• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

All Blacks XV 2022

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
allblacksxv
840 Posts 67 Posters 56.7k Views
All Blacks XV 2022
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • ChrisC Offline
    ChrisC Offline
    Chris
    replied to Winger on last edited by Chris
    #575
    This post is deleted!
    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • ChrisC Offline
    ChrisC Offline
    Chris
    wrote on last edited by Chris
    #576

    @Nepia
    On your question about how long Jager has been in NZ.
    9 years,He came to Canterbury in 2013 attended the Crusaders Academy and never left.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • TheMojomanT Offline
    TheMojomanT Offline
    TheMojoman
    replied to Machpants on last edited by
    #577

    @Machpants said in All Blacks XV:

    @antipodean said in All Blacks XV:

    @Machpants said in All Blacks XV:

    @Dan54 said in All Blacks XV:

    @Machpants said in All Blacks XV:

    @SBW1 said in All Blacks XV:

    @Tim Levi Aumua named, that means he is locked in to represent the Abs at some stage, thought he wouldn't be considered due to playing for MP. Glad he has been chosen, he is a big power centre.

    He can't be called up into ABs, but this is a non capture team so no problem.

    MP isn't a capture team either, so playing for either team is no problem.

    Correct, but also wrong. NZR has signed an agreement with the PI Unions, as part of the set up of MP, to not pick NZ eligible players from MP for the ABs (I guess Mcclutchie would be an exception as he's not Island qualified). Otherwise it would be a sixth NZ franchise. For ABs purposes, MP is an overseas team. But it apparently that doesn't apply to non capture teams like the XV

    It seems to be a common misconception, e.g.

    So the rules have changed? It used to be you had to declare a team your second team EDIT That appears to be U20 only.

    MP says nah that's not right, NZR still need to declare it. So we'll see

    NZR confirmed later in the tweet thread ie, this is not a capture team.

    Dan54D 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • Dan54D Offline
    Dan54D Offline
    Dan54
    replied to TheMojoman on last edited by
    #578

    @TheMojoman said in All Blacks XV:

    @Machpants said in All Blacks XV:

    @antipodean said in All Blacks XV:

    @Machpants said in All Blacks XV:

    @Dan54 said in All Blacks XV:

    @Machpants said in All Blacks XV:

    @SBW1 said in All Blacks XV:

    @Tim Levi Aumua named, that means he is locked in to represent the Abs at some stage, thought he wouldn't be considered due to playing for MP. Glad he has been chosen, he is a big power centre.

    He can't be called up into ABs, but this is a non capture team so no problem.

    MP isn't a capture team either, so playing for either team is no problem.

    Correct, but also wrong. NZR has signed an agreement with the PI Unions, as part of the set up of MP, to not pick NZ eligible players from MP for the ABs (I guess Mcclutchie would be an exception as he's not Island qualified). Otherwise it would be a sixth NZ franchise. For ABs purposes, MP is an overseas team. But it apparently that doesn't apply to non capture teams like the XV

    It seems to be a common misconception, e.g.

    So the rules have changed? It used to be you had to declare a team your second team EDIT That appears to be U20 only.

    MP says nah that's not right, NZR still need to declare it. So we'll see

    NZR confirmed later in the tweet thread ie, this is not a capture team.

    Yep and U20 is not a capture team, never has been in NZ. I think the only capture team NZR have outside ABs is the AB's 'A' team, which I think is why this is called an AB VX and not AB 'A' as usual.

    taniwharugbyT 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • Billy TellB Offline
    Billy TellB Offline
    Billy Tell
    wrote on last edited by
    #579

    With my Swiss rugby team on our annual road-trip, we went to see Bath play Worcestershire Warriors in Bath on the 17th November 2018. As always, I scanned both sides for Kiwi expats. Bath had Jackson Willison at 13 and Worcester had Bryce Heem at 14. Heem was solid but unspectacular, which sort of sums up his career. Never in my wildest dreams, did I think he would be turning out for an AB XV in 2022! I'm happy for the guy, but it's hard to understand the selection in terms of the future!

    1 Reply Last reply
    4
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to Dan54 on last edited by
    #580

    @Dan54 I dont think it matters what they call it, they just need to designate it as our 2nd team for that purpose...I think many years back Fiji had looked at doing that for thier U21 side, but dont think they did.

    They could designate the NZ U18 team as our 2nd team if they wanted to.

    RapidoR Dan54D 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • RapidoR Offline
    RapidoR Offline
    Rapido
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #581

    @taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:

    @Dan54 I dont think it matters what they call it, they just need to designate it as our 2nd team for that purpose...I think many years back Fiji had looked at doing that for thier U21 side, but dont think they did.

    They could designate the NZ U18 team as our 2nd team if they wanted to.

    They cant anymore. Have youth teams as 2nd XVs. That has changed, after the 1st Spain eligibility debacle.

    It's as clear as mud.

    But, maybe, one day, a team which Levi Aumua is playing for(if in next 3 years, and it is not NZ) may be the subject of an appeal by the opposition. Better take a 36th man in their squad, a lawyer. Maybe they'll win, maybe they'll lose, maybe it will never happen.

    But. End of day. Maybe NZRU should be better at not creating unnecessary problems.

    This sounds like a job for an NZ Barbarians team to me.

    CrucialC taniwharugbyT 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to Rapido on last edited by
    #582

    @Rapido said in All Blacks XV:

    @taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:

    @Dan54 I dont think it matters what they call it, they just need to designate it as our 2nd team for that purpose...I think many years back Fiji had looked at doing that for thier U21 side, but dont think they did.

    They could designate the NZ U18 team as our 2nd team if they wanted to.

    They cant anymore. Have youth teams as 2nd XVs. That has changed, after the 1st Spain eligibility debacle.

    It's as clear as mud.

    But, maybe, one day, a team which Levi Aumua is playing for(if in next 3 years, and it is not NZ) may be the subject of an appeal by the opposition. Better take a 36th man in their squad, a lawyer. Maybe they'll win, maybe they'll lose, maybe it will never happen.

    But. End of day. Maybe NZRU should be better at not creating unnecessary problems.

    This sounds like a job for an NZ Barbarians team to me.

    Regs are quite clear from WR. There is a list published each year of the designated 'second senior side' for each country. Anything outside of that can't be argued as qualifying.

    RapidoR 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • RapidoR Offline
    RapidoR Offline
    Rapido
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #583

    @Crucial said in All Blacks XV:

    @Rapido said in All Blacks XV:

    @taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:

    @Dan54 I dont think it matters what they call it, they just need to designate it as our 2nd team for that purpose...I think many years back Fiji had looked at doing that for thier U21 side, but dont think they did.

    They could designate the NZ U18 team as our 2nd team if they wanted to.

    They cant anymore. Have youth teams as 2nd XVs. That has changed, after the 1st Spain eligibility debacle.

    It's as clear as mud.

    But, maybe, one day, a team which Levi Aumua is playing for(if in next 3 years, and it is not NZ) may be the subject of an appeal by the opposition. Better take a 36th man in their squad, a lawyer. Maybe they'll win, maybe they'll lose, maybe it will never happen.

    But. End of day. Maybe NZRU should be better at not creating unnecessary problems.

    This sounds like a job for an NZ Barbarians team to me.

    Regs are quite clear from WR. There is a list published each year of the designated 'second senior side' for each country. Anything outside of that can't be argued as qualifying.

    Have you ever seen this list?
    Must be on their intranet, or sent by fax.

    The rules have been 'quite clear' for ages, yet Spain twice, Romania, Belgium, Tahiti have managed to get themselves disqualified in the last 2 RWC qualifying campaigns over ineligible players.

    The rules are no clearer now, just different.

    NZRU have just added another level of complexity. Nothing we'll need to worry about though, but I'd be wary for the less resourced unions who may pick one of these ambiguous All Blacks XV players in the next 3 years in a RWC qualifying match and leave themselves open to potential disqualification if a lawyer interprets it differently.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • RapidoR Offline
    RapidoR Offline
    Rapido
    wrote on last edited by
    #584

    Also. I remember previous time NZRU thought they were smarter than IRBs lawyers. Didnt end well (for us).

    I wouldn't take an NZRU reply tweet to some twitter trolling as a definitive legal answer. As tbh, the competence of the current NZRU seems even lower than the Rutherford and Whathisname? Days.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • RapidoR Offline
    RapidoR Offline
    Rapido
    wrote on last edited by
    #585

    If Hong Kong or South Korea prefer to play Niue, rather than Cook Islands, in 2027 RWC qualifying, and they're prepared to do down a dirty lawyer route to progress.... well. They'd do well to keep an eye on these ambiguous All Blacks XV players and see if Samoa or Tonga give them an opportunity for a potential free pass.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to Rapido on last edited by
    #586

    @Rapido

    Have you tried searching the WR site? Here are the regs. Quite clear.

    How do I know which team is a Union’s next senior fifteen-a-side
    National Representative Team?

    (a) There should be no uncertainty over which team constitutes a
    Union’s next senior National Representative Team. Unions are
    required to notify World Rugby of the name of their nominated next
    senior National Representative Team. The team nominated remains
    the Union’s next senior National Representative Team unless the
    Union notifies World Rugby of a change in this nomination. A Union
    is entitled to notify World Rugby no more than once per calendar
    year of a change to its next senior National Representative Team
    provided that in doing so it shall take account of any Matches such
    team may be scheduled to play and shall advise the Union of any
    senior or next senior National Representative Team it is scheduled
    to play reasonably in advance of such Match. The identity of a
    Union’s next senior National Representative Team can be verified
    with the Union concerned and/or World Rugby.

    (b) Unions must ensure that all persons involved in an International
    Match (Players and team management including coaching staff) are
    made aware of the status of their team as the next senior National
    Representative Team and that of their opposing team where it is the
    senior or next senior National Representative Team of another
    Union and what that means from a capturing perspective under
    Regulation 8. Notwithstanding the Union’s obligation to inform the
    Player and team management it shall be the sole responsibility of
    each Player to ensure that he is aware of the status of every Match
    in which he plays and the implications of playing in an International
    Last update: 1 July, 2016 160
    REGULATION 8 EXPLANATORY GUIDELINES
    Match involving the senior or next senior National Representative
    Teams of two Unions.

    (c) In addition to (a) and (b) above, Unions who designate their Under
    20s National Representative Team as their next senior National
    Representative Team have a particular onus to clearly make the
    Team Players aware of the consequences of being captured for that
    Union at age grade level. Effective 1 July 2014, the Players on any
    such Team which participates in the World Rugby Junior World
    Championships, World Rugby Junior World Trophy or the Six
    Nations U20 Championship (where they are present at the Match
    played by that Team either as a replacement, substitute or playing
    member of that Team and has, at the time of the Match, reached the
    age of majority) will be captured. In this regard the status of the
    opposition teams in any Match in these named tournaments is not a
    factor to be considered.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • RapidoR Offline
    RapidoR Offline
    Rapido
    wrote on last edited by Rapido
    #587

    Yes, I think NZRU is right.

    Partly driven to vent by annoyance at the stupid status of the team.

    (And the stupid status of a long non-existent team, that had stolen the identity/name of the historic U23 team, as still being the second XV)

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to Rapido on last edited by
    #588

    @Rapido list is published and easily found here

    worldrugby.org

    Eligibility Regulation | World Rugby

    Eligibility Regulation | World Rugby

    Player eligibility qualifying criteria for all member unions.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to Rapido on last edited by
    #589

    @Rapido it is only clear as mud if you have looked at it, I havent for many years (and even then only with a passing interest) was only going by my recollection that Fiji were going to or tried to do it many years ago.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • Dan54D Offline
    Dan54D Offline
    Dan54
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #590

    @taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:

    @Dan54 I dont think it matters what they call it, they just need to designate it as our 2nd team for that purpose...I think many years back Fiji had looked at doing that for thier U21 side, but dont think they did.

    They could designate the NZ U18 team as our 2nd team if they wanted to.

    Yep mate, understand that, but suspect they may not of called this our second team to avoid capturing players, to remove the need for players (say Levi Aumua) to decide they will or won't risk things until they can see how it goes. I would of been happier to see PGS tried this way. I think with the number we see getting tests etc now do we need to 'capture' more players?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • Billy TellB Offline
    Billy TellB Offline
    Billy Tell
    wrote on last edited by
    #591

    Is our second team not Ireland?

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    7
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to Billy Tell on last edited by
    #592

    @Billy-Tell said in All Blacks XV:

    Is our second team not Ireland?

    Would be bloody funny if NZR nominated that.

    1 Reply Last reply
    7
  • Crazy HorseC Offline
    Crazy HorseC Offline
    Crazy Horse
    wrote on last edited by Crazy Horse
    #593

    So, if those saying that because Levi is playing for MP he is therefore not available for NZ are right, then the decision to select Levi in this team is next level stupid. Or am I missing something?

    ACT CrusaderA CrucialC 2 Replies Last reply
    2
  • ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT Crusader
    replied to Crazy Horse on last edited by ACT Crusader
    #594

    @Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks XV:

    So, if those saying that because Levi is playing for MP he is therefore not available for NZ are right, then the decision to select Levi in this team is next level stupid. Or am I missing something?

    The way I see it

    He’s not ineligible to play for the ABs (or OZ or the others he is qualified to play for due to heritage) because he plays for MP. MP is in no way a capture side. It’s just a franchise. Was there some type of preference arrangement when MP started regarding PI nations?

    Additionally, he will not be ineligible to play for the other non-NZ nations he is eligible for because he has been selected for AB XV because AB XV is not a capture side as far has been communicated to date.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1

All Blacks XV 2022
Sports Talk
allblacksxv
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.