• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Eligibility for more than one test playing country

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Rugby has a real issue on its hands with eligibility. Cricket, which has broadly similar eligibility rules, is in the situation where England has a test team where a third were born and raised outside of England. Although the same hasnt occurred in rugby yet, the loose eligibility rules should be reconsidered.

As I understand it, currently a player may play for the country in which he was born, the countries in respect of which his parents or grandparents hold passports and any country in which he has lived for 3 or more years. Once a player plays 7s, national A or internationally for a country he may not play for any other country (except Steve Devine). The absurdity of this system is best displayed by the likes of Henry Paul and Lesley Vainikolo who, despite having played league for another country, qualified for England simply because they played league there for 3 years before switching to rugby. The same situation applies to various South Africans, Kiwis and Australians plying their trade in France. Another example is Japan. How many Kiwis have qualified for Japan despite playing through the age groups for New Zealand and not knowing what wasabi is until their first overseas contract in Japan?

Generally it is the pacific countries who are most effected by these rules but they don't discriminate.

With the introduction of the 5th Australian S14 team, the prospect of Argentinians playing for it and also being based in South Africa and the reality of global professionalism, now is the time to change the eligibility rules.

I understand that in football, the restrictions are much tighter. After the age of 21, a player cannot qualify for any other nation. I also understand that the grand parent qualification principle doesnt apply (though I might be wrong on that point). This leads to the situation where, up until he turns 21, a player can play for the country of his birth or any other country in which he has lived for 3 years prior to being selected or for the country in which either of his parents are passport holders. I believe the same rules should apply to rugby but that the age should be dropped to 18 rather than 21.

I know there are those who will argue that, for example, in the case of Japan there should be a discretion or exemption to allow players to qualify by residency. For emerging nations, I can see that argument has some merit. However, a player shouldn't qualify for a country ranked in the top 12 unless he is committed to it and, to me, that means, in the absence of meeting the relevant criteria at age 21, gaining citizenship.

I'm not sure what others think but this is something which rugby (and cricket) should look at as a matter of priority.

(Mods - I used a whistle as, although its not a refereeing point, it is regulatory.)
 
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
I agree to a very big degree. particularly wrt the islanders playing for NZ. I am not trying to diminish the NZ dominance however the strengths of teams such as Samoa, Fiji and Tonga have been drastically reduced because many player move to NZ to play and are scooped up bythe NZRU and become All Blacks.
This would also impact on Aussie as we had the services of Tuquiri, 'the human skewer' Illi Tabua, Manu and there are probably a few more.
For me, I would like to see the eligibility change somewhat so that once a player plays senior rugby he is locked in.

At the end of the day, developing nations (any nation other that the 6N and the TriN) should have preference and if for example Fiji chose to call in those AB's who at least started their senior rugby in Fiji then I think that would be good.
It is interesting how some play for NZ or Aus and then end theor days back coaching their birth country - to give something back. To me, nothing is more sacrosanct than playing for your native country and too many players unable to achieve that bugger off for the cheaper jersey overseas or betray their native country for the glory of higher rewards.
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Rugbywhisperer you will ahve the Kiwis screaming from the terraces again.

The way I understand it, the vast majority of PI players who ended up in the ABs are not people who were "poached". They are NZ natives who happen to have parents who were born elsewhere. At least that's what my Kiwi mates tell me. Apparently most guys loke Mealamu, Rodney, Toeava and others are NZ born. Only a handful got given opportunity as adults. I donlt know if this is tru and it will be interesting to see some stats.

Playing fore Aus and NZ is pretty easy as long as you haven't played for anyone else.

A good example of the policy at work in Shaun Sowerby from SA in France. Played 10 mins off the bench for the Boks against Samoa (ten years ago). Can never play for France even though they have tried to get the IRB to make an exception. That does seem silly.
 
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
I didn't say they were poaceh. In fact many of not most went there of their own accord seeking greater rugby but it doesn't help their native country.
The current rule is a nightmare, as it is currently posited it is wrong in some instances and needs some careful judicial interpretation.
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Blue said:
A good example of the policy at work in Shaun Sowerby from SA in France. Played 10 mins off the bench for the Boks against Samoa (ten years ago). Can never play for France even though they have tried to get the IRB to make an exception. That does seem silly.

Why is it silly? Is it as silly as representing SA and then representing France?
 

Biffo

Ken Catchpole (46)
The simplest regulation would be that (1) you can play for only the country of which you are a citizen (2) once you have played for one country's national, "a" or 7s team, you may never play for another.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
i feel sorry for the pacific islands because they will always cop the raw end of the deal if it were a 50/50 decision between there native country and australia or new zealand.

However, Australia and New Zealand are on the receiving end of quite high migration levels from these countries, a lot of these islander players turning out for Australia and New Zealand move to the respective country long before professional rugby really crossed there minds.

Also, i used to be a advocate of a tier policy, the big 8 countries in the world are classified as tier 1, the rest are classified as tier 2. Im going to use Radlike Samo as a example here, he turned out for Australia in a few tests, then moved to Europe, i would have like to seen him been able to turn out for Fiji(tier 2).

But you run the risk of having countries like Japan just sign up players for millions with the plan of having them play for the national side in a few years.
 
M

Mojoman

Guest
This is a one sided argument and never looks @ the other side of the equation. How many Pacific Island players are developed in NZ, through our Junior systems, Club rugby, AirNZ Cup and then choose to go and play overseas or for their country of heritage.

I went through the Manu Samoa team with a friend the other day and between 70-80% of the side had played in the NZ rugby system @ some point and alot had played in our Junior teams (Schoolboys, U19's, U21's)

As a Pacific Islander myself who migrated to NZ when I was 4, the problem is not with NZ/Aus but IMO the IRB should pass a ruling that developing nations eligible players can represent their country of origin even after they've played for a major rugby playing nation.
 
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
So if you have played for a tier 1 team you can then go to a tier 2 team - IF THAT WAS THE COUNTRY OF YOUR BIRTH. If it isn't the country of birth then tough titties and that might prevent any tier 2 country stacking their ranks.
No movement between tier 1 teams at all.
 
M

Mojoman

Guest
Yep and not the other way around ie, Isa Nacewa/Rupeni Caucaunibuca. You may even restrict it further by saying there is a 20 (or whatever threshold) test threshold. If you've played more than that you're not eligible. But it gives the young players (countless who have played 7's/Jnr AB's/AB's) the ability to play for their country of birth.

I can't see how it could hurt the Tier 1 nations. Most players who would fit into this category would be the 1-10 test players who made the Tier 1 nation very young and faded. Or older players in the twilight of their careers who want to give something back to the game by playing for their country of birth.

One sticky point would be whether the eligibility requirements would be (a) Country of birth or (b) Country of heritage or both.
 

disco

Chilla Wilson (44)
Also, i used to be a advocate of a tier policy, the big 8 countries in the world are classified as tier 1, the rest are classified as tier 2. Im going to use Radlike Samo as a example here, he turned out for Australia in a few tests, then moved to Europe, i would have like to seen him been able to turn out for Fiji(tier 2).

Agreed.
I think Lote Tuqiri should be allowed to play for Fiji in the 2011 RWC as should Radke Samo & any other player who's heritage is from a tier 2 team.

It would be much better for the international game.
 

Biffo

Ken Catchpole (46)
I am opposed to recycling players. It would be much better for the lower nations to field teams made up of "are" and "up and coming" players than of "has-beens".
 

Thomond78

Colin Windon (37)
Biffo said:
I am opposed to recycling players. It would be much better for the lower nations to field teams made up of "are" and "up and coming" players than of "has-beens".

So, to take a concrete example; Lifiemi Mafi is tied to NZ by virtue of a sevens appearance when he was barely 21.

Would Samoa take Mafi as a centre, do you reckon? Because I bloody would.
 

Biffo

Ken Catchpole (46)
Thomond78 said:
Biffo said:
I am opposed to recycling players. It would be much better for the lower nations to field teams made up of "are" and "up and coming" players than of "has-beens".

So, to take a concrete example; Lifiemi Mafi is tied to NZ by virtue of a sevens appearance when he was barely 21.

Would Samoa take Mafi as a centre, do you reckon? Because I bloody would.

Yes, Manu Samoa would.

Please look at my two posts on this thread. My "citizenship proposal" is very simple: what would happen in practice is that every player, on being invited to play for a national, "A" or 7s team, would have to accept or reject the citizenship of the offerer. In time, the cases of players being given two minutes (or two games) in one of those squads, then to warehoused by a union and denied entry to another, would be minimized. After a little while, with players made fully accountable for their choices, many more very good young players would become available to the "lesser" nations.

BTW, I applaud the European purchases of Pacific Islands players. That develops them well and keeps them out of the clutches of UnZid and Australia and available for their national teams.
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Mojoman said:
As a Pacific Islander myself who migrated to NZ when I was 4, the problem is not with NZ/Aus but IMO the IRB should pass a ruling that developing nations eligible players can represent their country of origin even after they've played for a major rugby playing nation.

See boys? Its easy! A very simple concept and one that can work - with one caveat: once you go back to your "native" country, you can't come back.

Its hard to take any kind of moral stand in this when Australian private schools take scouting trips to the Islands, offer scholarships, and reap the benefits. Let's not pretend that NZ is the only country stripping the Islands of talent.
 

Thomond78

Colin Windon (37)
Biffo said:
Thomond78 said:
Biffo said:
I am opposed to recycling players. It would be much better for the lower nations to field teams made up of "are" and "up and coming" players than of "has-beens".

So, to take a concrete example; Lifiemi Mafi is tied to NZ by virtue of a sevens appearance when he was barely 21.

Would Samoa take Mafi as a centre, do you reckon? Because I bloody would.

Yes, Manu Samoa would.

Please look at my two posts on this thread. My "citizenship proposal" is very simple: what would happen in practice is that every player, on being invited to play for a national, "A" or 7s team, would have to accept or reject the citizenship of the offerer. In time, the cases of players being given two minutes (or two games) in one of those squads, then to warehoused by a union and denied entry to another, would be minimized. After a little while, with players made fully accountable for their choices, many more very good young players would become available to the "lesser" nations.

BTW, I applaud the European purchases of Pacific Islands players. That develops them well and keeps them out of the clutches of UnZid and Australia and available for their national teams.

The problem with that idea - while it's one I'd be in favour of myself, let it be noted - is that it makes players hostages to bureaucratic fortune. Ask Beast Mtwawira at the moment...
 

Biffo

Ken Catchpole (46)
In the sense that they are hostage to government bureaucracy, yes ... but they already are so.

My proposal would remove the IRB's ability to make arbitrary decisions (Steve Devine, ahem) and that would be a big positive.

My proposal would have sorted The Beast's position before he appeared for SA the first time.

Let's hope the Beast's case is sorted and quickly. He is an outstanding player and the type of character we need for spreading the rugby gospel.
 

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
Biffo said:
In the sense that they are hostage to government bureaucracy, yes ... but they already are so. My proposal would remove the iRB's ability to make arbitrary decisions (Steve Devine, ahem)...
...which pales in comparison to the abominably disgraceful decision in favour of Wales over Jason Jones-Hughes. We were right royally shafted by the Brits' Old Farts Brigade on that one.
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Well, let us not forget that both players whined and bitched that they weren't getting a go in Oz so headed elsewhere. And neither was really that good compared to what we had at the time. Devine at least was never going to displace Gregan or Whitaker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top