Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Under this new Olympic qualification eligibility malarky it would appear that Samoa, Tonga and Fiji are going to take advantage by playing lots of former AB's and Australian players in this years 7's series to make them available for those countries regardless for the fact they have already represent another nation.

It appears the TRU are considering talking to ex All Blacks Anthony Tuitavake, Sam Tuitupou, ex Wallabies Mark Gerrard, Sitaleki Timani, ex All Blacks 7's Alando Soakai, Lifeimi Mafi and Roy Kinikinilau. With others including Australia A fly half Daniel Halangahu, Chiefs prop Ben Tameifuna and Wallaby legend George Smith also being targeted.

The SRU are also eyeing up Tim Nanai-Williams and Isaia Toeava, with others also potentially available.

This could have a rediculous effect on the whole sport as even in the home nations... guys like Ali Williams, Luke McAlister and Rene Ranger all have a British parent, and apparently Nick Evans as well. And if say England targeted Nick Evans for the 10 spot they could do so.

Also Stefon Armitage for France.

I appreciate most of this is just media suggestions...and the home nations wouldnt persue this route, but the Pacific Islanders could well do that.

It makes it all a bit farcical to me. COuld you imagine George Smith running out for Tonga at 7 in the World Cup??

EDIT:

The loophole comes about because of the inclusion of rugby sevens at the 2016 Rio Olympics, and rules stating that to compete for a country you must have that nation's passport.

According to the I.R.B Handbook, Regulation 8, any player that has represented a national team, but has a passport for a second country, can switch allegiance during the 2014-15 IRB Sevens World Series if there has been an 18-month period since their last national team appearance.

To become eligible for a second country, the player must apply to switch allegiance, and then turn out for his new country during next season's World Series, which doubles as Olympic qualification.

The player can only debut for his new team once the application is approved, and once the 18-month national team stand-down has passed.

Once a player has made his sevens debut for a new national team in an Olympic event, like the 2014-15 World Series, IRB rules state that the player can then play any form of the game for his new country.

Yeah well, as long as we stay away from the feeding frenzy I will be happy, you still need to beat te AB's to win anyway, what's the difference in having 4 AB squads there?

Half of them will take each other out.

Proper order. It's about time that the loopholes left opportunities for the likes of Fiji-Tonga-Samoa.

I agree it could ‘look’ a bit farcical BUT…….I am actually looking forward to this happening.  It’ll shake up the established world order no end – liven up a pretty much closed shop at the top.  The players that Samoa, for instance, could gain out of this is unbelievable.  So too Fiji and Tonga.  There is a long list of former AB/Australian players who are still good enough to play internationally.

The only cloud hovering over this is club release.  The only way these guys can qualify is if they play in a World Series competition, I believe, so will they be able to gain club clearance for these?  Possibly, possibly not.

Imagine the scenes in Apia next year, when Samoa host the AB’s.  Their 1993 game saw so much blood spilled it was dubbed the Battle of the Bandages.  I bet this would put that game to shame.  You’ll feel the ground shudder in Cardiff.

Roll forward to the respective RWC15 pools:

Samoa (SA, Scotland, Japan, USA) – they’d take 2nd spot easily
Tonga (NZ, Arg, Georgia, Nam) – would give NZ the hard game they are desperately craving and good shot to get 2nd spot
Fiji (Aus, Eng, Wales, TBC) – just watch out.  Imagine Rokocoko and Sivivatu tearing up on the wings.  Big shout to upset one of the three.  Possible pool kingmakers

Man, just imagine what this could do to the world game and the cartel known as ‘Tier One’

Im not sure Mintie...i have mixed feelings on it.

But i dont think we should be seeing Rokocoko and Sivivatu playing for Fiji (regardless of the fact that Nandolo their new winger is the biggest of the lot!!!).....just like i wouldnt want to see Nick Evans playing for England.

George Smith playing for Tonga? Oh come on.

Now i know 7's rugby is all about backs and flankers....but i have absolutely no doubt that if one of these sides had a top class prop who wasnt quite making the AB's side anymore but still more than good enough for international level...they would give him a run out for a minute in a 7's game and he would be eligable

GeordieFalcon wrote:Now i know 7's rugby is all about backs and flankers....but i have absolutely no doubt that if one of these sides had a top class prop who wasnt quite making the AB's side anymore but still more than good enough for international level...they would give him a run out for a minute in a 7's game and he would be eligable

He'd probably still be faster than Scott Wight or Colin Gregor......

chewed_mintie wrote:I agree it could ‘look’ a bit farcical BUT…….I am actually looking forward to this happening.  It’ll shake up the established world order no end – liven up a pretty much closed shop at the top.  The players that Samoa, for instance, could gain out of this is unbelievable.  So too Fiji and Tonga.  There is a long list of former AB/Australian players who are still good enough to play internationally.

The only cloud hovering over this is club release.  The only way these guys can qualify is if they play in a World Series competition, I believe, so will they be able to gain club clearance for these?  Possibly, possibly not.

Imagine the scenes in Apia next year, when Samoa host the AB’s.  Their 1993 game saw so much blood spilled it was dubbed the Battle of Eden Park.  I bet this would put that game to shame.  You’ll feel the ground shudder in Cardiff.

Roll forward to the respective RWC15 pools:

Samoa (SA, Scotland, Japan, USA) – they’d take 2nd spot easily
Tonga (NZ, Arg, Georgia, Nam) – would give NZ the hard game they are desperately craving and good shot to get 2nd spot
Fiji (Aus, Eng, Wales, TBC) – just watch out.  Imagine Rokocoko and Sivivatu tearing up on the wings.  Big shout to upset one of the three.  Possible pool kingmakers

Man, just imagine what this could do to the world game and the cartel known as ‘Tier One’

 
Mintie
 
I'd be happier with that if they exchanged it for residency and the grandparents rule, two things I've never bought into. Guys like Rokocoko and Sivivatu are very Fijian... more so then they are kiwi's, them representing Fiji would be no problem in my book given they both moved over as kids... not exactly the same as some SH chap finding out his grandma's death certificate that she was born in Newport.
 
So qualification could be country of birth and country of parents birth. Thats it.
 
I'd allow players to play for more than 1 nation after say an 18 month gap given the above criteria but obviously you could only play for your home nation or that of your parents. Could be some allowances for people who spent >10 years pre 18 in one nation i.e. Toby Faletau but otherwise the residency window would be shut.
 
It would strengthen the PI teams which the sport needs... however it would be a stop gap. What the PI's need is a longterm goal to generate top world class individuals and have the facilitities to maintain them also... what they would need is a domestic game behind it, i.e. a SR franchise.

fa0019 wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:I agree it could ‘look’ a bit farcical BUT…….I am actually looking forward to this happening.  It’ll shake up the established world order no end – liven up a pretty much closed shop at the top.  The players that Samoa, for instance, could gain out of this is unbelievable.  So too Fiji and Tonga.  There is a long list of former AB/Australian players who are still good enough to play internationally.

The only cloud hovering over this is club release.  The only way these guys can qualify is if they play in a World Series competition, I believe, so will they be able to gain club clearance for these?  Possibly, possibly not.

Imagine the scenes in Apia next year, when Samoa host the AB’s.  Their 1993 game saw so much blood spilled it was dubbed the Battle of Eden Park.  I bet this would put that game to shame.  You’ll feel the ground shudder in Cardiff.

Roll forward to the respective RWC15 pools:

Samoa (SA, Scotland, Japan, USA) – they’d take 2nd spot easily
Tonga (NZ, Arg, Georgia, Nam) – would give NZ the hard game they are desperately craving and good shot to get 2nd spot
Fiji (Aus, Eng, Wales, TBC) – just watch out.  Imagine Rokocoko and Sivivatu tearing up on the wings.  Big shout to upset one of the three.  Possible pool kingmakers

Man, just imagine what this could do to the world game and the cartel known as ‘Tier One’

 
Mintie
 
I'd be happier with that if they exchanged it for residency and the grandparents rule, two things I've never bought into. Guys like Rokocoko and Sivivatu are very Fijian... more so then they are kiwi's, them representing Fiji would be no problem in my book given they both moved over as kids... not exactly the same as some SH chap finding out his grandma's death certificate that she was born in Newport.
 
So qualification could be country of birth and country of parents birth. Thats it.
 
I'd allow players to play for more than 1 nation after say an 18 month gap given the above criteria but obviously you could only play for your home nation or that of your parents. Could be some allowances for people who spent >10 years pre 18 in one nation i.e. Toby Faletau but otherwise the residency window would be shut.
 
It would strengthen the PI teams which the sport needs... however it would be a stop gap. What the PI's need is a longterm goal to generate top world class individuals and have the facilitities to maintain them also... what they would need is a domestic game behind it, i.e. a SR franchise.

How do you come to that conclusion fa0019? Rokocoko was born in Fiji and moved to NZ when he was 5. Do you remember much of your years between 0 and 5? How do you distinguish between Toby Faletau, whom you seem to be fine with making an exception for, and Joe Rokocoko? By your criteria Andrew Merthens and Mike Catt could have still played for their respective countries but Manu Tuilagi could not. I am all for tightening the laws on eligibility but I wouldn't be happy to see it applied to that extent. I think holding a passport for that country you wish to represent is a good starting base but there are loopholes in that a few countries offer the right to hold more than one passport and other countries only allow one. At the end of the day, there has to be a balance between a player genuinely wanting to represent a country and enough time spent in that country to represent it. Another example by your criteria is Sean Maitland is eligible to play for Scotland without having ever lived there previously. Compare that with a player who has lived in a country for more than 10 years and calls it home and you would be willing to deprive that player of their right to represent their new country?

Personally I have no issue with former all blacks / Aus players turning out for the islands.
However I would like to see a bit of tightening of the eligibility criteria in general. I certainly would hate to see the situation we get in track and field where sometimes peoples "nationality" is purely a flag of convenience and many people represent two countries with some even representing 3.

I liked the idea mooted that in rugby you could step down to a second teir nation - so former all blacks couold play for say Fiji but not for Scotland

Im not sure what state of form Sivivatu and Rokococo are in...but could you imagine a backline containing...

11 Rokococo (6'2, 17st)
13 Nadalo (6'5 , 19st)
14 Sivivatu (6'1. 15.5st)

Born in Fiji, parents are fjian.
 
Ok he moves to NZ aged 5 but I imagine he was heavily involved in his own culture i.e. language, cultural practices etc. Parents don't automatically drop their culture because they up sticks and move country.
 
I recall you live in Spain and have married a local girl? Not sure if you have kids but if you do I'm sure you will teach them English, take them home now and again and immerse them in your culture. I do with my little boy. Afrikaans raised but I speak English with him and always have done... and the culture grows as he grows.
 
In the end he would have been a child of 2 nations, 2 cultures etc and I think he has a right to represent both. Perhaps he would have felt one more than the other but given other people in similar circumstances I've often seen people cite their ancestral home etc as their actual home. Horses for courses but just through my own opinions.
 
Manu is an interesting one and yes Maitland via his da would qualify but hell how do we know he had any relationship with his da, perhaps he or someone similar had no contact with his father and had no cultural exposure to that nation?
 
The problem that you stress i.e. residency is that it opens the door for countries literally buying talent. If thats the case, whats the point of test rugby as it becomes simply club rugby?
Half of those players bar 1 or 2 i.e. Nathan Hines and Mike Catt (who both came to UK on holidays and stayed) came to the UK to play rugby professionally. They chose to move to the UK for a financial reason, because of work, had they been offered a better contract at an Italian firm for instance they may have taken that too.
 
Yes there are the odd players who come in their early 20s, marry a local girl, raise indigenous kids etc but they are few and far between.... if I recall the Aussie chap Cockbain did very that when he moved to Wales. Most of the residency chaps leave the UK the minute their test and club career is over for their real home... and given that I would say its better to lose the odd good egg but also the significantly large bunch of bad eggs in the bunch.

Of the kilted kiwis we have had over the years.  some made scotland their home - Sean Lineen but others have never been seen here agan and were purely mercenary - Brendon Laney?  I have to say I dislike the latter - Or the Leslie brothers - whose Dad was an all black.  Mind you I think they came over on holiday and for club rugby and did not expect to get selected for scotland.  

I think residency could / should be made longer - 3 years if under 16, 5 if over?

I certainly would like to see an end tothe mercenary who is not quite good enough to be an all black who then scours his family tree to find a welsh / scots / english granny

It doesn't look good mind, from Scotland nearly all have gone home and that is only is looking at the SH chaps who turned out let alone the scores of Englishman who have turned out for them over the years i.e. Andy Reed, Dave Hilton, Budge Poutney etc.
 
R. Russell - back in AUS
M. Leslie - back in NZ
J. Leslie - back in NZ
B. Laney - back in NZ
G. Metcalfe - back in NZ
S. Lineen - stayed
 
Anyone know what happened to Dan Parks? Moved back to Scotland???

Our first child is on the way in December (a girl. Name suggestions that work both in Spanish and English gladly welcome.) I will most definitely speak to the little one in English and she'll be definitely getting an All Blacks top (no competition from Spain in that regard) and she'll have the right to have a NZ passport as well as a Spanish one until she's 18, whereby (technically) she'll have to make a choice.

I'm realistic enough though to recognise, despite her old man's heritage, she won't identify herself as a New Zealander. Even if she goes to a bilingual school (not many NZ expats about) where she makes English-speaking friends. Unless we move to NZ and then it depends on when.

I don't have a problem with a player being able to play for their country of birth but I think if previously you have no ties to a country (via a passport or parents) and move there in your formative years, (let's define that as below 18) and continue to live there for a minimum of 10 years you should be able to represent that country. That would mean the likes of Fekitoa or Sivivatu could not represent NZ but a player like Rokocoko could, for example.

The question though is here with this thread, is this a mercenary approach by these players or is this them deciding to give something back to their roots? I think there's a difference between a player who wasn't good enough for one team but good nough for another and a player who was good for a top tier team and wants to continue playing after not being wanted or eligible any longer for that country. Personally, I feel it falls in the latter camp even though it's a moot point as this is only a loophole that's been uncovered because of the IRB eligibility stance for the Rio Olympics.

I'm not against this tbh, in the case of the Pacific Nations. Seeing players who have basically finished with the All Blacks turning out for Fiji or Samoa or Tonga can only make them stronger and make the game better.

I'd rather that someone who was born in Fiji to Fijian parents gets to play for Fiji even if they have already played for NZ than not, especially since it's become so damn easy for other nations to naturalise and poach many of their players who move overseas to play club rugby. A rare good news story on the eligibility front this.

Under this loophole, a guy isn't going to the other side of the world to represent a country he has no ties to like Jared Payne or Antonie Claassen. They have to have a passport of that nation and not have played for another country for 18 months.

It seems to me this is actually less open to abuse than the residency rules.

Does anyone else see it as also bad news. Now a player can decide to fight for NZ caps knowing that as soon as their no longer good enough they can look to returning home to play for their island. I can't really see it being anything more than a shirt term boast and long term kick in the cods.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Does anyone else see it as also bad news.  Now a player can decide to fight for NZ caps knowing that as soon as their no longer good enough they can look to returning home to play for their island.  I can't really see it being anything more than a shirt term boast and long term kick in the cods.

Thats exactly whats happening now, except with the bit where they actually play for their other country afterwards.

Right now, players fight for NZ caps and then when they are no longer good enough they go to Europe and Japan for a payday. In the future, players will fight for NZ caps and then when they are no longer good enough they'll go to Europe and Japan for a payday... and also play the odd test match for Samoa or Fiji while they're at it.

I have no problem with guys playing for more than one country under this.

But just to clarify something that doesn't seem to get mentioned. If you are a citizen of the country you originally played for then you have to get special permission from the IRB to switch. If you weren't you can just switch. The vast majority of these cases would need IRB approval, certainly cases like Nick Evans.

About two or three years ago, on this forum I raised the possibility of players at the end of their International Tier 1 careers going on to play for their tier 2 country/Island of heritage, and did I get rubbished.

I thought NZ and some other countries raised this idea as a possibility but a few of the NH countries voted against this.

Given that many of the PIs players that have represented NZ are from NZ then they are citizens and so will need dispensation to switch.

So do you think we'll be seeing a few props, second rows, hookers etc getting a run out in the World 7's series this year?

Is this going to be controlled by the IRB...as that would be blatantly an eligibility exercise.

Personally I'd like to see ex All Blacks turn out for Fiji/Samoa etc. It can only make the game stronger to have a genuine chance of an upset at a WC.

I thought this was suggested by NZ a while ago but Wales, Ireland and Scotland voted against it? Mind you I could have read it on here... It does however raise the question of turkeys voting for Christmas, why on earth would say Scotland want to give the teams just below/around them in the rankings an extra chance?

And lets be honest Samoa and Fiji have a pretty good record against us (Wales) as it is so we don't need to give them any help thank you very much

aucklandlaurie wrote:
About two or three years ago, on this forum I raised  the possibility of players at the end of their International Tier 1 careers going on to play for their tier 2 country/Island of heritage, and did I get rubbished.

Don't know how people responded to you before but this has nothing to do with tiers. The proposal you made was one which some unions floated but the IRB rejected.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Our first child is on the way in December (a girl. Name suggestions that work both in Spanish and English gladly welcome.) I will most definitely speak to the little one in English and she'll be definitely getting an All Blacks top (no competition from Spain in that regard) and she'll have the right to have a NZ passport as well as a Spanish one until she's 18, whereby (technically) she'll have to make a choice.

I'm realistic enough though to recognise, despite her old man's heritage, she won't identify herself as a New Zealander. Even if she goes to a bilingual school (not many NZ expats about) where she makes English-speaking friends. Unless we move to NZ and then it depends on when.

I don't have a problem with a player being able to play for their country of birth but I think if previously you have no ties to a country (via a passport or parents) and move there in your formative years, (let's define that as below 18) and continue to live there for a minimum of 10 years you should be able to represent that country. That would mean the likes of Fekitoa or Sivivatu could not represent NZ but a player like Rokocoko could, for example.

The question though is here with this thread, is this a mercenary approach by these players or is this them deciding to give something back to their roots? I think there's a difference between a player who wasn't good enough for one team but good nough for another and a player who was good for a top tier team and wants to continue playing after not being wanted or eligible any longer for that country. Personally, I feel it falls in the latter camp even though it's a moot point as this is only a loophole that's been uncovered because of the IRB eligibility stance for the Rio Olympics.

 
Congratulations Kia. You must be chuffed. I'm sure you'll be a top da, dragging your little one to sports stadiums and even when they cry you'll say "no, you do like this".. say it enough and it will come true from my own experience.
 
In terms of your question... PI players tend to have strong ties to their ancestral home. Most migration have been recent,  Its reasonably close, they have a large community amongst where they can keep their traditions strong and there are many chaps to look up to as role models from similar backgrounds.
Take that to someone who's grandparent was born in the UK but moved to AUS as a baby for instance.. well the ties are a little less strong especially if the family haven't been back even for a holiday, have little alligiance to their mother country and have developed polar opposite traditions etc.
 
And then there is residency. Its a farce in reality as we have thus shown with the kilted kiwi's... literally everyone jumped ship back home the minute their career ended. I'm not saying they weren't proud to wear the jersey but we need something more than personal pride in getting capped to justify them being selected.
 
Take not of WP Nel and Josh Strauss and what they do. The minute their contract is up they will head home... it will literally be within a week. They get bigger contracts than capped individuals and it always happens straight after a world cup or within 1 year... as it allows them to be available for the next one.
 
Its like the Varsity match now. Its no longer a case of which university has the best rugby team.... its the university who has the best recruiting staff for postgrads who go on to study a "degree" in Land Economy. I have nothing against the chaps who take it up, one of my uni buddy's did so... but it ruins the event and its ruining test rugby.
 
If your players are not good enough... simple,  recruit a load of uncapped foreigners, obviously just to play for your domestic clubs with only a "wink wink" suggestion of future test availability in 3 years time and bobs your uncle you're competitive again.
 
Its quite simply not worth the 1-2 players who actually fall in love with the country and lay genuine roots for the majority who simply do it for money.

Cheers mate. Not much rugby to take the little one to so I'll limit her to quality. My wife's usually too scared or embarrassed to be around me when I'm watching NZ play but my girl's not going to have a choice in the matter. Rugby is quality time with Dad and be a good girl and get daddy another beer from the fridge...

You're right, something has to be done. The residency requirements as they stand are laughably weak. 10 years for me is a big enough commitment given that a rugby player is going to be between 20 and 35. That's a big enough proportion of your life. The problem is the voting is governed by self interest. Nations won't vote for stricter requirements if they see themselves benefiting from the status quo.

True
 
When you think about it which countries have benefitted from residency
 
England
France
Australia
Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Italy
 
The only ones which haven't really are
 
NZ
SA
Argentina
 
The odds will be stacked and in fact I think its probably against the law in Europe to raise it further. I think it came around because of that in the first place.

I think 10 years is ridiculous. I hoping that the Olympics thing will result in nationality being a criteria. 5 years would tie in to that.

How have Wales benefited on residency? Falatau...who else? They have a lot of guys with parents or grant parents rules over the years but not many for residency. Same with Scotland and Ireland. Everytime someone moves to one of these countries the issue is raised but how many have actually played for them? They focus on nicking players already qualified.

Haven't quite a lot of NZ players moved there as children and qualified under residency? How have they not benefited?

The countries that benefit on residency are those with a reasonable amount of immigration.

There's a difference between residency and citizenship. I think that's the issue for me Hammer. I am a Spanish resident and I could apply for nationality. Won't ever happen because I'd technically have to revoke my British and New Zealand nationality.

Hypothetically I could play for Atletico de Madrid rugby team (yes they do have one!) but I don't think I should be able to play for the national team, desperate as they would be to take me! Representing your country should be the highest honour. Representing your country of residence doesn't have the same ring to it. It takes 10 years now to get Spanish nationality. It may still take only 5 years of residency in the UK and one more year to get citizenship. Making that distinction between residency and citizenship is the best way to ensure test sides aren't diluted by opportunists or targeted players from abroad.

Here's something I despise about the current rules. Where you grow up isn't worth a damn. Take two contrasting players. Heathcote, English parents/grandparents, born in Scotland as his dad was based there but moved away at about 3 back to England. That's his only tie to Scotland and he qualies for them.

Andrew Bukumalau (just noticed him in the Gloucester thread) was born in Fiji but moved to Scotland at a young age where he grew up until he went to college in Gloucester and joined their academy. But he's not eligible for Scotland, even though that's where he grew up.

Basing a persons national identity on a tiny period of their life (instance of birth) is silly. Basing it on that some situation for someone parents or grand parents is just as silly. But I suppose it's easy and that seems to be the requirement.

These are welsh players who qualified on residency alone from memory. Probably more
 
Brent Cockbain
Colin Charvis
Shane Howarth
Brent Sinkinson
Hanno Dirksen
 
Did Sonny Parker have any Welsh grannies? And they were tapping up Ben Morgan of England until he pledged himself to England.
 
Given Charvis was Wales' ex. captain, got close to 100 caps and was their record try scorer as a forward they certainly benefitted. He was a decent player.

HammerofThunor wrote:Here's something I despise about the current rules. Where you grow up isn't worth a damn. Take two contrasting players. Heathcote, English parents/grandparents, born in Scotland as his dad was based there but moved away at about 3 back to England. That's his only tie to Scotland and he qualies for them.

Andrew Bukumalau (just noticed him in the Gloucester thread) was born in Fiji but moved to Scotland at a young age where he grew up until he went to college in Gloucester and joined their academy. But he's not eligible for Scotland, even though that's where he grew up.

Basing a persons national identity on a tiny period of their life (instance of birth) is silly. Basing it on that some situation for someone parents or grand parents is just as silly.  But I suppose it's easy and that seems to be the requirement.

 
Whatever the rules are there will always be some exceptions. There will always be someone unhappy.
 
Given his qualification is based on his residency then that should have been put to him when he chose Gloucester over say Glasgow or Edinburgh. By the sounds of it he moved for rugby reasons so should have been made aware of the implications at the time... and he still made the choice which stopped his Scotland inclusion.
 
I can't imagine it was the only place he was offered given Gloucester has a renowned academy, surely he was also offered something by Glasgow/Edinburgh?

Well that's why I wouldn't want place of birth or parents' place of birth alone to govern where a player is entitled to play. However, I do agree if you are going to represent a country you should have lived long enough in that country and feel a strong connection to it. Increasing the residency requirement seems a logical way of ensuring that or at least making it far more likely than the current system.

Hammer
 
Anyhow I agree with you
 
Early I was talking with Kia about changing the rules and mentioned the following
 
no grandparents
no residency bar say a certain period of time say 10 years spent <18yrs. So if you spent say 15 years in NZ but were born in Tonga and moved to AUS aged 20 you could still represent NZ if you wish (as I imagine the person would feel more kiwi than anything else etc).

Personal thing but I think you should have to hold the passport of the nation you represent - and you should be a reigistered taxpayer there as well. If you're not prepared to be a responsible citizen of the country then you don't represent it.

I'd also do away with the current grandparent and residence rules - take it down to parent and increase the residency period to seven years.

Seems a sensible policy to me Irish Londoner.   

Are you saying though that after that seven years of residency, you have to apply for citizenship as well as being fiscally based there?

fa0019 wrote:So if you spent say 15 years in NZ but were born in Tonga and moved to AUS aged 20 you could still represent NZ if you wish (as I imagine the person would feel more kiwi than anything else etc).

 
If you're not on the international radar at 20 then you are not likely to ever be - and if you hold a NZ passport then the only side you can play for should be the AB's.

sounds the most sensible IL

7 years would knock out most mercenaries and you'd only be left with chaps who had moved as children/very early on in their career.

Irish Londoner wrote:

fa0019 wrote:So if you spent say 15 years in NZ but were born in Tonga and moved to AUS aged 20 you could still represent NZ if you wish (as I imagine the person would feel more kiwi than anything else etc).

 
If you're not on the international radar at 20 then you are not likely to ever be - and if you hold a NZ passport then the only side you can play for should be the AB's.

Just an example IL.The brumbies have an excellent academy and often pick up many kids from NZ and SA post school.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Seems a sensible policy to me Irish Londoner.   

Are you saying though that after that seven years of residency, you have to apply for citizenship as well as being fiscally based there?

 
Kia - yes, to me the two go hand in hand, if you ply your rugby trade in a country that you are not a citizen of and wish to become an international player for them, you have to take citizenship and you have to pay your taxes there, so as a random example if you were a South African citizen playing at an English club, if you were invited to play for England through residence you would have to get a GB passport and pay your taxes through the HMRC rather than having your wages offshored to a bank account in SA.

Irish Londoner wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Seems a sensible policy to me Irish Londoner.   

Are you saying though that after that seven years of residency, you have to apply for citizenship as well as being fiscally based there?

 
Kia - yes, to me the two go hand in hand, if you ply your rugby trade in a country that you are not a citizen of and wish to become an international player for them, you have to take citizenship and you have to pay your taxes there, so as a random example if you were a South African citizen playing at an English club, if you were invited to play for England through residence you would have to get a GB passport and pay your taxes through the HMRC rather than having your wages offshored to a bank account in SA.

 
To be honest if you were South African and you had the opportunity to get a UK passport you would be insane not to get it. Try travelling the world on an SA passport. Countries with no visa required??? um Swizterland. The rest its a visa only for the duration of your flight and a £100 cost every time you go abroad. Complete ball ache.

Make it so.   

Irish Londoner wrote:Personal thing but I think you should have to hold the passport of the nation you represent

That makes it a bit random since countries have different policies on granting naturalisation requests. Some countries will hand you a passport for being born in their territory. Some countries don't recognise dual nationality and others don't let you ever renounce.

i know loads of Saffas who go to UK anyhow for the passport. Then head off within a year or so of it being granted either home or to Canada, Australia, New Zealand.  
 
You can't take it off someone once its been granted (something I think is wrong IMO). If you get a passport and leave for good it should be rescinded in my book.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:Personal thing but I think you should have to hold the passport of the nation you represent

That makes it a bit random since countries have different policies on granting naturalisation requests. Some countries will hand you a passport for being born in their territory. Some countries don't recognise dual nationality and others don't let you ever renounce.

Going by passport would make some current Ireland internationals from NI ineligible to represent Ireland, pending a change in what passport they carry (they'd need to trade in their British passports for Irish ones) and it would also open the door for England, Scotland and Wales to pick anyone from any part of the UK.

Going by passport alone isn't going to work. Place of birth is a much less contentious signifier and then the debate is just over how far back you go- parents, grandparents. As Rugby Fan says the only way to do the rules in a standardised fashion is to not use passports as rules vary from country to country.

I absolutely think that the IRB (who are completely useless in this regard) need to sit down and review all aspects of the eligibility laws. First there is systematic abuse of the residency laws, then this loophole- its time all of the rules over eligibility were reviewed, tightened and clarified. They need to rethink the whole thing from the bottom up and agree a new policy with no loop holes to be exploited.

Not that they will. They do next to nothing and will continue, despite eligibility for Olympic sports and eligibility for rugby being at odds with each other. I believe its now time for Rugby Sevens to be considered a different sport for the purposes of eligibility.

Then seven years residency and fiscally based, place of birth or either parent's place of birth and no grandparents by descent.

Passport alone doesn't because the of various points raised. But it's not actually having a passport, it's being a national which means you're eligible for one. So NI wouldn't have to ditch their UK passport for an Irish one, they'd just have to be eligible for the Irish one. Aren't all citizens of NI eligible for an Irish passport? But anyway it wouldn't work.

Place of birth will remain forever because it is simple. You have a birth certificate which says where you were born. Bam, done and dusted.

Personally, if we were allowed an over elaborate system, I would have place of birth replaced with a residency period. So if you, your parent or grandparent lived in a country for 10 or 15 years continuously then you qualify permenantly (like place of birth now). If you lived someone where for 5 consecutive years immediately before being capped then you qualify.

In all cases you must be a national of the country you're representing.

But what will happen is either an increase in residency to 5 years, possible requirement for nationality, most likely nothing.

Notch wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:Personal thing but I think you should have to hold the passport of the nation you represent

That makes it a bit random since countries have different policies on granting naturalisation requests. Some countries will hand you a passport for being born in their territory. Some countries don't recognise dual nationality and others don't let you ever renounce.

Going by passport would make some current Ireland internationals from NI ineligible to represent Ireland, pending a change in what passport they carry (they'd need to trade in their British passports for Irish ones) and it would also open the door for England, Scotland and Wales to pick anyone from any part of the UK.

Going by passport alone isn't going to work. Place of birth is a much less contentious signifier and then the debate is just over how far back you go- parents, grandparents. As Rugby Fan says the only way to do the rules in a standardised fashion is to not use passports as rules vary from country to country.

I absolutely think that the IRB (who are completely useless in this regard) need to sit down and review all aspects of the eligibility laws. First there is systematic abuse of the residency laws, then this loophole- its time all of the rules over eligibility were reviewed, tightened and clarified. They need to rethink the whole thing from the bottom up and agree a new policy with no loop holes to be exploited.

Not that they will. They do next to nothing and will continue, despite eligibility for Olympic sports and eligibility for rugby being at odds with each other. I believe its now time for Rugby Sevens to be considered a different sport for the purposes of eligibility.

 
But you don't play for Southern Ireland, its Ireland no?
 
Thats why they have their own flag and sing 2 anthems?

fa0019 wrote:These are welsh players who qualified on residency alone from memory. Probably more
 
Brent Cockbain
Colin Charvis
Shane Howarth
Brent Sinkinson
Hanno Dirksen
 
Did Sonny Parker have any Welsh grannies? And they were tapping up Ben Morgan of England until he pledged himself to England.
 
Given Charvis was Wales' ex. captain, got close to 100 caps and was their record try scorer as a forward they certainly benefitted. He was a decent player.

Dirksen hasn't been capped by Wales, nor will he at this rate with the options they currently have.

There isn't that much wrong with the current Residency regulations other than the qualification period should probably doubled. Qualification on residency doesn't harm anyone except those rugby nations who don't have professional leagues. If there is no league for a professional player to make a living from he will never reside there to qualify - so the countries that benefit are those that already have pro leagues. There have only ever been a handful to make it through to Test level anyway so in the grand scheme of things it is a red herring.

The qualification through RIO-7s-gate is far more important to the world of rugby. The IRB should embrace the principle of players switching between their eligible nations throughout their careers. The protectionist elite teams cram their one-cap-wonders list with players to STOP them playing for anyone else. This is morally reprehensible but worse than that it deprives the rugby world of better levels of competition at Test level. If those nations knew that capping someone didn't necessarily lock them for life them they may actually not cap them as quickly, and instead use the opportunity to develop homegrown talent that may have no other eligibility.

If a player qualified for a country and was picked at A level once, should he be tied to them forever? If that country has not picked him again within two years and he happens to qualify for another country, why shouldn't he become eligible to move? There is far too much guff spouted about player's motivation when switching countries. Players won't be picked if they aren't putting their heart into the team.

It's high time rugby countries like Tonga, Samoa and Fiji were able to actually play their top professional players in Tests, and the players should always have a route back.