France to stop selecting 'foreign' players - Bernard Laporte

by king_carlos Wed 21 Dec 2016, 9:11 pm

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38389827

France will stop selecting non-French players who have qualified under the three-year residency rule, national federation boss Bernard Laporte says.

He announced the move after meeting World Rugby president Bill Beaumont.

"I told Bill that we've taken the political decision to stop playing foreign players in the national team," Laporte said.

Foreign-born players who currently play for France will remain eligible but new players will require a French passport.

The decision means the likes of New Zealand-born prop Uini Atonio, South Africa-born full-back Scott Spedding and Fiji-born wings Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa will continue to be available for France.

"Obviously, it's not retroactive. Those playing can continue playing but it's a strong signal for French academies and our youngsters that we'll play a maximum number of Frenchmen," added Laporte, the former France head coach who was elected president of the French Rugby Federation on 3 December.

World Rugby rules allow a player to represent another country if he has lived there for three consecutive years and has not played for anyone else, although the global governing body is looking to extend the period to five years.

France have become renowned for picking foreign players in recent years as the financial strength of the Top 14 has brought a flood of foreigners into their top division at a time when the national team has been struggling.

In the past five years, France have come fifth four times in the Six Nations and last on the other occasion.

However, virtually all Tier One teams field players who have qualified on residency grounds.

The issue of foreign-qualified players has also been highlighted by the plight of the Pacific Islands - Fiji, Samoa and Tonga - who often lose talented players to the bigger and richer nations.

The gist is that France will continue selecting residency qualified players who have already played for France, for instance Scott Spedding, Uini Antonio, Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa in the current squad. From now on new caps will require a French passport to be eligible to play for France.

Interesting move and a good one for the game in France and as a whole. It's sad that individual Unions are taking action against the 3 year residency rule before World Rugby are. The decision was announced after Laporte met with Bill Beaumont though which is another positive indication that World Ruby are looking to do more about eligibility problems whilst led by Beaumont and Pichot.

by Guest Fri 23 Dec 2016, 11:00 am

Exiledinborders wrote:
Griff wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:Surely this goes against the Kolpak ruling.

The Kolpak ruling is in no way relevant here! The ruling does not dictate who an international coach picks. If he doesn't want to pick Bundee Aki, for example, then he doesn't have to. Just as a coach doesn't have to pick Jamie Heaslip either if he doesn't want to. Right to work is different to selection for a representative team.
That is not so.

The Union is an employer and so they are covered by employment law including Kolpak and all anti-discrimination laws in the same way as any other employer.

The coach can indeed pick who he likes as long as he does so for rugby reasons. He may not do so for illegal discriminatory reasons. Having a policy of not employing non nationals who have the right to work in the EU and who are qualified under World Rugby rules would be very dodgy legally. In your example he can of course pick or not pick Bundee Aki. However having a policy (written or unwritten) that meant Aki could not be picked would be illegal.

I get that for club rugby with a proper contract of employment. But international representation and selection is a bit different. I don't believe the players have contracts of employment with the international sides. I just can't ever see a case where someone like Bundee Aki, for example, joined the Ospreys and then after 3 years took the WRU to court for not selecting him. Not every single element of European employment/contract law is applicable to sport. There are certain nuances and quirks of the nature of sport that mean certain employment laws cannot be reasonably applied.

Here's another example. With the claim you make above any member of the public who may not even play rugby could sue a union for not selecting them, or having a policy not to select them. That would be ridiculous, right? So we could see hundreds of thousands of law suits? So I might sue the French and I should win??? Crazy.

by Cyril Fri 23 Dec 2016, 11:01 am

ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

What coaches are pretending to be different?

The ones that fly in and fly out and flick about

Hows that being different?

Trying to be different would be putting on an accent ala Schteve McClaren or changing their name to a local equivalent
Being different would be to coach Australia, South Africa, Japan and England like a 2 bob hooker. Coaches can pimp themselves out at will without shame.

Similar to Brad Thorn's CV then.

by The Great Aukster Fri 23 Dec 2016, 1:20 pm

Munchkin wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Munchkin wrote:So, if the the Prime Minister described himself as 'left of the left', that would make everything ok? The decision of Laporte should be judged on its impact on French rugby, not on the politics of the French Prime Minister.

The decision of Laporte reduces the player pool and therefore harms French rugby. So if there isn't a good rugby reason, and since he is in an influential political position, maybe he is just saying what his supporters want to hear?

Munchkin wrote:Thought you might counter with my views on Nucifora, and you are wrong. First of all, Pienaar isn't blocking any player, and Pienaar certainly isn't going to play for Ireland. I have said that if Pienaar was blocking Irish born talent, then fair enough. I could then understand Nucifora turning down Pienaar's extension. I don't think Herbst, or Ludik, should be qualifying to play for Ireland at the seasons end. That's why I said I would like at least a 5 year residency rule.

You're right that foreign signings help raise the standard, but then Pienaar proves that we can sign world class talent, such as Pienaar and Piutau, who will help raise standards yet will never play for Ireland.

The minimum wage level for Fiji is about £1.90 per hour, but the average wage level is £12 - £13k, annually. Nobody is saying the Fijians shouldn't play abroad. Just that those in Europe should not poach them for their national side.

The discussion is about objective qualification rules, they cannot be written to apply globally and still have a clause 4.3c to assess the understudies of Ruan Pienaar. Ineligible players whether they have been capped or not will restrict the opportunities of home talent. Simply increasing the residency period from three to five years will not remove the foreign talent, just reduce the potential benefit to Ireland.
In defence of someone like Herbst. at least he is prepared to live in Ireland for three years to earn the chance of an Ireland cap whereas Bent was seduced by an instant green shirt to come to Ireland. Which one was showing more desire to be an Ireland player? Does the average Aviva supporter know the difference between the two or even care?
The truth is that neither of them may be good enough for regular Test rugby irrespective of qualification method but both are 'blocking' home produced players just as much as John Afoa or BJ Botha.
A far bigger problem than the residency period is tying a player to one country with one cap. Eligibility is all about the rules for a player's first cap, but why should 10 minutes off the bench for a country exclude them forever from playing for a nation where they've made their home. The scandal of poaching is far more about exclusion than inclusion, ensuring other nations remain weak or to circumvent Union restrictions on the club game. Why shouldn't Pienaar become IQ if he hasn't played for SA for 3 or 5 years and lived in his adopted country during that period?

No, that's only your opinion on the effect of Laporte's ruling. Some might argue that Laporte is increasing the French playing pool. Also, I'm not convinced by the argument that because someone believes differently to you it must be for political reasons. That's pretty much a conspiracy theory.

Your point on eligible players is both true and false. True if there are indigenous players that could make it to test level, and are blocked by a foreign signing. False, if there are no real indigenous prospects for foreign signings to block (As with Pienaar playing for Ulster), and also false if a team can accommodate the foreign signing and the home prospect.

Increasing the residency rules would reduce the amount of foreign opportunists, if that's what you mean. And will help prevent these opportunists from blocking the path of indigenous players.

I'm not surprised Herbst is prepared to live in Ireland for three years. He's getting well paid to do so, and with the prospect of playing for Ireland, the cherry on the top.

I agree with you on Bent. I don't agree that foreign players can just walk in on the basis of having an Irish granny.

You make fair points about players being tied to one country after only having earned one cap. I don't agree that players should be able to switch which nations they play for but, under the current rules, I do think it's morally wrong for Unions to prevent players from playing for other nations by giving them a cap, if the main purpose is to stop those players being poached by other nations.

How does removing players from the selection pool increase it?

by marty2086 Fri 23 Dec 2016, 1:28 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
How does removing players from the selection pool increase it?

It increases the pool of 'French' players, the argument being that some at the minute aren't French

Was Blanco ever a citizen during his playing career?

by Guest Fri 23 Dec 2016, 1:38 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Munchkin wrote:So, if the the Prime Minister described himself as 'left of the left', that would make everything ok? The decision of Laporte should be judged on its impact on French rugby, not on the politics of the French Prime Minister.

The decision of Laporte reduces the player pool and therefore harms French rugby. So if there isn't a good rugby reason, and since he is in an influential political position, maybe he is just saying what his supporters want to hear?

Munchkin wrote:Thought you might counter with my views on Nucifora, and you are wrong. First of all, Pienaar isn't blocking any player, and Pienaar certainly isn't going to play for Ireland. I have said that if Pienaar was blocking Irish born talent, then fair enough. I could then understand Nucifora turning down Pienaar's extension. I don't think Herbst, or Ludik, should be qualifying to play for Ireland at the seasons end. That's why I said I would like at least a 5 year residency rule.

You're right that foreign signings help raise the standard, but then Pienaar proves that we can sign world class talent, such as Pienaar and Piutau, who will help raise standards yet will never play for Ireland.

The minimum wage level for Fiji is about £1.90 per hour, but the average wage level is £12 - £13k, annually. Nobody is saying the Fijians shouldn't play abroad. Just that those in Europe should not poach them for their national side.

The discussion is about objective qualification rules, they cannot be written to apply globally and still have a clause 4.3c to assess the understudies of Ruan Pienaar. Ineligible players whether they have been capped or not will restrict the opportunities of home talent. Simply increasing the residency period from three to five years will not remove the foreign talent, just reduce the potential benefit to Ireland.
In defence of someone like Herbst. at least he is prepared to live in Ireland for three years to earn the chance of an Ireland cap whereas Bent was seduced by an instant green shirt to come to Ireland. Which one was showing more desire to be an Ireland player? Does the average Aviva supporter know the difference between the two or even care?
The truth is that neither of them may be good enough for regular Test rugby irrespective of qualification method but both are 'blocking' home produced players just as much as John Afoa or BJ Botha.
A far bigger problem than the residency period is tying a player to one country with one cap. Eligibility is all about the rules for a player's first cap, but why should 10 minutes off the bench for a country exclude them forever from playing for a nation where they've made their home. The scandal of poaching is far more about exclusion than inclusion, ensuring other nations remain weak or to circumvent Union restrictions on the club game. Why shouldn't Pienaar become IQ if he hasn't played for SA for 3 or 5 years and lived in his adopted country during that period?

No, that's only your opinion on the effect of Laporte's ruling. Some might argue that Laporte is increasing the French playing pool. Also, I'm not convinced by the argument that because someone believes differently to you it must be for political reasons. That's pretty much a conspiracy theory.

Your point on eligible players is both true and false. True if there are indigenous players that could make it to test level, and are blocked by a foreign signing. False, if there are no real indigenous prospects for foreign signings to block (As with Pienaar playing for Ulster), and also false if a team can accommodate the foreign signing and the home prospect.

Increasing the residency rules would reduce the amount of foreign opportunists, if that's what you mean. And will help prevent these opportunists from blocking the path of indigenous players.

I'm not surprised Herbst is prepared to live in Ireland for three years. He's getting well paid to do so, and with the prospect of playing for Ireland, the cherry on the top.

I agree with you on Bent. I don't agree that foreign players can just walk in on the basis of having an Irish granny.

You make fair points about players being tied to one country after only having earned one cap. I don't agree that players should be able to switch which nations they play for but, under the current rules, I do think it's morally wrong for Unions to prevent players from playing for other nations by giving them a cap, if the main purpose is to stop those players being poached by other nations.

How does removing players from the selection pool increase it?

As marty said. Blocking/limiting foreign players from the national side will increase the pool of French players.

by aucklandlaurie Fri 23 Dec 2016, 2:15 pm

Cyril wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

What coaches are pretending to be different?

The ones that fly in and fly out and flick about

Hows that being different?

Trying to be different would be putting on an accent ala Schteve McClaren or changing their name to a local equivalent
Being different would be to coach Australia, South Africa, Japan and England like a 2 bob hooker. Coaches can pimp themselves out at will without shame.
Similar to Brad Thorn's CV then.

I'll see your Brad Thorn and raise you a Shontayne Hape and a Henry Paul.

by Cyril Fri 23 Dec 2016, 2:21 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Cyril wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

What coaches are pretending to be different?

The ones that fly in and fly out and flick about

Hows that being different?

Trying to be different would be putting on an accent ala Schteve McClaren or changing their name to a local equivalent
Being different would be to coach Australia, South Africa, Japan and England like a 2 bob hooker. Coaches can pimp themselves out at will without shame.
Similar to Brad Thorn's CV then.

I'll see your Brad Thorn and raise you a Shontayne Hape and a Henry Paul.

Yep, those Kiwis will fly any old flag of convenience as long as the money is right.

by The Great Aukster Sun 25 Dec 2016, 11:12 pm

marty2086 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
How does removing players from the selection pool increase it?

It increases the pool of 'French' players, the argument being that some at the minute aren't French

Was Blanco ever a citizen during his playing career?

Players who are qualified for France are playing in France and will continue to play for French clubs so removing them from the selection pot won't suddenly create alternatives so I will ask again how does removing players qualified to play for France increase the pool of French players?

by Cyril Sun 25 Dec 2016, 11:30 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
How does removing players from the selection pool increase it?

It increases the pool of 'French' players, the argument being that some at the minute aren't French

Was Blanco ever a citizen during his playing career?

Players who are qualified for France are playing in France and will continue to play for French clubs so removing them from the selection pot won't suddenly create alternatives so I will ask again how does removing players qualified to play for France increase the pool of French players?

It will happen over time, not immediately. Short-term pain, long term-gain for the national side. Whether those players are 'better' or 'more motivated' is another matter, I guess. You could argue that plenty of 'residency' players have shown more heart than Michelak (on occasions), for example.

by The Great Aukster Mon 26 Dec 2016, 9:37 am

Cyril wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
How does removing players from the selection pool increase it?

It increases the pool of 'French' players, the argument being that some at the minute aren't French

Was Blanco ever a citizen during his playing career?

Players who are qualified for France are playing in France and will continue to play for French clubs so removing them from the selection pot won't suddenly create alternatives so I will ask again how does removing players qualified to play for France increase the pool of French players?
It will happen over time, not immediately. Short-term pain, long term-gain for the national side. Whether those players are 'better' or 'more motivated' is another matter, I guess. You could argue that plenty of 'residency' players have shown more heart than Michelak (on occasions), for example.

Regarding talent, it has to be assumed that the selectors are rational (big assumption!) but if they are selecting residency qualified players then they have to be better than the alternatives. Motivation is akin to patriotism - the last refuge of the scoundrel and I would defy anyone to name a residency qualified player who has demonstrably not tried. If a player has reached Test standard it is fair to assume they are both talented and motivated, so what is the reason Laporte is singling out this specific group for exclusion?

Clubs will sign the best talent they can afford and that will continue to include foreign recruitment. If those players are less likely to be picked for Test duty, their availability becomes more attractive to the club owners. So please explain how the "short term pain" will increase the French player pool over time, and not simply be 'long term pain'?

by aucklandlaurie Mon 26 Dec 2016, 3:31 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
Cyril wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
How does removing players from the selection pool increase it?

It increases the pool of 'French' players, the argument being that some at the minute aren't French

Was Blanco ever a citizen during his playing career?

Players who are qualified for France are playing in France and will continue to play for French clubs so removing them from the selection pot won't suddenly create alternatives so I will ask again how does removing players qualified to play for France increase the pool of French players?
It will happen over time, not immediately. Short-term pain, long term-gain for the national side. Whether those players are 'better' or 'more motivated' is another matter, I guess. You could argue that plenty of 'residency' players have shown more heart than Michelak (on occasions), for example.

Regarding talent, it has to be assumed that the selectors are rational (big assumption!) but if they are selecting residency qualified players then they have to be better than the alternatives. Motivation is akin to patriotism - the last refuge of the scoundrel and I would defy anyone to name a residency qualified player who has demonstrably not tried. If a player has reached Test standard it is fair to assume they are both talented and motivated, so what is the reason Laporte is singling out this specific group for exclusion?

Clubs will sign the best talent they can afford and that will continue to include foreign recruitment. If those players are less likely to be picked for Test duty, their availability becomes more attractive to the club owners. So please explain how the "short term pain" will increase the French player pool over time, and not simply be 'long term pain'?

The reason Laporte is singling out this particular group for exclusion is because they are not French.

The reason how the French player pool will grow over time is because they are French not New Zealanders or South Africans etc.

by The Great Aukster Tue 27 Dec 2016, 12:03 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:The reason Laporte is singling out this particular group for exclusion is because they are not French.

The reason how the French player pool will grow over time is because they are French not New Zealanders or South Africans etc.

World Rugby says they are French because they can play for France, therefore the 'French' player pool is diminished by not choosing from this group. Bernard's decision reduces the number of players available for Les Bleus selection irrespective of length of term. The only player pools benefitting are potentially the ones from those countries whose players play in France but will henceforth remain uncapped at France's loss. Other nations should now encourage their departing players to choose France over say England or New Zealand because they will know they can be developed without threat to national selection.

It's very magnanimous of Monsieur Laporte to help other Unions to the detriment of his own, and make France the destination of choice especially for Pacific Islanders.

by Guest Tue 27 Dec 2016, 6:55 pm

There's disenchantment and loss of culture in French rugby through their current selection of ring in foreigners. French players may not even care about representing a country that selects fly-by-nighters as it's France-lite. A kinda French team. When they lose, the foreigners probably think 'ah well, I'm not really French but at least I'm getting paid a lot'.

by whocares Tue 27 Dec 2016, 7:03 pm

You don't get paid much for playing for France. If anything your employer (the club) is not going to encourage you. A few of those so called foreigners who end up there feel more French than the locally bred ones and know the Anthem better than some.

by Guest Tue 27 Dec 2016, 7:05 pm

Really, the foreigners are more French than a local Frenchman with generations and generations of history? Ok.

by whocares Tue 27 Dec 2016, 7:23 pm

Am talking about the attitude on and out of the pitch than some of those guys are showing. I remember a chap like Scott Spedding crying when he was first capped. It really meant a lot to him as it wasn't just something handed to him. certainly more than to most of his other team mates back then.

by marty2086 Tue 27 Dec 2016, 9:05 pm

ebop wrote:Really, the foreigners are more French than a local Frenchman with generations and generations of history? Ok.

Generations and generations? Headscratch

Maybe you can explain what makes someone French?

by aucklandlaurie Tue 27 Dec 2016, 9:09 pm

marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Really, the foreigners are more French than a local Frenchman with generations and generations of history? Ok.

Generations and generations?

Maybe you can explain what makes someone French?

No different to what makes an irishman Irish, surely you dont need that explained to you do you?

by marty2086 Tue 27 Dec 2016, 9:11 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Really, the foreigners are more French than a local Frenchman with generations and generations of history? Ok.

Generations and generations?

Maybe you can explain what makes someone French?

No different to what makes an irishman Irish, surely you dont need that explained to you do you?

Maybe you should get a better grasp of geopolitics then especially given the example you use

by aucklandlaurie Tue 27 Dec 2016, 9:22 pm

marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Really, the foreigners are more French than a local Frenchman with generations and generations of history? Ok.

Generations and generations?

Maybe you can explain what makes someone French?

No different to what makes an irishman Irish, surely you dont need that explained to you do you?

Maybe you should get a better grasp of geopolitics then especially given the example you use

Nothing to do with Geography or for that matter Politics either.

by marty2086 Tue 27 Dec 2016, 9:30 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Really, the foreigners are more French than a local Frenchman with generations and generations of history? Ok.

Generations and generations?

Maybe you can explain what makes someone French?

No different to what makes an irishman Irish, surely you dont need that explained to you do you?

Maybe you should get a better grasp of geopolitics then especially given the example you use

Nothing to do with Geography or for that matter Politics either.

Actually its everything to do with it but obviously too big for little minds to grasp

A persons nationality can be defined by where they are born, who they are born to or where they are brought up. It also varies by person, I may see myself as an Irishman but other may see me as British, others as Northern Irish
Jamie Heaslip was born in Israel, is he Israeli or Irish? Mako Vunipola was born in NZ and Billy in Australia to Tongans, they were raised in Wales and England are they Kiwis, Aussies, English, Welsh, British or Tongan?

by The Great Aukster Tue 27 Dec 2016, 9:33 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Really, the foreigners are more French than a local Frenchman with generations and generations of history? Ok.

Generations and generations?

Maybe you can explain what makes someone French?

No different to what makes an irishman Irish, surely you dont need that explained to you do you?

Maybe you should get a better grasp of geopolitics then especially given the example you use

Nothing to do with Geography or for that matter Politics either.

What makes someone French qualified are the World Rugby rules, so probably a tad political.

by aucklandlaurie Tue 27 Dec 2016, 10:02 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Really, the foreigners are more French than a local Frenchman with generations and generations of history? Ok.

Generations and generations?

Maybe you can explain what makes someone French?

No different to what makes an irishman Irish, surely you dont need that explained to you do you?

Maybe you should get a better grasp of geopolitics then especially given the example you use

Nothing to do with Geography or for that matter Politics either.

What makes someone French qualified are the World Rugby rules, so probably a tad political.

Not talking about French qualified.

by marty2086 Tue 27 Dec 2016, 10:41 pm

Yes we are

by Cyril Tue 27 Dec 2016, 10:47 pm

marty2086 wrote:Actually its everything to do with it but obviously too big for little minds to grasp

marty, have you been drinking all Christmas or are you always like this? You've been giving out some abuse to all and sundry this holiday season! Smile

by marty2086 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 7:38 am

Awk poor Cyrils feeling have been hurt because he was called out for his trolling Rolling Eyes

by Cyril Wed 28 Dec 2016, 8:00 am

marty2086 wrote:Awk poor Cyrils feeling have been hurt because he was called out for his trolling

Awww, angry troll marty has been called out for his usual offensive posting (even other Irish posters are sick of him).

by marty2086 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 8:26 am

Again with your unsubstantiated claims, stay classy

by Cyril Wed 28 Dec 2016, 10:46 am

marty2086 wrote:Again with your unsubstantiated claims, stay classy

If you could take five minutes out to stop insulting other posters that would be good. If it's a drink problem, either stay or the boards or seek help

by marty2086 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 11:11 am

Cyril wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Again with your unsubstantiated claims, stay classy
If you could take five minutes out to stop insulting other posters that would be good. If it's a drink problem, either stay or the boards or seek help

So much for you staying classy Rolling Eyes

Again with the pathetic trolling you absolute muppet

by GunsGermsV2 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 11:16 am

Kiss and make up lads. Its Christmas FFS.

by The Great Aukster Wed 28 Dec 2016, 11:18 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Really, the foreigners are more French than a local Frenchman with generations and generations of history? Ok.

Generations and generations?

Maybe you can explain what makes someone French?

No different to what makes an irishman Irish, surely you dont need that explained to you do you?

Maybe you should get a better grasp of geopolitics then especially given the example you use

Nothing to do with Geography or for that matter Politics either.

What makes someone French qualified are the World Rugby rules, so probably a tad political.

Not talking about French qualified.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38389827 wrote:"I told Bill that we've taken the political decision to stop playing foreign players in the national team," Laporte said.

AL - Did you even read the article?

by aucklandlaurie Wed 28 Dec 2016, 2:34 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Really, the foreigners are more French than a local Frenchman with generations and generations of history? Ok.

Generations and generations?

Maybe you can explain what makes someone French?

No different to what makes an irishman Irish, surely you dont need that explained to you do you?

Maybe you should get a better grasp of geopolitics then especially given the example you use

Nothing to do with Geography or for that matter Politics either.

What makes someone French qualified are the World Rugby rules, so probably a tad political.

Not talking about French qualified.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38389827 wrote:"I told Bill that we've taken the political decision to stop playing foreign players in the national team," Laporte said.

AL - Did you even read the article?

You seem to be more focused on the cause rather than the effect here, he wants a national team with one culture, the vehicle to do so can be described as political/Geographical, but what he is seeking in the long run is the spirit of a team of French players that run on to the field and play the game. Forget the rules, forget politics, forget geography, and think of what goes into the preparation of the environment of a competitive team and how they play for 80 minutes,you then can only have respect for the French motives on this one.

by marty2086 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 2:37 pm

So forget what he said and focus on things that have not been mentioned because if you don't it highlights your ignorance?

by aucklandlaurie Wed 28 Dec 2016, 3:00 pm

marty2086 wrote:So forget what he said and focus on things that have not been mentioned because if you don't it highlights your ignorance?

No not at all, all I am doing is taking this issue as just another in Laporte's list of things to do in his role as the leader of french Rugby, he has nothing but the best interests of the French game at heart.

Whether it be the the taking of tests out of Paris to the Provinces of France or it be his attempts to give support to the amateur game over the professional game in its Television broadcasting, what he is trying to do is achieve a French National team composed of Frenchmen, I dont see what all the anger and bitterness is about.

by marty2086 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 3:05 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:So forget what he said and focus on things that have not been mentioned because if you don't it highlights your ignorance?

No not at all, all I am doing is taking this issue as just another in Laporte's list of things to do in his role as the leader of french Rugby, he has nothing but the best interests of the French game at heart.

Whether it be the the taking of tests out of Paris to the Provinces of France or it be his attempts to give support to the amateur game over the professional game in its Television broadcasting, what he is trying to do is achieve a French National team composed of Frenchmen, I dont see what all the anger and bitterness is about.

And how does it help the French by possibly selecting lesser players?

Does a player become more French by passing a test then?

by Guest Wed 28 Dec 2016, 3:39 pm

In the long-term, I think it has to help.

As an Ireland supporter, I would much prefer watching a side filled with player born here, or at least spent most of their lives here, than watching a side filled with plastic paddies. It hasn't come to that, yet, but if we were to simply pick the most promising players from around the world and stick an 'IRISH' label on them, it's possible, even if unlikely.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 3:42 pm

The idea that 'true frenchmen' bring more togetherness and thus make the team better is wide of the mark just as much as all imports would be giving their heart and soul. In reality there will be good and bad in both respects.

by Guest Wed 28 Dec 2016, 3:48 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:The idea that 'true frenchmen' bring more togetherness and thus make the team better is wide of the mark just as much as all imports would be giving their heart and soul. In reality there will be good and bad in both respects.

Is it just about making a better national side though? Filling a side with foreigners will likely make that side better, but have a detrimental impact on French rugby, eventually. It has to dilute a sense of national identity.

by marty2086 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 3:52 pm

Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:The idea that 'true frenchmen' bring more togetherness and thus make the team better is wide of the mark just as much as all imports would be giving their heart and soul. In reality there will be good and bad in both respects.

Is it just about making a better national side though? Filling a side with foreigners will likely make that side better, but have a detrimental impact on French rugby, eventually. It has to dilute a sense of national identity.

The problem is that its not stopping players who aren't born French citizens from playing for France, they just have to become citizens first so I again ask how does that make them more French?

If someone is born abroad but moves to France at a young age and doesn't take citizenship are they French?

You spoke of plastic paddies would you call Adeolokun a plastic paddy despite spending most of his life in Ireland?

by Guest Wed 28 Dec 2016, 4:01 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:The idea that 'true frenchmen' bring more togetherness and thus make the team better is wide of the mark just as much as all imports would be giving their heart and soul. In reality there will be good and bad in both respects.

Is it just about making a better national side though? Filling a side with foreigners will likely make that side better, but have a detrimental impact on French rugby, eventually. It has to dilute a sense of national identity.

The problem is that its not stopping players who aren't born French citizens from playing for France, they just have to become citizens first so I again ask how does that make them more French?

If someone is born abroad but moves to France at a young age and doesn't take citizenship are they French?

You spoke of plastic paddies would you call Adeolokun a plastic paddy despite spending most of his life in Ireland?

Just obtaining a French passport won't make a person more French. For me, someone has to be French in heart to be French.

Adeolokun moved to Ireland when he was 11 years old. It would be extremely harsh to call him a plastic paddy. To my mind, plastic paddies are those who have no real ties here other than an Irish granny, or those who happen to live here for three years and qualify on residency. People who have become Irish to further their professional career.

by marty2086 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 4:12 pm

Munchkin wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:The idea that 'true frenchmen' bring more togetherness and thus make the team better is wide of the mark just as much as all imports would be giving their heart and soul. In reality there will be good and bad in both respects.

Is it just about making a better national side though? Filling a side with foreigners will likely make that side better, but have a detrimental impact on French rugby, eventually. It has to dilute a sense of national identity.

The problem is that its not stopping players who aren't born French citizens from playing for France, they just have to become citizens first so I again ask how does that make them more French?

If someone is born abroad but moves to France at a young age and doesn't take citizenship are they French?

You spoke of plastic paddies would you call Adeolokun a plastic paddy despite spending most of his life in Ireland?

Just obtaining a French passport won't make a person more French. For me, someone has to be French in heart to be French.

Adeolokun moved to Ireland when he was 11 years old. It would be extremely harsh to call him a plastic paddy. To my mind, plastic paddies are those who have no real ties here other than an Irish granny, or those who happen to live here for three years and qualify on residency.

This is the point Im getting at, someone in France in the same circumstances as Adeolokun would not be considered French unless they sat a test and if they fail they aren't French?

Don't forget that there are Basques and Catalans in France wanting independence, are they less French because of that?

by Guest Wed 28 Dec 2016, 4:20 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:The idea that 'true frenchmen' bring more togetherness and thus make the team better is wide of the mark just as much as all imports would be giving their heart and soul. In reality there will be good and bad in both respects.

Is it just about making a better national side though? Filling a side with foreigners will likely make that side better, but have a detrimental impact on French rugby, eventually. It has to dilute a sense of national identity.

The problem is that its not stopping players who aren't born French citizens from playing for France, they just have to become citizens first so I again ask how does that make them more French?

If someone is born abroad but moves to France at a young age and doesn't take citizenship are they French?

You spoke of plastic paddies would you call Adeolokun a plastic paddy despite spending most of his life in Ireland?

Just obtaining a French passport won't make a person more French. For me, someone has to be French in heart to be French.

Adeolokun moved to Ireland when he was 11 years old. It would be extremely harsh to call him a plastic paddy. To my mind, plastic paddies are those who have no real ties here other than an Irish granny, or those who happen to live here for three years and qualify on residency.

This is the point Im getting at, someone in France in the same circumstances as Adeolokun would not be considered French unless they sat a test and if they fail they aren't French?

Don't forget that there are Basques and Catalans in France wanting independence, are they less French because of that?

I don't know the requirements for French citizenship, but would be surprised that they would ask children to take a test. I'm against the tests anyway. They prove nothing other than an ability to do a test, or not.

The children of the Basques might well consider themselves French, and there's no reason they shouldn't be considered so. The parents don't want to be French, and never will be.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 4:22 pm

So Costa more Spanish than pique in football or less so?

by marty2086 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 4:24 pm

Munchkin wrote:
The children of the Basques might well consider themselves French, and there's no reason they shouldn't be considered so. The parents don't want to be French, and never will be.

The Basques and Catalans are French, both areas cross the French and Spanish borders

by Guest Wed 28 Dec 2016, 4:24 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So Costa more Spanish than pique in football or less so?

Football ....

Tumbleweed

by Guest Wed 28 Dec 2016, 4:26 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
The children of the Basques might well consider themselves French, and there's no reason they shouldn't be considered so. The parents don't want to be French, and never will be.

The Basques and Catalans are French, both areas cross the French and Spanish borders

But they want independence, so while they may be French, their hearts are elsewhere.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 4:38 pm

Football indeed but a valid point nontheless. Who is the most Spanish? Or does it really have to be judged in a case by case basis?

by marty2086 Wed 28 Dec 2016, 4:39 pm

The whole citizenship thing isn't clear cut, those who come from French speaking countries can get expedited citizenship yet would still have to serve the 3 year World Rugby residency period

The whole point of the 3 year period or at least a universal period is that everyone is playing by the same rules as some countries hand out citizenship like they were library cards, Aaron Cook who represented GB at Taekwondo now represents Moldova because GB stopped selecting him and Moldova thought why not. Countries like Qatar and UAE have handed out citizenship to Brazilians to get them to represent them at football

by Guest Wed 28 Dec 2016, 4:39 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Football indeed but a valid point nontheless. Who is the most Spanish? Or does it really have to be judged in a case by case basis?

It's more that I haven't a clue who those players are Erm

by Sponsored content