B&I Lions and residency

Hi

Not looking to start a fight with this one but here goes.

Would people be happy to have players who only qualify through residency to be included in the next Lions tour ? And where would you draw the line ?

Riki Flutey already played for the Lions after qualifying through residency.

He became the first player to play for and against the Lions, and the first player to play for and against the Lions in consecutive series.

A more interesting question is, would you be Hape for the B&I Lions to wear a change strip that was black?

I don't normally have an issue with it, but last time I felt Flutey's inclusion was not right. He had played against the Lions in the tour previously for the NZ maori....... that set down a pretty poor marker IMO.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I don't normally have an issue with it, but last time I felt Flutey's inclusion was not right. He had played against the Lions in the tour previously for the NZ maori....... that set down a pretty poor marker IMO.

I agree on that one, especially as he'd played for a non British/Irish National side !

How about Faletua for example or Manu Tuilagi ? Both were born overseas but both came through British youth setups. Its strange how Toby sounds like a Newport lad and Manu still sounds strongly Samoan

If a guy qualifies to play for one of the home nations, and you are happy with that, then why would playing for the Lions be an issue?

As time passes a more relevant question might actually be:

"Would people be happy to only have players who qualify through residency to be included in the next Lions tour ?"

TheGreyGhost wrote:As time passes a more relevant question might actually be:

"Would people be happy to only have players who qualify through residency to be included in the next Lions tour ?"

you see, this is why you get 24 hour bans, and not me!

biltongbek wrote:If a guy qualifies to play for one of the home nations, and you are happy with that, then why would playing for the Lions be an issue?

I'm not happy about it 100% about it but if its within the rules then its within the rules. Doesnt stop people discussing it though.

I think there is a difference between someone being born elsewhere and then coming up through the youth system here than some SH journeyman who wasn't good enough to be picked by his own country i.e Flutey

I think if someone qualifies to play for England, Ireland, Scotland, or Wales, then they are qualified to play for the Lions. But this goes back to national qualification rules and if/how they should change.

doctor_grey wrote:I think if someone qualifies to play for England, Ireland, Scotland, or Wales, then they are qualified to play for the Lions. But this goes back to national qualification rules and if/how they should change.

Well, they ARE qualified to play for Lions. Do people think this is right though ? But as you say, its all down to national qualification

Agree players qualified for the Home Nations are qualified for the Lions. I think it is the right way to do it, but want the residency rules tightened up a bit.

I agree the inclusion of Riki Flutey did not feel right, though firmly within the rules.
But Manu Tuilagi, who came over as a kid, is fine for me.

Munkian
Flutey wasn't not picked by his own country.
He wasn't picked by his own province.
I'm not sure why you guys are so anti all the residence qualified players. Surely they are getting picked because they are the best in their position - or at least the selectors think so. Are they really holding a local back.
If Flutey kicked the drop goal that won the RWC would you not celebrate?

nganboy wrote:Munkian
Flutey wasn't not picked by his own country.
He wasn't picked by his own province.
I'm not sure why you guys are so anti all the residence qualified players. Surely they are getting picked because they are the best in their position - or at least the selectors think so. Are they really holding a local back.
If Flutey kicked the drop goal that won the RWC would you not celebrate?

No, I'm Welsh

What if Ali Williams had been born in the UK and then came over with his parents? Both English and a Scottish Grandmother.

I imagine NZ have had more of this especially in the early years than the UK. Add to that the PI's and NZ can not say the same thing has not happened to them.

munkian wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I don't normally have an issue with it, but last time I felt Flutey's inclusion was not right. He had played against the Lions in the tour previously for the NZ maori....... that set down a pretty poor marker IMO.

I agree on that one, especially as he'd played for a non British/Irish National side !

How about Faletua for example or Manu Tuilagi ? Both were born overseas but both came through British youth setups. Its strange how Toby sounds like a Newport lad and Manu still sounds strongly Samoan

Not really, I think you can definitely tell that Manu has spent some time in Leicester.

welshjohn369 wrote:What if Ali Williams had been born in the UK and then came over with his parents? Both English and a Scottish Grandmother.

I imagine NZ have had more of this especially in the early years than the UK. Add to that the PI's and NZ can not say the same thing has not happened to them.

I think its different in NZ because about 20% of us were born overseas. Its no big deal. Most of my mates have 1 foreign parent. I had two. And my wife is an immigrant. And my kids were born overseas. I don't think we would be so worried about it as long as we felt the player really wanted to play for us

One could argue that since the team was originally founded as the British Isles touring team representing players from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, then if players are playing their rugby in one of these unions, they should be eligible to play for the Lions. Where they are born is secondary.

If the players qualify for their respective home nation then it's not for the Lions selectors to exclude players based on how they qualify. I'd imagine it would be illegal to disciminate on that basis anyway.

Didn't a few of the Welsh Grannygate boys tour in 2001 under Graham Henry?

munkian wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I don't normally have an issue with it, but last time I felt Flutey's inclusion was not right. He had played against the Lions in the tour previously for the NZ maori....... that set down a pretty poor marker IMO.

I agree on that one, especially as he'd played for a non British/Irish National side !

How about Faletua for example or Manu Tuilagi ? Both were born overseas but both came through British youth setups. Its strange how Toby sounds like a Newport lad and Manu still sounds strongly Samoan

Wouldnt agree with you regarding Manu, I can hear the leicester accent.

To be honest there have been a few non-B&I born Lions. I believe that Daf James (born in namibia or somewhere in Africa, i think), Brent Cockbain, Flutey (and probably a heap more if you look into it). However I do think that it all depends on the player in question. I was aginst Flutey being a Lion on the grounds that he had been a Moari. However I would not have as much of a problem with Manu Tualagi, even though I think i remember him saying he was a Samoan but happy to play for England (not sure when or where i read/heard it), as he has been here for a while.

If you are English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish qualified through residency, but not been capped for them (Tito, Waldrum etc) could you be selected by the Lions?

munkian wrote:Its strange how Toby sounds like a Newport lad

Poor chap. Of all the places he could have picked...

nganboy wrote:Munkian
Flutey wasn't not picked by his own country.
He wasn't picked by his own province.
I'm not sure why you guys are so anti all the residence qualified players. Surely they are getting picked because they are the best in their position - or at least the selectors think so. Are they really holding a local back.
If Flutey kicked the drop goal that won the RWC would you not celebrate?

He was picked to play for Wellington, his province.
He was picked to play for the Hurricanes super rugby franchise, which made him contracted to the NZRFU.
He was picked to represent his country in the fourth test 2005, Maori v. British Lions.
He then resigned and moved to play in London.
Leaving New Zealand made him ineligible to be selected for the All Blacks, due to the well known NZRFU policy of only selecting players who currently play in NZ.
After the bare minimum qualification period he was immediately drafted into the England squad. He was then picked to represent Britain in 2009.

He then resigned and went to play in France.

Sounds like a passionate Brit, through and through!

My point was he wasn't really wanted by Wellington and the Hurricanes.
I don't think you can say playing for the Maoris is playing for NZ

TheGreyGhost wrote:
Sounds like a passionate Brit, through and through!

Hey he sounds a bit like yourself GG. Any chance we might see you line up for the Lions?

nganboy wrote:My point was he wasn't really wanted by Wellington and the Hurricanes.
I don't think you can say playing for the Maoris is playing for NZ

I think he was representing New Zealand. I certainly saw a lot more Kiwis supporting the Maori than the Lions in that game. Maori pretty much tend to come from New Zealand.

Clive Woodward called the Maori game "the fourth test" throughout 2005. Which is also reflected in Geech's claim that the "midweek Lions side went through NZ undefeated"

I fail to see how playing for the NZ Maori is not representing New Zealand. Isn't that like saying the baby blacks don't represent New Zealand?

Let's face it, the Irish players were happy to turn out for the British Lions for many years, so what's a few extra Kiwis matter.....

Let me understand this. Are we saying we want Dan Parks and Shauntayne Hape in the next Lions side !

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Let me understand this. Are we saying we want Dan Parks and Shauntayne Hape in the next Lions side !

It's "Shontayne". If you're going to have him, you have to take his cringe-worthy westy name too.

No thanks Ghost. Brendan Laney anyone ?!

The residenecy rule is here to stay so people might as well get used to it.... even if they don't like it.
Coaches could stand by their principles but given rugby today is mainly about winning.. I doubt few coaches would not take up the option.

All nations from the top down have taken the odd foreigner (some more than others mind) but it certainly waters down test rugby... shows an uglier professional, no heart side to the game which none of us particularly approve of.

In terms of the lions... it would be unfair to say some can play some can't.... where do you draw the line? Birth, Ancestry..... what about people like Manu who came to the UK as a minor... he is also here on residency but would you deny him a place on a lions tour?

TheGreyGhost

in terms of your lions residency only question... its not really likely though and I can't see it happening.
If you look into the number of non birth, non moved to UK as children, non ancestry players then for the current batch its pretty small.... Hape, Flutey, Botha, Fioure (can't think of anymore off the top of my head).

The lions have probably 5 players in each position better then those listed above so until someone from the SH who is really talented comes over and doesn't play for his respected nation then it won't happen now or soon.

Question to you..... would you have been happy if Martin Johnson ended up playing for NZ? He came very close... if he had stayed perhaps 1 or 2 seasons more and he would have been selected for sure.....

Perhaps you guys would have won the world cup during his era... would have been something to treasury, no? World cup wins in '95, '99 & '03.... all because of an Englishman

fa0019 wrote:Perhaps you guys would have won the world cup during his era... would have been something to treasury, no? World cup wins in '95, '99 & '03.... all because of an Englishman

I'm not sure he would have been picked for NZ. The NZ side consistently beat England throughout those periods of time so I figure the team was better without him, with the exception of course of 2003 when it was really the goal kicking that let NZ down against England.

Winning the RWC because of an Englishman would certainly make a change from an Englishman seeing to it that NZ went out at the Q'Final though.

The clock is now running until someone mentions John Gallagher.

TheGreyGhost wrote:The clock is now running until someone mentions John Gallagher.

I was thinking it, but thought it would be churlish to post something like that. Thanks for saving me the bother

His record against NZ is played 7, won 3, lost 3, drawn 1 if I recall... (he didn't have a losing record against any test nation as a player... and a winning one against all bar NZ).

He also played 2 tests in 93 for the lions, won 1, lost 1.... not a bad record considering their are few players from either SA or Aus with a record which matches up either.

In terms of NZ.. the only player you had which was at his level during the 90s was Robin Brooke... so he certainly would have been in the mix.. defo starting in 99 & 03. Surely it would have been worth it if you could turn the clock back... would you do it for perhaps 1 RWC victory, probably 2????

I think it's a large leap of the mind to imagine that NZ would have won the RWC 3 times just because MJ was playing for the ABs. In fact I'd go so far as to deride that as delusional nonsense.

If he was such a wonder, then why did England not win in 1995, ... oh I recall, the team he was playing for were destroyed by NZ in the semi-final.

Woould you be happy if the B&I Lions to wear a change strip that was black?

Lucky the BandI lions are a touring side and never have to have a change strip.

However in regards the residency rules I really hate the 3 year rule.

it's ok if the players have a British/Irish parent or grandparent, I'm perfectly fine with that. If residency was 10 years around this would cover players that have come along as kids, and would stop someone coming over for 3 years to play international rugby.

I don't like the Irish 1 NIQ project player place in each them to qualify a Non-Irish player for Ireland, I don't like that the Scots are about to get Visser (a great player but would it not be better for the development of rugby in the Netherlands if he played for his national team?), and I don't like the way the English team has so many players that have Qualified on the 3 year rule.

I especially don't like the English because for the years I had to listen to the English and media jokes about the ROI using the granny rule to get players and the insult when they branded us as England 'B', But now the English rugby team is doing the same but it's going even further than the Granny rule and selecting players that have only lived in the country for 3 years to represent the national side. It's worse than the pot calling the kettle Black.

Again I don't like the 3 year rule but I don't blame the Unions for using it, as if they didn't it's only them that would be losing out, it's a rule that the IRB really have to look into.

Ah, it must be Friday. Earlier on there was a great NH v SH rant and now we have a nice little I'm not a racist but only pure bloods to play for your country debate. And we even have NZ stealing PI players seeded into the comments for added spice.

I have a some questions for everyone.

1. Should the B&I Lions limit themselves by the same rules as a country?

2. What is the purpose of the B&I Lions?

3. Is the ethos of the Lions closer to a national side or the Barbarians?

bandwagon, good stuff mate, keep going and we'll get the cliched arguements of should the lions be abandoned, residency, NZ steal PIs, England aren't allowed to wear black, grannygate and probably a few I haven't remembered just yet all in the same place! We could make this the flogging a dead horse thread.

To answer your questions in my opinion

1. Yes
2. To win in a tour every 4 years representing the British Isles (including Ireland)
3. Somewhere imbetween

I think the Lions select players that are caped by the home unions plus a wildcard uncapped player that qualifes to play for on of the four unions.

so I a player qualifies to play for one of the 4 unions, that makes up the Lions he therefore qualifes to play for the Lions as well.

Riki Flutey qualifies to play for England through and English grandfather as well as residency, although at the time he qualified to play for England he didn't know about him.

screamingaddabs wrote:bandwagon, good stuff mate, keep going and we'll get the cliched arguements of should the lions be abandoned, residency, NZ steal PIs, England aren't allowed to wear black, grannygate and probably a few I haven't remembered just yet all in the same place! We could make this the flogging a dead horse thread.

To answer your questions in my opinion

1. Yes
2. To win in a tour every 4 years representing the British Isles (including Ireland)
3. Somewhere imbetween

You also missed "more than half of this current England squad are foreigners"

We didn't miss that Nottins, we spotted it right away. .

TheGreyGhost

Perhaps he would have sat out on the RWC final pre match meal in '95... could have made the difference as the rest of your players were not at 100% due to be poisoned.

If only huh!

nottins wrote:Riki Flutey qualifies to play for England through and English grandfather as well as residency, although at the time he qualified to play for England he didn't know about him.

Well thats a good point nottins. Should you be able to qualify via a grand parent you didn't know existed??

It's funny old Grandpa Flutey only turned out to be English after Flutey went to France?

Personally I think the rules should be simplified for clarity.

As far as I can see it a simple satisfactory rule would be: if you haven't torched your local Asda and pinched a pair of trainers from JD's you're not English, if you have you are. Simple.

As far as I can see it a simple satisfactory rule would be: if you haven't torched your local Asda and pinched a pair of trainers from JD's you're not English, if you have you are. Simple

Is that why scores of antipodeans are being granted citizenship in the UK???

I think the rules are OK. 3 years is a long time in a pro rugby career. I believe the average is less than double that.

After 3 years you know a fair bit about a country and can make an informed decision.

I reckon Thomas WaldroM knows less about England than Richardt Strauss will when he qualifies for Ireland in the AIs 2012.

After all WaldroM did not even know his granny was english born when he signed for Leicester.

Perhaps something could be done to stop players leaving after 3 years like Flutey. However that would be putting limits on a player's career, that were not on the careers of others.

roddersm wrote:It's funny old Grandpa Flutey only turned out to be English after Flutey went to France?

At that point he had already been capped, so it didn't actually matter.

The precedence has already been set now with Flutey but that said anyone who is playing for any of the teams from Britain and Ireland are eleigable.

To me there is nothing to argue about.

Maybe they should have to stay in their adopted country to remain eligible. If they leave, they can no longer be picked for the country.

The rules are there like them or not,Riki Flutey played for Wellington,Hurricanes .and NZ Maori.
He was unable to get regular Game time because
Tana Umaga,and Ma`a Nonu were in front of him for selection a formidable pair.
Flutey was one of the best England Players,pre Lions tour and but for injuries he would have started all 3 for the Lions 2009 he was one of the stars of one of the few sides that beat the Boks before end 3Ns that year.