Who should be representing a country?

There have been a few discussions recently on the matter of eligibility for a international rugby team. I thought I'd run a poll to see what people expect from their representational sides. There is no 'right' answer in this in my opinion and this is just to see what people want. Theres no need to justify your decision but feel welcome to debate the issues.

Try and keep the wumming to harmless banter.

Simply chose as many as you think should apply. It's multiple choice and you can change your mind.

EDIT: there are some that seem like repeats but never mind

I think this is a valid discussion but your poll has far too many options...

Interesting thread, shame it hasn't had more comments. My votes were born in
brought up U10s/teen
developed
parents (which is improtant if you were born somewhere then moved when you were 2 - or you live close to a border and your mother crossed it to give birth)
Developed U13s
Citizen
7year residency
Only rep 1 country in sport (as adult)

Reckon born in the country or raised through the system from U13 as youd presumably be a citizen by the time you were to play, and you'd think of the country as your own. Rep 1 country, full stop. No room for blood relative/ancestry qualification for me, as presumably you'd qualify by other means if you moved at age 2.

This debate keeps happening, but is there any evidence the IRB think there is a problem with the current rules?

I'd go with:

- Born in country
- 7 year residential qualification (with years under 18 counting double)
- Parents' nationality (actually Id be tempted to do away with this, but it is probably too radical).

I agree blood relation should not be a qualification factor.

The first question is how and when do you identify with a country's culture?

In my opinion it will be where you spent your childhood.

The next question is where did you develop your playing skills?

In my opinion from the age where that specific country you grew up in starts playing rugby.

The next question is, by when are you deemed developed enough to be deemed a talented player?

In my opinion, by the time you have caught the eye of academies or age group representation for semi or professional outfits, in other words you are rated as a potential professional player. No this could be as young as 16.

The next question is, why is this important?

Because different countries have varying developmental structures and those lacking in similar level structures, can abuse this for their benefit with little input of time, money and effort.

Is this the only reasons?

No, it is understandable that countries who produce more talent than what they can accomodate in a professional setup has players that will and should look for employment opportunities elsewhere.

It is also true that clubs no longer represent their communities and has embraced the concept of paying top dollar for immediate results.

This is where the difference between representing yourself as an employee of a club and the honour of representing the country or system with pride are two different concepts.

This is where black and white is necssary. The one you do for yourself, representing your nation is not a devine right, but an honour. And taking these options devalues the honour of representing your nation and the fans of that nation.

There are two separate questions here:
"Which of the above options should allow a player to represent a country?"; and
"Which of the above options should compel a player to represent a country?"

Some of these options should allow, and some should compel.
Playing for a nation's designated next-level team should compel a player to represent a country.
Being developed by the controlling union's system should allow but not compel a player to represent a country.

Yup, you said it biltong, summed it up in a nutshell for me

With the sports thing, I'd say just one country in all sports with the exception of where the concepts of countries are debatable- like in the uk

I'd go with:

- Birth
- Parents
- Residency (5 years)
- Must not have played 18+ Rugby (either code) for another nation

Simple and tightens up the existing rules without making things too complicated.

If you don't know your nationality by the time your 16 years of age then you are cognitively challenged to say the least - Its not rocket science -

I think parentage is important - as (like my brother in law) you could have been born in a certain country and either staid there or grew up in different countries but your parents had brought you up with their patrotism (in my bro in laws that South African, even though he was born in Dublin and grew up in Bulgaria/England) and ethos. I know plenty of English people who were born in Wales when their parents moved here but have been brought up to be steadfast Englishmen/women.

How about just wiring them up to an EEG machine and start playing the respective national anthems - probably the best objectice measure out there, although I et excited when the French anthem starts so we could have some problems

EEG won't work, you'll show as mch emotion for your own country as those you dislike.

You may end up playing for the wrong country.

I can see the EEG putting a lot of Welsh players in an England jumper.

RubyGuby wrote:How about just wiring them up to an EEG machine and start playing the respective national anthems - probably the best objectice measure out there, although I et excited when the French anthem starts so we could have some problems

Certaintly wouldn't work in Ireland

geoff998rugby wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:How about just wiring them up to an EEG machine and start playing the respective national anthems - probably the best objectice measure out there, although I et excited when the French anthem starts so we could have some problems

Certaintly wouldn't work in Ireland

That's better Geoff

Not Charlie Hodgson

I think citizenship or your rugby development (usually age level rugby) are useful parameters to work within.

Where it gets more complicated is when you have cross codes. For example, Cooper Vuna, born in New Zealand with Tongan origins who played schoolboy league in Australia before he got noticed by Australia. A bit of a mess but not impossible for him to play for the ABs in union (even though he will probably be playing against Wales in two weeks time and I don't have a problem with that. Well maybe a little one as he looks a very good winger!) but I think once you make a choice in a sport you shouldn't be able to go back. So say he represented Tonga or Australia in league (the former is the case I think) then should he be allowed to play union? Maybe but for me the same country as the one he represented in league. So no Brad Thorn as an AB.

I believe this was part of the reason for the residency rule being set as it is, in some countries you can get citizenship by residence alone.

Can you name a few of those countries PSW? They must be eager for immigrants. I would've thought with the global crisis, countries would be making it tougher to get citizenship.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Can you name a few of those countries PSW? They must be eager for immigrants. I would've thought with the global crisis, countries would be making it tougher to get citizenship.

Depends on the countries economic situation and demographic - there's a lot of positives as well as negatives to immigration, also some very small countries may need immigration as they may have high migration