International Eligibility
- Thread starter #1 Tah
- Start date
- Status
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I'm confused on this loophole, I thought it was only to do with the Olympics. Why is Nanai-Williams allowed to represent Samoa in 7s when he has already represented NZ in 7s? And if he's already playing for Samoa's 7s he should be allowed to play for Samoa 15s immediately.
WR (World Rugby) doesn't allow a player to switch teams in 7s.. The loophole was supposed to be Olympic eligibility isn't up to WR (World Rugby) but the IOC and once a player switched 7s teams in the Olympics he would become eligible for that 15s side.
Ok so I dug a little deeper and since this season's World Series is a qualifying tournament for the Olympic the eligibility rules fall under IOC jurisdiction. Makes sense now.
WR (World Rugby) doesn't allow a player to switch teams in 7s.. The loophole was supposed to be Olympic eligibility isn't up to WR (World Rugby) but the IOC and once a player switched 7s teams in the Olympics he would become eligible for that 15s side.
Ok so I dug a little deeper and since this season's World Series is a qualifying tournament for the Olympic the eligibility rules fall under IOC jurisdiction. Makes sense now.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/63422171/chief-tim-nanaiwilliams-to-play-for-samoa
Also on ESPNScrum & PlanetRugby iirc.
He's now played in 2 legs of the HSBC series, needs another 2 to qualify, Wellington Feb 6 & 7 then Las Vegas the following weekend so as to keep his undertaking not to miss any Chiefs games.
Jagman
Trevor Allan (34)
To play for Samoa 7s he first must have not represented NZ in any form for a period of 1.5 years. After he goes to 4 Olympic qualifier tournaments for Samoa he can apply to have his "rugby" nationality permanently changed so that he can go to the Olympics. It counts for 15s too.
The reason why it's so hard is because 4 tournaments is much harder for contracted 15s player to negotiate with their club. I believe Blair Connor was still looking into it anyway.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The reason why it's so hard is because 4 tournaments is much harder for contracted 15s player to negotiate with their club. I believe Blair Connor was still looking into it anyway.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
But it effectively allows players to switch their allegiance for 15's too. It's unfair that Nanai-Williams can change his eligibility so he can appear at the world cup while a prop or a lock can't. Especially given it comes down to a panel's decision. If I was a tight forward in this situation I'd be looking to find out if there were legal options. Just seems unfair to me.
T
TOCC
Guest
its not designed to be fair..
Its a loophole generated by different qualifying rules between the IOC and IRB.. Im sure if the IRB had their way it wouldn't exist at all. But having props play in the 7's would just make a mockery of the circuit, the IRB don't want to see their product devalued by such things thus they raised the panel.
Its a loophole generated by different qualifying rules between the IOC and IRB.. Im sure if the IRB had their way it wouldn't exist at all. But having props play in the 7's would just make a mockery of the circuit, the IRB don't want to see their product devalued by such things thus they raised the panel.
Wilson
David Codey (61)
I doubt there'd be an effective legal recourse - if a prop can sue that he can't use the loophole then the sevens specialist dropped to accommodate him can comeback with claims equating to unfair dismissal.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
What I'm suggesting is that it's perhaps unfair to be able to switch eligibility only through 7's rugby.
WR (World Rugby) shouldn't have two sets of eligibility rules. It should have one set of rules across all its competitions.
They would have one set of rules which are the old rules, but for rugby 7s to join the Olympics they had to adhere to those rules.
They don't want to take the IOC rules in general for rugby which would allow players to switch nationalities based on a country's decision to naturalise someone.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
That's not the case. Anyone that meets the stand down period requirements and has a passport for another country can switch their eligibility for both 7's and 15's provided they play 4 world series legs or other Olympic qualifier events. It would be completely ridiculous for a player to play 7's for one country but not be eligible to play for them in 15's.
Also, there could potentially be players who are eligible to play for a country in 15's, but not eligible to represent the same country at the Olympics. Therefore it would be unfair if they couldn't switch their allegiance given IOC rules. For the Olympics you must have citizenship / a passport and not all players have that or are able to get one for the country they may have previously been tied to in rugby.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
I understand, but I think it's ridiculous they now essentially have 2 sets of rules and that maybe it could be challenged. If I was a Samoan tight forward that had played a couple of matches for the All Blacks or Junior All Blacks a few years ago I'd be at least getting some legal opinion. Because if WR (World Rugby) was forced to have one set of rules across the board then it would obviously be the IOC rules.
In a way the IOC rules would make it more difficult for rich unions to naturalise players. At the moment there's a 3 year residency rule, but generally it takes longer than that to gain a passport.
Personally I don't see a problem with players switching so long as there's a reasonable gap. Like 3 or 4 years. There are many people with legitimate ties to more than one nation and if they're no longer being picked by their first choice, and haven't for a number of years, then I have no issue. And the teams that would benefit from this most are the poorer countries, not the rich ones!
I think the opposite would be true.
Cricket Australia managed to get Fawad Ahmed Australian citizenship faster than any eligibility rules would have allowed him to either qualify to play under World Rugby rules or to get Australian citizenship under normal rules.
If you make the rules open to manipulation by each country rather than the same across the board, it's far more open to abuse.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Then make it across the board. But it should be the same for both 7's and 15's IMO. Stand down period of X amount of time, then you can switch if you're eligible for another country. But only one time.
I think the main block against switching is the Home Unions. Imagine how much stronger a team like Samoa could be.
7s is the Olympic sport and they had to agree to some changes to fall into IOC rules to take part in the Olympics.
Why should that then result in them making changes they don't want across the board?
There are pros and cons of any system. It's unfortunate when a young player gets locked in to one country early on and never gets a look in again when they could be playing for a second country.
On the contrary, I don't think it would be good for the game if established test players had a swansong second international career with a second country so they could go to another RWC or similar.
Beware the law of unintended consequences. If you make switching countries easier because you're looking at helping a specific group of players, it will also open up the same options for players you don't intend for it to work for.
Why should that then result in them making changes they don't want across the board?
There are pros and cons of any system. It's unfortunate when a young player gets locked in to one country early on and never gets a look in again when they could be playing for a second country.
On the contrary, I don't think it would be good for the game if established test players had a swansong second international career with a second country so they could go to another RWC or similar.
Beware the law of unintended consequences. If you make switching countries easier because you're looking at helping a specific group of players, it will also open up the same options for players you don't intend for it to work for.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Because it's the same sport! Whether it's 7's or 15's it's still rugby. And it's just silly that only backs are allowed to change their eligibility.
Why do you think it would be so bad? If a former Wallaby that hadn't played a test for 4 or 5 years were to turn out for Samoa, Fiji or Canada at the world cup would you see it as being bad for the game?
Maybe switching between tier 1 teams would be a little more grating but if you have a decent stand down period it's not going to happen that often (at least not with established test players). And it's not like it never used to happen. Some great Wallabies played previously for other nations!
T
TOCC
Guest
again, its not designed to be fair.. loopholes by their very definition aren't designed to be fair, its created by conflicting eligibility criteria..
If the IRB allowed props and locks to play on the IRB 7's tournament it would create a farce of a tournament and devalue the IRB 7's tournament product. Is that what you are suggesting should occur?
If the IRB allowed props and locks to play on the IRB 7's tournament it would create a farce of a tournament and devalue the IRB 7's tournament product. Is that what you are suggesting should occur?
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Again, I know. My point is that if I was a tight 5 player I'd explore legal options. Worth a challenge I reckon. It's just the vibe of it!
I don't see it as an unfortunate loophole. I think it's great. And there's no way Tim Nanai-Williams primary motivation is to play at the Olympics. It's just that he possibly could play at the olympics.
I don't see it as an unfortunate loophole. I think it's great. And there's no way Tim Nanai-Williams primary motivation is to play at the Olympics. It's just that he possibly could play at the olympics.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.
- Status