World Rugby to review Regulation 8 - Eligibilty

[Brumby Runner]

And didn't Marika play for the Wallabies on the eoyt? Thought he got one game against France, but might have been the game against the French Barbarians.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

GRob's story mentions it not taking full effect until after RWC 2019. You'd think that if the new Reg takes effect on say 1 July anyone signed before that date would be subject to the "old" Reg 8 & anyone signed afterwards subject to the new Reg 8.

 

[dru]

Surely southern nations should be looking to negotiate on this. Transfer fees for eligibility changes. Eligibility is only one of the player market issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would seem a smart position to take.

 

[Highlander35]

Grandfathering period is important.

SRU announced that they weren't in support, and that makes sense, low and slowly growing base, couple of stable pro sides, bit of money in the bank.

The reality is though, Nel, Cusack, Strauss and Visser are the only ones off the top of my head who used residency, and only Nel is a fixture in the 23.

Don't get me wrong, there's a few potentially coming.

At Glasgow; Brian Alainu'uelese (NZ), Sam Johnson (Aus) and Ratu Tagive (Aus) are the only non-capped, non-scots.

At Edinburgh, by my count; Cornell du Preez (SA) is eligible now, with Anton Bresler (SA/Namibia), Nasi Manu (NZ), Jason Tovey (Wales) and one or two more backs.

I see most of those players (bar Ratu and the couple of Edinburgh boys I don't remember) getting a cap or five should they choose to stick around, with maybe a couple becoming regulars. We'll be fine.

Transfer fees or similar shit should be right out. While it's been exploited, the principle is that someone has moved to a new country and intends to spend a significant portion of their life there, and feeling attachment, they choose to play for that country.

 

[Highlander35]

Regardless, as I've said before, I think the best way forward is to engineer a method to prevent gaining new eligibility.

When you play U18s, U21s or U23s in Football, you can still represent any nation you were eligible for at the time you were first capped, but cannot gain new eligibility.

E.g. I emigrate from Scotland at 14, and play for the Olyroos at 21 (Aus U23) in their Rio qualifying tournament. I can't then play for the Phoenix for 5 years and represent New Zealand, I am only eligible for Australia and Scotland.

The Socceroos tried to cap Adama Traore (Ivorian Left Back) when they were struggling there but because he played U21s he was ineligible.

Think that would help everyone's goals, so that boys of Island Heritage could turn out for NZ and Aus U20s, locking them out of playing for France or England or Scotland, but still leaving the Fiji/Samoa/Tonga option open.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^ I like that very much. Almost as much as I like beer. mmmmmm, beer...........

 

[TOCC]

I don't see what's wrong transfer fees.. players who complete their contracts are still free agents, and if they do get sold they still need to agree to terms at the new club..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Highlander35]

No problems with transfer fees between National Bodies and Clubs for "Domestic" Duties.

Selling players eligibility for National sides leaves a foul taste in my mouth that as an immigrant, I don't feel residency does.

 

[TOCC]

No, I wasn't suggesting that national bodies sell players, that makes no sense... was talking about world rugby endorsing transfer fees between clubs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Strewthcobber]

Given the number of os contracts that our players have broken over the last couple of years is that really a path we want to go down?

 

[Highlander35]

That's one of the reasons I'm more than happy for it to occur Strewth.

SRU already acting in that manner.

Denton, Tonks and Nakarawa all sold/had their contracts bought out in the last 2 seasons.

 

[Rugby Central]

I disagree on set number of years residence but should have to be citizens or eligible by birth up to Grandparents.

Test Rugby is about playing for your country. End of story.

If somebody wants to go through the rigmarole of becoming a citizen of a country then that is between them and the country they wish to become a part of. If you have the opportunity to be a dual citizen, good luck to you. There may be inconsistencies between each countries procedures but so what. That's no business of the Rugby Union. Remember that most country's citizenship eligibility requires residency of some kind. A player presents evidence of citizenship, they can play for that country.

Your fears of countries rushing citizenship are unlikely to be realised on anything more than a small scale. Can you imagine the political upheaval in a country (especially in the proud Euro countries) if large groups of rich and entitled sportspeople were getting passports approved over the thousands of people who'd been waiting for years. The only country that puts that amount of importance on rugby is NZ, and they don't need to do it.

Like the change in any rule, there would be an initial flood of opportunists but it would settle down. And one thing that is certain is rugby administrations have long memories and a capacity for spite. How many times do you think a player could change national allegiance before teams (and more importantly governments) get the irritz with it.

If you want to play test rugby it's because you want to play for your country.

 

[Braveheart81]

So what are you arguing World Rugby's position on the issue should be?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Your fears of countries rushing citizenship are unlikely to be realised on anything more than a small scale. Can you imagine the political upheaval in a country (especially in the proud Euro countries) if large groups of rich and entitled sportspeople were getting passports approved over the thousands of people who'd been waiting for years. The only country that puts that amount of importance on rugby is NZ, and they don't need to do it.

Australia made a special case for Fawad Ahmed; he got his citizenship in record time because he was thought to be good at cricket

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/646819.html

It's not just in the smaller countries that citizenship can be rorted.

It was approved late last week ... and it was approved because we were able to look at the application in a different light because of the changes to the Australian citizenship act that went through the parliament not long ago."
Those changes meant that some individuals could have their citizenship fast-tracked if it was considered they could be of benefit to Australia in a range of fields, including sport, science, medicine and the performing arts.

 

[Rugby Central]

Australia made a special case for Fawad Ahmed; he got his citizenship in record time because he was thought to be good at cricket

It's not just in the smaller countries that citizenship can be rorted.

You have provided one example. This does not negate that it would happen on anything but a small scale. Can you imagine the uproar if the majority of the Wallabies was suddenly filled with foreign players? While Pulver et al would be dragged through the fire, how much pain do you think their would be for the government.

And what if the player got injured or didn't perform. Do you think countries would be keen to repeat the experiment? It takes a lot more than one or two players to turn a Tier 2 country into Tier 1 rugby nation.

Using the Fawad Ahmed example (I've only Googled info as I'm no cricket aficionado); he seems to be doing a fair apprenticeship before getting repeated international call ups. Plus he came in on a refugee visa. I'm not sure how many professional rugby players could successfully try that one.

 

[Braveheart81]

Is your suggestion that World Rugby provides no criteria for eligibility and just makes it whatever country someone is a citizen of which they have no control over and has differing rules based on not just the country but also the government of the day?

 

[Rugby Central]

Hey Braveheart,

Given the mixed timing of some posts, was your question for me?

So what are you arguing World Rugby's position on the issue should be?

If so, World Rugby should look at citizenship only. Test Rugby is matches between nations. Players should be representing nation of which they are citizens.

I agree dual citizens make it complicated but how many teams/countries would pick a player, using an extreme example, a couple of weeks before a world cup. And honestly, how many countries would take that player back, considering the only reason they would do that is because they couldn't make the first test team. In practice dual citizens would not benefit much.

Worst case scenario would be tier 1 nations loaning players out to Tier 2 nations. Even then, if you factor in professional contracts and player injury management, it's not likely.

I agree the potential for rorting is there, however in practice it would only happen at the margins, and only rarely

 

[Strewthcobber]

You have provided one example. This does not negate that it would happen on anything but a small scale. Can you imagine the uproar if the majority of the Wallabies was suddenly filled with foreign players? While Pulver et al would be dragged through the fire, how much pain do you think their would be for the government.

I'm saying that citizenship requirements are a fairly terrible way to decide on international eligibility for sports because they are easily rorted by richer sporting bodies, and even supported by the government.

I'm also saying that Australia has special legislation to do just this, and has used the legislation to help the cricket team, tennis and lots of other Olympic sports. I don't think Ahmed or anybody should be able to represent Australia after such a short time, but citizenship criteria allow it.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2009/08/31/foreign-athletes-be-fast-tracked

Under the changes, people in special circumstances will need to have been a permanent resident for two years before their application, with at least six months living in Australia.
They would also need to require citizenship to represent Australia in their sport with support from a recognised organisation such as the Australian Olympic Committee or Tennis Australia.
"All applicants will need to be able to show that despite spending periods of time overseas, their home is in Australia," Senator Evans said.
The athletes will also be required to pass the citizenship test.
It is hoped the changes will lead to more gold medals for Australia at sporting events such as the Olympics, Senator Evans said.

 

[Rugby Central]

Is your suggestion that World Rugby provides no criteria for eligibility and just makes it whatever country someone is a citizen of which they have no control over and has differing rules based on not just the country but also the government of the day?

Yep

 

[Braveheart81]

Hey Braveheart,

Given the mixed timing of some posts, was your question for me?


If so, World Rugby should look at citizenship only. Test Rugby is matches between nations. Players should be representing nation of which they are citizens.

I agree dual citizens make it complicated but how many teams/countries would pick a player, using an extreme example, a couple of weeks before a world cup. And honestly, how many countries would take that player back, considering the only reason they would do that is because they couldn't make the first test team. In practice dual citizens would not benefit much.

Worst case scenario would be tier 1 nations loaning players out to Tier 2 nations. Even then, if you factor in professional contracts and player injury management, it's not likely.

I agree the potential for rorting is there, however in practice it would only happen at the margins, and only rarely

It's an arbitrary thing though and is not just open to rorting by individual countries wanting to fast track someone but also can act to prevent people playing based.

For instance most New Zealand born people who have grown up in Australia don't become Australian citizens. The process has changed markedly over the years and most don't do it because there is little need due to the reciprocal arrangements. Several Wallabies are still on NZ passports because that is their country of citizenship.

What about the UK?

What about Ireland which includes all of Ireland for rugby purposes but Northern Ireland is part of the UK?

Your proposal suggests going from a situation that is pretty black and white in terms of the requirements and qualifications to one that varies from country to country.

What is there to gain from this change?