Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

by Geordie Tue 29 Jul 2014, 2:18 pm

First topic message reminder :

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.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 01 Aug 2014, 1:47 pm

Don't know where I've got the e from either! Thorn did no wrong but I do dislike players representing more than 1 country.

by HammerofThunor Fri 01 Aug 2014, 1:52 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:You are right at the moment Majestic, maybe not as many but there have been in the past.

Englands issues there covers almost all the residency issues (Ive added Henry paul in for the full lot):

1) The Vunipolas: Billy has been here since he was a child...its no issue i think. Mako spent some time in Wales playing there whilst his parents lived there and even has a Welsh accent...but still probably spent most of his time in England. Both of them lost eligibility for Wales when they moved away. Billy has said he can't remember much of his time in Wales so Mako couldn't have been that old when they moved away. Probably younger than Manu. Also Mako was born in New Zealand, moved to Australia (where Billy was born but sent to live with grandparents in Tonga), then moved to Wales before settling in England.

2) Dylan Hartley has been here since he was 14 and has an English mother. I would say he is worthy of his English place Hartley came at 16 to live with his Grandma in the South West (I asked the question ages ago as I had seen it as 14 and 16 and he responded to a question on twitter apparantly)

3) Corbs moved to England when he was 5 and has an English mother. His place is safe. His American father came over here, met Alex's mother, they moved over to America for a few years, Alex was born and they moved back. There was an interview with his father when he was classed as a 'foreign' England played and he was perplexed to say the least

4) Waldrom qualified under the Granny rule. This rule should be banned Without a shadow of doubt, makes me gag even thinking about it.

5) Barritt - Curious one. He moved here in 2008 after playing for Emerging Boks etc...but due to Rhodesian parents he holds a British Passport. He also has many English Aunties and Uncles and his grandfather played for England uni's....so was brought up in a British environment. I think this case is borderline. But could understand peole not being happy at it.Having an British passport doesn't qualify you England. He qualifes because his grandparents (I think all of them) were born in England. He came over, committed himself to England with a Saxons cap, did his time (4 years before first full cap), no problem. He 'shouldn't' (IMO) been allowed to be capped straight away.

6) Manu has been here since he was 13. He said he prefered to represent the country he had spent most of his life and learned his rugby. If he said that he's a bit daft as he's not 26 but then who remembers his early years. No issue with Manu, I think any system that wouldn't allow him to represent England would be wrong. But then I don't think Samoa should be closed to him either.

7) Henry Paul / Vainikolo / Hape etc...These were NZ Rugby League players who qualified to Union because of residency (when they played so long for Wigan, Bulls etc. Even though they represented NZ in another code they could qualify for England in union. This law should be utterly banned and never allowed to be used again...as Brad Thorne did for the AB's and Australia League team. I don't have any issue with this one at all. Paul was from before I started watching properly but I'm not against guys playing for more than one country so agree to disagree

8) Flutey,Despite playing for the NZ Maori's he played for Wasps for 3 years so qualified for England. This rule should be made much longer...6 years + He also might have had an English grandfather as the nationality of one was unknown (so couldn't be used for qualification anyway). But yes, should be a bit longer. The thing with Flutey was his life was going down the toilet in New Zealand, he get arrested on a tour to Argentina and he probably owuld have ended up in prison. The move to England allowed him to get a freh start and I have no problem with guys like that representing England, although I'd prefer 5 years.

That covers most of the residency issues i think.
Botha? Came over and played amateur rugby for Bedford Athletic, then got a pro contract with Bedford Blues, before Saracens poached him. I think he was here for a bout 6 or 7 years before being capped. No problem with him, although I'd prefer he to have to get British citizenship as well (don't know if he has or not).

by Neutralee Fri 01 Aug 2014, 1:54 pm

Kia

What are you the name police?

by kiakahaaotearoa Fri 01 Aug 2014, 2:03 pm

Haha We had an AB by the name of Reuben Thorne. He's not as remembered as fondly as Thorn. In fact he's not remembered fondly at all and I'm Chch born and raised! We all have our favourites. Adding an e to Thorn is like putting a colostomy bag on him.

by Neutralee Fri 01 Aug 2014, 2:06 pm

And Johnstone / Johnson?

by kiakahaaotearoa Fri 01 Aug 2014, 2:39 pm

Martin Johnson did enough in a white shirt to earn the right to have his name not confused with Brad Johnstone who also represented his country and coached.

It would be understandable if they were difficult names. Carl Hayman is another one that bewilders me how people get his name wrong. Brodie Retallick not only confused Michael with Courtney, he also confused Laws with Lawes.

Call me pedantic, and you'd be right, but these things matter to me. Very Happy

by **Rugby Fan** Mon 04 Aug 2014, 11:58 am

Here's an example of eligibility in action for the modern player:

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/young-gun/17572/young-gun-kieran-treadwell-harlequins-and-england-u18s-second-row/

English lock Kieran Treadwell was making no inroads with the England U16 set-up so, having an Irish mother, he went to an Irish Exiles trial and got some games at U18 level with Ireland.

England noticed him again, and he decided to recommit to them. Leinster and Ulster had shown an interest in signing him, so there was a path to stay with Ireland.

What tipped the balance was his desire to play for Harlequins and promises from Conor O'Shea about getting an opportunity in the Premiership.

Here's a player, then, who began to feel shut out of national contention because he wasn't on the radar at U16 level.

by fa0019 Mon 04 Aug 2014, 12:08 pm

I wonder how much emphasis academy's put on those who got into age grade national teams and those who didn't?

If it could mean a academy contract or not I understand.

by The Great Aukster Mon 04 Aug 2014, 1:30 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:Here's an example of eligibility in action for the modern player:

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/young-gun/17572/young-gun-kieran-treadwell-harlequins-and-england-u18s-second-row/

English lock Kieran Treadwell was making no inroads with the England U16 set-up so, having an Irish mother, he went to an Irish Exiles trial and got some games at U18 level with Ireland.

England noticed him again, and he decided to recommit to them. Leinster and Ulster had shown an interest in signing him, so there was a path to stay with Ireland.

What tipped the balance was his desire to play for Harlequins and promises from Conor O'Shea about getting an opportunity in the Premiership.

Here's a player, then, who began to feel shut out of national contention because he wasn't on the radar at U16 level.

This highlights the farce that underpins the whole eligibility system - Treadwell gets noticed playing for Ireland and then England make him an offer he can't refuse.

Every player should be allowed one switch up until they are 20 but conditional on them not having played representative rugby in the last year.
The IRB should also allow senior players who are eligible for more than one country one switch as well, but the dormant (non-representative) period should be at least two years.

by Geordie Wed 13 Aug 2014, 2:20 pm

Mind this explanation puts it all in good perspective...maybe not such a huge issue:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree there is a loophole, but its hardly one that will have players flooding to exploit.

► No test rugby for three years
► After that they would have to wait until an Olympic qualifying event
► The timing would have to be right

Circumstances could result in a player having to wait for as long as seven years before playing for their new union.

While the 2014/15 iRB World Sevens Series is a qualifying event, the 15/16. 16/17, and 17/18 events are not, so, for example, a player who last played for his current national team in late 2012 would be too late to qualify for the 2016 Olympics so he would not be able to represent a new union until 2019 because the first available Olympic Qualifying event will be the 2018/19 iRB World Series.

I really cannot see the iRB allowing this loophole to remain open, if it even is really a loophole anyway.

What I think you will find will happen is that, with Sevens being an Olympic Sport (and therefore having to comply with Olympic National Eligibility criteria), the iRB will change Regulation 8 to have Sevens and Fifteens eligibility treated separately. i.e., if you play Sevens for one country, it will only capture your eligibility for Sevens, not for Fifteens. You may be able to switch countries to play Sevens, but your eligibility for Fifteens will remain with the country you first played Fifteens for.

I don't feel this is unreasonable as Sevens has over the years morphed into a different game from Fifteens with different styles of play and significantly different tactics. It even has different Laws (apart from the obvious ones relating to the number of players and the length of the match).

ETA: I believe this might close the loophole anyway

8.9.1 Where the Player has been captured under Regulation 8.2 for a Union he
shall remain captured for such Union notwithstanding the Player’s
representation for the Olympic Sevens Team of a National Olympic
Committee in an Olympic Event;

For reference...

8.2 A Player who has played for the senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the next senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the senior National Representative Sevens Team
of a Union is not eligible to play for the senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the next senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the senior National Representative Sevens Team
of another Union.[/

Do you agree?

by Bathman_in_London Wed 13 Aug 2014, 3:05 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:Here's an example of eligibility in action for the modern player:

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/young-gun/17572/young-gun-kieran-treadwell-harlequins-and-england-u18s-second-row/

English lock Kieran Treadwell was making no inroads with the England U16 set-up so, having an Irish mother, he went to an Irish Exiles trial and got some games at U18 level with Ireland.

England noticed him again, and he decided to recommit to them. Leinster and Ulster had shown an interest in signing him, so there was a path to stay with Ireland.

What tipped the balance was his desire to play for Harlequins and promises from Conor O'Shea about getting an opportunity in the Premiership.

Here's a player, then, who began to feel shut out of national contention because he wasn't on the radar at U16 level.

This highlights the farce that underpins the whole eligibility system - Treadwell gets noticed playing for Ireland and then England make him an offer he can't refuse.

Every player should be allowed one switch up until they are 20 but conditional on them not having played representative rugby in the last year.
The IRB should also allow senior players who are eligible for more than one country one switch as well, but the dormant (non-representative) period should be at least two years.

Or maybe more to the point it shows how an English school boy, who was born here, went to school here and learnt his rugby here can be poached for another country just because as a 15 year old he didn't make a representative team. To be fair to the Welsh, Irish and Scottish Exile setups, they are very good at finding players in England who maybe just don't develop as fast as others or don't go to the right schools.

by robbo277 Wed 13 Aug 2014, 6:31 pm

The trouble is, we only want players who "feel" as though they are English (for instance) playing for England. For some, that will be because that's where they were born, for others, that will be because that's where they're family is from and the culture they were brought up in and, finally, there will be some people with no ties who came over and made this country their home.

The trouble is, how can you distinguish between someone who had a very close relationship with an English grandfather and someone who didn't, when making rules as to who "feels" English enough to be worthy of representing them, and who's just there for a payday? How many years do you have to stay somewhere to feel like that is your home? It varies from person to person, which is why it's impossible to make a "one size fits all" rule. "Will you go 'home' after your international career?" seems like it would be a good question to ask, but it requires the ability to see into the future. Back to the drawing board.

Any rule any of us suggest will rule out one worthy player and let one unworthy one slip through. At least.

The fairest way to do it may even be an IRB "nationality" committee. You get that set up, I'll tell the lawyers to get ready for a bombardment of lawsuits.

So then you have to work out what your objective is in rule-setting. Do you want to preserve the "purity" of International rugby (and risk being called a racist, a xenophobe, etc) or do you take a more lax attitude to it (and risk turning International rugby into a trading game)?

Personally, I would not like to rule out anyone who genuinely felt that he belonged to a country from representing that nation. So I'm not altogether too unhappy with the eligibility rules at present. But I think they are being exploited.

My solution (which will have just as many holes as all of yours), would be to ask the player. At the time he signs his first professional contract, he has to declare for a nation he qualifies for (under current rules) or is residing in. If he's old enough to sign a professional contract, he's old enough to know who he wants to play for.

So if an Englishman with English parents and English grandparents goes to South Africa for University and, two years in, gets picked up by a club and signs a pro-contract, he can declare for England or South Africa. If he declares for South Africa, he obviously can't play for them until he qualifies under current residency rules, but one would assume he declared for them because he intended on making that place home. If he were then to leave South Africa and come back to England (before being capped) his residency is "lost" (as it is under current rules) and he would have to requalify before he could play for South Africa. In this example, he wouldn't be allowed to play for England under any circumstance.

Obviously if you get capped before you sign your first international contract, that's your decision made at that point.

by Sin é Wed 13 Aug 2014, 6:52 pm

Bathman_in_London wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:Here's an example of eligibility in action for the modern player:

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/young-gun/17572/young-gun-kieran-treadwell-harlequins-and-england-u18s-second-row/

English lock Kieran Treadwell was making no inroads with the England U16 set-up so, having an Irish mother, he went to an Irish Exiles trial and got some games at U18 level with Ireland.

England noticed him again, and he decided to recommit to them. Leinster and Ulster had shown an interest in signing him, so there was a path to stay with Ireland.

What tipped the balance was his desire to play for Harlequins and promises from Conor O'Shea about getting an opportunity in the Premiership.

Here's a player, then, who began to feel shut out of national contention because he wasn't on the radar at U16 level.

This highlights the farce that underpins the whole eligibility system - Treadwell gets noticed playing for Ireland and then England make him an offer he can't refuse.

Every player should be allowed one switch up until they are 20 but conditional on them not having played representative rugby in the last year.
The IRB should also allow senior players who are eligible for more than one country one switch as well, but the dormant (non-representative) period should be at least two years.

Or maybe more to the point it shows how an English school boy, who was born here, went to school here and learnt his rugby here can be poached for another country just because as a 15 year old he didn't make a representative team. To be fair to the Welsh, Irish and Scottish Exile setups, they are very good at finding players in England who maybe just don't develop as fast as others or don't go to the right schools.

I think it would be awful to force any kid under the age of 21 to make a decision like that particularly because of the proximity between the nations in the UK & Ireland. At that age their dream is to play professional rugby and if they think they will get a better chance in whatever country they happen to live in, they may feel inclined to declare for that country (i.e., Treadwell wants to make it at Quins. He may still want to represent Ireland but feels that he has a better chance by declaring for England).

At least the Irish Provinces take their English/Welsh born players at an early age into their own academies and they are developed in the Irish system (Kieran Marmion scrumhalf with Connacht is Welsh born, Munster have recently recruited a young player into their academy that was in the Saracens underage system).

by boomeranga Thu 14 Aug 2014, 9:41 am

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Geordie just on a side note, even though I agree with your post above. Brad Thorn played State of Origin. I don't know how but Australia have the rule that if you play Origin footy, you give up the right to play for your home country.

Many league scouts take youth union players particularly from the Auckland region and offer them money that a young person is not going to baulk at. If you're 15 or 16, it's pretty tough to make decisions about your future there and then, particularly when money is involved. Jeff Wilson was a rare breed of rugby and cricket international. No one cared about that. It seems league is too similar that lines need to be drawn. Frankly the players with enough talent to make the switch from either code are pretty few and far between.

It works the other way around. You can't play SOO if you have played for NZ or England. I like the eligibility criteria for Origin. Easier to implement for two states rather than the World, but it still goes to the same issues that union grapples with.

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/OriginEligibilityExplained.pdf

Brad Thorn had lived in Australia twice the time he'd lived in NZ when first picked for the All Blacks.

by Irish Londoner Fri 15 Aug 2014, 12:17 pm

Sorry Sin but as I've posted before, if at 18 you can vote, have kids, join the military, drive a car, fly a plane, etc. then you are old enough to decide what nationality you are - if you have backed the wrong horse, e.g. declare for England and then don't make it you should not have the second bite at the cherry for Ireland or Wales, etc.
I'd make the cut off at 18 - once you are playing U-21 or B Team (Saxons, Wolfhounds, etc.) then you have made your choice. If you want to sit on your hands until you have a firm offer fine but you can't shop around for your nationality if national sides are to mean anything.
Similarly any players coming in from outside the home country should be obliged to take citizenship at the earliest opportunity - e.g. a Kiwi with an Irish grandad looking to qualify for Ireland should have to take Irish or UK citizenship and relinqish the NZ one. You buy into the country lock, stock and barrel or not at all.

by Geordie Fri 15 Aug 2014, 12:28 pm

Well said Irish Londoner

by Neutralee Fri 15 Aug 2014, 12:57 pm

by **Rugby Fan** Fri 15 Aug 2014, 1:01 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:Sorry Sin but as I've posted before, if at 18 you can vote, have kids, join the military, drive a car, fly a plane, etc. then you are old enough to decide what nationality you are

You can't vote at 18 in Japan. The age of majority is 20. 18 is certainly a common age of majority around the world but there are some pretty major exceptions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

Japan doesn't recognize dual nationality. However, more children these days have a foreign parent, and they are permitted to hold two passports. When these children reach 20, however, they must choose which passport to keep and have 2 years to make the choice. So that's one country where they don't think you can make a decision on nationality before 20, and who also think you probably need until you are 22 to settle on a choice.

by Irish Londoner Fri 15 Aug 2014, 3:06 pm

RF - Fair enough could be tweaked to suit local conditions but the point still stands that you should have a full connection to your nation and not be playing under a flag of convenience.

by fa0019 Fri 15 Aug 2014, 3:12 pm

In hindsight I would take away the right to vote from 18 years olds. Personally I don't see them as being mature enough to make an informative decision. I know I wasn't at the time and hardly know anyone who was/is (and never trust a truly settled and mature 18yr old!!!)

I'd raise it to 21 myself and that would go to the rest of things i.e. driving cars, military service etc.

Never going to happen but I personally don't think people are truly adults until they hit their early 20s both physically and mentally.

by **Rugby Fan** Sat 16 Aug 2014, 5:30 am

Irish Londoner wrote:RF - Fair enough could be tweaked to suit local conditions..

I'd prefer there to be, as you say, a one-size-fits-all deal to keep it simple. What we have to be honest about is when we are just using our own cultural preferences and legal systems to guide what we think is appropriate.

In some rugby nations, players are now aware from an early age of the options available to them. Back in 2012, I genuinely believe Steve Shingler didn't know he had committed to Wales through playing an U20 match against France (no-one had been committed playing the same fixture the previous year). We are only just over two years on from that incident but I don't think any young Home Nations player would now make a similar mistake.

It's tempting then, to want eligibility decisions made early. However, it's only in the major rugby nations that professional careers can start so early. To take Japan again, players mainly come through, university so it's rare for anyone to be on a professional contract before 21. Three of the 20/21 year olds in the national squad are still at university. The US squad also has a couple of university players because many of them come to the sport through a similar route.

by nganboy Sat 16 Aug 2014, 1:54 pm

Many countries allow dual or multiple citizenships and the trend in the world is more towards that then single citizenships. Its a complex issue which is not going to be adjusted because of some rugby fans that dont agree with people having allegiance to their mixed heritages.

by Sin é Sun 17 Aug 2014, 10:37 am

Irish Londoner wrote:Sorry Sin but as I've posted before, if at 18 you can vote, have kids, join the military, drive a car, fly a plane, etc. then you are old enough to decide what nationality you are - if you have backed the wrong horse, e.g. declare for England and then don't make it you should not have the second bite at the cherry for Ireland or Wales, etc.
I'd make the cut off at 18 - once you are playing U-21 or B Team (Saxons, Wolfhounds, etc.) then you have made your choice. If you want to sit on your hands until you have a firm offer fine but you can't shop around for your nationality if national sides are to mean anything.
Similarly any players coming in from outside the home country should be obliged to take citizenship at the earliest opportunity - e.g. a Kiwi with an Irish grandad looking to qualify for Ireland should have to take Irish or UK citizenship and relinqish the NZ one. You buy into the country lock, stock and barrel or not at all.

You can change your vote next time, you can change your mind about having kids, you can leave the military, you can decide not to drive a car, fly a plane. All completely different to making a decision about your nationality which is far more complex. Take Simon Easterby (who had a choice). Does playing for Ireland make him less of an Englishman? I don't think so.

by HammerofThunor Sun 17 Aug 2014, 11:47 am

Sin é wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:Sorry Sin but as I've posted before, if at 18 you can vote, have kids, join the military, drive a car, fly a plane, etc. then you are old enough to decide what nationality you are - if you have backed the wrong horse, e.g. declare for England and then don't make it you should not have the second bite at the cherry for Ireland or Wales, etc.
I'd make the cut off at 18 - once you are playing U-21 or B Team (Saxons, Wolfhounds, etc.) then you have made your choice. If you want to sit on your hands until you have a firm offer fine but you can't shop around for your nationality if national sides are to mean anything.
Similarly any players coming in from outside the home country should be obliged to take citizenship at the earliest opportunity - e.g. a Kiwi with an Irish grandad looking to qualify for Ireland should have to take Irish or UK citizenship and relinqish the NZ one. You buy into the country lock, stock and barrel or not at all.

You can change your vote next time, you can change your mind about having kids, you can leave the military, you can decide not to drive a car, fly a plane. All completely different to making a decision about your nationality which is far more complex. Take Simon Easterby (who had a choice). Does playing for Ireland make him less of an Englishman? I don't think so.

+1

by Sponsored content

Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

Re: Eligibility raises its ugly head again...