Ploughing with another man's cattle.

Over the past week I have read an alarming number of threads that has to do with players that have qualified or will soon qualify for nations they have been playing in for the last few years. For me this is an issue that I want to clear the air with and explain why it is such an issue for me.

Just in the last week I have heard the names mentioned of Hanno Dirksen, Andries Pretorius, Michael Paterson, Tim Visser, George Earl (yes he hasn’t even signed his contract yet and there are already rumours the carrot for going to Scotland is to represent them), Richard Strauss, Robbie Diack and Jared Payne.

Then of course there are players such as Brad Barrit and Mouritz Botha who represented England over the last year.

The scary thing is that it is no longer only applicable to england being the culprit, it seems all the home nations have now joined in this “project” frenzy to see which “New Country Qualified” players are good enough to join their international squads. Although it hasn’t become a common feature yet, from what I have read a good number of these players mentioned stand realistic chances to represent their “qualified” country.

We all understand that privately owned clubs search the globe for quality professional players that can provide instant success and gratification for their supporters and on the whole, I have no issue at all with a player that makes money by way of the best financially rewarding contract. It is what we all do, if company X is prepared to pay you a higher wage, of course you will consider it.

What I do have a problem with is the plethora of players who these days change allegiance on a whim and a cheque.

I heard the other day Kobus Wiese mentioning that SA currently has 235 players playing professional rugby outside of South Africa, I don’t know how accurate the figure is, but either way it is a significant number of players.

In France alone there are over 50 players, but the biggest concern for me there is the number of relatively young players in France. The question is how many of them will follow the route of French prop Pieter de Villiers who also left at a young age only to represent France later on.

Now for some this may be a non-issue and your reasoning would be, “hey if we can pay them better then why not?”

True, if your clubs can pay them higher wages then I see no issue with that. But it seems that there is now a collective effort to attract players from SA (and other countries) to come play for a specific club and then the little carrot of over three years you could represent our national team if you are good enough.

For me there should be a clear distinction of when you should be able to represent a new country and when there should be proper residency qualifications put in place.

If you leave for another country whilst still a minor and dependent on your parents for food, clothing, shelter etc. you literally have no choice but to go.

If you are no longer financially dependent then it is simple. You leave and sign contracts out of your own free will, so a minimum of 7 years residency should be completed before you represent another country.

Why do I say that, because there is a major difference in plying a professional trade in another country and representing another country on the world stage of sport.

The one is a job and the other is a privilege and to just have the ability to leave the country where you learnt to play the game and now someone else reaps the rewards is simply just plain wrong.

I cannot believe that a patriotic supporter can be proud of a system that is circumvented by such a feeble residency law as parents, grandparents or 3 year residency rule.

Is the whole idea of rugby not to enter the battlefield with home grown talent?

There is a saying in Afrikaans “jy ploeg met n’ ander man se kalwers”

Loosely translated it means “you are plowing with another man’s cattle”

Could be worse mate - the expression could be you are playing with another man´s cattle.

It seems that the poaching stories in the past targeted at the ABs and their plundering of the South Pacific have dried up.

We all live in a global village. Nobody bats an eye when Japan turn out Caucasian players. But stricter residency requirements do appear to be needed.

5 years residency for me, otherwise agree with everything that you've written, biltong

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Could be worse mate - the expression could be you are playing with another man´s cattle.

It seems that the poaching stories in the past targeted at the ABs and their plundering of the South Pacific have dried up.

We all live in a global village. Nobody bats an eye when Japan turn out Caucasian players. But stricter residency requirements do appear to be needed.

Agree with you completely Bill. 100% and have always supported stronger qualification rules and have never been happy with the way they have previously been exploited.

There should be an exception for discussion though...!

The rules should be different for lower ranked nations.

Reason being that a second division north english born player who now resides in Warsaw for work could be a massive benefit to the Polish and help raise their game, spread the word of rugby to countries less enlightened and make international rugby throughout the world all the better for it.

Otherwise no exceptions.

I can understand your frustrations but I think you are exaggerating Biltong. A lot actually.

SA are not being plundered for their talent. A handful of individual players, mainly those surplus to requirements, are choosing of their own free will to ply their trade overseas. Some will represent another country and most won't.

Rodders, I can't see where I am exaggerating.

Is anything I said wrong?

Isn't it "ploughing" unless you're North American

Well you've mention 8 names above, at least 2 of which I am certain will not be representing another country, Payne and Diack.

I don't see how this amounts to a "frenzy"?

RubyGuby wrote:Isn't it "ploughing" unless you're North American

Probably

Trouble is what is the definition of a lower ranked team. If Scotland is outside the top ten do they qualify as a lower ranked team?

Nobody has a problem I think with Roumania or Japan or Namibia filling their ranks with foreigners. But topping up your tier one test team does seem to rankle some and fair enough.

rodders wrote:Well you've mention 8 names above, at least 2 of which I am certain will not be representing another country, Payne and Diack.

I don't see how this amounts to a "frenzy"?

I did say have a chance, I didn't say guaranteed , and 75% ain't a bad strike rate, is it?

No but it still isn't a Frenzy.

Ireland are ending the project thing after next season meaning all NIEs will be viewed the same i.e. no additional players who may become IQ.

I don't like to see players manipulate the resisdancy rule but blame the players not the Union. No one is forcing anyone to play against their will.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Trouble is what is the definition of a lower ranked team. If Scotland is outside the top ten do they qualify as a lower ranked team?

Nobody has a problem I think with Roumania or Japan or Namibia filling their ranks with foreigners. But topping up your tier one test team does seem to rankle some and fair enough.

I am not saying I have an easy way to implement a fair and just Law. But you obviously understand the sentiments.

Any ideas yourself?

I think its harsh to include Dirksen on that list.

Dirksen lived in 3 countries at his tender age and is another 2 years away for qualifying for Wales which would put him here (and with the ospreys from their academy upwards) for 5 years.

Otherwise, I agree.

Theres always going to be a grey area with younger players, however, if someones moving after establishing themselves in one country, after coming through with that countrys union, its a bit of a slap in the face to move elsewhere for better money and perhaps an esier ride into an international team. Its these types of player who make the qualification rules a joke and such an issue.

Good post Biltong. I am inclined to go for a 5 year or more qualification rule.

As for the Scots, we'll no doubt follow the Irish lead and end the 'project' project after a few years.

Nearly half the players in Top14 are non-qualified for France,in a Professional era
players follow the money.Once it was the case of ageing players past there best earning a pension so to speak.SA have themselves to blame to some extent once Top players could play abroad and still be selected.There players have there cake and eat it too,OZ and NZ at least have`nt gone that way yet.

Barritt didn't qualify on residency. So I'm guessing you mean to remove qualification by parents as well, right? Stevens moved at 18 and also had English parent. Botha is the only South Africa who qualifies by residency and he moved to English without any pro-experience. Played for a amateur team out here while working and was eventually selected and developed by Sarries.

I don't see anything wrong with adding a couple of years onto the residency period. Also scrapping grandparent rule would be good (possibly have it so you need 2 grandparents if we want to keep if for the PI, etc). but in terms of residency qualifed players for England recently we've had, Botha here for around 7 years before getting capped, Hape here for around 7 years before getting capped (although he had a break therefore the 3 years was recent), Flutey here for bang on 3 years then off to France and back again, Vainikolo here for about 7 years before being capped. Other countries...can't think of many. Parker and Cobain from ages ago? (Although I remember someone claimed Cobain was born and raised in Wales but I think that was cowpat).

I do think people are moving more now and at an earlier age so an increase would be about right.

I've been sat in the park reading and eating kruger biltong biltongbek, can we only enjoy some of your exports and not others ?

In all seriousness though, do you really want a player who would 'sell' his allegience so readily to play for the Boks ?

Having lived in England for six years I have never felt so Welsh or a stronger tie to my homeland. I think moving abroad as it were makes you more patriotic. However, this may not be the same for everyone. I don't think its fair to make blanket statements about everyone. Dirkson for example certainly looks South African but he developed in Wales.

munkian, the names aren't important, I got that from the various threads, it is the principal that is important to me.

biltongbek wrote:munkian, the names aren't important, I got that from the various threads, it is the principal that is important to me.

Fair enough. Can you recommend so good Biltong ? Maybe I can get it online, beats a milkshake after the gym

Well the problem in London is that 45% of the poulation is South African, 20% Australian, 10% NZ, 15% Sco/Ire/Wal and 9.999999% 'other'. For the London clubs that only actually leaves 6 English males aged between 18 and 35 to choose from so no wonder they have had to plunder. The effect of this is bound to filter through to the national team.

I'd say that if a player becomes a citizen of his host country and intends to settle, raise his family and live there beyond his playing days then that is proof enough that he is committed to the nation and he should be allowed represent them. It is a global world after all, and migration is a fact of life.

But I do think the current residency rules aren't enough.

maybe we should just be cattle-stamped at birth by the doctor who births us and labels us by spinning a globe and randomly picking a country with his eyes closed.

that would settle it, no?

Comfort wrote:maybe we should just be cattle-stamped at birth by the doctor who births us and labels us by spinning a globe and randomly picking a country with his eyes closed.

that would settle it, no?

Scotland would still win nothing

Residency qualification should be tightened now to include only those that moved to countries in their childhood.

The grandparents ruling should be scrapped aswell.


I am all for developing rugby in other countries and the initiative next month of sending a coach from each premiership club to NY to develop the game in the the US follows up the successful similar programme in March in Brazil is the way to go.

Biltong, yes quite a few leave RSA to take their careers elsewhere, cricket being another example as a source for 'England' qualified players.
Where it is a career and lifestyle move, it makes it hard / impossible to train with your original national side. Wales, NZ, England team managements have variously struggled to drawn a line on the players oveseas issue. So returning to SA players taking their professional careers to distant lands. It must make it v difficult to train and get into the SA side from afar, so after a while players may go native and if selected, may change 'sides' to their new adopted nation, as who would turn down a shirt opportunity ? National coaches have become international in plying their wares (Scotland, Wales, Italy) and what happens when they face their original nation ? 'Aslong as' suggests a 5 years residency rule for players, which sounds fair enough as a poaching antidote. I agree with your sentiments that professionalism should be very different from patriotism, but I think the rugby professional era has sadly been fudging away at that line for some while. Old fashioned amateur pride in 'the' jersey has been eroded along the way.
So anyway, Munkian,
pl can we have Cuthbert back ?
best regards,

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Residency qualification should be tightened now to include only those that moved to countries in their childhood.

That means you would deny someone like Andy Ward who moved to Ireland aged 24, played his first International aged 28 and is still here aged 41, and showing no signs of leaving, from playing for his adopted country.

That can't be right.
By all means tighten up the rules but dont shut out the genuine immigrant like him

geoff998rugby wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Residency qualification should be tightened now to include only those that moved to countries in their childhood.

That means you would deny someone like Andy Ward who moved to Ireland aged 24, played his first International aged 28 and is still here aged 41, and showing no signs of leaving, from playing for his adopted country.

That can't be right.
By all means tighten up the rules but dont shut out the genuine immigrant like him

+1

SA have be ploughing with plenty of Zimbabwian cows.

Gary Teichmann, Brian Mujati, Tendai Mtawarira, Bobby Skinstad, Tonderai Chavanga and Kennedy Tsimba etc.

leinsterbaby wrote:SA have be ploughing with plenty of Zimbabwian cows.

Gary Teichmann, Brian Mujati, Tendai Mtawarira, Bobby Skinstad, Tonderai Chavanga and Kennedy Tsimba etc.

its Zimbabwean not the horrendous spelling you're coming out with . Its only Mtawarira currently playing from Zim .

I'm sure Mujati will be capped again and Tendai Mtawarira wont be the last Zambibweon to play for SA. Point I'm making is most teams have a few project players.

...Adrian Garvey too.

leinsterbaby wrote:I'm sure Mujati will be capped again and Tendai Mtawarira wont be the last Zambibweon to play for SA. Point I'm making is most teams have a few project players.

its zimbabwean .and i agree with my compatriot Biltong , this business of 3 years and i'm a british/irish player needs to be changed .and theres nothng more detrimental to the home nations sucess than this

Completely agree with you Biltong, you make some excellent points

Yeah and it's Zimbabwe not "Zim". SA have done the exact same things in the past. John Robbie played for Ireland before being capped by SA. Adrian Garvey played for Zimbabwe before being capped by SA. What's the difference?

I agree that the rule should be changed but lets not pretend practically all teams aren't guilty of poaching in the past. It's not a British phenomenon.

leinsterbaby wrote:Yeah and it's Zimbabwe not "Zim". SA have done the exact same things in the past. John Robbie played for Ireland before being capped by SA. Adrian Garvey played for Zimbabwe before being capped by SA. What's the difference?

I agree that the rule should be changed but lets not pretend practically all teams aren't guilty of poaching in the past. It's not a British phenomenon.

Theres a difference to getting one or two Zimbos every 5 years and getting a conveyor belt of kiwis/saffas /PIslanders qualifying for your country every year

Conveyor belt? Even almighty poachers England have only have had about 4 residency qualified players in the last 6+ years. They have on average about 9 caps each and only Botha will get any more. The closest Wales have got to residency qualified players have been English. Ireland haven't had any in ages and Scotland are getting close to a Dutchman. Pretty crap conveyor belt.

Or do you mean just qualifying? Perhaps we should limit South Africans to a 2 year contract and kick them out before they're here for 3 years.

There isnt a conveyor belt of foreigners qualifying for Ireland every year anyway. Strauss is the only project player that will probably play for us that I can think of. Even if he does he will be sub at best. Though he has been seen in Ireland training gear already.

leinsterbaby wrote:SA have be ploughing with plenty of Zimbabwian cows.

Gary Teichmann, Brian Mujati, Tendai Mtawarira, Bobby Skinstad, Tonderai Chavanga and Kennedy Tsimba etc.

Leinster that is correct, however you don't know the half of it. Without South Africa Namibian and Zimbabwean rugby won't flourish at all. We have a plethora of rugby players from Zimbabwe and Namibia playing rugby here as their countries have no sustainable system for development after school.

Bolth these countries also ge invited to our Craven week Schools tournament to help develop and sustain rugby in these two countries. Both have formed part of our Currie cup in earlier years and these days only Namibia remian part of our Vodacom Cup for reasons unclear.

There are millions of Zimbabweans who come here legally and illegally to make a living. Many of their people have little choice to leave their country due to reasons obvious.

So if hundreds of rugby players come here becuase they have nowhere to go after school so try to develop and forge a career in Rugby here then that is the scant reward we get for being a major contributor to rugby in their countries.

That cannot be said for any South African that leaves our shores.

So when these guys do get to play for SA, it is thanks to our system.

A little different don't you think?

By the same token is it not possible that some South Africans choose to leave SA for a better quality of life else where?

Yes, but you are missing the point of the article.

I have no issue with players plying their trade elsewhere, I have an issue with players that are developed by one country and another benefits at internationals level.

Would Strauss ever have got SA caps? My understanding was he was quite far down the pecking order at the Cheetahs never mind the SA team selectors horizons.

I actually think that the best part of his development has been at Leinster. This is probably true of Visser too.

Well we had John Smit, Bismarck du Plessis, Chiliboy, Adriaan Strauss, Tiaan Liebenberg with Schalk Brits who have already left,a fe up and comers and him, so no I doubt he would have made the Springbok side.

He played 50+ matches before he left the Cheetahs, so if you reckon most of his devlopment took place at Leinster, I suppose I can't argue, but highly doubt it.

Besides, every player continues to develop and get stronger as the nature of professional rugby demands it.

The point is twofold though. I am happy he is making a living at Leinster, won't be if he plays for Ireland.

Bullsbok wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:Yeah and it's Zimbabwe not "Zim". SA have done the exact same things in the past. John Robbie played for Ireland before being capped by SA. Adrian Garvey played for Zimbabwe before being capped by SA. What's the difference?

I agree that the rule should be changed but lets not pretend practically all teams aren't guilty of poaching in the past. It's not a British phenomenon.

Theres a difference to getting one or two Zimbos every 5 years and getting a conveyor belt of kiwis/saffas /PIslanders qualifying for your country every year

Whats with the conveyor belt - no one has qualified, and played, for Ireland through residency in a decade

Biltong,

Ask any major nations fan and they ALL say it needs to be changed. At least 5 or even 7 years +

Buts its not so teams use it.

If you have represented a country at league then you should not be able to chhange representation at union....ala Hape, Henry Paul, Brad Thorn etc...

Moritz Botha i beleive was mostly developed in England as he was playing well down the leagues when he came and working in a factory. Rugby was a secondary thought and he has developed here, and im pretty sure he would have fulfilled a residency period of 7 years before he was selected...as hes been here a while....

But PLEASE dont make out that its only England or the Northern hemipshere teams that do it.....

ALL teams do it...incuding your precious boks.

So lets just hope that the IRB can sort out this farcical situation once and for all.

Nacewa was an average flyhalf from the Blues. He developed into a world class fullback at Leinster. Thorn was obviously a fully developed international lock when he signed.

Strauss was somewhere in between. People have to remember that southern players aren't all superior. And the best European teams have higher standards than the weaker Super 15 ones.

Strauss wasn't deemed up to standard in his first season and got very little game time. It was only through a years hard work from him and injuries and retirements in his position that he got his chance. Luckily for him his explosive speed and handling skills suite Leinsters game perfectly.

Ireland have Best, Cronin and Sherry at hooker. So I don't want to see Strauss play for Ireland, when there's no need. We're not short there. Like I said before, if he obtained Irish citizenship I'd be happier to see him play for Ireland. Because that would be a formal pledge of allegience to a new country.

However Strauss is going to have a battle on his hands with Cronin to start for Leinster, let alone displace Rory Best, who is probably the form hooker of the home nations.

geordie, the reality is it happens, who is guilty does not matter, it is wrong.

South Africa's "exports" have been exponentially growing in the past few years, specifically France.

My precious Springboks have benefitted from one player I can think of who didn't develop in our system and that was John Robbie, he came to SA on a Lions tour, met a lady got married and stayed. I think he only played two matches for the Boks but didn't recieve an international cap for SA.

Other players like Ray Mordt, and a few Leinster have mentioned, benefitted from our development system.

But once again like I have said a few times now, it is wrong.

Fair enough Billtongbek. I think the IRFUs attitude is to explore the project player avenue as a last resort where there are a lack of international class players. My understanding is that because Irish teams compete with European clubs full of high class players from all over the world our provinces may need imports from time to time in certain positions to fill talent voids so they can't continue to compete at the highest level.

If you are going to bring in foreigners then the smart move is to bring in Irish qualified or non capped players that can become IQ under current rules. I honestly don't believe the idea is to harvest foreign players but to have them there as a plan b in exceptional circumstances. I'd imagine Strauss knows this but playing some international matches is better than none. Even though Issac Boss qualifies through his Irish grandmother my guess is he would have much more caps if he grew up in Ireland.

Personally I think that the IRFU have got the balance right. They aren't exploiting the rule but using it as a plan b. God knows we could do with a academy of Georgian props but that hasn't happened and I say just like the case of SA and Zimbabwe we could offer plenty of eastern Europeans a better life in Ireland.

HammerofThunor wrote:Barritt didn't qualify on residency. So I'm guessing you mean to remove qualification by parents as well, right?

It's not even just qualification by parents for Barritt, he's had a British passport and nationality since birth. He would have qualified under any set of rules, unless those with dual nationality aren't allowed to play for anybody.


For me the rules should be based on citizenship (which would require residency in excess of five years even before application in the case of naturalisation for most countries and a certain amount of commitment to that nation). Eligibility through grandparents should definitely be dumped.

And we're all agreeing its wrong.....