B&I Lions and residency

First topic message reminder :

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 ?

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.

Let's say Cipriani or Delve stay in Melbourne for the next few years and end up playing against the Lions in 2013. Should they then be precluded from playing for the Lions?

munkian wrote:
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

munkian - not strange seeing has one has spent the majority of his life in Gwent and the other has spent the majority of his life in native Samoa.

Btw, debate has been done to death. IRB need to edit the criteria and become more strict imo.

Sorry, I though he'd spent more time here than Samoa, my bad

What are you apologising for? I took the point is they both came over much younger and played most of thier competitive Rugby in Wales and England. They were kids when they come over, I think Tuilagi was 13.

If they came over as youngsters then that's fine but I don't think that players should qualify to represent GB&I just because they represented a club/region for three years maybe my view on selection would change if the residency ruling was doubled.

thebandwagonsociety wrote: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?

Like your thinking BWS.

1. Yes/No. Yes in that residency rules etc. should still apply but no in that the Lions should be a 6N team similar to the Ryder Cup. It is one big marketing junket so tradition doesn't count, and that would multiply the marketing potential massively - 6N is obviously not one country so qualification is obviously different.
2. See 1. There is no purpose other than fans like it and are prepared to spend big wadges of money on it so that is all the purpose needed.
3. Neither. The ethos is purely commercial.

thebandwagonsociety wrote: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.

So no more NZ Maori team then!

Pot Hale wrote: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.

Lets hope that Rhys Llewellyn doesn't, I hope they keep their hands off Bridgend's Baby Black...!

Regarding the Lions, no i thought Flutey was an awful selection. The lions have the opportunity to pick players who grew up dreaming of playing for them, and not players who dreamed of playing for the opposition, or worse played for the opposition...

I think it is quite a personal thing when someone moves to a country and really enjoys it and embraces himself into society might feel he as the right to represent that country. And he could love the country as much as anyone else, so I always find it quite hard to assume that flutey for example is just some mercenary. I am sure he would be highly offended by this also.

I don't understand why we say this rubbish about ruining people's dreams, I am sure Riki Flutey was dreaming of playing for the Lions when he was playing for England that year. Also would this mean you wouldn't pick a player like Ashton who had no ambitions to play union as a child and didnt even watch England win the world cup.

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:I don't understand why we say this rubbish about ruining people's dreams, I am sure Riki Flutey was dreaming of playing for the Lions when he was playing for England that year. Also would this mean you wouldn't pick a player like Ashton who had no ambitions to play union as a child and didnt even watch England win the world cup.

Conversely I grew up dreaming of playing for the Lions and indeed my first vivid rugby memory was Jerry Guscott's drop-goal in the second test against the Lions. Should I get a sentimental call-up in 2013? I'll be 25 and I can play both loose-head and tight-head, and can also cover hooker (although question marks remain over my throwing).

Of course not.

As has been mentioned, there are English-born players (Cipriani and Ashton) who could theoretically play for and against the Lions, or who might have grown up not dreaming of playing for the Lions, so should they be excluded like many of you would see Flutey excluded for much the same reasons?

The residency rule could do with a tweaking and if my suggested rules were brought in Flutey would have been ineligible for England (and therefore the Lions) by playing for the Maori, but the current rules have been agreed upon by the majority of the member rugby unions in the IRB. I love that there is a residency rule though, and there is a path for somebody to move, "adopt" a country and play for them, and I think the game would be much poorer without it.