-sanctioned poaching agenda.

Probably because most of their poaches are decidedly average

A fair point, ye must be better at it than us....

Do you have any idea at all about the demographic of the NZ make up? Here's a heads up. Tonga has a population of 100,000. NZ has a Tongan population of around 75,000. No familial ties you say?

There are something like 6m people in Great Britain with Irish passport entitlements. I have one family member living over there, and if I had a kid going over to Manchester that would be shag all us to them.

To the substantive point Aki will only play for Ireland because he is being paid to do so. He did that after failing to break through for NZ. That is fair enough.

Fekitoa has long held the ambition to play for NZ despite not being eligible to do so. That is presumably on the basis that they are the best team in the world and playing for them is a key to a lot of riches and fame. Maybe those latter motives are purer. Fair enough.

@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@semper Are you on the troll? Seriously? Because only a fool would equate a schoolboy moving to a country on a scholarship to a fully formed professional rugby player moving to another country with the intention of representing that country at international level.

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.

Aki will only become qualified to play for Ireland when he completes three years residency. The reason he will be able to complete that residency is because he is on a contract from a province (not the IRFU but a structure operating within the IRFU's control).

The fact the Fekitoa was on an educational scholarship would make not a job of difference to his ability to apply for a NZ passport. It makes not a jot of difference to his ability to demonstrate residnecy to the IRB in satisfaction of rule 8. The only thing that makes him a runner for either is the fact that he is a legal permanent resident that is only enabled by him having a professional rugby contract.

@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@semper The NZRU would likely have had no knowledge of Fekitoa before he he started putting good performances in at schoolboy level - for a scholarship that he sought out himself.

When he decided to stay in NZ and play his way up through provincial to Super rugby of course they'd offer him a contract - which is different than luring him to NZ as a project player which was the case with Aki.

So if it was Aki's agent who contacted the Irish team first it would be okay?

@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@semper What bollocks, you know there is a clear difference. One moved as a schoolboy to a high school and the other moved to a professional club owned by the national body with the intention of playing for that nation. That's not even close.

So when Fekitoa got contracts from NZRFU Super Rugby teams his intention to qualify for NZ was not something that was even remotely a factor in it all? Hansen was talking about him in a NZ squad before he had qualified, so if it had occurred to him it probably wasn'the the first time someone in the Union thought about it.

@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?

Fekitoa was not offered a scholarship on strength of his academic work. It was a rugby scholarship, with the benefits of it based on his rugby skills and naught else.

So one is about a kid being moved from their home place to a country where he has no familial ties and no previous relationship with and the other is about doing the same with an adult. All based purely on their skills with an oval ball.

I don't stand over Irish project players. I would happily only play residnecy qualified players for Ireland if they hold an Irish or UK passport. I am just asking for consistency from those who criticise what Ireland does.

@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@semper he came on a rugby scholarship to Wesley College, what school did Aki get a scholarship for?

Fekitoa still had to qualify by proper residency subsequent to the scholarship. He was contracted to two Super Rugby teams during that time. If he had decided to play for the country of his birth and upbringing during that time or had said he never wanted to play for NZ, would that gave impacted his contacts? Hansen was talking about picking him for the All Blacks before he completed his residency which suggests there has been discussion about playing for NZ with him before he qualified to play.

@MajorRage said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@Pot-Hale Thanks - good response.

Yes, I am aware of what pundit arena is, but I thought that article was as good as anything else out there & it's certainly not devoid of fact. Remember this is a quote from Aki himself - ""That's a big part of my decision to move. Hopefully when the time is right and if I'm playing good footy, hopefully I can play for the Ireland international team."

There is a lot of focus on what Ireland has done with 'project players'. But I struggle to see what the substantive difference is between what is done there and what was done in the case of Fekitoa?

@Rapido that's not my understanding based on this http://www.worldrugby.org/news/155038?lang=en

I recall a case from the US where they tried to qualify a player who was on a college scholarship but we're turned down. However the Internet is not turning that up so it could have been my imagination.

@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@kiwiinmelb said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)

He was 23 when he first played for the abs so it must have been 5 years after he turned 18. He definitely would have been selected earlier if available. Seems a bit unfair.

Moving under the age of 18 without parents (eg a scholarship, boarding school arrangement) doesn't count towards residency. Therefore starts once left school, as an adult.

Someone like Sivi probably repeats a year (second language, good at rugby so incentive for school to keep him on) so maybe 19 or almost when they leave.

Other scholarship kids like Fekitoa, Tamanivalu just weren't 'even in consideration' in those 3 years after school as they weren't as good.

I seem to recall Sivivatu represented Fiji in Soccer as a junior not rugby ,

Rugby became his forte after moving to NZ , so if had stayed in Fiji , chances are , he would not have ever been much of a rugby player anyway ,

I remember that story , doing the rounds , not sure how much truth is in it , ???

NZ gained a good rugby player, but Fiji didnt lose one

The Internet suggests he took up rugby at the age of 13 properly in school. It also notes that at age 15 he was granted a scholarship to Wesley College. The Internet also suggests that his family were aggrieved that when he was 15 he did not get support from the Fijian Union ( an odd one if he was a soccer player). The final aspect which suggest this story about him being a soccer player is odd, is that in the Wesley College annals he appears to have been on the Rugby XV for at least two years but never featured on the soccer XI. An odd one for a soccer player. Pretty amazing that between getting off the plane and the end of his first school year he had been introduced to rugby, leapfrogged dozens of kids playing the game locally for years and was making the grade for the schools rep teams. Mad really. Some coaching structure at that school.

The problem with school imports are that they aren't under any control of the rugby bodies. If a 17 year old Fijian kid gets offered a scholarship to an NZ (or England) school and then later declares they want to represent that country the national unions are placed in a situation not of their making. Their job is to select the best eligible players and they can't be expected (probably both morally and legally) to turn down obvious candidates because they think it is 'a bit off'.
If they were encouraging schools to create this situation then, yes, it is a problem coming from the top but these schools act independently.

Firstly I am not commenting on the rights or wrongs of Sivivatu playing for New Zealand, rather just this notion that he only became a rugby player when he got a soccer scholarship to one of the top NZ rugby schools.

As a principle, I'm against kids under 18 being taken abroad to play sports, be it on a rugby scholarship to a school or a soccer contract to a club. Those are their formative years and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the focus should be on getting a good education that will stand by them after their sporting poweress fade.

New Zealand rugby does okay because their schools offer sporting scholarships to young Fijians and Tongans. The Union obviously hasn't a problem with this as it is still happening. Every recent generation produces through this system a regular All Black who would otherwise not qualify. It works out for the few that make it, but are the kids who don't best served?

I'm no fan of project players and am happy to see the rules on that changed. But I think there is a difference worth contemplating between relocating someone for three years when they are at least 21 and you are signing a cheque for at least 100k per annum, than having loads of schools doing it under your remit whispering dreams of playing for the best team in the world in 15 year olds ears.

Hence at least if your a citizen it all balances out. One aspect of the residency requirement to be non educational is that it discourages players going down the full time tertiary education route post secondary school. Therefore the educational value of their scholarship is already diminishing.

@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@semper I think you raise some valid points but then again there is the situations like Rockoduguni in England. I'm not sure that he currently has citizenship or has applied for it for that matter. Yet he is a member of our armed forces and could be called upon to fight or die for our country. If he can do that he can fucking well play rugby for us that's for sure.

If the UK government don't believe the likes of Rockoduguni deserve UK subject status then they really shouldn't be allowed represent one of the UK territories in rugby.

Not speaking specifically about his case, but what I presume the intention of reforming the rules is to remove 'mercenaries' from the international game. People who are willing to fight and risk their lives for a foreign country due to pay and conditions offered are mercenaries.

To be honest I don't know whether or not Rockoduguni has attained UK citizen status, whether he has even applied for it or whether or not the UK Government has refused it or does not allow it, but notwithstanding any of that, if he or anyone else is willing to serve in our armed forces then he's also welcome to represent us in something a little less dangerous. Like rugby.

There is a long tradition of Fijian service in the UK forces, as there is Nepalese, NZ, Australia etc etc. If these blokes have an affinity with serving in a standing army, on the same pay, conditions and duties as the rest of the standing army, that makes them soldiers not mercenaries. If someone decides to fight as a non-regular soldier, for a specially collated force at different pay and conditions for s short term contract, then you are entitled to call them mercenaries. And if you do I hope you get the response you want from them. Good luck with that.

I disagree but if that's your view fair enough.

@kiwiinmelb said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@taniwharugby said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@Rancid-Schnitzel think it was just longer because he came here when he was 15, and the clock for 3 year eligibility only started when he left school (or 18?)

He was 23 when he first played for the abs so it must have been 5 years after he turned 18. He definitely would have been selected earlier if available. Seems a bit unfair.

Moving under the age of 18 without parents (eg a scholarship, boarding school arrangement) doesn't count towards residency. Therefore starts once left school, as an adult.

Someone like Sivi probably repeats a year (second language, good at rugby so incentive for school to keep him on) so maybe 19 or almost when they leave.

Other scholarship kids like Fekitoa, Tamanivalu just weren't 'even in consideration' in those 3 years after school as they weren't as good.

I seem to recall Sivivatu represented Fiji in Soccer as a junior not rugby ,

Rugby became his forte after moving to NZ , so if had stayed in Fiji , chances are , he would not have ever been much of a rugby player anyway ,

I remember that story , doing the rounds , not sure how much truth is in it , ???

NZ gained a good rugby player, but Fiji didnt lose one

The Internet suggests he took up rugby at the age of 13 properly in school. It also notes that at age 15 he was granted a scholarship to Wesley College. The Internet also suggests that his family were aggrieved that when he was 15 he did not get support from the Fijian Union ( an odd one if he was a soccer player). The final aspect which suggest this story about him being a soccer player is odd, is that in the Wesley College annals he appears to have been on the Rugby XV for at least two years but never featured on the soccer XI. An odd one for a soccer player. Pretty amazing that between getting off the plane and the end of his first school year he had been introduced to rugby, leapfrogged dozens of kids playing the game locally for years and was making the grade for the schools rep teams. Mad really. Some coaching structure at that school.

@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:

@semper I think you raise some valid points but then again there is the situations like Rockoduguni in England. I'm not sure that he currently has citizenship or has applied for it for that matter. Yet he is a member of our armed forces and could be called upon to fight or die for our country. If he can do that he can fucking well play rugby for us that's for sure.

If the UK government don't believe the likes of Rockoduguni deserve UK subject status then they really shouldn't be allowed represent one of the UK territories in rugby.

Not speaking specifically about his case, but what I presume the intention of reforming the rules is to remove 'mercenaries' from the international game. People who are willing to fight and risk their lives for a foreign country due to pay and conditions offered are mercenaries.

The more I think about it, the more residency qualification should be linked to citizenship or subject status. If you are not a citizen or a subject of a particular country, why should you be playing for it? Obviously in the Irish case, you could be a citizen of the Republic and/or a subject of the Crown to qualify but in general if you can't produce a passport from the territory of the country you are playing, then you should not be playing for that country.

That's the FIFA basis - their rules are set out below.

**5 Principle
1.
Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain Country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that Country.

With the exception of the conditions specified in article 8 below, any Player who has already participated in a match (either in full or in part) in an Official Competition of any category or any type of football for one Association may not play an international match for a representative team of another Association.

6 Nationality entitling Players to represent more than one Association

1. A Player who, under the terms of art. 5, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfi ls at least one of the following conditions:

a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
d) He has lived continuously on the territory of the relevant Association for at least two years.**

It would be interesting to see, for say the last series of internationals, how many players in each match 23 were qualified by virtue of residency.

By my count in the 2016 November matches between the 6N and Rugby Championship teams, it would appear that Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, England, France, Scotland, South Africa and Italy all fielded players who qualified by virtue of residency. Wales and Argentina are the only two that appear to me not have fielded players by virtue of residency qualification (where the person qualified for residency as an adult). So it is a rule that every major rugby playing country appears to be willing to take advantage of with the exception of Argentina. Wales have taken advantage of this rule in the recent past.

You can come up with a hundred reasons why one type of residency qualified player is better than another, but I'd favour a five year qualification period over the age of 18 and require the person has citizenship or subject status of the country/ies where the Union is situated. I'd also favour a system whereby if the country of players birth calls them up during that the three year period, then they any residency qualification has been bilaterally approved by the two countries.

One loophole that I would be wary of is, is where a talented player is identified at 14 or 15 in another country, and they and their family are encouraged to move to the country where they are to be given an academy place or scholarship. Normally schooling cannot qualify for residency, but if the family moves the residency requirements are reduced for kids. In soccer this has happened and I could see how a unscrupulous union, club or school would avail of this for their own benefit.

In terms of changes to the residency rules, by my reckoning the main losers in the medium term would be Japan, Italy and the US. They have the largest differential between the residency qualified players and the rest of the playing squads. Fiji and Tonga would appear to me to be the main winners as there are players from both countries playing for much higher ranked countries purely by virtue of residency.

I would be strongly against any attempt to get rid of the so-called granny rule. Provided that country allows for that person to be a citizen or subject, it should be continued with. For countries with traditions of large scale forced emigration like Ireland or Italy, there is a sustained relationship with many of the disapora and they are entitled to citizenship. Removing those players eligibility would be essentially taking a view point of the world in which people only arrive and never leave.

Allowing players to double back on their country would only encourage the residency qualification efforts relating to players from second tier countries. I think the double back rule could be employed for Tier Two countries where they qualify by birth for a Tier One country, play for that country, but can double back for the familial country. However, if it is allowed in residency cases, it will just encourage your Fijian or Tongan player to try their luck with the Tier One nation because they have the freedom to double back - the emotional blackmail of playing for the country of your birth is reduced.

It can't be Schmidt given a poorish 6 Nations, not winning the SA series and not putting away the All Blacks twice.

Next year could be his year though. Has to be Jones this year.

@antipodean said in NH club rugby:

For me, Hartley's unlucky. His arm was originally swinging well below the line of SOB's shoulders. Looking at the commentary online, he's being judged by history here.

Which is only right and proper.

He had shown himself to be a consistent thug in his rugby career to date, so when viewing any of his actions that is the only prism to use. The idea that he was swinging his arm to do anything less than cause maximum damage is laughable; that's just the type of rugby player he is.

Hartley will get a ban sometime around Easter, thereby ruling him out.

It will be interesting to see how Gatland shoehorns a load of Welsh players into the team. I look forward to that PR job.

An interesting question for him to ponder, is will his reputation be better enhanced by (the best case scenario) losing competitively in this or by resurrecting Wales from what will be a crap 6N this year into a 2018 Grand Slam.