Eligability?

Here's a question.

OK so if your parent is born in Ireland then you are eligable to play for Ireland even if you are not born there.

Equally if you have lived for 3 years in Ireland you can play there.

But what about a slight mixture.

Take a guy like Richardt Strauss who was capped this season for Ireland on residency. If he moves back to South Africa and has a son is that boy eligable for Ireland?

It's eligibility by the way. And no I think you'll find that it refers to country of birth in the regulations when discussing parental roots.

Well, Strauss, if he moved home and then had a child would be two things:

He'd still be South African
and his child wouldn't be Irish.

The three year thing is different to citizenship, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong folks, Immigration issues aren't my strongest point.

But Strauss will never be a parent 'born in Ireland'. Being a citizen might give the child rights though?

And of course there is the wife to think about. SA or Irish?

The real answer is - and it'll shock some here - I don't rightly know

I think the IRFU are trying to clarify the boundaries here as we speak although I know their original proposal to the IRB relating to anyone who liked potatoes or Guinness being eligible has not got past the first meeting

Ah - but what if Strauss is in a same sex civil partnership and adopts a coloured boy whose natural mother was on a round the world trip and whose father was a test tube manufactured out of Waterford crystel !

What would the IRB have to say about that............

sign him up...anything formed in a test tube is bound to be better than them current fragile Irish lads...

RubyGuby wrote:I think the IRFU are trying to clarify the boundaries here as we speak although I know their original proposal to the IRB relating to anyone who liked potatoes or Guinness being eligible has not got past the first meeting

Tell the whole story of that meeting Ruby. You know as well as I do that if anyone who likes potatoes and Guinness could get in, then Ireland would sink. So it was a UN ecology security issue eventually....

Fly - The Waterford scenario I like and that should be crystal clear, even for the IRB

Eligilility has become but a stumbling block for those unions who want to select foreign born/non citizens for their international teams.

I for one have given up on even worrying about it, any qualification law has loop holes, even if they were to make these qualification laws more strict, people will find ways to manipulate them to their advantage.

So for me it has become a non issue.

Ultimately the fall back is residence, and clubs are starting to contract foreign players at younger and younger ages, so even if the residency is extended it will still allow national saelections at relatively young ages.

For me elligibility and residency need to be tightened up.

Visser, Flutey, Strauss are just 3 names off the top of my head who really probably shouldn't have represented the countries they have.

As a Scot I'm happy to have Visser's services but it just doesnt sit 100% right with me when he is going to be the man in possesion for the next 5-6 years when players like Fife, Farndale etc who will have spent their boyhoods dreaming about playing for Scotland, get themselves into a position where it is a distinct possibility, only to find a Dutchman who (lets be honest) would have been just as happy playing for England if he had got the chance is donning the navy blue and belting out flower of Scotland...

Players like Maitland are different since their parents will have had a strong impact on their up bringing, speaking as someone who could be eligible for Wales or Scotland I know how that feels.

The whole eligibility through residence qualification needs changed, as it favours those nations that have professional leagues. So the top nations with plenty of players already get even more and the small nations with hardly any, lose those that they have.

The IRB should support the small nations by making it easier for them to recruit players and at the same time make it much harder for the big nations to poach players.

For example for a nation with no national league and therefore no opportunity to have players qualify through residence, there should be a qualification through declaration. A player could declare his interest to play for say Tonga and after a set period of time say two years - become eligible.

OTOH nations like New Zealand, England and France should have qualification by residence extended to say 7 years.

The Great Aukster wrote:The whole eligibility through residence qualification needs changed, as it favours those nations that have professional leagues. So the top nations with plenty of players already get even more and the small nations with hardly any, lose those that they have.

The IRB should support the small nations by making it easier for them to recruit players and at the same time make it much harder for the big nations to poach players.

For example for a nation with no national league and therefore no opportunity to have players qualify through residence, there should be a qualification through declaration. A player could declare his interest to play for say Tonga and after a set period of time say two years - become eligible.

OTOH nations like New Zealand, England and France should have qualification by residence extended to say 7 years.

It's highly unlikely that will ever happen, the top nations with more votes won't allow it.

Could you imagine France, England, Australia etc vote for it?

Well, there is going to have to be rules engaged to ensure 'International' doesn't mean 'Club'..........in virtually all sports, mind you.

The rush for glory in sport and the money it can bring with it is becoming a run-away train as countries are increasingly chasing down correct genetic specimens for whatever sport they want to include themselves as a Nation in.

It's becoming bluntly as crude as that - as , for example, increasingly Kenyans are seen in many 'National' shirts for endurance running.

If International sport is to mean anything into the future, real tougher controls on movement of athletes around the world is going to have to happen.

Club multicultural is fine (to an extent) - International, very much less so.

SecretFly wrote:Well, there is going to have to be rules engaged to ensure 'International' doesn't mean 'Club'..........in virtually all sports, mind you.

The rush for glory in sport and the money it can bring with it is becoming a run-away train as countries are increasingly chasing down correct genetic specimens for whatever sport they want to include themselves as a Nation in.

It's becoming bluntly as crude as that - as , for example, increasingly Kenyans are seen in many 'National' shirts for endurance running.

If International sport is to mean anything into the future, real tougher controls on movement of athletes around the world is going to have to happen.

Club multicultural is fine (to an extent) - International, very much less so.

Why?

Why is having deep splits between different nationalities important? To stop rich countries buying success? That's fine. But protecting and enforcing some sort of sharp national identity is not something I have any interest in. I just doesn't mean anything to me.

Well Oz has no national league, so that will put us in the small rugby nation group???

Yeah right.

Hi Bilts, how's it going?

Are you finding this a bit of a quiet time for rugby before the internationals starts again, or are you into the SR season?

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well, there is going to have to be rules engaged to ensure 'International' doesn't mean 'Club'..........in virtually all sports, mind you.

The rush for glory in sport and the money it can bring with it is becoming a run-away train as countries are increasingly chasing down correct genetic specimens for whatever sport they want to include themselves as a Nation in.

It's becoming bluntly as crude as that - as , for example, increasingly Kenyans are seen in many 'National' shirts for endurance running.

If International sport is to mean anything into the future, real tougher controls on movement of athletes around the world is going to have to happen.

Club multicultural is fine (to an extent) - International, very much less so.

Why?

Why is having deep splits between different nationalities important? To stop rich countries buying success? That's fine. But protecting and enforcing some sort of sharp national identity is not something I have any interest in. I just doesn't mean anything to me.

I'm neither a Hitlerite nor a Marxist Hammer .
You know why.
You know why..

Yes, to keep the very idea of "International" pure.

If it means anything then it SHOULD mean something.

If it means nothing - (and by Christ it does, given the exposure it gets when the Olympics comes up with the medal tallies per Nation seen as more important than the individual merits of the medal holders themselves) - but if it means nothing, and is not meant to reflect on the natural bouyancy of a Nation; if it's perfectly okay to buy the medal tally then "International" should just die as a idea.

End it. Have sport defined by Clubs or Corporations or Sponsors. Stop lying if lying is what is keeping "International" sport alive.

I think I'm in agreement with SecertFly here, if he is saying what I think he is saying, as well as a lot of other posters here.

Internationals should be for national players only, let the clubs buy the best players they can to build a super team, but leave internationas to be played by the countries' own players only.

OzT wrote:Hi Bilts, how's it going?

Are you finding this a bit of a quiet time for rugby before the internationals starts again, or are you into the SR season?

Hi mate, well and you?

Yeah it is a tad quiet here.

Can't wait for the Lions tour, though this time I am a bit wary of our chances. To be honest the other tours, except for the French one, will be mainly 2nd tier players I think.

But the cream of my rugby year is the 3, oops 4 nations!!!

I think the Lions tour is going to be a lot closer to pick than most expect.

Looking at the Six nations (I didn't watch all of the games) I am not awe inspired by the quality of play. Lots of defensive quality and slowing down ball, but n attack there really isn't much to write home about.

I have a feeling they're going for the al out power approach, which may work but if we have dry days back home may not be the best approach. Hell every sides bullies us physically but we seem to get over that.

More worried if they pick a good back line, and there are some very good attacking players up here, though not often picked for the national sides.

Yes, the Lions can pick a big physical back line and probably will, but the Aussies aren't afraid of tackling, you should be more worried if the pick good ball distributors with some vision, but I don't see it happening.

SecretFly wrote:Well, there is going to have to be rules engaged to ensure 'International' doesn't mean 'Club'..........in virtually all sports, mind you.

The rush for glory in sport and the money it can bring with it is becoming a run-away train as countries are increasingly chasing down correct genetic specimens for whatever sport they want to include themselves as a Nation in.

Genetics is a big load of red herring rubbish, a carte blanche excuse for lazy, insecure, pariochial nations with inferiority complexes to wave a metephorical white flag and justify the overpayed salaries of underperforming players and coaches.

Willie John Mcbride didn't worry about genetics when he layed the smackdown on those lions tours.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well, there is going to have to be rules engaged to ensure 'International' doesn't mean 'Club'..........in virtually all sports, mind you.

The rush for glory in sport and the money it can bring with it is becoming a run-away train as countries are increasingly chasing down correct genetic specimens for whatever sport they want to include themselves as a Nation in.

Genetics is a big load of red herring rubbish, a carte blanche excuse for lazy, insecure, pariochial nations with inferiority complexes to wave a metephorical white flag and justify the overpayed salaries of underperforming players and coaches.

Willie John Mcbride didn't worry about genetics when he layed the smackdown on those lions tours.

Yep, an Kenyans don't naturally run faster and longer in endurance races........................ fact How many black men in an Olympic pool, how many white men in sprints? You call it rubbish, I'll still say National Sporting Bodies with International pretentions chase-it-down, Rodders. Chase genetic fingerprints down...to suck up as many medals as possible.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:For me elligibility and residency need to be tightened up.

Visser, Flutey, Strauss are just 3 names off the top of my head who really probably shouldn't have represented the countries they have.

As a Scot I'm happy to have Visser's services but it just doesnt sit 100% right with me when he is going to be the man in possesion for the next 5-6 years when players like Fife, Farndale etc who will have spent their boyhoods dreaming about playing for Scotland, get themselves into a position where it is a distinct possibility, only to find a Dutchman who (lets be honest) would have been just as happy playing for England if he had got the chance is donning the navy blue and belting out flower of Scotland...

Players like Maitland are different since their parents will have had a strong impact on their up bringing, speaking as someone who could be eligible for Wales or Scotland I know how that feels.

Its a very complex subject. Lets be honest, although Maitland has blood ties, he is only playing for Scotland because he could not get in the All Blacks team.

For me someone who has lived a number of years in a country is just a "Scottish, English, Welsh" or whatever as someone who has never lived in a country but is has a grandparent that was born there 70 years ago.

What I would say is that the Residency number should be raised to 5 years.

SecretFly,

Also important to bear in mind cultural differences too.

How many white players compared with black players in the NBA? Are people with different coloured skin naturally better at basketball? Personally I dont think so.

In Kenya how many kids play Xbox and eat Dominos Pizza 3 times a week? How are Brazil always churning out talented soccer players and New Zealanders of all ethnic backgrounds managing to consistently be the best in the world in professional rugby.

Genetics is a big misconception often.

People think all sub saharan africans are fast and expect all black south africans for instance to be speed merchants.... but its not the case.

The quickest players in SA are Coloured (mixed race) and then generally followed by Whites.

This is because South African blacks are historically east african people, more suited to endurance not speed.

Some people just seem to be naturally suited to certain sports.... Samoans are 40 times more likely to play in the NFL over those from the continental US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_in_American_Samoa

red_stag wrote:SecretFly,

Also important to bear in mind cultural differences too.

How many white players compared with black players in the NBA? Are people with different coloured skin naturally better at basketball? Personally I dont think so.

In Kenya how many kids play Xbox and eat Dominos Pizza 3 times a week? How are Brazil always churning out talented soccer players and New Zealanders of all ethnic backgrounds managing to consistently be the best in the world in professional rugby.

I'm saying I see it happening. I'm not proving or disproving anything in genetic terms (that's for scientists to do)...I see certain types of athletes now showing for more than one country in certain defined sports. That's not a big mystery, that's the serious business pursuit of sporting excellence and dominance at medal ceremonies.

Sport is no longer sport - it seldom truly ever was. It's an extension of politics. The Olympics is politics...medal tallies is power wielding. And if memory serves me right, I laughed when France won an endurance medal at some event and the girl wasn't French but Kenyan.... no not born in France with Kenyan blood... a Kenyan given a French vest. Money, and the pursuit of medals.

It happens... why the SAs in Ireland? Because we just don't like producing those kind of players ourselves and are lazy..or because they kinda come off a conveyor belt there and we like them as a race?

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well, there is going to have to be rules engaged to ensure 'International' doesn't mean 'Club'..........in virtually all sports, mind you.

The rush for glory in sport and the money it can bring with it is becoming a run-away train as countries are increasingly chasing down correct genetic specimens for whatever sport they want to include themselves as a Nation in.

Genetics is a big load of red herring rubbish, a carte blanche excuse for lazy, insecure, pariochial nations with inferiority complexes to wave a metephorical white flag and justify the overpayed salaries of underperforming players and coaches.

Willie John Mcbride didn't worry about genetics when he layed the smackdown on those lions tours.

Yep, an Kenyans don't naturally run faster and longer in endurance races........................ fact How many black men in an Olympic pool, how many white men in sprints? You call it rubbish, I'll still say National Sporting Bodies with International pretentions chase-it-down, Rodders. Chase genetic fingerprints down...to suck up as many medals as possible.

From Jack Dempsey through to the naughties they said there'd never be another white heavy weight boxing champion ...now they can't get the belts of them. They said a white man would never break 10 sec for the 100m.... I could go on.

The genetic aspect is greatly overplayed these days Fly I believe, genetic infuence is not in doubt but I think this influence is greatly exaggerated by cultural stereotypes.

Its like a fat person blaming their weight on genes, their genetics won't help but likely the overwhelming reason they are fat is they eat too much.....

fa0019 wrote:Genetics is a big misconception often.

People think all sub saharan africans are fast and expect all black south africans for instance to be speed merchants.... but its not the case.

Not all of them...every country has its couch potatoes...but the athletic ones who choose sport.

The World Cross Country Championships........... from 1973 to about 1980 it was the old Europeans getting the titles. From 1980 onwards, well, just look at the list on wiki.......................... the Europeans now want that bloodline in their endurance runners...to regain the ascendancy at "international" level.

If I might be so bold as to risk libel...... the proliferation of PEDs and lack of drugs testing in some countries might be as much a factor as genetics.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well, there is going to have to be rules engaged to ensure 'International' doesn't mean 'Club'..........in virtually all sports, mind you.

The rush for glory in sport and the money it can bring with it is becoming a run-away train as countries are increasingly chasing down correct genetic specimens for whatever sport they want to include themselves as a Nation in.

Genetics is a big load of red herring rubbish, a carte blanche excuse for lazy, insecure, pariochial nations with inferiority complexes to wave a metephorical white flag and justify the overpayed salaries of underperforming players and coaches.

Willie John Mcbride didn't worry about genetics when he layed the smackdown on those lions tours.

Yep, an Kenyans don't naturally run faster and longer in endurance races........................ fact How many black men in an Olympic pool, how many white men in sprints? You call it rubbish, I'll still say National Sporting Bodies with International pretentions chase-it-down, Rodders. Chase genetic fingerprints down...to suck up as many medals as possible.

From Jack Dempsey through to the naughties they said there'd never be another white heavy weight boxing champion ...now they can't get the belts of them. They said a white man would never break 10 sec for the 100m.... I could go on.

The genetic aspect is greatly overplayed these days Fly I believe, genetic infuence is not in doubt but I think this influence is greatly exaggerated by cultural stereotypes.

Its like a fat person blaming their weight on genes, their genetics won't help but likely the overwhelming reason they are fat is they eat too much.....

The point IS..that's why the idea of "International" is dying.

It's meant to be a fairish contest based on the kind of bloody stock in humanity you produce yourself. That's why it is so involving. That's why we're glued to the screen when our Nation fights against another one, it's meant to say something about us and about our ability to punch above our weight, our ability to get medals and cups, something to be proud about - it's sport's purest meaning "We is better than you".

So if there is a free-trade agreement on "International" sports stars and they can go and come as they please and play for one country one year and another a next, or if they can easily stay in a country for a bit and then play for that Nation, then "International" becomes meaningless.

What's to cheer? The Irish guy beating the French guy? Or the "Irish" French guy beating the "French" Irish guy? Who cheers? Who says "We're better than you?"

rodders wrote:If I might be so bold as to risk libel...... the proliferation of PEDs and lack of drugs testing in some countries might be as much a factor as genetics.

You want to get bolder still, Rodders and say Rugby Union is one of them? I'd hazard a guess it's in rugby. But that's another thread. Those threads don't often pick up too many comments.... a shadowland topic.

No I agree with you but the idea of indigious pure breed race is a falicy. There has to be some way how people qualify.

That said my real agenda here is for the IRFU to get these eastern European immigrants into the game .... their genetics are better than ours you know ....

You should be allowed play for Ireland if you

1. Are a mammys boy.
2. Have a slightly unsymmetrical face
3. Have had your stomach pumped at least once
4. Are fiscally irresponsible
5. Laugh at the "funny accent" of somebody who lives 20 minutes drive away.

Feckless Rogue wrote:You should be allowed play for Ireland if you

1. Are a mammys boy.
2. Have a slightly unsymmetrical face
3. Have had your stomach pumped at least once
4. Are fiscally irresponsible
5. Laugh at the "funny accent" of somebody who lives 20 minutes drive away.

No wonder they say the Irish are like the welsh

rodders wrote:No I agree with you but the idea of indigious pure breed race is a falicy. There has to be some way how people qualify.

That said my real agenda here is for the IRFU to get these eastern European immigrants into the game .... their genetics are better than ours you know ....

It's a joke..but it's also painfully true............... Polish, Nigerian and Estonian Irishmen should be force marched into rugby union and damn well TOLD to like it! It's their duty!!!!!!!!!!!