• 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.

World Rugby to review Regulation 8 - Eligibilty

After how many years residence should a player be eligible for their adopted country?

  • Never - country of birth only, no exceptions

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • One year

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Three years (status quo)

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • Five years

    Votes: 6 42.9%
  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
Braveheart81 said:
The "next senior national representative team" for NZ has been the Junior All Blacks since at least 2003.

The Junior All Blacks aren't the team that goes to the Under 20 World Champs though. That's the Baby Blacks.

The Junior All Blacks actually have no age restrictions currently and also haven't played a match since the 2009 Pacific Nations Cup.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification BH. I now see where Richie's cloak of invisibility has landed after he disposed of it, right over the whole of the JAB system. I wonder why NZ has let it lapse if it could be used as a vehicle for tying more of their players for test purposes?
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
∆∆∆∆∆∆World rugby regulations appear to forbid that NZ contract


9.2 A Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club is obliged to release a Player to the Union for which the Player is eligible when selected by such Union for a National Representative Team or National Squad in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9.

9.3 No Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club whether by contract, conduct or otherwise may inhibit, prevent, discourage, disincentivise or render unavailable any Player from selection, attendance and appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad session when such request for selection, attendance and appearance is made in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9. Any agreement and/or arrangement between a Player and a Rugby Body or Club or between a Union or an Association and a Rugby Body or Club (and/or any proposal made and/or attempted to be made howsoever communicated) which is contrary to this Regulation 9.3 is prohibited, including, but not limited to any agreement and/or arrangement and/or proposal pursuant to which a Player is (or would be) unable to exercise the right to play for a Union
Click to expand...



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I would guess NZRU would be obligated to release him under the World Rugby Regulations but then potentially could sue Shields for breach of contract.

Hard to imagine NZRU can have a contract that nullifies the regulations to release players. Surely they have had the issue previously where a player eligible for both NZ and a PI country but are uncapped have been called up to play a June test for the PI country but in their Super Rugby contract were playing as an NZ eligible player.
 
kiap

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
Brumby Runner said:
I wonder why NZ has let it lapse if it could be used as a vehicle for tying more of their players for test purposes?
Click to expand...

I reckon for the same sort of reasons we haven't seen an Australian "next senior national representative team" for seven or eight years, i.e. mainly because it's better to use the national team itself to tie players. Take for example when NZ played Japan in 2013:

Dominic Bird, Frank Halai, Jeffery Toomaga-Allen and Luke Whitelock all got their first test caps in an AB side where only 3 of the XV got a start the following weekend in the full-strength team against the French. So it was, with the odd exception, an 'A' team.

The problem is that 'A' team matches don't really sell. It's better to label the side as the national team and milk it as a full test match, with associated ticket prices, TV ratings and stadium attendance. It's also better for the fringe squad players who get a proper test cap instead of a second rate one.

I guess the main quibble might be that it downgrades the value of a "test" cap. But, so long as you don't lose (as the Wallabies did against Samoa in 2011) it's not such a big deal. Fielding the absolute best team in every test played went by the wayside with the advent of professionalism anyway.

While I believe 'A' teams are still managing to kick on in the NH, I think they are a bit of a remnant from the Amateur Era.
 
Wilson

Wilson

David Codey (61)
New Zealand also have NZ Maori playing the matches that would otherwise be taken up by an 'A' side. Does beg the question if it's worth them making that the 'A' side, but there maybe issues with that given the extra selection criteria there.
 
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Isn't it all just paper talk anyway, if England really were intent on picking Shields surely they or he would of told the NZRU by now.
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^^ would still be worth getting a WR (World Rugby) ruling on this for future reference, NZRU need to know if their contracts as currently written are enforceable or not.
 
zer0

zer0

Jim Lenehan (48)
Strewthcobber said:
∆∆∆∆∆∆World rugby regulations appear to forbid that NZ contract
Click to expand...


Maybe not.

Player availability in circumstances of dual eligibility

9.38. When a Union enters into a written agreement with a Player that contemplates the Player representing that Union at senior or next Senior Fifteen-A-Side National Representative Team level (whether at fifteen-aside or seven-a-side Rugby), the Union may seek the Player’s written agreement that the Player shall not be available for selection, attendance and/or appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad of another Union during the term of that written agreement, including any extension thereof, provided that, prior to the execution of any such written agreement, the following conditions were satisfied:

(a) The Player had reached the age of majority. For the purposes of the Regulation(s), the age of majority shall be deemed to be acquired by a Player on his 18th birthday.

(b) Pursuant to Regulation 8, the Player was eligible to represent the senior or next senior National Representative Team of the Union with which he has entered into the written agreement and at least one other Union, (i.e., as a minimum requirement the Player had dual Union eligibility status).

(c) The Player had not represented the senior or next senior National Representative Team of any Union in any of the Matches or Tours specified in Regulation 8.3.

(d) As evidenced by completion of the standard form certification set out in Attachment 1, the Player received independent legal advice on the terms of the written agreement. In particular, the fact that in signing the written agreement the Player was acknowledging and accepting that during the course of the written agreement, and any extension thereof, he was foregoing his right to represent the senior or next senior National Representative Team of any other Union for which he may be eligible.

If, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in this Regulation 9.38, a Player’s written agreement so provides, then that Player shall not be available for selection, attendance and/or appearance in a National Representative Team or National Squad of another Union during the term of the written agreement, or any extension thereof and during such period the Union with whom the Player is contracted shall have no obligation to release the Player to another Union.

https://www.worldrugby.org/handbook/regulations/reg-9/reg-9

If I'm reading the lawyer-speak correctly, as a non-lawyer, then (a) requires that he be over 18 when signing the contract, which he was; (b) requires that he be eligible to represent two unions, which he is; (c) requires that he hasn't represented any one in any XV capturing team, which he hasn't, elsewise we wouldn't be having thing argument; and (d) that he read the contract.

As each of those conditions appear to be satisfied, and if what the NZRU says about the relevant clause being included in his contract is true, then it looks to me as though the NZRU has every right to tell the RFU to take a hike. Or ask the RFU to pay an exorbitant fee to release Shields.

Soooo, looks like some more top class lawyering from the NZRU?
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
You are correct zer0. Looks like the NZRU can safely prevent Shields playing for England until his NZ contract ends assuming his contract tied him to NZ eligibility only for the duration of his contract.
 
Derpus

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
So will they block it? only reason i can see why they should is that if he gets injured it negatively affects the Hurricanes.

Well that and petulance. NZRU and RFU aren't exactly in love.
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^ reading between the lines I'd say they won't block it provided Ringinland take care of the insurance & any medical costs that may arise but will make it very clear that they're only not being cnuts about it 'cos Brad's been a good servant blah blah blah
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I wonder if Piers Francis' contract was any different to the normal NZRU Super Rugby contract? He was obviously released last year to debut for England.
 
Derpus

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
It would be, wouldn't it? Brad Shields could potentially have been called up to the ABs where as Piers was actually English.
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^^^^ I think he only lived here for two years & since the Bloos didn't sign him to a "project player" contract (not currently NZ-eligible but able to qualify by residence) I don't think he was interested in becoming qualified.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
waiopehu oldboy said:
NZR have given Shields what I'm sure they'd regard (spin?) as an ex gratia release:

I can understand why NZR might not have wanted to make it a test case. Hopefully it's just a one-off and/ or WR (World Rugby) address it.
Click to expand...


I think this is the reason they have released him. Whilst they say they are confident their contract would have prevented him, there's no value in them testing that. He's leaving at the end of the season anyway. Wait to test it when the outcome actually matters for them.

If England selected him anyway and they fought it and lost it would create an interesting situation for Australia in particular.

Personally I think they should select Isaia Toeava even though he plays for Clermont.

How good would this look again?

Isaia+Toeava+New+Zealand+v+Argentina+IRB+RWC+04VrFOx3Fzkl.jpg
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^ yeah, I think it's the possibility of losing that put them off & they'll be working behind the scenes to get it sorte which needs to happen for everyone's sake. Wouldn't it be fun if we or you could find a Pom to poach & see how the Jelimies like it :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top