Mums and Dads and Grannies and Grandads and International parental Qualifications

Let's say that the nationality of parents were each worth 0.5 points and grand-parents 0.25 points for a player to claim playing rights for a particular country. And a total of 1 point required to earn the right.

I considered DNA proof, but that would be a total abrogation of any civil rights imaginable...

That would give Shane Howarth 0 points then...

That would mean that a few people would qualify for any country

To Portnoy.

I read this site a lot. Rarely am I compelled to comment as I tend to use it as an interesting read, with some interesting characters contained within.

I find your fascination with nationality to be tiresome, banal and unfortunate, especially when taking into consideration you often have valid points revolving around the game itself.

We get it; blood lines & racial purity within sport are important to you, regardless if how dated a concept that is.

I THINK YOU NEED TO DROP. IT. (imo)

It's 2012, and the world you hark after is on its way to the bin.

Just enjoy the game. It's a silly game, like all games are. All games are not much more than an activity and/or a distraction, depending on what side of the white lines you are. Nationality within sport is not much more than a convenient way of deciding on 2 opposing sides to compete.

Just try looking at it from another point of view: after all the huffing and puffing, and B.S on how Player X qualifies for Country Y...it's just a silly game.

You are exposing yourself.

Agnoo
Dont worry about it,someone else will come along in a couple of weeks time and just repeat the exercise.

Agnoo1 wrote:To Portnoy.

I read this site a lot. Rarely am I compelled to comment as I tend to use it as an interesting read, with some interesting characters contained within.

I find your fascination with nationality to be tiresome, banal and unfortunate, especially when taking into consideration you often have valid points revolving around the game itself.

We get it; blood lines & racial purity within sport are important to you, regardless if how dated a concept that is.

I THINK YOU NEED TO DROP. IT. (imo)

It's 2012, and the world you hark after is on its way to the bin.

Just enjoy the game. It's a silly game, like all games are. All games are not much more than an activity and/or a distraction, depending on what side of the white lines you are. Nationality within sport is not much more than a convenient way of deciding on 2 opposing sides to compete.

Just try looking at it from another point of view: after all the huffing and puffing, and B.S on how Player X qualifies for Country Y...it's just a silly game.

You are exposing yourself.

I totaly agree with you.

What's point of International sport if it not represented players of their nationality?

It's not eugenics. It's about maintaining the principles and spirit of International competition.

Otherwise countries may as well travel the globe with talent spotters and a cheque book - like footy clubs.

Portnoy wrote:Let's say that the nationality of parents were each worth 0.5 points and grand-parents 0.25 points for a player to claim playing rights for a particular country. And a total of 1 point required to earn the right.

I considered DNA proof, but that would be a total abrogation of any civil rights imaginable...

what about where you were born- do you get 1 pt for that??

what about where you lived - how do you deal with that?

where you were educated?

what the heck are you talking about portnoy- there have a system in place, and i think its fair enough, or do you have a problem with it?

Gentlemen, Portnoy has the right to offer his view, disagree with him if you want, but he has as much right as you to have his say.

If you feel it is getting boring, ignore the thread.

ok i will play along with his point.


however does his system even work. how do you define what nationality his gp or parents were- what are the guidelines as to what nationality they are(only where they were born).

basically his system doesnt have enough infomation behind it

Although I don't think that Portnoy's qualification criteria is right for me I do think that (if you keep it) Grandparents should count for half a parent. So you'd need two grandparents from somewhere to qualify for them.

hammer if you had two grandparents that are from the said natioonality- you would also have at least one parent that is at least part from that nationality as well.

how is it definned- where the person was born?, what passports they hold?

Well if I can have my 2cents, I would expand on his formula.

There should be a consideration for time spent in the adopted country.

If you parents aren't From the adopted country and no grandparents either then you should get points dependant at what age you moved there.

So find a factor for.

Grandparents
Parents
When did you move there (The important part here is where did you develop your skills.)

Grandparents- In my view you should get 0 for that.
Parents - Even if your parents are both from the newly adopted country when did they move away? If they moved away whilst you were under 10, logic dictates your culture will most likely have been heavily influenced by the country you grew up in.
When you moved there - If you moved there after school, in my view you shouldn't be able to represent your new country until at least 5 years have gone by.

My personal thoughts would be quite simple.

parenting and grandparents nationality is irreleavnt.

where you have lived for the most time up and till the time you have either reached 21 or picked a national team.

an example would be..

lived in south africa till you were 10..

lived in england from 10 plus.

that player can play for south arfica if he turns pro under 20, but would have n o choice but to choose england if he holds of and is picked at 21.

no other criteria is needed..

straight down the line- the choice is taken away from the person, he plays for the country that has put most into the develoment of the game.. end of story

I like that, development should be the key. But, you have to consider the guy who leaves after school at any stage, whether at age 18 or 25, doesn't matter, give him a minimum 5 year residency requirement before he may represent the new country.

You can't ignore that it is happening.

i think any system would bring up problems - however if we had clear guidlines for all sports that was completly defined(you only can play for one country- regardless of how fair it may seem to certain people) it takes away all the problems, everyone knows the rules.

mystiroakey

You can't take away from someone the right to choose where their heart lies?

Rugby players are as much born as they are developed. Dan Carter would have been a global sensation whether he was developed in the NZ or Italy.

Sure development is important but its certainly not the be all and end all.

We live in a global world, people move all the time and children often have no say in what their parents decide. I moved away from Scotland as a teenager because my Da was offered a job in ENG ....that for instance shouldn't blemish whom I would represent had I been good enough. I certainly had no say in the decision to up sticks... and very few kids generally do.

Look at Tom Shanklin for instance... born and bred in England... but his heart was always to Wales. You can't tell him... you have to play for ENG end of.

The Duke of Wellington is one of ENG greatest persons (as voted by the British public) yet he was an Irish noble whose family had settled in for hundreds of years.... yet they always thought of themselves as English and there is where his heart lied. He famously said when asked about his Irish birth and upbring... Jesus was born in a stable, but that doesn't make him a horse.

At the moment the system is pretty much the best system we have.

There are no longer hoards of British people etc moving to AUS, NZ & SA like they did post WWII.... the numbers of rugby players with parents or grandparents from the UK will decline as the baby boomers get older. The grandparent issue will become much more rare.

Residency will become the bigger issue of the future.

fa0019 wrote:mystiroakey

You can't take away from someone the right to choose where their heart lies?

Rugby players are as much born as they are developed. Dan Carter would have been a global sensation whether he was developed in the NZ or Italy.

Sure development is important but its certainly not the be all and end all.

We live in a global world, people move all the time and children often have no say in what their parents decide. I moved away from Scotland as a teenager because my Da was offered a job in ENG ....that for instance shouldn't blemish whom I would represent had I been good enough. I certainly had no say in the decision to up sticks... and very few kids generally do.

Look at Tom Shanklin for instance... born and bred in England... but his heart was always to Wales. You can't tell him... you have to play for ENG end of.

The Duke of Wellington is one of ENG greatest persons (as voted by the British public) yet he was an Irish noble whose family had settled in for hundreds of years.... yet they always thought of themselves as English and there is where his heart lied. He famously said when asked about his Irish birth and upbring... Jesus was born in a stable, but that doesn't make him a horse.

At the moment the system is pretty much the best system we have.

There are no longer hoards of British people etc moving to AUS, NZ & SA like they did post WWII.... the numbers of rugby players with parents or grandparents from the UK will decline as the baby boomers get older. The grandparent issue will become much more rare.

Residency will become the bigger issue of the future.

If a country has developed the player then that should be the defining and only reason when picking an international team to play for. heart should have nothing to do with it. the said country that has put the most into developing the player should have the right to choose that player. And if the sportsman in question cant see that then its a sad state of affairs

Portnoy - you have the bones of a great system!

Of course where someone's born, whether they hold a passport and time spent in a country should have an impact as well.

Your system would stop countries immediately picking an overseas player who has only one grandparent or even one parent and one grandparent of the required nationality. That should count for something though, so it could be used to create a portfolio of qualifying conditions that would see a player gain qualification.

Why not add 0.25 of a point for:
- every contiguous year a player has spent in the country at time of qualification
- if a player was born in that country
- if the player holds a passport of that country
- if the player played for a representative national team of that country.

So if say a Kiwi backrow had an English granny: that would gain him 0.25 points for England, then he would have to qualify by residing in England for three more years to give him the additional 0.75 points required. The principle would be that uncapped players with no connection to a country could serve a residency qualification period of four years, but for players with some connection that time would be reduced.


More radically I'd extend the principle to allow players to switch from one country to another. The practice of insidiously giving a player one cap to stop them playing for anyone else is bad for the game. Small countries struggling for players would be much more competitive if they could play capped players unwanted by their home country. So for every cap a player had for his first country that would count as 0.25 points against qualification for someone else.

So for example if a Kiwi had one cap for the All-Blacks and had no other connection to Wales, he would have to serve the four years residency plus an extra year to compensate for his cap, making it five years in total.

Portnoy - yer a genius.

basically thinking your heart lies in a country that has nothing,little or less to do with who you are is an outdated concept. It should be more be about repaying those around you and the country that has produced you..

Firstly I am talking about the parental eligibility rules.

Of course a player born in Wales of (say) Scottish parents may have a choice.

And if he had (say) four Irish grandparents, he'd be eligible.

What I don't like i a random granny dragged out of nowhere.

There are residency rules (which are imperfect) to cover the rest.

this a reply to this quote hours ago but I had to leave it unfinished for various reasons

Post by Agnoo1 Today at 0:57

To Portnoy.

I read this site a lot. Rarely am I compelled to comment as I tend to use it as an interesting read, with some interesting characters contained within.

I find your fascination with nationality to be tiresome, banal and unfortunate, especially when taking into consideration you often have valid points revolving around the game itself.

We get it; blood lines & racial purity within sport are important to you, regardless if how dated a concept that is.

I THINK YOU NEED TO DROP. IT. (imo)

It's 2012, and the world you hark after is on its way to the bin.

Just enjoy the game. It's a silly game, like all games are. All games are not much more than an activity and/or a distraction, depending on what side of the white lines you are. Nationality within sport is not much more than a convenient way of deciding on 2 opposing sides to compete.

Just try looking at it from another point of view: after all the huffing and puffing, and B.S on how Player X qualifies for Country Y...it's just a silly game.

You are exposing yourself.

Portnoy wrote:Firstly I am talking about the parental eligibility rules.

Of course a player born in Wales of (say) Scottish parents may have a choice.

And if he had (say) four Irish grandparents, he'd be eligible.

What I don't like i a random granny dragged out of nowhere.

There are residency rules (which are imperfect) to cover the rest.

Ok, fair enough. Seems reasonable

Portnoy wrote:Let's say that the nationality of parents were each worth 0.5 points and grand-parents 0.25 points for a player to claim playing rights for a particular country. And a total of 1 point required to earn the right.

I considered DNA proof, but that would be a total abrogation of any civil rights imaginable...

What if you don't add up to 1 for any country what would happen then?

I don't see why people get worked up by the grandparent rule.

If your grandparents were Uk citizens and you you were born outside of the UK before 1983 you are entitled to UK citizenship. If you were born during or after 1983 as long your parents were born in the UK you are entitled to citizenship.

If you are citizen of a country you should be able to represent that countries national team.


The problem the IRB has is that citizenship rules vary from country to country so it would be unfair to say you need to have citizenship for a country to represent them at a national level. So its easier to have blanket rule for all nations.

If a countrys system has made a player - that country deserves that player- no other nation does- end off. Put the country first not some moron that feels he is something different because his dad has brainwashed him into nationalistic bs or for a payday..

ieuan wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Let's say that the nationality of parents were each worth 0.5 points and grand-parents 0.25 points for a player to claim playing rights for a particular country. And a total of 1 point required to earn the right.

I considered DNA proof, but that would be a total abrogation of any civil rights imaginable...

What if you don't add up to 1 for any country what would happen then?

I don't see why people get worked up by the grandparent rule.

If your grandparents were Uk citizens and you you were born outside of the UK before 1983 you are entitled to UK citizenship. If you were born during or after 1983 as long your parents were born in the UK you are entitled to citizenship.

If you are citizen of a country you should be able to represent that countries national team.


The problem the IRB has is that citizenship rules vary from country to country so it would be unfair to say you need to have citizenship for a country to represent them at a national level. So its easier to have blanket rule for all nations.

The problem with the rule is it makes it easy for the UK to poach players if they so wish.

Mr Bounce wrote:That would give Shane Howarth 0 points then...

No he was born in New Zealand and was also capped for the All Blacks as well as for Wales.

biltongbek wrote:

ieuan wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Let's say that the nationality of parents were each worth 0.5 points and grand-parents 0.25 points for a player to claim playing rights for a particular country. And a total of 1 point required to earn the right.

I considered DNA proof, but that would be a total abrogation of any civil rights imaginable...

What if you don't add up to 1 for any country what would happen then?

I don't see why people get worked up by the grandparent rule.

If your grandparents were Uk citizens and you you were born outside of the UK before 1983 you are entitled to UK citizenship. If you were born during or after 1983 as long your parents were born in the UK you are entitled to citizenship.

If you are citizen of a country you should be able to represent that countries national team.


The problem the IRB has is that citizenship rules vary from country to country so it would be unfair to say you need to have citizenship for a country to represent them at a national level. So its easier to have blanket rule for all nations.

The problem with the rule is it makes it easy for the UK to poach players if they so wish.

Yes the current law does allow that to happen but at the moment it is not possible to get rid of it because you can get citizenship for the UK if you have a grandparent born in the UK provided you were born before 1983. In Italy you can be granted citizenship if your grandparents are Italian and you have lived in Italy for 2 years.

In The rest of the tier one nations you can only qualify as a citizen by decent if your parents were born in that country.

Another area in which causes problems when deciding on qualification rules is that the home nations do not play under one team but they all have UK citizenship (unless they are from the republic of Ireland). My Dad is welsh by decent only, his parents moved to England before his birth, and my mother is English. My dad always took me to watch rugby when i was younger and I have grown up supporting Wales and who ever England are playing against. I only qualify as welsh via my grandparents but I am welsh. In my opinion the grandparent rule is there for cases like me but yes they have been abused by nations in order to poach players.

ieun you are english yet you support any team against england- lol you really are........

basically you are the problem from my pov and you have been brainwashed. it is bad enough supporting wales(ok i can sort of understand that) but to support any team against england is bordering on retarded.

however the more important point in this is- if you had played rugby to a good enough level you would have been produced by the english system not the welsh- therefore england is the only team you should have played for in that hypothetrical situation

Iewan,

If you were good enough to play for Wales (and both your paternal gps were), then you'd have 0.5 pts.

And to my mind that would make a reduction (say 6 months per 0.25 parent) on the residency rule.

And I'm not making this up on the hoof. I've thought it through.

mystiroakey wrote:ieun you are english yet you support any team against england- lol you really are........

basically you are the problem from my pov and you have been brainwashed. it is bad enough supporting wales(ok i can sort of understand that) but to support any team against england is bordering on retarded.

however the more important point in this is- if you had played rugby to a good enough level you would have been produced by the english system not the welsh- therefore england is the only team you should have played for in that hypothetrical situation

I can't agree less mystri,

I don't like to see third-generation subcontinental Asians supporting India/Pakistan - but I can understand it from a socio-cultural background.

So I'm perfectly ready to permit an extra residency allowance.

portnoy the guy is english and yet he supports teams against england- all this nationalistic trash is ludicrous just because he had a weslh grandad- lol!

And the more important fact is that from my pov if a country has produced the player that player should pay that country bhack.

I am not suggesting my scenario would ever ever happen- however it is much more morally acceptable to me..

i am happy with keeping things as there are to an extent. however i cant agree with allowing any player to play for a team just based on grandparents or allowing any reduction in residency- stick to 5 years whatever!

If you are good enough for the said country to be declared a resident by law- by extension that should be good enough for the national team- no point confusing that with your gp rule!

in all honesty i think the guy is baiting me- 4 posts an all that!

who are ya?

mystiroakey wrote:portnoy the guy is english and yet he supports teams against england- all this nationalistic trash is ludicrous just because he had a weslh grandad- lol!

And the more important fact is that from my pov if a country has produced the player that player should pay that country bhack.

I am not suggesting my scenario would ever ever happen- however it is much more morally acceptable to me..

i am happy with keeping things as there are to an extent. however i cant agree with allowing any player to play for a team just based on grandparents or allowing any reduction in residency- stick to 5 years whatever!

If you are good enough for the said country to be declared a resident by law- by extension that should be good enough for the national team- no point confusing that with your gp rule!

I'm sorry but how can you argue with how someones own identity?

I was born to a Welsh father and English mother? surely that makes me half English and half welsh? I support Wales because I have more connection with my Welsh family than my English one. My name couldn't be any more welsh if you tried. Nationality is something very personal and individual and is influenced by more than just where you were born.

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all come under UK citizenship so the IRB's rules cannot be that simple

i said i could almost underrstand you supprting wales- however you said you support teams against english. i will never ever understand that mentality- ever

as i said before you have been brainwashed rather than influenced.

what are you gonna do when you get a kid- teach him the same mad philosphy!!- when the heck does it end??

also onto the real point- if you had become a great rugby player it would have been down to an english system not a welsh- do you honestly think it would be right to play for wales under that scenario!

The whole not supporting England thing is more of joke than anything. It makes the game more fun when watching with friends if your supporting the other team.

I think parents values and beliefs are bound to be passed down to their kids. Not many people choice they're religion they just follow the sameone their family follows.

I think it would be because that is where my heart lies. When i was a little kid running around with ball in my hand playing with my brothers I was Barry John or Gareth Edwards scoring the winning try against England. It was always my dream to play for Wales not England. I think it would be more wrong to play for England when my heart wouldn't be in it.

Look at Ben Morgan, English born with English parents but given his chance to play professionally in Wales. Before the six nations he had the choice between the two nations. He chose England because that is what he always dreamed about.

your kids are gonna be more english than even you(if you marry english)

are you gonna brainwash them into supporting wales rugby team. are you gonna brainwash them into believing that there 'heart' is in wales?

or are you gonna allow them to grow up to make there own choices?

" I think it would be more wrong to play for England when my heart wouldn't be in it."

i think you miss the point. It would still be wrong for you to play for wales- because it wouldnt have been the welsh system that created you.

also remember that your heart is only your heart because of how you have been conditioned- its not a genetic feeling at all!

you just need to be deprogrammed thats all!

mystiroakey wrote:It would still be wrong for you to play for wales- because it wouldnt have been the welsh system that created you.

Rugby players are made not born?

There's a story about a Dr Frankenstein who set out to make a perfect specimen but then wasn't happy with the result and it turned on him. If any country are producing players but not using them is it right that they are lost to rugby forever?

The Great Aukster wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:It would still be wrong for you to play for wales- because it wouldnt have been the welsh system that created you.

Rugby players are made not born?

There's a story about a Dr Frankenstein who set out to make a perfect specimen but then wasn't happy with the result and it turned on him. If any country are producing players but not using them is it right that they are lost to rugby forever?

your using a silly comparison. it trivialises the point!

being nationalisitc is a backwards notion these days, if you play sport,love sport and are a product of a system then you should have loyality to that country and its system, you shouldnt be brainwashed into thinking you are something else because your grandad was born in another country!

If your not good enough to get into your systems national team - tough luck basically.

However i am happy with the system as it is and under the current system i have no qualms with players picking and chosing nations- i am talking about utopiom situation.

What i hate is people like the above that are as english as any other englishman(yes he has abit of welsh in him, but hardly any of us are pure breeds!!) yet he chooses to support teams against england!! defies belief from my pov.

i am allways up for supporting others in my situation, my vicinity, love your neighbour- etc(not religious in the slightest and thats another problem, however the book still raises good moral points)

basically if everyone worries and cares about there own personal surrondings the world would be a much better place.

people feeling different from those that live next door(just because of colour, creed, where your gp are born!!!,sexuality,etc) is the biggest baine on society possible and what creates so many social problems

Can't we give prospective players an Englishness test to see if they think of themselves as English? If they pass they qualify. Mixed practical and theoretical exam with questions such as "the Weather. Discuss", "what are the pros and cons of being in an International relationship with some of our oldest rival/enemy nations?" and downing a pint of bitter

If any country are producing players but not using them is it right that they are lost to rugby forever?

Depends what you mean by not using them. If you develop payers you expect them to strnegthen your domestic rugby and the best play for your national team.

Do you think it is right that they represent other countries?

The term representation in itself should mean representing your own country.

Let me ask you this. If your country's international team has a number of foreign developed players is not a hint of disappointment that your team is not representative of your own system?

i think its right that players do choose other countries- because it is a freeish system and there are utilising the system- fair play from my pov. however its not a perfect situation and highlights alot of social problems and as you rightly say the systems that are in place

KP is a great example to the point.

KP has choosen england, and england choose him due to a combination of problems in the SA system and the english system.

this isnt really a social problem but a problem in the systems as they stand which have come under alot of pressure due to ongoing social problems in both nations

mystiroakey wrote:KP is a great example to the point.

KP has choosen england, and england choose him due to a combination of problems in the SA system and the english system.

this isnt really a social problem but a problem in the systems as they stand which have come under alot of pressure due to ongoing social problems in both nations

What was the problems with the SA system?

KP was dropped by Natal and found it hard to get his place back. He thought he was better than some of the non white players getting picked in front of him so blamed it on the Quota and decided it would be better for his career to move to England.

Yeah, he blamed it on the quota, so instead of applying himself, he chose the easy way out. Is that no the case with many sportsmen though?

They want to find the path of least resistance, and hence leave for "easier" pastures. Rather than showing how much they "believe" in themselves by hard work, determination and performance, they give up all too easy and use the most obvious stick to beat the dog with.

I agree the quota system is a factor, however those who are classy enough and good enough does get through, how else did AB de Villiers, Dale Steyn, FAF du Plessis and all the rest come through?

biltongbek wrote:

If any country are producing players but not using them is it right that they are lost to rugby forever?

Depends what you mean by not using them. If you develop payers you expect them to strnegthen your domestic rugby and the best play for your national team.

Do you think it is right that they represent other countries?

Yes. They will have gone as far as they are likely to go in their home country, so if they can develop further elsewhere they may still come back to play but if they aren't given that opportunity then it is only right that they play elsewhere. The smaller nations would become more competitive by importing players.

biltongbek wrote:The term representation in itself should mean representing your own country.

Let me ask you this. If your country's international team has a number of foreign developed players is not a hint of disappointment that your team is not representative of your own system?

No. Some countries are just too small to produce enough quality players irrespective of what their system is. If a player qualifies on residency he will have spent three years doing so, and will have 'developed' in his new country in that time anyway. Is a diamond the product of the miner who found it or the craftsman who cut and polished it?

We're not comparing diamonds mate.

the qouta i think was needed - however it shouldnt have ever been needed as we should never have allowed something like SA to happen. However is futile to worry about the past- better to concentrate on the future- that was SA's social problem and one of the reasons why KP choose england. Englands problem was lack of talent, caused by its own social problem, cricket is a classest sport and doesnt appeal to the masses.

anyway lol i am getting abit political here , however there is a certain feeling within England that we are all different, no community spirit anymore(the real point i was trying to originally make)

The rules are the same for all,once during the2003 RWC i had this discussion with a chap called "Jovial Jim"often wondered what happened to him.
My self the criteria would be the parents,and place of birth in the event of immegration.The child a maximum age of 15,would qualify in the new Country
providing he had not played Test rugby a schoolboy level.So for example if the parents are Pacific islanders they qualify for there new country and parents.
Residency,I would make 5 years and the stipulation would be NO representative
rugby AT ANY level to qualify for a Tier1 nation.Tier2 Nations should have the use of retreads say Aus or Nz qualified players of there birth.