Colonial View of the RFU? (erm, or should Fiji join Super Rugby)

by TheGreyGhost Wed 17 Aug 2011, 12:03 pm

"When you consider how England is blatantly using its power to bolster the national side with players not remotely English, it is time for rugby to start levelling the playing field."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10745534

"There is a disturbing atmosphere of exploitation, perhaps linked to colonial ways, about the way rugby is run."

Interesting thoughts again from Chris Rattue.

by Coleman Wed 17 Aug 2011, 12:31 pm

I think you've miss represented the article with these two quotes. The peices isnt an RFU Bash, its more aimed at the qualification rules and how the PI teams cant hold on to their own players due to economic differences, such as if play x choses to play for team y instead of team nz then player x wont be allowed to play S15 rugby.

Poor show on your part.

by Bathman_in_London Wed 17 Aug 2011, 12:35 pm

I thought this was an interesting point:
'The NZRU might also be more open minded, or innovative, in finding ways to allow Pacific Island test players to earn in this country's professional teams instead of chasing away a superstar like Rupeni Caucaunibuca.'

I think there needs to be an official divide between tier 1 and 2, with players being able to drop down if they have had say under 10 caps and then not go back up. Whether some of the lower tier 1 nations would agree to making the countries below them stronger is another issue.

by BATH_BTGOG Wed 17 Aug 2011, 12:40 pm

GG has a pop at England, shock horror!

Come on guys why is this bloke still here?

He doesn’t fit in with the spirit of the game or 606, in fact I expect his never played the game.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 17 Aug 2011, 12:45 pm

Its alright when anyone does it, unless its England

by doctornickolas Wed 17 Aug 2011, 1:09 pm

That is a truly staggering article.

Now as a pure blood Welshman I'm not averse to a bit of England bashing but that article is such a load of rubbish.

And what makes it even worse is of you read all the comments below it there are plenty of NZers completely agreeing with it.

Wales and Scotland also come in for some bashing but the general thrust of it is that England are exploiting people by playing Islanders and Kiwi's (even though they aren't breaking any rules).

I think they would like this to be the preserve of NZ who could then allow them, kindly, to go back and play for an Island team once they have been chewed up and spat out by the All Blacks.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 17 Aug 2011, 1:18 pm

The great joke being that half the Pislands sides are made up of New Zealanders too.

He might also want to check back as to why the rules were set as they are.

by jbeadlesbigrighthand Wed 17 Aug 2011, 1:34 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:"When you consider how England is blatantly using its power to bolster the national side with players not remotely English, it is time for rugby to start levelling the playing field."

That's an interesting quote (from Rattue). How, exactly, is England "using its power" in this instance? This issue has nothing to do with power, and everything to do with working within the rules to your own advantage. This manipulation of the facts betrays a chip on the shoulder of the author.

That said, the gist of the article is interesting - that bigger unions really don't care about the interests of the smaller unions. Eligibility is one issue - the only way I could think to make that fairer would be to strip out qualification via a grandparent and to greatly tighten residency criteria. However, it seems to me that it's economics that drive players to foreign countries. If more were done to support rugby being played in the PIs, for example, I think that would go some way to help solve these issues. What about a Fiji-based S15 team, for example? Or a southern hemisphere 5 Nations, including Argentina and a combined PI team?

by TheGreyGhost Wed 17 Aug 2011, 1:35 pm

I think you've miss represented the article with these two quote

GG has a pop at England, shock horror!

I was actually having a pop at Chris Rattue, but whatever.

The NZRFU is actually one of the few unions trying to repeal the rule that prevents players representing multiple countries. But they can't change it on their own, obviously.

I'm not sure how NZ "chased away Rupeni", I think they offered him a chance and he turned it down to play for Fiji - fair enough, his issues with lack of motivation to play, and too much motivation to eat and drink were hardly NZ's fault.

What about a Fiji-based S15 team, for example? Or a southern hemisphere 5 Nations, including Argentina and a combined PI team?

Agree whole heartedly, I think that Fiji, Samoan and Tongan sides in the expanded S15 would have been a much better idea than inventing rugby in places of Australia where is plain doesn't exist by moving players around, and importing Brits.

As for those saying that England (in particular) are "playing by the rules"...I'm sick of this argument. The counter-argument is that the rules are wrong. We all know it. The unions should change it, they have the power but choose not to. This is the point Rattue is trying to make, but failing.

by BATH_BTGOG Wed 17 Aug 2011, 1:37 pm

The NZRFU is actually one of the few unions trying to repeal the rule that prevents players representing multiple countries.

A bit rich considering most All Blacks have roots in the Pacific Islands teams

by TheGreyGhost Wed 17 Aug 2011, 1:39 pm

BATH_BTGOG wrote:The NZRFU is actually one of the few unions trying to repeal the rule that prevents players representing multiple countries.

A bit rich considering most All Blacks have roots in the Pacific Islands teams

Actually most PI teams have roots in New Zealand. But thanks for popping in and spinning the oldest myth of 606.

by BATH_BTGOG Wed 17 Aug 2011, 1:40 pm

Calm down GG!

by Great White Wed 17 Aug 2011, 1:54 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:
BATH_BTGOG wrote:The NZRFU is actually one of the few unions trying to repeal the rule that prevents players representing multiple countries.

A bit rich considering most All Blacks have roots in the Pacific Islands teams

Actually most PI teams have roots in New Zealand. But thanks for popping in and spinning the oldest myth of 606.

Its no worse than your constant, blatant and obsessive compulsion to belittle anything associated with English rugby, your favourite being the myth that the team is made up almost entirely of poached SH players (which it isn't).

How are you still posting on 606? All you do is write articles designed to antagonise. I've reported you to the Mods, but seemingly, even though a large majority seem to agree with me, they turn a blind eye. Couldn't possibly be because there is a Kiwi contingent to them could it Doh

by Guest Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:00 pm

If you have any issues with the Admin/Mod team or believe there is any sort of favouritism occuring Great White, may I suggest you PM any of us with regards to this matter so it can be resolved.

by Great White Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:01 pm

That isn't my issue, my/our issue is how GG is still on here posting his hate.

by TheGreyGhost Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:08 pm

Someone needs a Hug

by Guest Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:10 pm

Instead of focusing on The GG's "hate" issue, as you phrase it, why not concentrate on adding to the debate on this thread e.g the intorduction of a Fiji team to S15?

by Great White Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:15 pm

Yeah, righto. I think i'll begin posting equally controversial stuff regarding the NZ team and see how long i last. Add to the debate? he's just taking the urine, and you're letting him. It would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous.

by TheGreyGhost Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:16 pm

Yes I agree, a PI side in the super rugby would add another dimension to it, I have to agree.

Now that the conference system is up and running, we could even have a pacific islands conference, which would cut out the excessive travel obligations and cost on all parties, with direct ascendency into a finals play off spot. Perhaps the existing pacific nations cup could even serve as the qualification process.

by The Lord Baron Edwood Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:23 pm

Isn't it the IRB that determines the eligibility rules? It's most certainly not the RFU, they're just playing the rules better than most because living and playing rugby in England has tremendous appeal it seems.

by Guest Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:26 pm

The GG - honestly Rolling Eyes

I won't intervene in the future then and will just let your thread descend into a fight, which will probably only have negative implications involved. Ah well.

The Lord - yeah that's what I thought. I do think that it is a rule that needs looking at though, and it's been debated for a long while now, but it definitely isn;t just the RFU that are perhaps playing the system, as it were, despite what the title of this article might imply.

by TheGreyGhost Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:31 pm

What did I do? I thought your moderation was entirely appropriate and that you did a Great job of calming down Great White, who seems to have unfortunately got the wrong end of the stick, that I was having a go at poor old England.

by The Lord Baron Edwood Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:44 pm

I think the residency rule should be amended to 5 years, not 3 and also a new stipulation that players cannot have represented another country at ANY other sport (especially rugby league!)

by TheGreyGhost Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:48 pm

Perhaps players shouldn't be able to play for and against a country. This would free up things a great deal, but prevent the farcical situation in the case of Flutey playing for and against the B&I Lions.

If you knew that Hape, Flutey and co. couldn't play against New Zealand for instance (calm down GW, it's just hypothetical), would you pick them as part of a squad to play other countries?

That way, guys might switch nationalities once or twice, but would eventually back themselves into a hole.

by chewed_mintie Wed 17 Aug 2011, 2:50 pm

Ignoring all the mudslinging here, a thought crossed my mind about this. Suppose a tier 2 team receives say, 8 players who for whatever reason didn't cut it with (say) NZ. This team, with these blokes on board, suddenly become better hqn Italy, Argentina and Scotland. Does this then make them Tier 1? What defines tier 1 or 2 and so on?

On the whole, this is something I would like to see happen. It can only benefit the island countries and others such as Romania and Georgia who seem to lose players to France, albeit not on the same scale thus strengthening intl rugby. Just dont want to see a system which rivals intl RL in the shambolic stakes

by greenandpleasantland Wed 17 Aug 2011, 3:03 pm

I do agree that players should be allowed to switch down to a tier two nation, e.g. Manu Tuilagi being allowed to represent Samoa in the future. Please note that NZ were pushing to allow this which would have allowed Schwalger to play for Fiji (i think) and were supported by England.

by TrailApe Wed 17 Aug 2011, 3:08 pm

It’s funny how people can read an article and pick up on different things.

I ignored the anti-English RFU statement (after all it’s just Chris Rattue appealing to his target audience) but picked up on this:

"We were sitting around the Herald office this week, mulling over the extraordinary number of All Blacks in recent times. Many of them, quite frankly, were stop-gap measures of even dubious Super 15 quality and never long-term test prospects.

When this experimentation robs the Pacific Island countries of players who would not only strengthen their World Cup campaigns, but also make the tournament a far more thrilling venture, then you have to cry foul."

So in effect, what he’s alluding to here is that the NZRU is making sure that fringe players are ‘branded’ as ABs, then cast aside almost immediately, thus ensuring they can’t play for the teams that they could have been eligible for.

Of course I don’t believe that’s the case, it’s just another way to sell column inches in a paper.

by TheGreyGhost Wed 17 Aug 2011, 3:12 pm

Funny, in the example cited of Schwalger, they also point out he came to NZ when he was 4. Not sure there's any "rebranding" going on if a guy who's lived in NZ all his adult life, and most of his child hood is picked for the ABs.

by GunsGerms Wed 17 Aug 2011, 4:26 pm

I reckon New Zealand paved the way for shameless poaching of foreigners. Even if their whole team are now New Zealand born I'd say they have been more guilty than any other team in the history of rugby. Even their first captain wasn't born in NZ. If you look at their first WC winning team, they had John Gallagher an Englishman at 15. Also although born in NZ Michael Jones had previously represented Samoa which is equally ridiculous.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed 17 Aug 2011, 4:44 pm

leinsterbaby wrote:I reckon New Zealand paved the way for shameless poaching of foreigners. Even if their whole team are now New Zealand born I'd say they have been more guilty than any other team in the history of rugby. Even their first captain wasn't born in NZ. If you look at their first WC winning team, they had John Gallagher an Englishman at 15. Also although born in NZ Michael Jones had previously represented Samoa which is equally ridiculous.

And Frank Bunce played for Samoa in the 1991 RWC despite not having any links to Samoa whatsoever (he's of Nuiean ancestry) - he thought it'd be a fun trip when he was invited.

Things were different in the amateur era, you generally picked the best team you could from people who lived inside their borders. Hence why one of New Zealand's greatest batsmen (Martin Donnelly) picked up a cap at centre for England vs Ireland in the '50s. (GG, you missed a trick there, I don't think you've ever mentioned that one Wink

). Des Connor played for Australia vs NZ, and for NZ vs Australia (after captaining the Wallabies) - he then went on to coach Australia (and invent the short line-out). And of course there was Antrim born Dave Gallaher, captain of the 1905 Originals.

NZ is guilty of a couple of definite poaches over the years - Joeli Vidiri is probably the worst. But at least we've always selected within the rules as they stood at the time.

Something like 1 in every 4 or 5 New Zealand males of rugby-playing age is of Polynesian descent. Funnily enough some of them wind up playing for the All Blacks.

by robbo277 Wed 17 Aug 2011, 4:48 pm

The trouble is though that due to strict quotas on non-NZ players playing for NZ Super Rugby franchises, by becoming a Super Rugby player Schwalger effectively tied himself into the All Blacks. Had he chosen Fiji, he would no longer have been eligible to play for NZ, could have fallen foul of quotas and might not have been able to find a Super Rugby contract in New Zealand, his home since he was 4, forcing him to either drop down to ITM level or moving abroad.

I'd strengthen the tie-ins, so if you represent a side at Under-20s level or for any senior representative side (including 7s), you are tied into that side.

I would also bring in declarations. As soon as you sign your first professional contract (or on your 18th birthday, if you sign your first contract before that date), you have to declare to your union all the nations you are eligible for. So Schwalger could say NZ and Fiji while Waldrom would have only been eligible for NZ (not having known at the time about his granny). Someone like Botha who came over to England at an amateur level could have then (on signing a pro-contract) declared himself for South Africa or "qualifying" for England, but would have had to pick one or the other at that stage.

I feel this allows for true dual-nationality players to delay their decision as to such a time as they wish to make them, but stops top level professional players transferring across. It also allows someone to relocate later in life, find themselves as a rugby player and progress with the country that helped them make it.

Finally I would allow step-downs, so players who has been tied into a tier 1 nations (6 Nations + 4 Nations) can drop down to tier 2 nations they already qualify and have declared themselves for after a stand-down period (maybe the length of time determined by the number of caps they won). For example, if they have no full international caps, the stand-down is 1 year. If they have 1-10 full international caps, the stand-down is 2 years and if they have 11+ full international caps then the stand down is 3 years.

This would allow dual-nationality players like Schwalger (who would have declared himself NZ and Fiji on turning 18) to drop down, but it wouldn't allow a tier 2 country with money to start buying in talent for their national team.

I wouldn't look too quickly at scrapping the grandparent rule or changing the residency qualification period, as I think most players who a lot of people think shouldn't be playing for x, y or z national team would be precluded from doing so by the rules I have suggested bringing in.

by screamingaddabs Wed 17 Aug 2011, 5:11 pm

Grand parents rule should be scrapped in all honesty. If you need the fact you're granddad was born somewhere to qualify I'm not sure you really should.

This discussion has been had about 99999999999 times on old 606 and on here. I've always said we should increase residency to around 7 years or so, remove the grand parents qualification and leave it at that. Got a Norwegian mum? Your qualified for Norway. Moved to Kenya when you were 11 and you're now 18? Play for Kenya. Move to a different country because you couldn't make it at home when you were 23? You're not eligible until you're 30.

The only change to the above that I can see the point of is *maybe* less years to qualify on residency if you moved before 16 or 18.

I think the Fiji situation would be easily solved with a Pacific Islanders 15 or individual ones competing in the Super However Many it Ends Up.

by Irish Londoner Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:35 pm

To slightly turn this one around, in the opinion of the Kiwis here, how many ZN born or migrant Pacific Islanders would chose to play for their ancestral nation rather than the AB's if either that nation became a fully fledged Tier 1 side - i.e. able to compete as the "fourth side" in an expanded tri-nations, or alternatively as a "PI Lions" team made up of the best from all the PIs.

Would they be more likely to choose their home country or their ancestral one?

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:54 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:To slightly turn this one around, in the opinion of the Kiwis here, how many ZN born or migrant Pacific Islanders would chose to play for their ancestral nation rather than the AB's if either that nation became a fully fledged Tier 1 side - i.e. able to compete as the "fourth side" in an expanded tri-nations, or alternatively as a "PI Lions" team made up of the best from all the PIs.

Would they be more likely to choose their home country or their ancestral one?

Honestly, I don't know for sure. The ties with home cut pretty deep in the PI community -big connections across extended families. It would very much come down to individual cases

by Gunner Thu 18 Aug 2011, 5:36 am

Irish Londoner wrote:To slightly turn this one around, in the opinion of the Kiwis here, how many ZN born or migrant Pacific Islanders would chose to play for their ancestral nation rather than the AB's if either that nation became a fully fledged Tier 1 side - i.e. able to compete as the "fourth side" in an expanded tri-nations, or alternatively as a "PI Lions" team made up of the best from all the PIs.

Would they be more likely to choose their home country or their ancestral one?

Good question.
I would still think the vast majority would chose the ABs.
Purely for the fact that these kids have been brought through the NZ education system.
Therefore their age grade rugby would be funnelled into making NZ teams (not Island teams)
The Island teams would have to recruit from their own schools.
Possibly a lot of posters in the NH dont realise the strength and tradition that rugby has
in NZ secondary schools.
Many school rivalries pre date provincial ones and games can be extremely intense
and passionate occasions.
Having taught and coached secondary school rugby in NZ it never failed to amaze me
how thoroughly professional these young guys were. They saw success in rugby as a stepping
stone to a pro career.

by fa0019 Thu 18 Aug 2011, 6:29 am

So who actually have they taken from the PI?

Hape.... NZ league convert settled in UK and then changed to union.
Flutey... discarded by NZ, moved to UK.

Tuilagi... moved to UK as a child... totally his choice in whom he would represent.

Remind me how did Svivatu come to NZ... oh yes on a rugby scholarship when he was 17.
It has been well documented that NZ schools offers rugby scholars to some of the brightests prospects in the PI... stripping them of potential test players.
Not a lot of players have made the grade up to AB test level I grant you but it certainly drains the pool i.e. Svivatu.

A bit of pot calling kettle black really.

Everyone does it

SA - Mujati, Beast, Chavanga
Aus - Pocock, Vickerman, Noriega

etc etc etc.

by nganboy Thu 18 Aug 2011, 7:54 am

BATH_BTGOG wrote:The NZRFU is actually one of the few unions trying to repeal the rule that prevents players representing multiple countries.

A bit rich considering most All Blacks have roots in the Pacific Islands teams

I think might be more accurately written that most All Blacks are non Maori and therefore have foreign roots, predominately European and Pacific Island.

by TheGreyGhost Thu 18 Aug 2011, 10:31 am

C'mon nganboy, Maori have foreign roots too!

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu 18 Aug 2011, 10:52 am

TheGreyGhost wrote:C'mon nganboy, Maori have foreign roots too!

Not that there's anything wrong with foreign roots eh GG Wink

(Actually that pun's so bad I'll throw a tomato at myself tomato

)

by welshjohn369 Thu 18 Aug 2011, 10:56 am

Great White wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:
BATH_BTGOG wrote:The NZRFU is actually one of the few unions trying to repeal the rule that prevents players representing multiple countries.

A bit rich considering most All Blacks have roots in the Pacific Islands teams

Actually most PI teams have roots in New Zealand. But thanks for popping in and spinning the oldest myth of 606.

Its no worse than your constant, blatant and obsessive compulsion to belittle anything associated with English rugby, your favourite being the myth that the team is made up almost entirely of poached SH players (which it isn't).

How are you still posting on 606? All you do is write articles designed to antagonise. I've reported you to the Mods, but seemingly, even though a large majority seem to agree with me, they turn a blind eye. Couldn't possibly be because there is a Kiwi contingent to them could it

Totally agree, more censorship and posts pulled which are hardly offensive. The place is becoming very sad.

by welshjohn369 Thu 18 Aug 2011, 10:56 am

Kiwireddevil wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:C'mon nganboy, Maori have foreign roots too!

Not that there's anything wrong with foreign roots eh GG

(Actually that pun's so bad I'll throw a tomato at myself )

I've rooted a few Maori in my time too. Seems like fair comment to me:)

by TheGreyGhost Thu 18 Aug 2011, 11:16 am

by blackcanelion Thu 18 Aug 2011, 12:22 pm

For those of you who aren't aware Rattue is NZ's version of Stephen Jones. I'd like to see tighter eligability rules. I understand both Football and Basketball have tighter regs. I like the idea that you have to have a stronmger connection (i.e. grandparents clause gone, and if you you don't qualifiy for a passport by the time you are 16 you have no show). I think that would eliminate most crossovers. I like the idea that you should declare for a country, but that you could change at a lter date if both countries agreed. Anyway I'm sure we'll all repost on this isue in 6 months time. Whistle

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 18 Aug 2011, 3:25 pm

OK who should Nicky Little be playing for?

by nathan Thu 18 Aug 2011, 5:52 pm

welshjohn369 wrote:
Great White wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:
BATH_BTGOG wrote:The NZRFU is actually one of the few unions trying to repeal the rule that prevents players representing multiple countries.

A bit rich considering most All Blacks have roots in the Pacific Islands teams

Actually most PI teams have roots in New Zealand. But thanks for popping in and spinning the oldest myth of 606.

Its no worse than your constant, blatant and obsessive compulsion to belittle anything associated with English rugby, your favourite being the myth that the team is made up almost entirely of poached SH players (which it isn't).

How are you still posting on 606? All you do is write articles designed to antagonise. I've reported you to the Mods, but seemingly, even though a large majority seem to agree with me, they turn a blind eye. Couldn't possibly be because there is a Kiwi contingent to them could it

Totally agree, more censorship and posts pulled which are hardly offensive. The place is becoming very sad.

completely agree, mods need to sort this out else you'll find a lot of people will leave.

by Shifty Thu 18 Aug 2011, 6:28 pm

The Nz RFU have for years been trying to get the rules changes, apparently all to aid the Island teams, though frankly once those changes have been made, they would start poaching the better Island players again when this failed in the IRB council the Nz RFU basically accused the Northern hemisphere nations of being unfair and trying to keep the Island teams weak. Personalyl I think thats a load of crap. The example they gave was Jerry Collins was past it as a new zealand player but should be allowed to play for Samoa... but why the hell should he?
It's not as if England would of selected Ieuan Evans or Robert Howley to play for them after they'd left Wales, and were not being picked for the Welsh team.

Once the Irb agreed to those changes how long before Nz want the rules changed again so Islanders could play for New Zealand after being capped? luring them with Super 15 contract offers and getting them to change countries on residency

The amound of chopping and changing going on with countries all through the 90's was a disgrace.

Noriega was a world class argentina prop until Australia gave him a professional contract, then he went to play for them.

4-6 players from the 1991 Samoa world cup team jumped to the All Blacks.

Shane Howarth played for New Zealand then Wales.

To be honest it got very silly, it should be blatantly obvious what country you should play for and you shouldnt be able to swap around when it's conveniant.

by aucklandlaurie Thu 18 Aug 2011, 8:50 pm

Alan
the reality is that the non- maori Polynesian plyers have a lot to offer International Rugby and also tournaments like the World cup, and more and more are starting to see this.
these polynesian countries do deserve special consideration,it is wrong that these countries who are responsible for such brilliant talentd players cant go back at some time and play for thier country of their ancestry, or do some countries feel threatened if these Island Nations rise into single digits on the IRB rankings?
The Maori are different in that they can always play for New Zealand (which is in the single digits) and New Zealand maori.....

by MBTGOG Thu 18 Aug 2011, 9:06 pm

auckland,

They haven't supplied those players. If they've been born and brought up in New Zealand then New Zealand produced them. If your argument is that the Pacific Islands produced them, then you can say that a lot of the players come from European back ground so produced them.

People make a choice of what national senior side they choose and should stick with that.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 18 Aug 2011, 9:36 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: Alan
the reality is that the non- maori Polynesian plyers have a lot to offer International Rugby and also tournaments like the World cup, and more and more are starting to see this.
these polynesian countries do deserve special consideration,it is wrong that these countries who are responsible for such brilliant talentd players cant go back at some time and play for thier country of their ancestry, or do some countries feel threatened if these Island Nations rise into single digits on the IRB rankings?
The Maori are different in that they can always play for New Zealand (which is in the single digits) and New Zealand maori.....

The PIslands be a lot worse off if the qualification rules were tight, they wouldnt be able to select as many New Zealanders.
They would also be worse off if you allowed players to switch allegiances. The best players would be picked up by New Zealand and the Europeans who could offer more money and better prospects, and in return they would get faded ex stars who have been pensioned off or rejectd buy the rich nations.
The current rules if anything help protect the smaller less wealthy Unions. Its ridiculous and offensive to say that they are set up to protect the better established Unions, its simply not true. They wouldnt bother investing so much money in devleoping rugby and supporting unions in these countres if thy were activley trying to hold them back.

If theres a perceived problem with som players choosing to play for certain countres and bending the intention of the rules then this really comes down to the individuals and their prsonal motivation.
On one hand you have the Evans brothers citeing a grandfather who played for Scotland as a reason for walking out on the England age group system, on the other hand you have cases like Waldrom where a player uses a grandparent they didnt know about to reignite a chance they though theyd lost because they were too fat...the sniff of a enough cash to buy a waffle house possibly also motivating factor.
However the rules are set there will be grey cases. Like a lot of on the field issues it really comes down to individuals to judge the integrity of the choices they make and the look at the spirit of the rules and what they are doing. If the players dont gve a toss who they turn out for then really its a bit odd for the fans to get prissy over it.

The other issue that Rattaoullie covers though is PIsland players coming over to play for NH and 3N clubs. And thats where the real problem for them perhaps lays. If they could get together funding to have permanent national sides which playeed as franchises in the S14 that would lessen the number who are qualfying for NZ and Euros through residency and give them the squad tme together they dsperatly need to jump a level. Realistcaly however it wont happen. The case for it isnt strengthend by the recent fraud problems either, nor the ludicrous amounts of travel already undertaken by the average springbok which cannot be healthy for players.
Lets se about getting Argentina and Italy up and running as proper sustainable unions at club and national level, then maybe the IRB can start helping get a real professional club scene for the PIslands. Till then the NH money can keep subsidising them and training their players.

by aucklandlaurie Fri 19 Aug 2011, 12:05 am

MBTGOG

If you ever get the chance to come to Auckland, go to a club rugby game in either the Auckland North Harbour or counties Manukau unions and you will see the full impact as to how involved the Polynesians are entrenched in Auckland rugby already, at all levels,Players,coaches,club admiistrators,referees.etc. these people have a genuine concern for rugby in there ancestrol islands.
These players most definitely should be allowed to play for two countries.
Perhaps you may not realise it but Auckland is the largest Polynesian city in the World...

by Sponsored content