Eligibility back on the agenda
-
@nzzp said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@nzzp said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Stargazer sweeak, fuck the splitters, I say. Make it ten years (or 5 years before first rep rugby), birth, and parents only
I'm sooooooo in the other camp.
Why make sport the only profession where if you move to a different country you can't operate at the pinnacle of your profession?
People don't always jump ship just for the fun of it, And if you make your home somewhere, I have no idea why you shouldn't be able to represent them.
Depends whether you like the idea of nations competing with each other, or nations competing on buying people to represent them against each other. Saudi Arabia could be really good at the traditional Saudi snow sports
Shit man, if Beauden wants to commit to a 3yr stand down period to live in and eventually represent Saudo Arabian,
So, just to check the effect, you'd be happy with Luatua, Piutau, Faumauina, Sopoaga etc all playing for the
ABsEdit:England against NZ, and wouldn't consider a team dominated by foreigners to be non-representative?I get your comment in theory - just for me there is a difference between representing your country and doing your job. Go be a pro player anywhere you want - but if you want to represent a country, limit that.
Edit - fixed typo ABs/England
I hear you, but I jusy think we can find a way to accommodate people making genuine life moves rather than chasing $. Guess going to 5yrs helps that.
As for fringe AB's playing for England after a stand down, fuck em, line up and take your beatings like the rest of the filthy poms.
-
-
@stargazer said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Make it 5 years, and seriously consider not adopting the parent rule and ditch the grandparents for any sort of eligibility.
-
@stargazer also, who is proposing thus change?
Didn't it get voted down within the last year or two?
-
Maybe a change to this proposal to make it country of birth only, or parents but not grandparents could appease some of the other tier 2 countries?
The dynamic of PI 'heritage' players that have been brought up in NZ/Aus/UK then bolstering PI teams based on a grandparent link probably stretches things a bit far IMO.
Fair enough for those that aren't looking to change but maybe to much of a convenience for those wanting to extend careers.That way PI born players that have represented other countries through scholarships can 'go back' to their home country but those born and bred in a tier one country get their eligibility shot once the same as, say an Argentinian.
The parent rule is probably valid for those born overseas while their parents were working in a different country, but not if you are two generations in. -
@stargazer said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@booboo No idea who's proposal it is, but I'm not expecting it to be adopted this time either.
yeah, I cant see any of those countries that have to play those PI nations changing their mind any time soon, unless they suddenly have an influx of PI players wanting to play for their own teams lol
-
There is no way Ireland wales etc will support it. They will hide behind some lame excuse though.
-
@billy-tell said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
There is no way Ireland wales etc will support it. They will hide behind some lame excuse though.
And Scotland. Silly thing is if this went through and 5 or 6 teams end up at a higher standard it's good for everybody.
More competitive games is a better TV product, more revenue and for some of the teams playing more often at a higher standard will improve their results over time.
-
Yes, agreed.
The biggest issue for international rugby is the lack of meaningful rugby against teams outside the top 8 teams in the world. Go lower than that and the competitiveness falls away. We even get lopsided games of the top 1 or 2 vs 7,8 or 9.
The nature of rugby means it is impossible to compete with the top teams if you are in bottom tier 1 or tier 2.
World rugby wants to grow the game but cannot do so when the flagship event is international rugby and most of the world don’t play it.
Having the Pi’s stronger is a start and will provide better competition.
They have so many disadvantages in producing a competitive team and have provided the rugby world with a lot. This is one way to give a little back to them.
Unfortunately rugby is governed by self serving unions. Until that changes, nothing changes
-
Concern I'd have with this is that it could go the wrong way - a young player who'd represented a PI nation might get a contract in Europe, then opt out of playing international rugby for 3 years before turning up in a French / English jersey.
I saw a proposal years ago that players could switch from tier 1 to tier 2, but not the other way around. Wouldn't that be a better rule?
-
@gibbon-rib said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Concern I'd have with this is that it could go the wrong way - a young player who'd represented a PI nation might get a contract in Europe, then opt out of playing international rugby for 3 years before turning up in a French / English jersey.
I think that scenario is already covered. They'd need to have been born or have parents born in England France etc. Not residency.
It's basically the Olympic loophole, but without the bother of having to go through the loophole.
There is the contradiction that residency does allow you to choose your first country but not hop to your second. (if this passes)
-
@gibbon-rib said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Concern I'd have with this is that it could go the wrong way - a young player who'd represented a PI nation might get a contract in Europe, then opt out of playing international rugby for 3 years before turning up in a French / English jersey.
I saw a proposal years ago that players could switch from tier 1 to tier 2, but not the other way around. Wouldn't that be a better rule?
i have t admit i had always assumed these suggestions were based on the idea of you could go from tier 1 to 2 but not the other way around
-
From the bbc artcile on previous page.
What is being proposed?
Under the new plans, a player would be eligible for a nationality switch once they have not played international rugby for three years.
If they then have a "close and credible link" to another country - through birth or the birthplace of parents or grandparents - then they would be able to change nationality. Players would only be able to switch once in their careers.
So, the olympic loophole unleashed.
-
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
From the bbc artcile on previous page.
What is being proposed?
Under the new plans, a player would be eligible for a nationality switch once they have not played international rugby for three years.
If they then have a "close and credible link" to another country - through birth or the birthplace of parents or grandparents - then they would be able to change nationality. Players would only be able to switch once in their careers.
So, the olympic loophole unleashed.
OK. This would make it less likely that PI players would switch to European nations. Could still result in PI players changing to Aus / NZ though?
-
I think it would be a reasonable, but inelegant, solution.
It doesn't really address the real problem, but it compensates for the fact the real problem isn't solvable.
I don't think Charles Piutatu or Israel Folau etc have any particular moral right to play for Tonga nor think that Tonga have any particular moral right to have those players.
However.
Seeing as the real problem is that players such as Fekitoa, Fakatava, Taniela Tupou, Nathan Hughes etc are channelled away from PI nations and into tier 1 by the financial and eligibility rules at club and franchise level. And the only compensation the other way nowadays is of the more journeyman quality such as a Leon Fukafuka or a Valentino Mapapalangi. We aren't talking Pat Lam and Stephen Bachop quality for 20 years now.
This seems a reasonable compromise at the only level that WR actually have any control over.
-
@gibbon-rib said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
From the bbc artcile on previous page.
What is being proposed?
Under the new plans, a player would be eligible for a nationality switch once they have not played international rugby for three years.
If they then have a "close and credible link" to another country - through birth or the birthplace of parents or grandparents - then they would be able to change nationality. Players would only be able to switch once in their careers.
So, the olympic loophole unleashed.
OK. This would make it less likely that PI players would switch to European nations. Could still result in PI players changing to Aus / NZ though?
Yes, almost impossible in current generation to European nations. Maybe talking about examples like any Vunipola children in a generation's time etc.
Yes, could still result in PI players changing to Aus / NZ in theory. But reality is they already do get hoovered up and the overseas player limits in SR makes dual-qualified players very cautious. I can't foresee any practical unintended consequence at the NZ/Aus level.
-
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I think it would be a reasonable, but inelegant, solution.
It doesn't really address the real problem, but it compensates for the fact the real problem isn't solvable.
I don't think Charles Piutatu or Israel Folau etc have any particular moral right to play for Tonga nor think that Tonga have any particular moral right to have those players.
However.
Seeing as the real problem is that players such as Fekitoa, Fakatava, Taniela Tupou, Nathan Hughes etc are channelled away from PI nations and into tier 1 by the financial and eligibility rules at club and franchise level. And the only compensation the other way nowadays is of the more journeyman quality such as a Leon Fukafuka or a Valentino Mapapalangi. We aren't talking Pat Lam and Stephen Bachop quality for 20 years now.
This seems a reasonable compromise at the only level that WR actually have any control over.
How is the italics/bolded above the real problem? Those losses are more than offset by NZ and Oz born, bred, developed players turning out for the PIs - the difference in quality isn't as big as you make out. The compensation for Samoa in the 2019 RWC was most of the squad - they had one tight forward born in the islands, the rest were from NZ and Oz.
Furthermore, we've even helped Tonga by taking that dud Frizell off their hands.
@rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Maybe talking about examples like any Vunipola children in a generation's time etc.
The Vunipola's are interesting in that under the current regulations their grandchildren will theoretically be eligible for England, NZ (Mako), and Australia (Billy) but not for Tonga. I've always found that a weird situation. Kind of like how the Williams boys both played for Samoa but their kids can't.
-
@nepia
Depends what you think the problem is I guess.If you think the problem is Tongan's should be playing for Tonga and NZers playing for NZ etc, so that international sport reflects where players are from. Then the fact that people like Brad Shields, Nathan Hughes, Folau Fakatava , Melani Nanai etc are more valuable to their employers and therefore themselves if they don't get capped by their country of origin. Then it doesn't address it. It doesn't address the incentives that pervert team makeups.
If you think they problem is 3 PI nations don't provide as strong a match up as theoretically possible if based on ethnic origin of global player pool, then this will go some way to address it, especially for Samoa.
I don't think Samoa being weak at rugby is a problem, because they are weak, that is a reflection of reality. They produce almost no players. They are rotten.
If they could retain their "produced" players then I think
- Fiji could be a little stronger (and weaken their opponents).
- Tonga could be way stronger.
- Samoa shouldn't even be in the conversation.
If they can attract former tier 1 player's as per this proposed rule change , regardless of birth / "production":
- they'd all 3 be stronger.
Stuff
