Mouritz Botha : why can't I be content that he's playing for England?

He's been in England for six years according to his Wiki account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouritz_Botha.

But I can't accept that he has any right to be donning the white jersey. I should but I can't.

So far has I can see Botha has no connection with England.

And it's not as though he had to do a Kevin Pietersen in cricket to get a chance to play.

His Sarries club-mate Bradley Barritt at least has full parental qualifications - but Mourtiz is so far as I can see is an opportunist. Plain and simple.

Way to stir the hornets nest Portnoy

eirebilly wrote:Way to stir the hornets nest Portnoy

Would you be happy for him to play for Ireland Billy - with the same credential?

After the first two games of the 6N I'd have agreed with you but against Wales there was a flicker of passion and he started to get a little more involved, not sure there's enough body on the line stuff though.

Portnoy wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Way to stir the hornets nest Portnoy

Would you be happy for him to play for Ireland Billy - with the same credential?

To be honest Port, if he is qualified to play then he is qualified to play.

Have to agree with the post. Visser will become eligible for Scotland in the summer under the same laws.

Whilst I think it is unfair to deny a player playing for the country he now calls home I do believe the Residency rules are a flawed device.

Botha is one thing, but Flutey taking a lions place in 2009 was criminal IMO especialy since he moved to France right after gaining his residency.

Although I would ask Portnoy why single out Botha when Tuilagi a player who has not conducted himself well and has embarrased himself and the England rugby team has avoided your ire?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Have to agree with the post. Visser will become eligible for Scotland in the summer under the same laws.

Whilst I think it is unfair to deny a player playing for the country he now calls home I do believe the Residency rules are a flawed device.

Botha is one thing, but Flutey taking a lions place in 2009 was criminal IMO especialy since he moved to France right after gaining his residency.

Although I would ask Portnoy why single out Botha when Tuilagi a player who has not conducted himself well and has embarrased himself and the England rugby team has avoided your ire?

Manu arrived in England as a kid. A child.

I don't suppose he had a lot of input into the migration decision.
[edit - re the jumping ship incident and the Ashton mugging - I have condemned both. But he still deserves to wear the rose...]

Portnoy wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Have to agree with the post. Visser will become eligible for Scotland in the summer under the same laws.

Whilst I think it is unfair to deny a player playing for the country he now calls home I do believe the Residency rules are a flawed device.

Botha is one thing, but Flutey taking a lions place in 2009 was criminal IMO especialy since he moved to France right after gaining his residency.

Although I would ask Portnoy why single out Botha when Tuilagi a player who has not conducted himself well and has embarrased himself and the England rugby team has avoided your ire?

Manu arrived in England as a kid. A child.

I don't suppose he had a lot of input into the migration decision.

Ok dokey

Portnoy wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Have to agree with the post. Visser will become eligible for Scotland in the summer under the same laws.

Whilst I think it is unfair to deny a player playing for the country he now calls home I do believe the Residency rules are a flawed device.

Botha is one thing, but Flutey taking a lions place in 2009 was criminal IMO especialy since he moved to France right after gaining his residency.

Although I would ask Portnoy why single out Botha when Tuilagi a player who has not conducted himself well and has embarrased himself and the England rugby team has avoided your ire?

Manu arrived in England as a kid. A child.

I don't suppose he had a lot of input into the migration decision.[edit - re the jumping ship incident and the Ashton mugging - I have condemned both. But he still deserves to wear the rose...]

And overstayed his visa? But then he's a Tigger, so that's ok?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Have to agree with the post. Visser will become eligible for Scotland in the summer under the same laws.

Whilst I think it is unfair to deny a player playing for the country he now calls home I do believe the Residency rules are a flawed device.

Botha is one thing, but Flutey taking a lions place in 2009 was criminal IMO especialy since he moved to France right after gaining his residency.

Although I would ask Portnoy why single out Botha when Tuilagi a player who has not conducted himself well and has embarrased himself and the England rugby team has avoided your ire?

Manu arrived in England as a kid. A child.

I don't suppose he had a lot of input into the migration decision.[edit - re the jumping ship incident and the Ashton mugging - I have condemned both. But he still deserves to wear the rose...]

And overstayed his visa? But then he's a Tigger, so that's ok?

Was it Manu or his mum As?

Was he eighteen when that occurred?

I've long thought the residency rules farcical.

Personally, I think it should be depending on passport. If you take nationality of the country, ie hold their passport, at least it shows some form of commitment.

The rule over 1 choice and 1 only, should remain to stop those changing their mind (and passport) again later, as done in the past.

Where there are common passports (ie. British - Eng, Sco, Wal) then it should be down to, place or birth, parents nationality (not sure about Grand parents, can get weak), or residency as it is now. But on residency, I think if they move after gaining the international spot (ie. Flutey) they should not be allowed to be selected until the move back.

It is a difficult thing, which has only really become an issue since professionalism, as before it was national pride of wearing the jersey. Today, for many, I think they see the international cap as a pinnacle of a career and hence money and a way of making money after their playing days, and not national pride.

If he plays club rugby and lives and resides in England then it´s impossible for him to play for his native country. If he´s a professional player, then he should be allowed to play for somewhere.

By all means extend the residency requirements and if you change residency like Flutey then you should lose your right to play for that previous country of residence to stop mercenary behaviour.

So basically you think that if someone ever immigrates to this country as an adult they should never be considered truly are part of it. They'll always be a foreigner to you. That is a very sad point of view and I truly feel sorry for you.

All the more important that the IRB change the laws to stop a player playing under 20s rugby for one nation and not full cap for another later.

I would also rather players who represented a nation in one form of rugby not being allowed to represent a completely different one in rugby union.

There is nothing wrong with making qualification difficult and very black and white. It will only simplify the IRBs workload.

Genuine question.

Is the fact his name is "BOTHA" ( a clearly sterotypical SA name) a problem.

I've noticed that its the lads who dont look and sound English that get most stick about this - Tuilagi, Botha, Vainakolo, Flutey - yet nobody peeps up about Mike Catt or Dylan Hartley to the same extent.

Why limit it to rugby? The reason the 15s and 7s count are because they're governed by the IRB. If you want to include league why not football or cricket or any other sport?

red_stag wrote:Genuine question.

Is the fact his name is "BOTHA" ( a clearly sterotypical SA name) a problem.

I've noticed that its the lads who dont look and sound English that get most stick about this - Tuilagi, Botha, Vainakolo, Flutey - yet nobody peeps up about Mike Catt or Dylan Hartley to the same extent.

You've happened to name 4 players without family links to England (and with foreign names) and two players WITH family links (and non-foreign names). Bad luck there I think and this seems to be the key point above.

HammerofThunor wrote:So basically you think that if someone ever immigrates to this country as an adult they should never be considered truly are part of it. They'll always be a foreigner to you. That is a very sad point of view and I truly feel sorry for you.

You are purposefully twisting the thread to try and make anyone who thinks the qualification rules arent tight enough something of a racist.

You are very wrong to do so, but if you want to discuss legal immigration with regards to representation in sport then maybe a player should not be able to represent a country that he is only a resident of under a work permit or visa?

Passport eligability deems residency by law.

If you are not eligable for a British passport you are not a British citizen, you are therefor not of a British nation ergo should probably be representing the nation that you are eligable for a passport in.

I think he's aiming it at the Tuilagi comment

Portnoy wrote:He's been in England for six years according to his Wiki account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouritz_Botha.

But I can't accept that he has any right to be donning the white jersey. I should but I can't.

So far has I can see Botha has no connection with England.

And it's not as though he had to do a Kevin Pietersen in cricket to get a chance to play.

His Sarries club-mate Bradley Barritt at least has full parental qualifications - but Mourtiz is so far as I can see is an opportunist. Plain and simple.

Maesteg I was referring to the original post. Tell me if this does not suggest that qualification by residency only is wrong. Then if someone can't qualify by residency then if they immigrat here they can't represent their new country. Would you not say that if someone did emmigrat to a country but weren't allowed to represent that country they would be classed as second class citizens? Or am I missing something?

And Maesteg I would have no problem whatsoever with the citizenship ruling be the case. It causes a few problems due to the different requirements needed worldwide but certainly don't have a problem with it. And it would of course be no help within the UK (or for new citizens qualifying for one of the UK countries).

Glad we've never had this problem in Wales...

Fortunatly the Welsh selctors have only ever selected true Welshmen like:-

Tony (Dai) Copsey; Rupert (Dai) Moon; Shane (Dai) Howarth; Brett (Dai) Sinkinson and who can forget Jason (Dai) Jones-Hughes to name but a few....

I'm really glad we only select REAL welshmen....

You forgot Colin (Dafydd) Charvis

HammerofThunor wrote:You forgot Colin (Dafydd) Charvis

...did say to "name a few"...

but as one more, who can forget Tom (Bronwin) Shanklin

Think that more research is required by Major!

eirebilly wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Way to stir the hornets nest Portnoy

Would you be happy for him to play for Ireland Billy - with the same credential?

To be honest Port, if he is qualified to play then he is qualified to play.

Well said billy i totaly agree with you. If the player who ever it is, is qualified to play for a country. Then is he qualified. FULL STOP.

I tend to disregard the "two wrong make a right" argument as it seems pretty flawed.

Or Shane my Grandmother used to bake me Welsh cakes Howarth so I must be Welsh.

It´s interesting that in the North there can be a perception that NZ poach players. I often hear Jonah Lomu for example was born in Tonga. People who emigrate to a country with their parents deserve the right to play for their adopted homeland. I think what the OP is getting at that under the current laws people who fulfil the residency requirements might not well consider themselves to be nationals. I would have no qualms with changing the law to people must be citizens of their country.

I have dual nationality and have residence in Spain. I am tinkering with the idea of getting Spanish nationality but then I´d have to revoke my British nationality (I wouldn´t tell them about my NZ nationality as they don't make checks). I am loathe to do that even though the insistence on identity cards or passports for identification in Spain makes life difficult as they don't make foreign national residence cards anymore and the UK don´t have identity cards.

If you want to play for a country, I think there should be a commitment from that person to that country. At the moment 5 years residency in most countries (it´s 10 years now with the crisis in Spain) allows you to gain citizenship after 1 year. But if you obtain citizenship often you have to revoke your previous citizenship. Is it fair to ask that question of people even though they might feel their adopted country is indeed home? I know I´m not Spanish but I feel as I live and pay taxes in Spain that I am part of Spain but interestingly people still see me as a guiri or foreigner. If Botha got UK citizenship would people still hear that name and think he is foreign? If so, then the current laws are fine and people should accept the fact he has fulfilled the residency requirements.

Taffineastbourne wrote:Think that more research is required by Major!

I assume this referes to Bronwin Shanklin... I mentioned him as he was born in England.....

.... and in case anyone else have any questions...

Read my posts again... they are meant to bring a little humour to the thread...

Tom (BRONWIN) Shanklin...

I tend to agree Portnoy. For me the issue is the motivation for emmigration. If the player moved to England for reasons other than rugby, and ended up playing for the national team (like Tuilagi) then fair game. But if players move to England with the specific intention of playing for England, then that strikes me as a bit mercenary. They're not playing for national pride but purely for personal gain. I sat in front of Barrett's girlfriend on a plane at the time when he was moving to England. She was telling her companion how Barrett knew he didn't have a look in at the Boks, so his only option to play international rugby was to try to get into the England team!....as I said, mercenary.

The 'if he's qualified to play then he's qualified to play' argument is frankly an argument for nothing. It's circulatory and says this: things are as they are and as such an opinion should not be expressed. Thereby defeating it's own proposition that an opinion should not be expressed.

If we're going to resort to that, then let's not bother having a forum or any debate whatsoever.

I do have some issues with the eligibility and think that it could, in part be eased by the citizenship measure. I don't have a problem with people born outside of England playing for the team, but I do feel that they should feel a real connection with this place and express that in a formal way through citizenship.

Does Botha actually want to get up and sing the national anthem? Does he want to return to SA the moment he finishes his professional career? We don't know and an indication that the shirt and history actually means something to him would be nice I feel.

Ah Residency....a hornets nest indeed.

The way I see it, the 3 year rule is a little light on commitment, but it is also practical in that the averge professional rugb career is around 8 seasons from memory. Sure you have guys like John Hayes that played forever and Simon Shaw too, but the average is what it is.

So looking to twin qualification with Naturalisation (7 years in most countries) the clock starting to tick at 18 (in order to be consistant with iRB rules regarding under age team etc!) means a player would be 25 before he could be eligle for selection in his adopted country. Some would have no problem with this, others would think it is too restrictive

However, I can totally understand people wanting a player to really buy into there new country a bit more than literally ticking boxes. 3 years and now im off to mega money in France etc. (i understand that professionally, but it is mercenary too) and then you have guys like Paul Warwick.

He playe din Ireland with Connacht & Munster for a total of 7 seasons, is married to an Irish girl, has a daughter with her & is has dual citizenship and cannot play with Ireland due to having played i think twice for an Aussie 7's side.

Now they are the rules, and everyone knows that, but even though he is now playing in France (due exclusively to only being offered a 1 year contract extension as he is NIQ) he is far more engaged with Ireland than many before or since in Ireland & elsewhere who are able to play.

I know thems the breaks but I can totally understand Portnoy's problem with players like Botha & Flutey.

Tuilagi is more a gray area, several of his brothers have been capped by Samoa and thus his credentials are less than overwhelming, but he has been in England since he was a child and as a pro or near pro, only knows the game in England not Samoa (to the best of my knowledge, open to correction on that score) and so he probably sees England as much more of a home than anywhere else, and certainly didnt choose the Jeff etc as a career option, given he arrived before he had one.

On a side note, his mother is some woman, to produce & rear that many International Rugby players and talented ones at that is a feat worthy of a parade in her honour!

In Ireland we have a 'Project Player' programme, ie an uncapped player being brought over in order to form him into an Irish Qualififed player. I dont like it at all, but fortunately only one guy has shown the talent to be selected thus far, namely, Rickard Strauss when he becomes eligable in a few months time. This programme is similar to what England has for a few years in respect of converting League players. They invested huge money in that and there were some obvious success such as one Billy Whiz.

However, players like Henry Paul, a player i admired in League and whom I felt a little sorry for how he was treated in Union, should never have been capped by england given he had played oodles of Rugby League for New Zealand.

Even Brian Carney former GB league player being capped for Ireland is a little dubious, but was, at least, Irish himself. And there was at the time, no real Irish international League team, from memory, again correct me if I am wrong please!

Mr Fishpaste wrote:I tend to agree Portnoy. For me the issue is the motivation for emmigration. If the player moved to England for reasons other than rugby, and ended up playing for the national team (like Tuilagi) then fair game. But if players move to England with the specific intention of playing for England, then that strikes me as a bit mercenary. They're not playing for national pride but purely for personal gain. I sat in front of Barrett's girlfriend on a plane at the time when he was moving to England. She was telling her companion how Barrett knew he didn't have a look in at the Boks, so his only option to play international rugby was to try to get into the England team!....as I said, mercenary.

Interesting. If there is any substance in that claim, then it would be pretty damning.

Unfortunately there is no test to detect whether a player moves country for pride or convenience...

This is just getting absolutely ridiculous now.

eirebilly wrote:This is just getting absolutely ridiculous now.

Then don't engage in the conversation Billy.

debaters1 wrote:Ah Residency....a hornets nest indeed.

The way I see it, the 3 year rule is a little light on commitment, but it is also practical in that the averge professional rugb career is around 8 seasons from memory. Sure you have guys like John Hayes that played forever and Simon Shaw too, but the average is what it is.

So looking to twin qualification with Naturalisation (7 years in most countries) the clock starting to tick at 18 (in order to be consistant with iRB rules regarding under age team etc!) means a player would be 25 before he could be eligle for selection in his adopted country. Some would have no problem with this, others would think it is too restrictive

However, I can totally understand people wanting a player to really buy into there new country a bit more than literally ticking boxes. 3 years and now im off to mega money in France etc. (i understand that professionally, but it is mercenary too) and then you have guys like Paul Warwick.

He playe din Ireland with Connacht & Munster for a total of 7 seasons, is married to an Irish girl, has a daughter with her & is has dual citizenship and cannot play with Ireland due to having played i think twice for an Aussie 7's side.

Now they are the rules, and everyone knows that, but even though he is now playing in France (due exclusively to only being offered a 1 year contract extension as he is NIQ) he is far more engaged with Ireland than many before or since in Ireland & elsewhere who are able to play.

I know thems the breaks but I can totally understand Portnoy's problem with players like Botha & Flutey.

Tuilagi is more a gray area, several of his brothers have been capped by Samoa and thus his credentials are less than overwhelming, but he has been in England since he was a child and as a pro or near pro, only knows the game in England not Samoa (to the best of my knowledge, open to correction on that score) and so he probably sees England as much more of a home than anywhere else, and certainly didnt choose the Jeff etc as a career option, given he arrived before he had one.

On a side note, his mother is some woman, to produce & rear that many International Rugby players and talented ones at that is a feat worthy of a parade in her honour!

In Ireland we have a 'Project Player' programme, ie an uncapped player being brought over in order to form him into an Irish Qualififed player. I dont like it at all, but fortunately only one guy has shown the talent to be selected thus far, namely, Rickard Strauss when he becomes eligable in a few months time. This programme is similar to what England has for a few years in respect of converting League players. They invested huge money in that and there were some obvious success such as one Billy Whiz.

However, players like Henry Paul, a player i admired in League and whom I felt a little sorry for how he was treated in Union, should never have been capped by england given he had played oodles of Rugby League for New Zealand.

Even Brian Carney former GB league player being capped for Ireland is a little dubious, but was, at least, Irish himself. And there was at the time, no real Irish international League team, from memory, again correct me if I am wrong please!

deabters, could be wrong, but he came to England in 2004? (aged 13/14?) on a holiday visa to stay with his brothers (his mother is in Samoa) and remained beyond that visa. When it came to light, he was originally ordered to be deported, and then upon appeal he was granted an indefinite right to remain. I think that's right, but could be out in a couple of places

Portnoy wrote:

eirebilly wrote:This is just getting absolutely ridiculous now.

Then don't engage in the conversation Billy.

There was nothing wrong with the original point but its now getting to the point where slanderous accusations are being made about certain players.

The residency rule makes a mockery of international rugby - Sorry but that's my opinion - A South African or New Zealander moving to another country does not make them welsh, english or scottish - Its a farce. Absolute farce. We have brothers playing against each other for international teams, most of the time that's a farce

eirebilly wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

eirebilly wrote:This is just getting absolutely ridiculous now.

Then don't engage in the conversation Billy.

There was nothing wrong with the original point but its now getting to the point where slanderous accusations are being made about certain players.

On a technical note, I think the term should be libellous.

On a practical point, I think that this just the sort of debate that should be covered in a rugby forum.

Far better, say, than this geezer is better than that one etc.

We could have a "who was the greatest ever residency international XV" thread

Portnoy wrote:
On a technical note, I think the term should be libellous.

On a practical point, I think that this just the sort of debate that should be covered in a rugby forum.

Far better, say, than this geezer is better than that one etc.

Ok libellous.

I dont think that a rugby board is an appropriate place to make claims that they heard a players girlfriend tell people that a player had given up hope of playing for their own country so they moved to England.

Discuss the residency rule, fine, but do not make such claims.

Wikileaks v2. Let's discuss it there.

Billy, if you moved to Wales for 3 years you'd be one of us, just think of all those Grand Slams - Maybe there's something in this residency rule after all, Get Gibson in on it, he'll love it or is he qualified to play for Holland now

RubyGuby wrote:Billy, if you moved to Wales for 3 years you'd be one of us, just think of all those Grand Slams - Maybe there's something in this residency rule after all, Get Gibson in on it, he'll love it or is he qualified to play for Holland now

Sadly, we have both become Dutchified

Hell, i even think that i am more patriotic since leaving Ireland

eirebilly wrote:

Portnoy wrote:
On a technical note, I think the term should be libellous.

On a practical point, I think that this just the sort of debate that should be covered in a rugby forum.

Far better, say, than this geezer is better than that one etc.

Ok libellous.

I dont think that a rugby board is an appropriate place to make claims that they heard a players girlfriend tell people that a player had given up hope of playing for their own country so they moved to England.

Discuss the residency rule, fine, but do not make such claims.

That's cool Billy,

But I did preface my comment "Interesting. If there is any substance in that claim, then it would be pretty damning."

Hardly a hanging offence.

RubyGuby wrote:The residency rule makes a mockery of international rugby - Sorry but that's my opinion - A South African or New Zealander moving to another country does not make them welsh, english or scottish - Its a farce. Absolute farce. We have brothers playing against each other for international teams, most of the time that's a farce

Which times were farces?

If I was changing the eligibility rules the first thing I'd do is get rid of grandparent rule. Then either increase residency or change to citizenship.

My overall preference would be to have it soley dependant on residency. Why should O'Gara be qualified for USA or Dickson be qualified for Germany or Sharples qualified for Hong Kong (China?) just because their parents happened to be living there when they were born? Ridiculous. At least someone who deliberately moved here as an adult made a conscience decision to come here. Much better than someone who was born here while his parents were on holiday.

Which times were farces,: a few, Botha, Flutey, Hape, Howarth, Sinkinson, Vainikolo and a million more - These guys know where they are from and they know what nationality they are and its not welsh or english mate - simples really

They've played against their Brothers?

FARCE FARCE FARCE

Cuthbert is English, but now thinks he is Welsh. Ben Morgan has a Welsh name, played for Scarlets but always knew he was English. Big Jim Hamilton born in Swindon, plays for Glos and thinks he is 'Scottish'. Mere passports don't help decide these cases of course.