Player eligibility

[Braveheart81]

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!

Those same circumstances that exist for the PI nations aren't remotely close to existing for Georgia and Romania etc.

Georgia is a country of 3.7m people and there are 12k or so Georgians living in France. I highly doubt that there is a significant portion of the Georgian population with French grandparents. They are more likely to lose players to the residency rule (which has already been extended from 3 years to 5 years to make qualification more difficult).

Uruguay is a better example and there are plenty of Uruguayans who have emigrated to Argentina but likewise, the numbers are minuscule as a percentage of their population compared to the PI nations.

I genuinely think the Pacific Islands are a special case because they both produce a large proportion of the world's professional players and have an unbelievably large percentage of their people living away from the islands because the economic opportunities available at home are so limited.

If anything the parent/grandparent rule helps out tier 2 nations because good rugby players in rugby nations who aren't close to making their tier 1 test team opt to represent that other team because they want a chance to play test rugby and go to a RWC. Australians such as Greg Peterson and James Hilterbrand for the USA and Adam Byrnes for Russia come to mind.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Socioeconomic factors are huge too. Rugby labour is a huge export. If we devalue PI players (by not allowing them to play for other counties) what are we going to do better to support them? PI players support such wide family networks.

 

[Derpus]

Socioeconomic factors are huge too. Rugby labour is a huge export. If we devalue PI players (by not allowing them to play for other counties) what are we going to do better to support them? PI players support such wide family networks.

They'll play league i should think.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

They'll play league i should think.

Agreed. League would be a huge benefactor.

World Rugby must work on a revenue sharing model (for test match income) and also must dictate tier one nations to play away games against tier two.

 

[Derpus]

Yeah i was pondering on different ways a 5 team RC could work. Align 6N and RC, WR (World Rugby) can chip in a few buk, and then gate receipts from home games can be shared with Fiji to assist covering their costs (Derpus for WR (World Rugby) chairman!).

 

[Dan54]

Those same circumstances that exist for the PI nations aren't remotely close to existing for Georgia and Romania etc.

Georgia is a country of 3.7m people and there are 12k or so Georgians living in France. I highly doubt that there is a significant portion of the Georgian population with French grandparents. They are more likely to lose players to the residency rule (which has already been extended from 3 years to 5 years to make qualification more difficult).

Uruguay is a better example and there are plenty of Uruguayans who have emigrated to Argentina but likewise, the numbers are minuscule as a percentage of their population compared to the PI nations.

I genuinely think the Pacific Islands are a special case because they both produce a large proportion of the world's professional players and have an unbelievably large percentage of their people living away from the islands because the economic opportunities available at home are so limited.

If anything the parent/grandparent rule helps out tier 2 nations because good rugby players in rugby nations who aren't close to making their tier 1 test team opt to represent that other team because they want a chance to play test rugby and go to a RWC. Australians such as Greg Peterson and James Hilterbrand for the USA and Adam Byrnes for Russia come to mind.

You misunderstand me BH, the Georgian /Romanian thing has little to do with Grandparent rule, more I think they have a huge percentage of their best players in France etc , and probably as high a percentage as the Islands. I just think ALL countries have to be treated the same on this issue, not one rule for Islands and another for rest of world. Anyway the only one we kind of disagree on is grandparent rule, and I quite happy to agree to disagree on it, as many like it.

 

[Braveheart81]

You misunderstand me BH, the Georgian /Romanian thing has little to do with Grandparent rule, more I think they have a huge percentage of their best players in France etc , and probably as high a percentage as the Islands. I just think ALL countries have to be treated the same on this issue, not one rule for Islands and another for rest of world. Anyway the only one we kind of disagree on is grandparent rule, and I quite happy to agree to disagree on it, as many like it.

I agree that there should be one rule for everyone. What I am saying is that the various aspects of the eligibility rules affect different countries to varying degrees and that is why I am adamant that the grandparent rule should remain because its removal will end up detrimentally affecting a particular group of countries to a far greater degree than anyone else.

Do you have an issue with the residency rule? That is essentially what is going to allow Georgian and Romanian players to play for France. It has already been extended from 3 to 5 years. Is that enough? I tend to think it is now fine. 5 years committed to a country is a long time and in my view shows that you have permanently migrated somewhere (even if later you permanently migrate elsewhere, even back to your country of birth).

If you were analysing what the impact of the increase in the residency rule you would look at the countries that it generally affects. Teams that field players that qualify via residency are all tier 1 nations with substantial professional leagues. Increasing the length of time affects them all more or less equally and no one is particularly adversely affected. The countries that it benefits are predominantly the tier 2 nations who now don't lose players as easily due to the residency rule.

 

[Dan54]

I agree that there should be one rule for everyone. What I am saying is that the various aspects of the eligibility rules affect different countries to varying degrees and that is why I am adamant that the grandparent rule should remain because its removal will end up detrimentally affecting a particular group of countries to a far greater degree than anyone else.

Do you have an issue with the residency rule? That is essentially what is going to allow Georgian and Romanian players to play for France. It has already been extended from 3 to 5 years. Is that enough? I tend to think it is now fine. 5 years committed to a country is a long time and in my view shows that you have permanently migrated somewhere (even if later you permanently migrate elsewhere, even back to your country of birth).

No, I have no problem with residency rules, never actually have, but must admit the 5 year one makes me more comfortable. As I said I guessing why these 2nd tier countries are against players being able to come back and play for them and can only assume it is to stop the players from being so quick to align with other nations to start with as it them that seem to be missing out.

 

[stoff]

Socioeconomic factors are huge too. Rugby labour is a huge export. If we devalue PI players (by not allowing them to play for other counties) what are we going to do better to support them? PI players support such wide family networks.

Currently they are more valuable in Europe if not playing test rugby. It means they are available all through their long season which test players aren't. Maybe it's not full England test money, bit it's probably better than mid ranking wallaby money.

 

[Samson]

When I was growing up and watching test rugby and cricket my father explained that the test was about the strength of the game and it's grass roots standard at that point in time. Occasionally a player such as Greg Davis would migrate across the ditch and play for his adopted country(after a qualifying period). If you are a genuine migrant then i have no issue with you playing for your adopted country but if at a future point in time you wish to play for your heritage country because you are not good enough to play for your adopted country or for financial or other benefit then i am opposed.

My thoughts are that the country that develops you as a player has first call on you. You may say that a particular nation 's culture is ingrained but that does not mean that it's rugby culture is ingrained if you did not develop your rugby skills in that country.

 

[Wilson]

Looks like world rugby are set to vote on new team switching rules:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/59139431

Proposal is to allow players to reset eligibility after a 3 year stand period, basically formalizing and extending the Olympic sevens loophole to all rugby. Would be a big benefit to the pacific islands and maybe some of the smaller African nations if it gets up, but it needs 75% of the vote to pass.

 

[Sully]

Who might vote against it?

 

[Wilson]

The tier 2 rugby twitter (take with a large grain of salt) has a few ideas:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1455646423102459904

It does follow that tier 2 nations that don't stand to benefit would be against as it might see them slide relative to the rest. Interestingly Simon Raiwalui has been vocal on twitter recently that Fiji don't need this, whether or not that would lead them to vote against something that does stand to benefit them is a whole other question.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I have no problem with players re-qualifying for their country of birth but I'm not so sure about it also applying to heritage players unless it's one-way i.e. T1 to T2.

 

[Wilson]

I have no problem with players re-qualifying for their country of birth but I'm not so sure about it also applying to heritage players unless it's one-way i.e. T1 to T2.

What are the potential issues you see with heritage players switching to tier 1 nations?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ I just wouldn't put it past some of the T1's to use it as leverage on a dual-qualified player to "retire" from international footy for a T2 at a young enough age to then qualify (or try to) for the T1.

 

[Dan54]

I worry about whole thing ,as I said when only PI teams are mentioned. Even if we said T1 to T2, how exactly do we judge T1, is it top 10 or 12 etc.
I actually all for it so long as rules are very very clear cut and it's not just for PI, as it has to encompass all tier 2 countries etc.

 

[RugbyReg]

This would be interesting.

Israel Folau would be eligible for Tonga now (if he is playing rugby???)

Adam Coleman could do the same at the end of next year...

 

[Wilson]

This would be interesting.

Israel Folau would be eligible for Tonga now (if he is playing rugby???)

Adam Coleman could do the same at the end of next year...

Yeah, Folau is playing in Japan I think. Tonga stand to gain a lot based on where they are and who they could call in by the next world cup - Folau, Charles Piatau, George Moala right now and then Coleman, Sekope Kepu and possibly even Tolu Latu (assuming he wants to and doesn't play for us this spring tour) next year. There are almost certainly others I've missed and then guys like Laumape who would just miss the world cup time frame. With them likely to share a pool with Ireland and Scotland that's probably more then enough incentive for them to both oppose the change.

 

[Wilson]

I worry about whole thing ,as I said when only PI teams are mentioned. Even if we said T1 to T2, how exactly do we judge T1, is it top 10 or 12 etc.
I actually all for it so long as rules are very very clear cut and it's not just for PI, as it has to encompass all tier 2 countries etc.

As it's proposed I understand it's for everyone, the reason most of the mentions are about PI teams is the degree to which they fill the rugby diaspora, but smaller African nations like Namibia and Zimbabwe would likely benefit too.

Plenty of other sides would have an opportunity to pick up players, the difference is they wouldn't be drawing in either the volume or quality that the PI teams would, seeing them move back relative to these teams. That shouldn't be an argument against it from a world rugby perspective as it's essentially raising the quality of international rugby across the board, but these countries will almost certainly see it as a reason to vote against it.

If it were to be restricted by tier, the tiers have very clear definitions set by world rugby and teams have to be specifically promoted (or theoretically demoted) - Japan was the most recent addition to tier 1 and the only team outside the six nations/rugby championship.

I'm not sure where in world rugby's site the tiers are listed, but as far as I'm aware the wikipedia listing here is up to date:

List of international rugby union teams - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org