Potential England XV for autumn:

First topic message reminder :

Anybody else feel slightly uncomfortable with this xv which lancaster could pick for the forthcoming autumn internationals.


15. D Armitage (england)
14. C Ashton(england)
13. M Tuilagi (samoa)
12. B Barritt (south africa)
11. B foden (england)
10. T Flood (england)
9. B youngs (england)
8. E joubert (south africa)
7. S armitage (england)
6. b vunipola (new zealand)
5. G parlng (england)
4. M botha (south africa)
3. D cole (england)
2. D hartley (new zealand)
1. M vunipola (new zealand)

England nationals: 8
New zealand:3
South Africa:3
Samoa: 1

sirtidychris,

That side is making my teeth itch (and not in a good way!).

Scrumdown wrote:For rugby, I think it would be far better if the eligibility rules were changed so that a player can only play for either:

1. Country of birth
2. Country of parents birth

Right, so even though you might live in a country from 6 months of age (you parents having moved for work for instance) you shouldn't be able to represent that country 25 years later, but you should be able to play for the country you were born in even if you've never set foot there in the intervening period?

In the modern world people move about. You should be able to play for a country if you make a serious committment to that country (which I'd measure in terms of time) and haven't represented another country. This is a far more valid qualification criteria than where you or your parents were born.

And don't get me started on the ridiculous grandparent rule.

Scrumdown wrote:For rugby, I think it would be far better if the eligibility rules were changed so that a player can only play for either:

1. Country of birth
2. Country of parents birth

If these rules applied then Jerry collins, rodney soiaolo, chris masoe, mils muliani, manu tuilagi, jerome kaino, laulala, and many others would only qualify for samoa.

Similarly, rokococo, sivivatu would play for fiji. There are many others.

The pacific island teams, supported by the NZRU are pushing for the eligibility rules to be changed so that pacific island players can play for both the all blacks and the team of their ancestry.

However these rule changes would strenghten the hand of the nzru even further as it would encourage even those less talented pacific island players to try their hand at becoming an all black first, knowing that an international career for the country of their ancestors still beckons. Luckily, the northen hemisphere unions rejected the propsal.

Your ten year old.
Your dad moves you and your mother to a completely different country..where you go to school and begin playing rugby...why then should you not be able to play for that country...where you grew up...went to school and learned how to play rugby. All your friends are there...etc...etc?

That indeed is a frightening team....

Update:

Eligibility rules to be based on the following:

1. Country of birth
2. Country of parents birth
3. Residential qualification for those who move in childhood.

The above rules would have the following implications:

Tuilagi, vunipola brothers and hartley (just) would qualify for England;

Waldrom, Botha, Hape, Vainokolo, Joubert, Flutey would not;

Sivivatu would still not qualify for New Zealand.

All wales squad players would still qualify for wales under these rules except for adrian jarvis (grand parent).

Scrumdown wrote:Update:

Eligibility rules to be based on the following:

1. Country of birth
2. Country of parents birth
3. Residential qualification for those who move in childhood.

The above rules would have the following implications:

Tuilagi, vunipola brothers and hartley (just) would qualify for England;

Waldrom, Botha, Hape, Vainokolo, Joubert, Flutey would not;

Sivivatu would still not qualify for New Zealand.

All wales squad players would still qualify for wales under these rules except for adrian jarvis (grand parent).

Define "child". Sivivatu was 17 when he moved to NZ to attend high school.

15 and under, so J collins, muliaina would be eligible for new zealand but not sivivatu.

Mike harris, radike samo would not qualify for Australia. Quade cooper would.

What would the Samoan rugby team look like in future?

The NRL have been grappling with eligibility for State of Origin and have devised a new model which I think is quite good. It would have to be adapted somewhat to account for the differences for rugby, but I think it has merit. It goes to the same factors that get debated for international rugby.

Adapted slightly so it reads with some relevance to RU, the model goes like this:

For selection in the U/20s 2012 and beyond, the following criteria will identify a player’s eligibility for such and subsequently, for senior representation:

1. If a player has already represented at U/20s or Senior level, then that stands, if not, then the following points 2-7 require answers and a majority will determine eligibility. In a case where there is not a clear majority, the player may ask to have his eligibility determined by an IRB committee.

2. In which Country was the player born?

3. In which Country did the player play for the majority of years from U/6-U/18 inclusive?

4. In which Country did the player spend the majority of years at School?

5. In which Country did the player first play a Province run Jun rep competition at U/15s or above?

6. For which Country did the player first represent a Province at open age?

7. If none of 2-6 above answer as the countries debating a players eligibility, in which Country was the player first registered to play within a Provincial competition at open age?

Birth, schooling, development, higher honours are in there. Being a domestic thing, the manner or motive of movement between boundaries isnt as big and would I think need to included for rugby. A kid who moves country with his family is different I think to a kid who gets signed to an academy and moves for their rugby.

Due to the size of their populations and what they give to world rugby I think there is a strong case to make for making an exception to the rules for the pacific islanders

Scrumdown wrote:All wales squad players would still qualify for wales under these rules except for adrian jarvis (grand parent).

At least we know your nationality now. It took a while though. Blimey. It's all becoming a bit clearer.

So three people from your original lineup wouldn't be eligible any more two of which wouldn't exactly be called 'poaching' as they really weren't anywhere near the standard they are now when they came to the country. The third we ignore his passport.

The only problem I have ever had is players representing a country after doing so for another country at the top level even in another sport ie Hape etc and obviously those who didn't even qualify for the country they represented full stop.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So three people from your original lineup wouldn't be eligible any more two of which wouldn't exactly be called 'poaching' as they really weren't anywhere near the standard they are now when they came to the country. The third we ignore his passport.

The only problem I have ever had is players representing a country after doing so for another country at the top level even in another sport ie Hape etc and obviously those who didn't even qualify for the country they represented full stop.

A few points:

Thomas Waldrom younger brother Scott Waldrom played for All Blacks. If we bring his passport into the debate, then he is also eligible for Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (rugby team). He would therefore be eligible to play for 5 national teams in total which seems slightly extreme. Also what chance would the less wealthy nations have of holding on to their best players if such scenarios were common? Money would rule, as it does in club rugby.

Just because Joubert and Botha developed their game in England does not mean they should then play for England. Barcelona spotted Messi as a 13 year old but he rightly plays for the argentina national team, not spain.

Well Scrum Down from what actually started as a wum has developed in to an informative discussion on the eligibility rules.

I actually think we're getting there:
1. Country of birth
2. Country of parents birth
3. Residential qualification for those who move in childhood (what age does this stop?)
4. Previous representation of another sport means you represent that nation..ie you cant change teams crossing the rugby codes etc.

The final one is residency rule. Currently at 3 years...i think we all agree it needs to be increased...but to what. 6 years? 8 years? 10 years?

Personally i think 8 is sufficient...and indeed someone like Botha would qualify under those rules as he has been here for many years.

Now we just need to get the IRB to talk to us.

Scrum down, in the case of Messi he would be eligible for Spain though under your proposal.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Scrum down, in the case of Messi he would be eligible for Spain though under your proposal.

Yes, I understand this which is why I did not originally include the residency rule for those who move in their childhood.

However, as pointed out by some other posters, this would be unfair on those who migrate with their parents when they are very young as it would disqualify someone from playing for a nation in which they have spent the majority of their childhood.

Update:

Eligibility to be based on:

1. Place of birth
2. Place of parents birth
3. Residency qualification (residency to be based on the country in which an individual spends the majority of their lives up until the day they receive their first international cap).

In this instance, quade cooper, say would have had to wait until he was 26 until he could play for australia.

Sivivatu, until he was 34,

Tuilagi would not be eligible for England until he was in his late 20's.

Fair enough though I don't think it would be very fair on players liek Cooper and Tuilagi who as you say would have to focus upon club rugby for so long when both are clearly talented enough to play at an international level.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Fair enough though I don't think it would be very fair on players liek Cooper and Tuilagi who as you say would have to focus upon club rugby for so long when both are clearly talented enough to play at an international level.

But under these rules, Tuilagi would surely have just decided to play for samoa instead and might I add what is wrong with that? Cooper for new zealand etc.

These eligibility rules would certainly help the pacific island nations, as at the very least they'd be able to offer their players international honours before new zealand, england etc would.

I think Tuilagi would have waited. Not sure the Pacific Nations would benefit that much either as the sort of players you seem to be focusing on are coming over on a rugby scholarship etc surely then they would just move earlier to avoid the rule?

Scrumdown wrote:
Just because Joubert and Botha developed their game in England does not mean they should then play for England. Barcelona spotted Messi as a 13 year old but he rightly plays for the argentina national team, not spain.

But you haven't explained why not.

As it stands you are saying if your parents force you to move to another country when you are a child then you are eligible to play for that country, but if you choose to move there and contribute as an adult you never can.

sirtidychris wrote:Hows this for an English capped team still playing !

15. Iain Balshaw
14. Paul Sackey
13. Jamie Noon
12. Ayoola Erinle
11. Phil Christophers
10. Andy Goode
9. Shaun Perry
8. Chris Jones
7. Hendre Fourie
6. Magnus Lund
5. Roy winters
4. Dean Schofield
3. Jason Hobson
2. G. Chuter
1. Tim payne

Hows this - honest answer is Crap mate

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think Tuilagi would have waited. Not sure the Pacific Nations would benefit that much either as the sort of players you seem to be focusing on are coming over on a rugby scholarship etc surely then they would just move earlier to avoid the rule?

You need to read through eligibility criteria number 3 again but maybe a little bit more slowly this time so that you have time to consider its implications before asking stupid questions!

DaveM wrote:

Scrumdown wrote:
Just because Joubert and Botha developed their game in England does not mean they should then play for England. Barcelona spotted Messi as a 13 year old but he rightly plays for the argentina national team, not spain.

But you haven't explained why not.

As it stands you are saying if your parents force you to move to another country when you are a child then you are eligible to play for that country, but if you choose to move there and contribute as an adult you never can.

Yes, indeed I am because by the time you are an adult most indiviuals have a strong sense of their nationality. This is not necessarily the case or children. And this is Inter-national rugby!!!!

Scrumdown wrote:

DaveM wrote:

Scrumdown wrote:
Just because Joubert and Botha developed their game in England does not mean they should then play for England. Barcelona spotted Messi as a 13 year old but he rightly plays for the argentina national team, not spain.

But you haven't explained why not.

As it stands you are saying if your parents force you to move to another country when you are a child then you are eligible to play for that country, but if you choose to move there and contribute as an adult you never can.

Yes, indeed I am because by the time you are an adult most indiviuals have a strong sense of their nationality. This is not necessarily the case or children. And this is Inter-national rugby!!!!

I understand where you are coming from here but this is not necessarily the case. I have met many adults who travelled to the UK in young adulthood some who are not even British citizens who think of thrmseles as British and the UK as home simply because they are much better looked after here than in their old countries

Look at the argument in another way...

What in the IRB laws would prevent a nation hell bent on winning, scouring the world for young talent that it could buy, train and develope into a first class national team.

Russia have the money to do it if they wanted to, so could America.

It would be a ridiculous mockery of the game, it is something I don't think anyone wants to see.