Player Poaching Argument Errupts

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10843110

Interestingly, after years and years of the old "player poaching" debate rattling around on forums such as 606v2 we see national unions bickering in the same way.

To catch up anybody who hasn't been paying attention:

First the Aussies taunted Steve Hansen about NZ's talent identification approach as kiwi Mike Harris booted Australia to a draw that is apparently being treated as moral victory at Wallaby HQ.

Steve Hansen retored by suggesting they learn to develop their own players rather than poaching Kiwis.

No stranger to controversy, or being totally wrong about everything, John O'Neill waded in with a familar lack of dignity or logic raising the widely debunked notion that NZ notriously "poached" pacific Island players for the All Blacks.

Hansen then came back with some stats that staggeringly only 72 of over 1100 All Blacks were foreign born, and that 80% of the Samoan team in the RWC were actually born in NZ, and that he'd picked a Kiwi coach.

John O'Neill then came back that Hansen was just a WUM and was making it all up.

Hansen then pointed out that not only was John O'Neill wrong and coudn't argue, but that he probably just the latest incarnation of the Grey Ghost, but he probably wasn't even Australian and had been putting on the accent to hide his identity.

John O'Neill referred the comments to the ARU for moderation and tried to divert attention from his comments by starting another thread of conversation naming his Australian XV to tour the northern hemisphere, notably leaving out Higganbotham.

Steve Tew then lept in and re-opened the wound by calling O'Neill "insulting and ill-informed" said Australia lacked depth, had an ugly uniform that was made by a Kiwi company too.

O'Neill then tried to drag Tew into the discussion about his Aussie XV and whether he thought the ban for Higganbotham was fair or too lenient.


So what is your opinion? Personally I believe Kiwireddevil and Biltong should be sent in to sort them out.

Haven't the kiwis been poaching islanders for decades? Seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You're a crack up alright AWoP. Serious question, is greyghost a shape shifter? He's popping up all over the place, it's giving me the willies

The poaching thing has a lot of angles.

When you argue someone has been born in another country, it is stating a fact, but it doesn't win the argument.

The question is how and when did the players arrive in the country he wasn't born in.

Let's take the prime example of Andrew Mehrtens, he was born in SA off New Zealand parents, ans moved back to NZ when he was still a small boy.

Forget for a moment that his parents are New Zealanders, even if they weren't and were South Africans who emigrated to New Zealand, Mehrtens learn't his rugby in New Zealand.

And that is for me the most important argument.

Where did the kid learn his rugby, because in my humble opinion that is the rugby culture he identifies strongest with.

That is also why I have always argued that I have no issue with players travelling the world to find a career in professional rugby, what I have an issue with is when countries target talented young players who can ultimately represent another nation.

So when you are talking poaching, in my view you poach a player with talent when it is recognised, you don't poach a kid who's parents decide to move to antoehr country. It is the intent that makes it poaching.

Biltong, hit the nail on the head there mate. Great post!

i'm surprised you didnt mention Richie McCaw somewhere in this article.

Rumours are he is actually australian

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:i'm surprised you didnt mention Richie McCaw somewhere in this article.

Rumours are he is actually australian

Born off south african parents, with a scottish grandfather and Welsh Grandmother.

As usual, another staggering take on reality from AWOP. I think you'll find this whole thing started because of Hansen which smacked of sour grapes.

I think the IRB need to get serious on this whole topic.

International movement is massive now...the world is a very small place. However the rediculous lack of sensible guidlines or rules with regards to rugby eligibility is making the whole thing become a bit farsical.

I dont want to see people like Hape, Waldrom, Vainikolo, Flutey or Henry Paul playing for England.

They need to sort out:
1) The 3 year rule must be increased
2) Should the Grandparent rule count. I dont think it should.
3) What age constitutes a child when moving countries with parents etc?
4) If you have played another sport for a nation...you cant swap...ie Rugby League to rugby Union.

Simply looking at these would sort a whole load of s**t out....

Biltong wrote:

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:i'm surprised you didnt mention Richie McCaw somewhere in this article.

Rumours are he is actually australian

Born off south african parents, with a scottish grandfather and Welsh Grandmother.

Wow, how did the England selectors miss that one!

Biltong wrote:

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:i'm surprised you didnt mention Richie McCaw somewhere in this article.

Rumours are he is actually australian

Born off south african parents, with a scottish grandfather and Welsh Grandmother.

I thought McCaw was an immaculate conception.

Biltong wrote:So when you are talking poaching, in my view you poach a player with talent when it is recognised, you don't poach a kid who's parents decide to move to antoehr country. It is the intent that makes it poaching.

Yup, agree with that whole heartedly

What about kiwis of Samoan heritage but with parents/grand parents born in NZ, but have strong ties to their homeland. It's common. Would they be eligible to play for Samoa if they swore allegiance? It'd be great if they could.

Geordie, for the the crux is when does a child start playing sport and what percentage of that sport does he play in which country?

In SA we start playing cubs rugby at age 5-7.

When you go to grade 3, you start playing full 15 man rugby at age 8.

We have a Craven Week for juniors as well as high school kids.

By the time he leaves school he has played rugby for 10 years.

Now in the case of SA, some will be contracted right from Craven Week at age 18 before they leave school. Others will go to university and play varsity cup.

Those not fortunate enough to gain contracts will play amateur club rugby.

The question is when do you decide to look for talent in another country?

Usually by contract stage, so that is age 18.

If the IRB lengthen the residency period (which I beleive they must do) then the problem is, if another nation's Rugby Union starts looking at poaching it will be earlier, they will scour the Craven week to find players earlier, hence if the IRB increases the residence to 5 years, they can be 23 when they can represent their "adopted" nation.

So for me the residency must be 7 years.

Why?

Going to another country to play professional rugby doesn't stop you with the residency issue, the residency only stops you from representing another country.

You can still make big money being a professional without a national cap.

So a guy deciding he wants to go for the money let him do it, but why must he then be able to represent another country so quickly?

Grnadparent rule for me is rubbish.

Most of us in AUS, SA and NZ have forefathers coming from there. So it is nonsense that the "empire" can still call on something only they can really benfit from.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think the IRB need to get serious on this whole topic.

International movement is massive now...the world is a very small place. However the rediculous lack of sensible guidlines or rules with regards to rugby eligibility is making the whole thing become a bit farsical.

I dont want to see people like Hape, Waldrom, Vainikolo, Flutey or Henry Paul playing for England.

They need to sort out:
1) The 3 year rule must be increased
2) Should the Grandparent rule count. I dont think it should.
3) What age constitutes a child when moving countries with parents etc?
4) If you have played another sport for a nation...you cant swap...ie Rugby League to rugby Union.

Simply looking at these would sort a whole load of s**t out....

I would like to use Nathan Hines as an example in this one, and the Evans brothers as Scottish Examples.

The Evans brothers chose to play for Scotland because it was their Grandfathers dying wish to see them play for Scotland, they arguably could have been good enough to play for England but chose to play for Scotland.

Same goes for Wagga who is a superb lock and IMO could have secured Wallabies caps if he wanted but instead chose to play for Scotland again through his Grand Parents.

Parents and Grandparents could have huge effects on what team you want to play for. I think the Grandparents and parents rule should stay but I think the residency rule should be extended to 5 years.

Don't get me wrong I'm happy to have Visser qualified for Scotland but I must confess scottish born and bread players who have dreamt of playing for Scotland will have had their dreams dashed by someone like Visser who is only playing for Scotland because he can.

He has said in the past he is a Dutchman and always will be but he loves Edinburgh and his adopted home of Scotland. One wonders if that is his words or scripted for him.

I come from a mixed race background, my father being born in Wales and my mother being born in Scotland. As with the Shingler debacle I have made my opinions clear, you should be free to chose who you want to represent at senior rugby without prejudice and with impunity.

ebop wrote:

Biltong wrote:So when you are talking poaching, in my view you poach a player with talent when it is recognised, you don't poach a kid who's parents decide to move to antoehr country. It is the intent that makes it poaching.

Yup, agree with that whole heartedly

What about kiwis of Samoan heritage but with parents/grand parents born in NZ, but have strong ties to their homeland. It's common. Would they be eligible to play for Samoa if they swore allegiance? It'd be great if they could.

ebop, in my view all second tier nations not able to afford a professional league should be exempted from any exclusions applicable on tier one nations.

the reasoning is simple, they can't poach players as they don't have the funds.

This is more a 1st tier nation problem and really has little to do with Samoa, Namibia, Fiji, TOnga etc.

But I do agree that they must make a pledge when they are contracted by any professional union right off the bat. It just simply clears things up.

Yes, I am of Samoan heritage, my Grnadfather lives in samoa, I moved here with my parents as they could provide me a better life, but I pledge myself to the Samoan team.

Indeed, it's different isn't it. It's a decision based on honouring your heritage rather than one based on money and selfish opportunity. Because to me, these players that flit around are a bit selfish and have no respect for their own heritage, disgrace really.

Bit self righteous I know

I think part of the issue here is the extent to which countries depend on foreign born players. If there are one or two, people won't really mind, but when you get teams containing alot of them, it becomes an issue, even if those players have strong connections with that country.

Vunipola's addition to the england squad, for example, is more of an issue due to the high number of foreign-origin players already there, Botha, Hartley, Barritt, etc.

Bilts,

Thats a very valid point...when did that individual start playing rugby...

Do we look at who has influenced the players development the most since childhood etc...

I think your 7 year residency rule would work far better than the pathetic 3 year one.

These are little changes that would clear up much of the mess....

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think the IRB need to get serious on this whole topic.

International movement is massive now...the world is a very small place. However the rediculous lack of sensible guidlines or rules with regards to rugby eligibility is making the whole thing become a bit farsical.

I dont want to see people like Hape, Waldrom, Vainikolo, Flutey or Henry Paul playing for England.

They need to sort out:
1) The 3 year rule must be increased
2) Should the Grandparent rule count. I dont think it should.
3) What age constitutes a child when moving countries with parents etc?
4) If you have played another sport for a nation...you cant swap...ie Rugby League to rugby Union.

Simply looking at these would sort a whole load of s**t out....

I would like to use Nathan Hines as an example in this one, and the Evans brothers as Scottish Examples.

The Evans brothers chose to play for Scotland because it was their Grandfathers dying wish to see them play for Scotland, they arguably could have been good enough to play for England but chose to play for Scotland.

Same goes for Wagga who is a superb lock and IMO could have secured Wallabies caps if he wanted but instead chose to play for Scotland again through his Grand Parents.

Parents and Grandparents could have huge effects on what team you want to play for. I think the Grandparents and parents rule should stay but I think the residency rule should be extended to 5 years.

Don't get me wrong I'm happy to have Visser qualified for Scotland but I must confess scottish born and bread players who have dreamt of playing for Scotland will have had their dreams dashed by someone like Visser who is only playing for Scotland because he can.

He has said in the past he is a Dutchman and always will be but he loves Edinburgh and his adopted home of Scotland. One wonders if that is his words or scripted for him.

I come from a mixed race background, my father being born in Wales and my mother being born in Scotland. As with the Shingler debacle I have made my opinions clear, you should be free to chose who you want to represent at senior rugby without prejudice and with impunity.

Radge I accept things are more complicated in the UK.

Kids and parents can move freely between countries and hence it often happens where a child will have parents from two different countries, ie. in your case.

The question I have is this. Assume you were good enough to play professional rugby, you have a choice, you can say you pledge yourself to either country. the question is when? If you decide as an example you want to play for Wales, then at sighning your first professional contract in europe, you state your allegiance, in my view that is only fair. Becuase if your grandfather or father for example have influenced you towards let's say wales, that isn't going to change when you get older.

My issue is with players that say, I am in england and want to represent them, a few years later you realise you aren't going to make it, and now all of a sudden you get called by another national coach expressing interest and you change your allegiance. that is a mercinary in my opinion.

Biltong wrote:The poaching thing has a lot of angles.

When you argue someone has been born in another country, it is stating a fact, but it doesn't win the argument.

The question is how and when did the players arrive in the country he wasn't born in.

Let's take the prime example of Andrew Mehrtens, he was born in SA off New Zealand parents, ans moved back to NZ when he was still a small boy.

Forget for a moment that his parents are New Zealanders, even if they weren't and were South Africans who emigrated to New Zealand, Mehrtens learn't his rugby in New Zealand.

And that is for me the most important argument.

Where did the kid learn his rugby, because in my humble opinion that is the rugby culture he identifies strongest with.
That is also why I have always argued that I have no issue with players travelling the world to find a career in professional rugby, what I have an issue with is when countries target talented young players who can ultimately represent another nation.

So when you are talking poaching, in my view you poach a player with talent when it is recognised, you don't poach a kid who's parents decide to move to antoehr country. It is the intent that makes it poaching.

Biltong

As always you talk sense but i do pull you up slightly here on the bolded comment.

I believe that just as people are within limits set down in immigraion law, free to move countries, settle down and integrate or assimilate or identify with their new home and culture

so rugby players must be allowed to do the same within the rules.

It is incredibly simplistic and arrogant for an outsider to say for example that Tuilagi does not see himself as English or as an England rugby player.

This is a matter for each player and they know their own minds and hearts the best. They have that right.

mawhis wrote:I think part of the issue here is the extent to which countries depend on foreign born players. If there are one or two, people won't really mind, but when you get teams containing alot of them, it becomes an issue, even if those players have strong connections with that country.

Vunipola's addition to the england squad, for example, is more of an issue due to the high number of foreign-origin players already there, Botha, Hartley, Barritt, etc.

It's an interesting one all right. You could argue that the current England squad reflects the rugby playing population of the country - there are a lot of Kiwis, Saffas and Pacific Islanders turning out for rugby clubs at all levels of the game, particularly in the South-East.

mawhis wrote:I think part of the issue here is the extent to which countries depend on foreign born players. If there are one or two, people won't really mind, but when you get teams containing alot of them, it becomes an issue, even if those players have strong connections with that country.

Vunipola's addition to the england squad, for example, is more of an issue due to the high number of foreign-origin players already there, Botha, Hartley, Barritt, etc.

I haven't heard anyone have any issue with Vunipola, he's lived in England the longest and learned all his rugby here. If anyone does have an issue, i don't understand on what grounds or for which country he should play?

I would have to agree Bilt,

If I were good enough I would play for Scotland. I have been going to games at Murrayfield since I was a bairn.

However if the Talent in Scotland was saturated and there was no place for me in the Scotland squad for the forseeable future, and Wales came calling. My pride for playing for them would be immense.

I support Wales against everyone accept Scotland. Hence I would probably ask to duck out of games when Wales played Scotland, in a similar way Euan Murray duck's out of Sunday games.

The immense honour in representing the country where half of my genes come from and the pride I would instill in my Father would justify my choice.

It is a tough subject, even in terms of residency..... who are the IRB or anyone else to pigeon hole mixed ethnicity or mixed race and dictate to the players who they must play for.

Residencey should be extended but if your Parents or Grand parents are of differant nationalities it should IMO be purely a choice for the player.

Triangulation wrote:

Biltong wrote:The poaching thing has a lot of angles.

When you argue someone has been born in another country, it is stating a fact, but it doesn't win the argument.

The question is how and when did the players arrive in the country he wasn't born in.

Let's take the prime example of Andrew Mehrtens, he was born in SA off New Zealand parents, ans moved back to NZ when he was still a small boy.

Forget for a moment that his parents are New Zealanders, even if they weren't and were South Africans who emigrated to New Zealand, Mehrtens learn't his rugby in New Zealand.

And that is for me the most important argument.

Where did the kid learn his rugby, because in my humble opinion that is the rugby culture he identifies strongest with.
That is also why I have always argued that I have no issue with players travelling the world to find a career in professional rugby, what I have an issue with is when countries target talented young players who can ultimately represent another nation.

So when you are talking poaching, in my view you poach a player with talent when it is recognised, you don't poach a kid who's parents decide to move to antoehr country. It is the intent that makes it poaching.

Biltong

As always you talk sense but i do pull you up slightly here on the bolded comment.

I believe that just as people are within limits set down in immigraion law, free to move countries, settle down and integrate or assimilate or identify with their new home and culture

so rugby players must be allowed to do the same within the rules.

It is incredibly simplistic and arrogant for an outsider to say for example that Tuilagi does not see himself as English or as an England rugby player.

This is a matter for each player and they know their own minds and hearts the best. They have that right.

Tri, yes, I don't diagree with you. But as I said in my first post. It is all about intent and the manner in how it happens. You can argue a case for Mauritz Botha. He left SA did his thing, found a club to contract with and did what he had to do.

Then lets take someone like Clyde rathbone, he was the SA captain in the U21 Junior world cup, he gets offered to play and represent australia and he leaves. I had an argument with him about this a while back on an australian forum. I understand he did what was best for him and his family, but it is still poaching.

Effervescing Elephant wrote:

mawhis wrote:I think part of the issue here is the extent to which countries depend on foreign born players. If there are one or two, people won't really mind, but when you get teams containing alot of them, it becomes an issue, even if those players have strong connections with that country.

Vunipola's addition to the england squad, for example, is more of an issue due to the high number of foreign-origin players already there, Botha, Hartley, Barritt, etc.

I haven't heard anyone have any issue with Vunipola, he's lived in England the longest and learned all his rugby here. If anyone does have an issue, i don't understand on what grounds or for which country he should play?

+1

Well said!!

If people are making an issue about Vunipola without having their facts lined up. Just either put them straight or ignore them.

Bottom lines in this "debate" :

1. a nations rugby team will hopefully and should be reflective of its population as much as possible. So England which was active in the British Empire has a lot of people living here from commonwealth countries then that can and SHOULD be reflected in ALL aspects of life here including national sports sides if they're good enough then play them.

2. Within the rules it's up to the players to decide who they identify with and how and if they can in good conscience play with all of their heart for their adoptive country then great.

For someone else to make comment about that without speaking the player concerned is crazy.

Effervescing Elephant wrote:

mawhis wrote:I think part of the issue here is the extent to which countries depend on foreign born players. If there are one or two, people won't really mind, but when you get teams containing alot of them, it becomes an issue, even if those players have strong connections with that country.

Vunipola's addition to the england squad, for example, is more of an issue due to the high number of foreign-origin players already there, Botha, Hartley, Barritt, etc.

I haven't heard anyone have any issue with Vunipola, he's lived in England the longest and learned all his rugby here. If anyone does have an issue, i don't understand on what grounds or for which country he should play?

Here you go:

http://www.espnscrum.com/other/rugby/story/171663.html

Is there an arguement that once you have played age grad rugby from say the U17's or U18's you have officially chosen than nation?

Certainly if you represent a nation at U21 level you should NOT be allowed to move after that.

That's right, 'poaching' is the issue. It's the unions tapping on the shoulders of an otherwise oblivious player that is just going about his business playing for the team in the country that he associates with. It's the carrot dangled in front of his face and the promise of international rugby in a foreign country that is hard to swallow.

I hate to see one country deliberately poach players from another. Its just wrong and there is no excuse for it.

I just hope the kiwis keep their hands off Jarod O'Payne..... ...

In my mind, South Africa are the only major internal first tier rugby playing nation who seem to manage to develop in an uncontroversial and unquestionable way ALL of their own Springbok team members.

To the best of my knowledge I don't recall a foreign national ever playing for South Africa. Am I wrong about that?

If Australia can support 5 Super Rugby franchises, then I think NZ can support at least two All Black teams. That would solve a lot of the player drain issues.

If that report from Fiji is factually true...then it is a seriously worrying story....

Biltong wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

Biltong wrote:The poaching thing has a lot of angles.

When you argue someone has been born in another country, it is stating a fact, but it doesn't win the argument.

The question is how and when did the players arrive in the country he wasn't born in.

Let's take the prime example of Andrew Mehrtens, he was born in SA off New Zealand parents, ans moved back to NZ when he was still a small boy.

Forget for a moment that his parents are New Zealanders, even if they weren't and were South Africans who emigrated to New Zealand, Mehrtens learn't his rugby in New Zealand.

And that is for me the most important argument.

Where did the kid learn his rugby, because in my humble opinion that is the rugby culture he identifies strongest with.
That is also why I have always argued that I have no issue with players travelling the world to find a career in professional rugby, what I have an issue with is when countries target talented young players who can ultimately represent another nation.

So when you are talking poaching, in my view you poach a player with talent when it is recognised, you don't poach a kid who's parents decide to move to antoehr country. It is the intent that makes it poaching.

Biltong

As always you talk sense but i do pull you up slightly here on the bolded comment.

I believe that just as people are within limits set down in immigraion law, free to move countries, settle down and integrate or assimilate or identify with their new home and culture

so rugby players must be allowed to do the same within the rules.

It is incredibly simplistic and arrogant for an outsider to say for example that Tuilagi does not see himself as English or as an England rugby player.

This is a matter for each player and they know their own minds and hearts the best. They have that right.

Tri, yes, I don't diagree with you. But as I said in my first post. It is all about intent and the manner in how it happens. You can argue a case for Mauritz Botha. He left SA did his thing, found a club to contract with and did what he had to do.

Then lets take someone like Clyde rathbone, he was the SA captain in the U21 Junior world cup, he gets offered to play and represent australia and he leaves. I had an argument with him about this a while back on an australian forum. I understand he did what was best for him and his family, but it is still poaching.

I see. You are focussing on the nation not the player. The "poacher" not the poachee. But your line kind of implies that the poachee was no more than a grouse or a prize salmon scooped up into the net.

What of that player's ability to feel and think for himself?


Speaking generally and not in relation to anyone in particular, i would imagine that a lot of immigrants feel more grateful and a greater bond with a nation that takes them in under their wing and gives them and their families opportunities and a good life than for the nation they left.

mawhis wrote:

Effervescing Elephant wrote:

mawhis wrote:I think part of the issue here is the extent to which countries depend on foreign born players. If there are one or two, people won't really mind, but when you get teams containing alot of them, it becomes an issue, even if those players have strong connections with that country.

Vunipola's addition to the england squad, for example, is more of an issue due to the high number of foreign-origin players already there, Botha, Hartley, Barritt, etc.

I haven't heard anyone have any issue with Vunipola, he's lived in England the longest and learned all his rugby here. If anyone does have an issue, i don't understand on what grounds or for which country he should play?

Here you go:

http://www.espnscrum.com/other/rugby/story/171663.html

Just seen that myself Mawhis. I don't understand where else would be appropriate for Vunipola to play? I can see he has a point in general but i think he's barking up the wrong tree with the Vunipolas.

My view is that should only be able to play international rugby for a country to which you hold a passport. If you can vote, run for office, be a member of those countries armed forces then you should be able to represent that country in any game in which you are chosen.
All countries will have different criteria for term of residency; parentage/grand parentage etc and top level sports people should not be treated any differently from any other immigrant seeking citizenship. Much bigger issues in the world to worry about than what colour jumper a bloke wears for 80 minutes a few times a year.

rodders wrote:I hate to see one country deliberately poach players from another. Its just wrong and there is no excuse for it.

I just hope the kiwis keep their hands off Jarod O'Payne..... ...

I look forward to Richard O'Straussoghy's debut in the autumn internationals as well.

rodders wrote:I hate to see one country deliberately poach players from another. Its just wrong and there is no excuse for it.

I just hope the kiwis keep their hands off Jarod O'Payne..... ...

Who's that Rodders? Sound Irish to me

So there are those who say the rules should be changed. Fair enough. Change them then.

But otherwise dont treat players like salmon and grouse!

ebop wrote:

rodders wrote:I hate to see one country deliberately poach players from another. Its just wrong and there is no excuse for it.

I just hope the kiwis keep their hands off Jarod O'Payne..... ...

Who's that Rodders? Sound Irish to me

Ah you guys wouldn't know him, terrible player...forget I mentioned it ....

anotherworldofpain wrote:In my mind, South Africa are the only major internal first tier rugby playing nation who seem to manage to develop in an uncontroversial and unquestionable way ALL of their own Springbok team members.

To the best of my knowledge I don't recall a foreign national ever playing for South Africa. Am I wrong about that?

Well we'll ignore the Zimbabwians, the Zambians and the Namibians...

Sean Maitland is a kiwi though, right?

ebop wrote:Sean Maitland is a kiwi though, right?

Scottish Mother.... she's a soap dodging Weagie I beleive.

In this case I don't know if Harris was enticed with the prospect of playing for Australia (although he might have been). McKenzie saw he had talent and had about 3 players in front of him at the Blues so asked if he wanted to play for the Reds. Under normal circumstances Harris was a fair way off playing for Australia and may never have had it not been for the horrific injury toll.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think the IRB need to get serious on this whole topic.

I agree and this is how i'd do it.

I feel that my country Scotland, would struggle if these rules come in as we are so poor at developing talent.

GeordieFalcon wrote:1) The 3 year rule must be increased

For residency I would say it needs to be graded.

Tier 1 & Tier 2 player to a Tier 1 country should be 7 to 10 years
Tier 3 player to a Tier 1 country should be 3 or 5 years

Tier 1 teams shouldn't need another Tier 1s player - they should be developing their own.

The reason for a Tier 3 player is they have less of a chance to perform at the highest level with their Tier 3 country so give them a chance to play top level competitions like 6N, 4N or World Cups. Flip side of that is its taking away from helping that Tier 3 from devloping.

Tier 1 & Tier 2 player to a Tier 2 country should be 5 years
Tier 3 player to a Tier 2 country should be 3 years

Tier 1 & Tier 2 player to a Tier 3 country should be 3 years
Tier 3 player to a Tier 3 country should be 3 years

GeordieFalcon wrote:2) Should the Grandparent rule count. I dont think it should.

I think for Grandparent should be two grandparents from the one country. It means the players parent has grown up in for e.g a Scottish house hold albeit in another country.

GeordieFalcon wrote:3) What age constitutes a child when moving countries with parents etc?

Don't have a problem with this as they've grown up in the country.

GeordieFalcon wrote:4) If you have played another sport for a nation...you cant swap...ie Rugby League to rugby Union.

Agree with this

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

ebop wrote:Sean Maitland is a kiwi though, right?

Scottish Mother.... she's a soap dodging Weagie I beleive.

His father is Scottish. Mother is maori/samoan I beleive

Manky-Flanker wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

ebop wrote:Sean Maitland is a kiwi though, right?

Scottish Mother.... she's a soap dodging Weagie I beleive.

His father is Scottish. Mother is maori/samoan I beleive

Ah so it's his dad that's the soap dodging Weagie!

GeordieFalcon wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:In my mind, South Africa are the only major internal first tier rugby playing nation who seem to manage to develop in an uncontroversial and unquestionable way ALL of their own Springbok team members.

To the best of my knowledge I don't recall a foreign national ever playing for South Africa. Am I wrong about that?

Well we'll ignore the Zimbabwians, the Zambians and the Namibians...

Oh no! Was I just casually and ignorantly racist?

Manky-Flanker wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

ebop wrote:Sean Maitland is a kiwi though, right?

Scottish Mother.... she's a soap dodging Weagie I beleive.

His father is Scottish. Mother is maori/samoan I beleive

Yep. He's from Tokoroa, and his 1st cousin is Quade Cooper. He's made the NZ Maori side the past 2 years.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:In my mind, South Africa are the only major internal first tier rugby playing nation who seem to manage to develop in an uncontroversial and unquestionable way ALL of their own Springbok team members.

To the best of my knowledge I don't recall a foreign national ever playing for South Africa. Am I wrong about that?

Well we'll ignore the Zimbabwians, the Zambians and the Namibians...

Oh no! Was I just casually and ignorantly racist?

It's a constant tightrope walk over a minefield me old mucker!

Here is a couple of sceanrio's and how I see it should work.

Country X sends a scout to the Craven week (I am sure it happens already) and he finds Koos Kombuis a bright young star. He contacts his Union and says they must get this guy.

So lo and behold, Koos' parents get a call and he signs to move to country X. From the moment he arrives, 7 years then he can represent country X.


This same kid has a grandparent in country X, tough Luck, 7 years.

He has a parent from the country X, Then at his first professional signing he must pledge which country he will represent.