1. 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.

Player eligibility

Discussion in 'Rugby Discussion' started by Dan54, May 21, 2020.

  1. Dan54 Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    3,756
    Have been hearing a bit lately on player eligibility for international play with Beaumont bringing it up as part of his re election for WR etc. Does anyone have any workable suggestions? I know it not straight forward and would be wondering what everyone's thoughts are.
    Should it be where you born, where you reside, where your father or mother born, should you only play for one country?
    Personally I think it should be where you reside and play (with qualifying period like now), or where you born!
    On changing countries I have tended to think you can switch back to tier 2 after a 2-3 years stand down, but even that is not straight forward and fraught with problems.
  2. Rebels3 Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    1,603
    I’m fairly happy with the system now, however I’d get rid of the grandparent rule.

    Any switching back I’d support on a condition they had a 3yr stand down period and had played less than 10 games. The Nonu’s etc. of the world shouldn’t be allowed to switch, it should be in place for players that had minimal investment given to them.
    Dan54 and Jimmy_Crouch like this.
  3. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    24,275

    The grandparent rule is going to become more and more important for the Pacific Island countries over time. I don't think it should be removed.
  4. Dan54 Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    3,756
    I not convinced I like the grandparent rule, seems then a player can maybe play for any of 7-8 teams which is too much.
    Also I know I quite keen on letting players go back to tier 2 countries but apparently we are just looking at Islands, and seems places like Argentina ,Canada etc are pretty set against it.
  5. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    24,275

    It's going to be a very rare situation where someone's parents and grandparents were born in 6 different countries.

    Argentina are against any expanded eligibility criteria because they benefit from none of it. They are a country which doesn't attract rugby migrants due to no professional league (or migrants in general from rugby playing countries) and they don't have a particularly ethnically diverse population.

    I guess where I would look at the grandparent rule is that let's say Tim Nanai-Williams, a Samoan international who was born in NZ married another New Zealand born Samoan and had a child in New Zealand, that ethnically Samoan child would be ineligible to play for Samoa without the grandparent rule.

    I think the grandparent rule is going to become less and less of a potential benefit for the UK nations and more and more essential for the Pacific Island nations who have large net emigration but maintain very strong cultural links to their culture and country of ancestry. They are also very important to rugby around the world.
  6. Dan54 Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    3,756
    I was taking extremes BH.
    On the other side of the Argo/Canadian (and from what Conrad Smith said) quite a few other tier 2 countries ,I think maybe they think that players will be reluctant to play for them if they can have a crack at a tier 1 team, if they then only get a few tests they wander back. See as he said down here in SH all we tend to see is the Islands and there a hell of a lot more tier 2 countires around world who apparently are not keen. Also have to be very very careful what is actually a tier 2 team , if Fiji gets above say Scotland or something in world rankings does that mean Scotland instead of them can get the benefit? As I say I like the idea with a stand down period of say 3 years, but it not as clear as we think. Especially with the grandparent rule thrown in. Actually the captain of the Balck Ferns 7s was on panel and said well maybe we have to actually make a decision who we want to play for at start.

    I agree Island rugby is important to World rugby, but so is Georgia, Romania, Canada etc etc, all should be of equal importance!
  7. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    24,275

    I'm not talking about stand down periods at all and changing allegiances. I don't disagree that they should be an option for players who have played for a tier 1 nation a few times and then wants to change after a set period of time but it's certainly not what I'm addressing.

    I think PI rugby is the crucial consideration here. They punch well above their weight in terms of results for their populations, provide an unbelievably high number of the professional rugby players around the world and for rugby and just general economic advancement, they migrate away from the islands to seek better employment opportunities.

    I'm not looking at this really as a tier 1 and tier 2 issue. It's about those specific countries where a large part of their population doesn't actually live there. More Samoans and Tongans live outside the country than within it.

    I don't see how this detracts from Georgia, Romania and Canada etc. People will always go where they get opportunity. I think a crucial part of this is ensuring people are eligible to represent the country they most identify with, not being able to represent lots of other countries.
    Dan54 likes this.
  8. Dan54 Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    3,756
    Yep which means if they identify with Samoa or where ever I can see they can play for them, just with grandparent rule unfortunately what happens is people can suddenly identify with England, Scotland etc where there is rugby test opportunities as well . I not disagreeing with your thoughts in anyway really, but it certainly open to abuse as we see often! And I would say by Island players as well as English etc. I agree many born overseas identify with being an Islanders etc, but I do think they should of spent sometime in the island that they are claiming to identify with. Not just be say born in England, NZ ,Aus etc, never having been to islands and then say they identify with them.
    And we can't have special rules for the Islands and noone else!
  9. Derpus Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,749
    Maximum of 10 caps and a minimum of 2-4 years between last cap and a switch to another nation.

    I don't think you should be switching if you have more than 10 caps for a country or if you have played for them recently. Otherwise - be good to see players like Big T etc get a go for Fiji.
    Silverado, Dan54 and Jimmy_Crouch like this.
  10. Jimmy_Crouch Phil Hardcastle (33)

    Likes Received:
    699

    And can only change once (in the very unlikely possibility they wanted to do it again)
    Silverado, Dan54 and Derpus like this.
  11. waiopehu oldboy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    5,295
    In general terms I'd say you shouldn't be able to gain eligibility you weren't born with, except in the case of being a bona fide child migrant (say 14 or at most 16 & under). That includes the Grandparent rule which has to stay, for the reason outlined by B81 above & if that means the occasional Instant English- Irish- or Scotsman then so be it: Samoa & Tonga simply can't field competitive teams without heritage players, let alone the likes of Cook Islands, Niue, etc.

    In terms of dual-representation I'd be happy for it to only apply to guys with less than 10 caps who've served a two- to three-year stand-down, but it has to be a one-time-only deal, you can't be switching every two years loig-styles.
    Braveheart81, Dan54 and Derpus like this.
  12. Dan54 Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    3,756
    Agree WOB, I still think that you have to spend sometime in country if you claiming grandparent rule, how many people from Aus or NZ could potentially get picked for Scotland etc while still living here? I always remember that Frano Botica played for Croatia or somewhere with grandparent rule, had never been there, and it just doesn't sit completely right with me!
  13. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    24,275

    There are always going to be issues with the rules because they draw a fairly arbitrary line and people are going to fall on either side.

    I feel like the rule should always err on the side of ensuring that people who should be able to represent somewhere are able to knowing that there will probably be a few cases that come up that don't sit well with people.

    The alternative is trying to ensure that you prevent the ones that people are unhappy with but acknowledge that those stricter rules will probably create some really unfortunate cases that everyone views as being unfair against the player.

    In my opinion there aren't nearly enough problematic cases to make eligibility becoming more restrictive a priority.
  14. lincoln Bob Loudon (25)

    Likes Received:
    281
    BH, maybe restrict it to Tier 2 nations (ie not top 8 at least WC).
  15. waiopehu oldboy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    5,295
    ^ self-defeating, surely: if Samoa were to make QF at a future RWC with 20+ heritage players, as they've previously done, those players are thereafter ineligible.
    Dan54 likes this.
  16. Derpus Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,749
    yeah i wouldn't bother trying to delineate between 'tiers'. It's not an official ranking system and it fluctuates.
    waiopehu oldboy likes this.
  17. waiopehu oldboy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    5,295
  18. stoff Alex Ross (28)

    Likes Received:
    329
    I think it should look something like:
    1. Heritage based (citizen, parent, grand parent); or
    2. Five year residency.

    To switch you must not have represented another union for six years, and qualify as above.

    For a foreign national who comes over here as an 18 year old, by 23 you could be a Wallaby. You play your few tests and then get your big bucks in Europe. By around 30 you become eligible for your home country again and can help add experience to their national side. Australia has got the benefit of a decent stint in super rugby. Your home nation gets some potential future benefit for your original development, and you have the opportunity to have some lucrative years in between. If guys like Sefa Naivalu or Taqele Naiyavoro were playing for Fiji at the next RWC I don't see a problem.
  19. Derpus Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,749
    Six years is a while
  20. Dan54 Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    3,756
    While basically I like this a bit (though as I say not sure of Grandparent rule) , I can understand why many 2nd tier countries are against, as I keep saying it not just about Islands (which is all us lot in SH seem to think about), but Georgia, Romania etc, do we think it great idea for some of their top players to take a test cap to help out France etc etc and then just come back late in their career? Whatever we think I repeat we have to think of all the world not just Island players! Uruguay could very well suffer the same problems with a lot of their players making a living in Argentina!
    I repeat I do like the idea of a player who has played less than say 10 tests being able to swap back after a stand down, but I do also think it not that simple and we have to worry about whole world not just SH!
    Silverado likes this.

Share This Page