World Rugby to review Regulation 8 - Eligibilty

[Rugby Central]

I don't think Ahmed or anybody should be able to represent Australia after such a short time, but citizenship criteria allow it.

But you're ok with someone representing a country they have no interest in committing to as a citizen?

To both Strewth and Braveheart, I'm not overly stressed about the situation. I agree citizenship can make it complicated. However it comes to the question:

Do you want your national team to represent your nation or do you just want a team that wins?

While I will always support the Wallabies, my heart is less moved when supporting a the NZ B team in gold.

 

[Braveheart81]

But you're ok with someone representing a country they have no interest in committing to as a citizen?

To both Strewth and Braveheart, I'm not overly stressed about the situation. I agree citizenship can make it complicated. However it comes to the question:

Do you want your national team to represent your nation or do you just want a team that wins?

While I will always support the Wallabies, my heart is less moved when supporting a the NZ B team in gold.

I think the current situation is working fine but also have no issues extending out the residency qualification period to 5 years.

I see more issues changing to a citizenship based system which is not an equal playing field from country to country and can change depending on politics.

Some people hold dual citizenship and for those that live in a country which is not where they are a citizen, the need to acquire citizenship is different depending on which country you are from.

Often citizenship processes take years so is it a better outcome if the talented 20 year old who has spent almost their entire life in Australia but was born in New Zealand can't play for the Wallabies because he didn't start the citizenship process when he was a 15 year old etc?

As has been mentioned numerous times, Quade Cooper is a New Zealand citizen. Would becoming an Australian citizen make him more qualified to play for the Wallabies? I don't think so.

I really don't see how the country of issue of someone's passport fundamentally changes who that person is. I think it is window dressing.

If you have a problem with players born in Fiji or New Zealand (or anywhere else) representing the Wallabies then I don't think that will diminish at all because they now have an Australian passport.

 

[Highlander35]

5 years works fine for me as it guarantees you miss a World Cup Cycle and for the majority of Western and Tier 1 Nations, 5 years is what Joe Bloggs off the street typically meets or exceeds the required time to start the citizenship process.

Chuck on the British Isles and Hong Kong conundrums for good measure and having an ruling independent of local governments sounds like a good idea for mine.

 

[Scrubber2050]

IMO
A player playing for the national side should be a citizen of that nation whether Rugby, League, Tennis, Swimming, Soccer etc etc.

The only exception is a player holding dual citizenship - then he/she can choose which country to represent.

Residency is one thing, citizenship another.

If a player or anybody else applies to become an Australian citizenship then he is serious about making the place his new home and hopefully enjoy the benefits and freedoms this country offers all. It takes some time but so be it.

Without a mere touch of racism (and I am not a racist at all - merely I am an Australian with a little Asian chucked into the pot I firmly believe that all immigrants whether from New Zealand, China, Fiji, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Russia etc etc should ALL be treated exactly the same with the same rules applying.) No special treatment at all - THAT is pure discrimination.

I've said it before but Kerevi is now one of my favourite players. Not only is he good but he had the balls to engage this country and become a citizen. Plenty of others should do the same.

Maybe change Permanent Residency to Semi Permanent Residency, say for 5 years and if you haven't been granted citizenship (or you haven't made Application for same) within that period of time, you must leave Australia and if you want to return, a new application must be made (offshore)

Am sure this post will get the juices of some Sri Lankans or New Zealanders etc flowing whilst others (who do actually agree) will be loathe to "agree" on this forum for fear of "retribution" of other posters

Have a good day !

 

[Braveheart81]

IMO
A player playing for the national side should be a citizen of that nation whether Rugby, League, Tennis, Swimming, Soccer etc etc.

The only exception is a player holding dual citizenship - then he/she can choose which country to represent.

Residency is one thing, citizenship another.

If a player or anybody else applies to become an Australian citizenship then he is serious about making the place his new home and hopefully enjoy the benefits and freedoms this country offers all. It takes some time but so be it.

Without a mere touch of racism (and I am not a racist at all - merely I am an Australian with a little Asian chucked into the pot I firmly believe that all immigrants whether from New Zealand, China, Fiji, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Russia etc etc should ALL be treated exactly the same with the same rules applying.) No special treatment at all - THAT is pure discrimination.

I've said it before but Kerevi is now one of my favourite players. Not only is he good but he had the balls to engage this country and become a citizen. Plenty of others should do the same.

Maybe change Permanent Residency to Semi Permanent Residency, say for 5 years and if you haven't been granted citizenship (or you haven't made Application for same) within that period of time, you must leave Australia and if you want to return, a new application must be made (offshore)

Am sure this post will get the juices of some Sri Lankans or New Zealanders etc flowing whilst others (who do actually agree) will be loathe to "agree" on this forum for fear of "retribution" of other posters

Have a good day !

A big problem is that what you believe should be the case on one hand (being a citizen to represent a national team) is backed by the premise that becoming a citizen of Australia should be the same process and requirements for someone from any country whereas it is substantially different in reality.

Then when you extrapolate that to other countries around the world those situations change each and every time.

Does this concept further hurt rugby in the Pacific Nations? More and more we will have ethnic Fijian, Tongans and Samoans born in Australia, NZ, and elsewhere who currently qualify under the parent/grandparent rule. They will never likely take up citizenship of the relevant Pacific island because to do so would be counterproductive to their professional rugby career. Should they be barred from representing that country?

Like anything, it's not a simple issue.

 

[fatprop]

I don't think they can change to rules away form the Olympic system without losing the 7s @ the Olympics (so highly unlikely to see any change)

Personally I have no problem at all with the 3 year residency rule

 

[Brumby Runner]

FP, my understanding is that the present rules do vary from those applying to the Olympics. In rugby, eligibility is conferred by the number of unbroken years of residency in a country, while for the Olympics it is restricted to citizenship. In effect, the 7s competition at the Olympics is governed by the citizenship rule, so is at variance with the situation elsewhere in rugby.

I think BH is on the mark, that while-ever countries have different rules governing citizenship, the residency rule is fairer and easier to administer. Just a question of whether it should be 3 or 5 years. I like the notion that a 5 year period would interfere with a player being available for at least one RWC, so that would be expected to have some curtailing influence on players wanting to change countries.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Here's the regulations. It appears that Olympics is an "and" condition (need to be a national and forfil the residencey, birth ort relative conditions.

There's lots of other regulations in there for the Olympics which may mean you don't need both

http://www.worldrugby.org/WR (World.../English/pubData/source/files/Regulation8.pdf (pdf)

8.1 - Subject to Regulation 8.2, a Player may only play for the senior fifteen-aside National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team and the senior National Representative Sevens Team of the Union of the country in which:
(a) he was born; or
(b) one parent or grandparent was born; or
(c) he has completed thirty six consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing.

To be eligible to participate in the Olympic Games, Olympic qualification events (together “Olympic Events”) or other events governed by the Olympic Charter all members of the senior National Representative Sevens Team(s) of a Union or the selected Olympic Sevens Team(s) of a National Olympic Committee shall comply with Regulation 8.1 and must be a national of the country of the National Olympic Committee which it is representing in such Olympic Events. Regulation 8.2 applies equally to all Players.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Sounds awfully complicated.

Just produce your Birth certificate or Citizenship Certificate and no problem.

If cannot, watch the game on telly

 

[Brumby Runner]

^^^^^ Would you rather that someone like Quade couldn't play for the Wallabies? NZ birth certificate and as I understand no Australian citizenship certificate. Many others too I daresay.

 

[TOCC]

I don't think they can change to rules away form the Olympic system without losing the 7s @ the Olympics (so highly unlikely to see any change)

Personally I have no problem at all with the 3 year residency rule

The rules already vary between the IOC and World Rugby.. there were plenty of athletes at the Olympics who wouldn't haven't met the same World Rugby qualification requirements..

 

[TOCC]

Citizenship requirements vary country to country, a governing body like World Rugby needs all national bodies on the same page when it comes to eligibility requirements, relying on a governments interpretation or intention for citizenship requirements opens the game up to risk of political interference or even countries trying to bankroll sporting performance.. as already occurs with some Olympic athletes and national bodies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Scrubber2050]

Governments, not sporting authorities need to legislate.

The matter is then taken out of the hands of rugby (and others) authorities who only have self interest at heart and will sell their soul if necessary.

Bit of leadership from the top. To me it is a national interest argument - that is Australian national interest.

And BR, I would be happy for QC (Quade Cooper) to be excluded (and others) if they don't have "citizenship". It's about taking ownership.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Scrubber, I think you are still missing the important point being made by Braveheart and TOCC that there will not be (probably can't be) consistency across all rugby nations if the eligibility rules are set by national governments. Every nation would look to a system that benefited themselves at a particular point in time, and would likely change when circumstances dictated. It would turn out to be a real hotch-potch.

The only way a consistent rule can be developed and implemented is through the governing body of the sport, ie, World Rugby. They are leading from the top, as you identify is needed.

 

[TOCC]

Governments, not sporting authorities need to legislate.
.

Like Russia and Jamaica do on their anti-doping?

International politics and policy is hardly the shining beacon that World Rugby should be aspiring too.

International Politics changes week to week, legislation and international rulings on citizenship and emigration fluctuates on the ruling party.

A governing body provides consistency on eligibility requirements across all countries and doesn't leave it open to interpretation or exploitation by politicians.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Funny post really

One could suggest that any "governing body", rugby or otherwise is full of self interest cronyism and "politics". Seriously if any believe otherwise you are living at the bottom of the garden.

And to address your comment about the doping policy simply ban all athletes in all sports from those countries until they comply. It happens eventually because everyone wishes to perform on the world stage.

 

[Braveheart81]

So you're suggesting that instead of World Rugby having one set of rules that are the same for every country, they divest those decisions to each country to have their own rules knowing that they will be different and then if they're unhappy about what one country does they ban them?

There may be self interest involved amongst the member unions when coming up with amendments to World Rugby's governing rules but at least those rules are then applying equally to all countries.

 

[Scrubber2050]

The original discussion point was eligibility. To me as said citizenship is the key, is simple and can only be interpreted narrowly. Any thing other is open to varying factors, some previously mentioned.

Anti doping is another topic but worthy of discussion.

 

[TOCC]

Well no, citizenship isn't simple because it varies country to country, and fluctuates depending on the political party in power.

There are countries like Spain, Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, Russia, Austria, Bulgaria and France where I don't even need to live in the country to gain citizenship, as long as my application is attached to a sizeable cheque I could become an economic citizen.

Other countries like Argentina offer residency qualification periods which are less then current World Rugby regulations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Braveheart81]

Even if you look at citizenship being simple from World Rugby's perspective as being a somewhat binary situation (you either are and you're eligible or you aren't so you're not) it is complicated because it doesn't deal with dual nationals, the issues presented by the UK and Ireland, and how to deal with players changing their citizenship.

So even if you went down this route, you'd still have to have a bunch of additional rules to clarify the issues that aren't solved purely by which country you are a citizen of.