The Silver Fern

@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:

@semper nothing to stop their home unions picking them? You sure about that? Very different to what I remember, but I didn’t take huge interest so I could well be wrong.

You are wrong.

If the All Blacks wanted to call up a player with the Irish provinces, there was nothing to stop them. The provinces wouldn't have tried to stop them and the players would hardly have said no. The issue is your own internal system of rules and essentially telling anyone who leaves the NZ system that they are thereafter dead to you.

Look at the case of Jean Kleyn was picked for the South African World Cup squad or Ben Healy for the Scottish one. Both playing with Irish provinces on standard Irish provincial contracts and choosing to play for other countries.

Get used to the tiresome. We dealt with the same crap, a lot from from Irish (and still do, see itv commentary or Samoa / Tonga games), yet I don’t remember us offering contracts to established players at professional level with zero allegiance to NZ.

As I understand it, there were three players in the RWC NZ squad qualifiying by way of residency as adults.

Shannon Frizzel who moved to NZ to play rugby after playing for Tongan at the U20 Rugby World Cup and Taukei'aho & Narawa who both came to New Zeland on rugby scholarships aged 17.

Not sure what allegiance they had to New Zealand before they arrived to play rugby was, but maybe it's more ethical to attract lots of teenagers over on rugby scholarships with the big dream rather than doing the same with adults.

Anyway, I'd get rid of the residency qualification in the morning if I had my way. Its open to abuse, obviously not in the case of NZ where what is done is ethical and fair, but by other nefarious countries like Ireland.

Ireland gave / gives us colossal shit. And are now the worst of the lot. Great team, amazing …. But “Ireland” for me.

Ireland gave you collasal shit. Yes, I imagine we did. And that hurt a lot, but hey, ye won stuff so I doubt ye cared.

I find this debate tiresome because nobody ever recognises their own sides failings. I don't like it, but what can I do? And I'll still cheer on Ireland. What annoys me is giving out about Ireland and pretending that residency rules aren't exploited by others. The only people with pure hands in this are the Argentinians, and only they can actually give other shit about residency rules abuse.

@junior said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:

@chimoaus said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:

It is very odd choice not to have a kicker behind a forward orientated game plan. It’s obvious to all these right games are won with the boot.

Which makes it a relatively easy fix - I would be feeling very motivated right now if I was in the Boks squad.

Really?

You squeeze the Irish lineout to the point of malfunction, you get plenty of territory, you avoid any back injuries so your 7-1 split works, you get your bomb squad on, and you slow down Irish ball massively.

You still lose.

And in doing so, butcher the confidence of your chosen out half.

South Africa are coached like a kids team, they have a coach who doesn't even trust them to choose whether to kick for the corner or posts and is Eddie Jones like in his need for attention with 'innovations'. The lack of a kicking option and the lack of a back up hooker was a choice not something imposed randomly or the result of injury.

They might turn it after this or they might implode. Sometimes when your too smart, you don't know where to put your feet.

Tiresome.

There are three Irish squad players qualified on residency. Prior to qualifying on residency, but playing in Ireland, there was nothing to stop their home unions picking them. There have been plenty of players with Irish provinces picked to play for their home unions and capped for the first time after signing in Ireland. If NZ wanted Aki, JGP or Lowe to play for them, all they needed to do was call them up. To the best of my knowledge that never happened because of your own internal rules about playing players outside of New Zealand. South Africa in contrast had two second rows in the second half playing for Munster.

In the New Zealand squad, two players fall into the same category.

@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.