Eligibility raises its ugly head again...

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.

It should be pretty straight forward imo:

-Parental qualification only; do away with grandparent qual. which can be obscure and easily exploited
-Five year residency periods; that's how long it takes to become a naturalised citizen therefore it should be reflected in national rugby
-Once you commit to a national side (senior, A side or equivalent) you are bound to that side; this is something which ought to be clearly articulated in IRB regulations and which all players should be reminded of before they run out for their first cap. ALL players should have a responsibility to think about it VERY carefully as there should be no going back once you've represented a national side.

Knowsit17 wrote:
-Five year residency periods; that's how long it takes to become a naturalised citizen therefore it should be reflected in national rugby

It can take much longer than that, or be granted almost immediately. There are often vastly different experiences even within the same country. I doubt whether five years is even the average figure.

In Japan, it often used to take 9 years just to get permanent residence.

You may know more about it than I do but I had the impression that if you're moving to the UK without having been born there and/or without family connections the period cited on the naturalisation (residency) document is five years. That may or may not be slightly outdated, I'm not sure whether anything has changed since I was last aware of it.

No system is going to be perfect and either way some are undoubtedly going to suffer the misfortune of not getting to play int'l rugby when they're in their early 20s. All I know is that a fair system shouldn't be driven by a handful of individual cases.

Speaking personally wouldn't mind the PI`s getting former AUs/AB players to strengthen
them.Once it was the norm,as to Cricket Ranjistsinghi and Duleepsinghi played for England
a Russian Prince Oberlensky played Rugby for them.

I appreciate that these ex All Blacks will strengthen the PI sides, but it just seems wrong. In the long term its only going to turn the pi nations into retirement camp teams.

That said I am of the thought you can only have one true nationality, and in most people you know what that is well before your late teens (I'mWq, EQ, IQ, and possibly SQ so I know other family ties can play a part). So I can't see anyway you can play with true pride for a nation that's not yours. I would say from u20s on your tied to your nation, residency is fiv or ten years, and birthplace/parents birthplace alone.

And no way in hell can you represented two nations. You play league for AIs your tied to AIs, you play darts for Scotland your tied to Scotland etc

I dont agree with being able to switch nations after you have been capped myself. But what the article is saying is that once every 4 years a handful of players will be selected for an olympic sevens team, and after that tournament has been completed that player will be able to play for the country regardless of him being capped elsewhere.

I don't see this as a major problem because not every player is suitable sevens, you can talk about the list of players being mentioned but would England really select Ali Williams in a 7's team just so e could play for England after the tournament.

If an All Black player gets superceeded by another player at the age of 29 and has to wait a few years for a olympic islands 7's team then there is hardly going to that much of an impact.

Shifty it includes Olympic qualifying games not just at the actual Olympics. Not sure it's all the sevens World Series games or just those he year before.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:That said I am of the thought you can only have one true nationality

Thats a very blinkered view. It's not always that simple, especially for kids who move at a young age or the children of immigrants.

fa0019 wrote:

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?

Yeah exactly. The Ireland team does not correspond to Ireland, the country but is instead about Ireland, the island so qualification based on passports is therefore not simple.

Notch wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:That said I am of the thought you can only have one true nationality

Thats a very blinkered view. It's not always that simple, especially for kids who move at a young age or the children of immigrants.

I appreciate its a little blinkered, and there are always shades of grey. But realistically how many kids are there % wise that have such a childhood? Also wouldn't they, possibly, settle somewhere by early teens (as their parents age etc)? But sadly with nationality there is no one size fits all, so its a case of finding which size fits most.

A minority of kids, worldwide, but when it comes to the case of either first or second generation Pacific Islanders who ply their trade in New Zealand/Australian rugby in particular it's quite a sizeable number of players who find themselves in exactly that situation of split allegiances and dual nationality.

SS,

Both my kids qualify for Wales (me and Mrs Beds Welsh), England (born there) and Ireland (grand father is Irish).  My daughter has decided she is Welsh due to spending most her early years there and now in college there but my son just says he is British and has no strong allegiance to either despite the constant nagging from me as he grew up

Notch wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:That said I am of the thought you can only have one true nationality

Thats a very blinkered view. It's not always that simple, especially for kids who move at a young age or the children of immigrants.

Can't say I entirely disagree. I said on another thread that outside rugby it's only natural for certain people, pending their circumstances, to feel cultural ties to more than one nation. You can hardly tell a guy who spent a part of his upbringing in X and another in Y "Pledge yourself morally to one now!" if he feels a part of both to a certain degree.

This however, I have always felt, should not practically be applied to international rugby. I mentioned an example previously regarding warfare: if both your nations were hypothetically at war you could scarcely fight for both sides (unless you're a modern day Alcibiades, Demaratus or Hippias, whatever you choose to make of that). In rugby, I've always felt it runs contrary to the spirit of national commitment, to the idea of giving your blood, sweat and tears alongside your teammates, to be permitted to play for two or more countries in your career. In the extreme, it might well make international rugby indistinguishable to club rugby/football. Nor does it paint an admirable picture of the player who chooses to 'convert'. Some honour (in my view) that player playing in black or red or blue must have if they would just as soon don other colours given the chance. Personally if I was an international class player (which I'm not but still) I know for a fact that I wouldn't care to play for anyone other than Wales.

You can't play to two teams at the same time either can you. Plenty of examples of people defecting to the opposition and fighting against their origin. So I don't think that works they way you want it to.

I think generally people would be less likely to fight against their origin country (unless there's seriously bad blood) but then there is a big difference between playing a game against ex countrymen and being in a position to kill them.

It's interesting Internationally. Probably a bigger issue in terms of players leaving to play for other countries. Aside from the economic drag of club salaries that drags foreign players to the UK, the UK has a relatively low percentage of the population born overseas when compared with countries like NZ and Australia.

The latest census shows that 1/4 of NZ population was born overseas. Also there is an estimated 1/5 of our population is living overseas. NZ has many people with multiple nationalities both on the legal level an on the emotional level.

I'm NZ born Chinese and my wife is China born Chinese so our respective nationalities are clear but our kids were born in China and have spent about 1/2 their lives in each country but most recently mostly in NZ. So they are more Kiwi than Chinese but still very Chinese and if we go back and live in China then the balance may change.

I'm hoping my son becomes an All Black and my daughter a Silver Fern. My wife is looking forward to being the mother of the President of China and the mother of the NZ Prime Minister.

I guess what I am trying to say is nationality and allegiance can be a lot more complex than some of you may think.

England tends to lose quite a few players to their fellow home nations due to parental and grandparent roots. I mean London is only what 150 miles from Cardiff so it would be natural for those in Wales to go and work in London if their job requires it etc, their kids will be born where they work etc. Unless some prefer to commute daily!!!
 
Its the issues I guess of having 4 countries amongst 1. I can't recall many players trading their country up for England mind. Dewi Morris (and in those days you played for the country you played in not the country you were necessarily born in). Any others?

Usually those that go for another country are those that don't make the grade or have moved 'back'. Player pool is smaller in the other countries so there's last chance of a decent player not being picked up. Where as in England the player pool is so large that it's very possible that someone decent of Scottish (and the Scots seem to be the worst offenders) decent will join team Scotland.

I think there was a prop who used to play for Bristol and moved to Wasps (Hobson?) who was born in Swansea. Not sure when he moved to England though.

Of course another issue now is that many of the teams (all of them?) have quotas on not home qualified players and now England won't pick someone from outside England so it'll probably not happen much.

HammerofThunor wrote:Usually those that go for another country are those that don't make the grade or have moved 'back'. Player pool is smaller in the other countries so there's last chance of a decent player not being picked up. Where as in England the player pool is so large that it's very possible that someone decent of Scottish (and the Scots seem to be the worst offenders) decent will join team Scotland.

I think there was a prop who used to play for Bristol and moved to Wasps (Hobson?) who was born in Swansea. Not sure when he moved to England though.

Of course another issue now is that many of the teams (all of them?) have quotas on not home qualified players and now England won't pick someone from outside England so it'll probably not happen much.

I wouldn't say Scotland is the worst offender. The other home nations have quite a few born in England and playing for them as well.
There are a lot of Scots living down in England especially the London area, surrey etc who have moved down for work and had kids who are born down there. They are brought up there but a lot are brought up as scottish and not english so alot of them even if they are good enough wouldn't want to play for England anyway.
My girlfriends cousins are English born and brought up in Surrey but are v proud scots and always support Scotland at sport. One of them is 15 and a very talented rugby player and is getting into the scottish age grade system this year. He has been talked too by the English set up but has no desire to play for them as he feels scottish which is the case for quite a few of the players who have been born in England but gone on to play for Scotland in recent years.

The vast majority of the Welsh English-born players moved to Wales at a very young age. The only one who didn't that I can think who didn't is Cuthbert and he moved to Wales to go to uni before the WRU got involved.

As for the Irish...McCarthy...anyone else?

The SRU actively look around England for Scottish qualified players to bring into their structure. There's no indication that anyone else does that. So yes, Scotland are by far the 'worst'.

Of course the scots look around for scottish players in England because there are lots of scots who have moved to England for work. These guys the majority of them have been brought up as scottish and have scottish parents so scotland aren't actually poaching players from England.
Wales and ireland both operate scouting networks in England as well to discover talent so it isn't just the scots.
As for England they have had a lot of players in their team with very little ties to England in recent years.

Loads of Irish players born in England - some over the years:
Simon Geoghegan, Justin Bishop, Mal O'Kelly, Easterby brothers, Justin Fitzpatrick, Kieran Campbell, Declan Fitzpatrick, Dan Tuohy...

Not that England would want or need such players but surely English born players should be eligible to play for England if Ireland didn't pick them for say two years. Equally guys like Shane Geraghty, Nick Kennedy and Kieran Brookes should be available to play for Ireland if they haven't represented England for two years.

It's one thing being eligible, another to be in the selection mix and yet another for the player to actually want to switch. However a few key players could make a massive difference to smaller nations, which in turn would improve their competitiveness in Test rugby and grow the game (in everyone's interest).

There are at least 3 players in the current Scotland team that represented England at age grade (Hamilton, Low and Heathcote). There are many more born and raised in England. There are none from Wales or Ireland (that I know of). I don't really care about how Scottish they feel (although I'm not sure how you know all that), they're eligible, they're fine. But they developed their rugby in England and were poached by Scotland.

And I don't understand the last point (other than deflection tactic to move the discussion). The RFU don't go hunting other countries for English qualified players.

Ninja'd, so Touhy in the current squad?

HammerofThunor wrote:There are at least 3 players in the current Scotland team that represented England at age grade (Hamilton, Low and Heathcote). There are many more born and raised in England. There are none from Wales or Ireland (that I know of). I don't really care about how Scottish they feel (although I'm not sure how you know all that), they're eligible, they're fine. But they developed their rugby in England and were poached by Scotland.

And I don't understand the last point (other than deflection tactic to move the discussion). The RFU don't go hunting other countries for English qualified players.

Ninja'd, so Touhy in the current squad?

England have poached players from scotland in the past aswell, in recent years tom palmer was brought up in Edinburgh, played for boroughmuir and scotland u18 and u21s. Scott wilson the Saxons prop is another scot who has played his junior rugby in the scottish system!

If you have a look at the current wales squad there are around 6 players born in England with at least 3 raised there. Ireland have 2 or 3 at the moment and had a lot in the past aswell.

Are you of the opinion that whatever nation you are born that is your nationality?

Not sure whether you are trying to be funny or if you are naive when you say England don't go I hunting other countries for English qualified players? Brad Barritt? England hunted him out. They also have a network of talent scouts who operate and regularly come up to watch the likes of merchiston, fettes, what sons etc play to look for English talent. So yes England do look for talent from other countries!

Its a double edged sword for me:

I like the idea that the Tier 2 sides can bring back players who have associations with them...if it makes them stronger then great stuff.
But then lets not forget these island particularly Samoa are already 90% players from NZ who have gone through the NZ system,

THe problem is have is what Auskter said above...players just chopping and changing willy nilly between the tier one sides like Ireland and England.

NO NO NO

It just makes a mockery of the whole game and makes it a club game.

The IRB need to sit down and have a geunine project on improving the whole residency, eligibilty situation as it could result in the game becoming a farce.

I would also like to see something done about the constant changing betwen codes..Union, League, AFL.

Certain players just seem to want to play in major tournaments and a making the whole thing a bit of a joke.

Geordie
 
I think you make a good point.
 
If you look at the Samoa rugby team at any one time the players born and raised in NZ is often >50%. I looked at it last year for a similar chat and it was something like 9-10 players per turnout.
 
If Samoa is ever to become a real force on their own.... they can't be seen as 2nd class citizens. I.e. finshed with AUS/NZ.... will have a final ball now with Samoa and perhaps some signature hits and tries at the RWC.
 
What is tier 1 anyhow? Anyone who has a full vote at the IRB i.e. home nations, France and 3N? I don't think Argentina has a full vote, not so sure on italy.
 
Could argue that Samoa are a better team than Scotland for instance? Why does Samoa get the allowances but Scotland doesn't? Scotland are very seldom above them in the rankings these days.

fa0019 wrote:Geordie
 
I think you make a good point.
 
If you look at the Samoa rugby team at any one time the players born and raised in NZ is often >50%. I looked at it last year for a similar chat and it was something like 9-10 players per turnout.
 
If Samoa is ever to become a real force on their own.... they can't be seen as 2nd class citizens. I.e. finshed with AUS/NZ.... will have a final ball now with Samoa and perhaps some signature hits and tries at the RWC.
 
What is tier 1 anyhow? Anyone who has a full vote at the IRB i.e. home nations, France and 3N? I don't think Argentina has a full vote, not so sure on italy.
 
Could argue that Samoa are a better team than Scotland for instance? Why does Samoa get the allowances but Scotland doesn't? Scotland are very seldom above them in the rankings these days.

Scotland is above them just now in the rankings!

Yeah theres so many variables FA...

Scotland actually do play alot of foreigners, different scenario to the Islands i agree..but never the less they have lots of non scots in there.

And under the new Olympic qualifying laws Scotland are just as likely as Samoa to try to use it to their advantage. Though i cant think of many Scots whove played for other teams that would be worthwhile for Scotland?

Some things are very fixable, others not so...but i think the IRB need to get their act together and make some big decisions.

Majestic83 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Geordie
 
I think you make a good point.
 
If you look at the Samoa rugby team at any one time the players born and raised in NZ is often >50%. I looked at it last year for a similar chat and it was something like 9-10 players per turnout.
 
If Samoa is ever to become a real force on their own.... they can't be seen as 2nd class citizens. I.e. finshed with AUS/NZ.... will have a final ball now with Samoa and perhaps some signature hits and tries at the RWC.
 
What is tier 1 anyhow? Anyone who has a full vote at the IRB i.e. home nations, France and 3N? I don't think Argentina has a full vote, not so sure on italy.
 
Could argue that Samoa are a better team than Scotland for instance? Why does Samoa get the allowances but Scotland doesn't? Scotland are very seldom above them in the rankings these days.

Scotland is above them just now in the rankings!

What does that really tell us?

Englands above Ireland and Wales...but at any time they can all beat each other.

Majestic83 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Geordie
 
I think you make a good point.
 
If you look at the Samoa rugby team at any one time the players born and raised in NZ is often >50%. I looked at it last year for a similar chat and it was something like 9-10 players per turnout.
 
If Samoa is ever to become a real force on their own.... they can't be seen as 2nd class citizens. I.e. finshed with AUS/NZ.... will have a final ball now with Samoa and perhaps some signature hits and tries at the RWC.
 
What is tier 1 anyhow? Anyone who has a full vote at the IRB i.e. home nations, France and 3N? I don't think Argentina has a full vote, not so sure on italy.
 
Could argue that Samoa are a better team than Scotland for instance? Why does Samoa get the allowances but Scotland doesn't? Scotland are very seldom above them in the rankings these days.

Scotland is above them just now in the rankings!

Why I said seldom and the test season is not yet over.

For the last 2 years Scotland have been below Samoa until very recently and Samoa often haemorrages points mid cycle when they play teams like Japan in the PNC with 2nd/3rd string sides and clubs don't release their first choice players.

Eo 2013 Samoa 8th, Scotland 9th.
E0 2012 Samoa 7th, Scotland 12th.

So even though Samoa is arguably a better side, they still are able to qualify for NZ leftovers but Scotland can't?

Is Italy a tier 1 side? They're in 14th place at the moment. below Japan, Fiji and Tonga.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah theres so many variables FA...

Scotland actually do play alot of foreigners, different scenario to the Islands i agree..but never the less they have lots of non scots in there.

And under the new Olympic qualifying laws Scotland are just as likely as Samoa to try to use it to their advantage. Though i cant think of many Scots whove played for other teams that would be worthwhile for Scotland?

Some things are very fixable, others not so...but i think the IRB need to get their act together and make some big decisions.

I'm not sure why Scotland keeps getting drawn into this and labelled as a team that has lots of foreigners in it. Yes we do have some but so does most other nations playing.
If you put the strongest scottish line up out on the pitch tomorrow of ryan grant, ross ford, euan murray, richie gray, jonny gray, kelly brown, johnnie beattie, al strokosh, chris cusiter, finn russell, tim visser, matt scott, al dunbar, sean maitland, stuart hogg. Only 2 out of that 15 are not born in Scotland.
England as a nation have in the past few years had a lot of "foreigners" in their team, with the likes of the vunipola's, dylan hartley, corbisiero, thomas waldrom, brad barritt, manu tuillagi plus quite a few others who i have forgotten.
All nations use the eligability rules to get players from other countries and labelling Scotland as the main culprits is a bit blinkered for some of the other nations!

Majestic
 
I think it came from McGeechans ploy int he early 2000s where he would literally cap anyhow ala Jack Charlton style. Mud sticks.
 
born in the channel isles you said... brilliant, you can play for Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England. Fancy a trup to Murrayfield (albeit please pay for your trip, hotel and return any training gear used).

fa0019 wrote:Majestic
 
I think it came from McGeechans ploy int he early 2000s where he would literally cap anyhow ala Jack Charlton style. Mud sticks.
 
born in the channel isles you said... brilliant, you can play for Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England. Fancy a trup to Murrayfield (albeit please pay for your trip, hotel and return any training gear used).

+

Didn't know Geechs was a Kiwi.   

Majestic83 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah theres so many variables FA...

Scotland actually do play alot of foreigners, different scenario to the Islands i agree..but never the less they have lots of non scots in there.

And under the new Olympic qualifying laws Scotland are just as likely as Samoa to try to use it to their advantage. Though i cant think of many Scots whove played for other teams that would be worthwhile for Scotland?

Some things are very fixable, others not so...but i think the IRB need to get their act together and make some big decisions.

I'm not sure why Scotland keeps getting drawn into this and labelled as a team that has lots of foreigners in it. Yes we do have some but so does most other nations playing.
If you put the strongest scottish line up out on the pitch tomorrow of ryan grant, ross ford, euan murray, richie gray, jonny gray, kelly brown, johnnie beattie, al strokosh, chris cusiter, finn russell, tim visser, matt scott, al dunbar, sean maitland, stuart hogg. Only 2 out of that 15 are not born in Scotland.
England as a nation have in the past few years had a lot of "foreigners" in their team, with the likes of the vunipola's, dylan hartley, corbisiero, thomas waldrom, brad barritt, manu tuillagi plus quite a few others who i have forgotten.
All nations use the eligability rules to get players from other countries and labelling Scotland as the main culprits is a bit blinkered for some of the other nations!

 
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.
 
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
 
3) Corbs moved to England when he was 5 and has an English mother. His place is safe.
 
4) Waldrom qualified under the Granny rule. This rule should be banned
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.  
 
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 +

That covers most of the residency issues i think.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Majestic83 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah theres so many variables FA...

Scotland actually do play alot of foreigners, different scenario to the Islands i agree..but never the less they have lots of non scots in there.

And under the new Olympic qualifying laws Scotland are just as likely as Samoa to try to use it to their advantage. Though i cant think of many Scots whove played for other teams that would be worthwhile for Scotland?

Some things are very fixable, others not so...but i think the IRB need to get their act together and make some big decisions.

I'm not sure why Scotland keeps getting drawn into this and labelled as a team that has lots of foreigners in it. Yes we do have some but so does most other nations playing.
If you put the strongest scottish line up out on the pitch tomorrow of ryan grant, ross ford, euan murray, richie gray, jonny gray, kelly brown, johnnie beattie, al strokosh, chris cusiter, finn russell, tim visser, matt scott, al dunbar, sean maitland, stuart hogg. Only 2 out of that 15 are not born in Scotland.
England as a nation have in the past few years had a lot of "foreigners" in their team, with the likes of the vunipola's, dylan hartley, corbisiero, thomas waldrom, brad barritt, manu tuillagi plus quite a few others who i have forgotten.
All nations use the eligability rules to get players from other countries and labelling Scotland as the main culprits is a bit blinkered for some of the other nations!

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 are dodgy having been in New Zealand then Wales mostly then Bristol. They even sound Welsh. I would query their eligibilty for England

2) Dylan Hartley has been here since he was 16 and has an English parent. I would say he is worthy of his English place

3) Corbs moved to England when he was 5 and has an English mother. His place is safe.

4) Waldrom qualified under the Granny rule. This rule should be banned

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.

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.

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.  

That covers most of the residency issues i think.  

Can remember at the time the South Africans were pretty unhappy about Brad Barritt switching to England as he had been tipped for the Springboks and was a regular in the Sharks team from quite an early age.

Not saying it is just England, the other home nations have benefited from the eligability rules in the past as well but I do think each nation has been as guilty as each other at different stages.

On the grandparent rule personally I don't mind too much as I benefit from that rule myself but the 3 year residency rule I think should be scrapped.
The rule regarding the olympics etc where players will be able to switch nations to those of their passports needs to be looked at a lot more.
Is this the same in football as well? I thought once a player had played in a competative game for a nation at football they couldn't switch allegiance but if it was a friendly they weren't tied a country. Obviously they have had football at the olympics for a lot longer than rugby so is this something football hasn't realised?

There is no way Barritt would hold a british passport unless he qualifies like everyone else. Britain doesn't hand over passports to ex rhodesians unless they qualify like everyone else etc.
 
As much as people say they're different, Rhodesians are the most British people and most loyal to the motherland people I've ever met. A bit like Simon Shaw, a bit like Chris Froome.
 
They're British and mostly English but I can't see how people would worry about Brad Barritt or any other Zimbo.
 
They're playing for their country.

I fogot to add

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 +

Also in terms of Barritt I don't think SA can have any complaints.

They had enough time to look at him, he was SR player of the year in SA I think and Jake White himself valued Wynand Olivier over him and continued to ignore him as did PDV.... why it was great to see him in Sarries smash him to pieces when Olivier came up against him in the AIs tour of 2009.

On a side note i dont think Barritt has developed into the player he could have.

he was a makeshift 10 at the sharks. They turned him into a bulldozing 12.

Yeah its just a shame he hadnt continued to improve his offensive skills...he could have been the answer to Englands MASSIVE 12 dilema.

the coaching at Sarries probably didn't help. Not exactly linked to expansive play. And England too.

Successful yes, wooden that too.

fa0019 wrote:he was a makeshift 10 at the sharks. They turned him into a bulldozing 12.

Indeed, if he could bring a little more of that distribution he seemed to have at the Sharks there would be no debate over the England 12 shirt. I know this has been done to death but as a passport holder its hard to see where a real complaint can be about him really.

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.

Ah thats interesting Kia. So Brad had no choice to play for Australia League.
 
Well thats fair enough he chose them...what i dislike is the changing of countries when you change code.
 
They are both rugby, and so you should represent the same country in either code. But that would have lost you guys Brad Thorne of course...a top class player and i understand Brad was desperate to be an AB

Origin is the peak of league. Test league is a joke by comparison in intensity. It's what players aspire to in that part of the world. I guess it's compensation for NZ players to be schooled in the Australian structure.

I'm not against the idea of saying what Brad Thorn did shouldn't be allowed now. I'm just illustrating it's a difficult decision. A lot more difficult than choosing the subjects you want to study at school! No one's giving you money to choose maths. Well they didn't with me, but as I'm hopeless at the sciences and maths, that's not a great surprise.

So Thorne is just a bit mercenary.

Majestic83 wrote:England have poached players from scotland in the past aswell, in recent years tom palmer was brought up in Edinburgh, played for boroughmuir and scotland u18 and u21s. Scott wilson the Saxons prop is another scot who has played his junior rugby in the scottish system!

If you have a look at the current wales squad there are around 6 players born in England with at least 3 raised there. Ireland have 2 or 3 at the moment and had a lot in the past aswell.

Are you of the opinion that whatever nation you are born that is your nationality?

Not sure whether you are trying to be funny or if you are naive when you say England don't go I hunting other countries for English qualified players? Brad Barritt? England hunted him out. They also have a network of talent scouts who operate and regularly come up to watch the likes of merchiston, fettes, what sons etc play to look for English talent. So yes England do look for talent from other countries!

We were talking about English players playing for Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Of course England poach loads of players, we're the worst offenders. I wasn't even having a go, just saying that Scotland seem to call up a lot more England born and raised but Scottish qualified players than the others. You then get really defensive. For Wales the only guys I can think of recently are Cuthbert, Charteris and Jarvis (going back further Will James and Chris Horsman). The rest grew up in Wales. For Ireland Touhy and McCarthey (and one of the Denton lads was brought over from Leeds). For Scotland, Jim Hamilton, Kieren Low, Heathcote, Tom Evans, Max Evans, Tom Ryder, Jack Cuthbert, Tim Swinson, Henry Pyrgos. And that's off the top of my head. Maybe I'm only noticing the Scottish ones so I pay more attention to them in a viscious circle. This isn't having a go at Scotland, and I don't have a problem with any of these guys playing for Scotland but Scotland appear to make use of English born and bred players more than Wales or Ireland.

Please explain how Barritt was hunted out by England? Saracens went and got him and he was ignored by England for longer than he 'should' have been. The RFU had nothing to do with. The clubs hunt out the best players they can (ideally under-rated or raw ones so they're cheaper). SRU have a special programme for finding Scottish qualified players outside of Scotland. It's completely different (not wrong, just different).

As for being the nationality of the country you're born in, well if you read further up the thread I give no credence to country of birth at all. It's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned but is the easiest way of doing it so it'll stick. And as far as I'm concerned if you're qualified you're qualified and don't agree with union's not picking an eligible player because they aren't (e.g.) English enough. They can ignore players you aren't committed to the cause but that isn't dependent on your nationality.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So Thorne is just a bit mercenary.

Please it's Thorn. He's earned that right.   

Thorn was eligible to play for the All Blacks and he pursued that dream. He gave up touring the NH after his first year playing for Canterbury because he didn't feel he was up to it. He may have been old but he was the among the best physically prepared for each match.

You are free to view him in whatever way you see fit. Like I said, if they change the rules then fine. But Thorn did no wrong and will always be remembered fondly by NZ union fans as well as league fans. The thing is, most are fans of both down that part of the world.