France pick three more non French players through qualification rules.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16022_8712873,00.html



With Japan, England and France drawing the worlds talent to their shores for the high wages on offer in club rugby the qualification issues that arise are predictable.

Every team In the world has players born in different countries. But when players move for a wage and repatriate their allegiances to the nation with the greater earning potential I worry about the future of a game that always tried to spread the game and encourage the weaker nations or clubs to improve.

Last year the Fijian coach cited France and French clubs of preventing Fijians from representing their country, now France are selecting Fijians in their squad.

Will the IRB address the qualification laws in Rugby?

Former Racing Métro backs coach Simon Mannix alleged that Fijians at the club were paid to be unavailable for the 2011 World Cup so they could play in the Top 14 instead.

http://www.planetrugby.co.uk/story/0,25883,3887_8228941,00.html

They should get rid of the grandparent rule. Qualification should be restricted where the player or his parents were born.

Also a player should only qualify for another nation if he moved to the other country at childhood.

There has to be a way that prevents a global move of talent from poor countries that produce incredibly gifted players to wealthy countries who's clubs wish to employ such brilliant talents.

In soccer it seems the national pride in representing your nation despite working in another country supercedes rugby.

Maybe the only way to genuinely help less wealthy nations keep players is rather to help make those nations more financially competitive on the international stage...?

It normally takes 5 years of living and working in a country, to receive citzenship. yet rugby players can turn out for the national team after 3 years, and not being citzens of the coutry they are representing.

Football has it as a 5 year rule, and you have to be a citzen of the country before you can represent them. Why Rugby have it at 3 years is the crux to the problem.

Increase it to 5 years and you will have a lot fewer players turning out for other countries.

We also have players who, despite spending a very long time in their adopted country and taking citizenship of that nation, can not represent them because they have already played in another country's U20s.

The issue with Fiji players, was that limited to those based in France? Was the issue that France would not releae them or that Fiji could not afford to pay them enough to cover their release?

Mrs P more details are here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/07/the-breakdown-fiji-england

A growing concern for Fiji, along with Tonga, Samoa, the United States, Canada and Georgia, who are all involved in matches in Europe this month as part of the IRB's policy of providing tier-two nations with meaningful matches inbetween World Cups, is not just that a number of their players are putting club before country but that those who move abroad tend to settle there.

The Fiji coach, Inoke Male, has said that clubs in France and England are "behaving like vultures" in enticing promising young players to leave Fiji and join their academies. Under the three-year residency rule, once they started playing senior rugby they would be eligible to play for their new country.

If we scrap the ancestry rule then that would ruin the Pacific Island teams that rely on New Zealanders with PI ancestry to fill their team. IIRC half of the Samoan squad at the last world cup were New Zealanders

dallym wrote:If we scrap the ancestry rule then that would ruin the Pacific Island teams that rely on New Zealanders with PI ancestry to fill their team. IIRC half of the Samoan squad at the last world cup were New Zealanders

I am against the ancestry rule being scrapped.

Far more has to be done to prevent international rugby representation being a choice of who has the most cash rather than a representation over the country a player is from that invariably less likely to financially benefit the player to the same degree.

We want to see the game encompass plenty of competitive nations and increase the competition we need to see the IRB do more to financially assist emerging poorer nations.

dallym wrote:If we scrap the ancestry rule then that would ruin the Pacific Island teams that rely on New Zealanders with PI ancestry to fill their team. IIRC half of the Samoan squad at the last world cup were New Zealanders

But they wouldn't need any journeymen new zealanders to fill their team if they had access to the best pacific island players who have been poached by the wealthier nations.

Scrumdown wrote:

dallym wrote:If we scrap the ancestry rule then that would ruin the Pacific Island teams that rely on New Zealanders with PI ancestry to fill their team. IIRC half of the Samoan squad at the last world cup were New Zealanders

But they wouldn't need any journeymen new zealanders to fill their team if they had access to the best pacific island players who have been poached by the wealthier nations.

There are a lot fewer Samoans in the NZ squad than New Zealanders in the Samoan squad apart from that the only examples are Manu Tuilagi who chose to represent England because he was brought up through their system. The real problems will arise in 10-20 years when Fijian/ Tongan/ Samoan players' children combine their natural ability with the superior coaching and facilities. We're going to see a lot of Manu Tuilagi type players, the Islands have no ability to stop this or even complain about it.

The PIs come to Europe because they will not get a professional contract in the SH because of the reduced number of sides and the closed shop ethos.

Top down centralised control has created this migrant stream and if they are good enough in their chosen place of residence, then why an earth not. The rest is iust debate on a sensible qualification which should be realistic in order for any test side to invest in a player.

123456789 wrote:
There are a lot fewer Samoans in the NZ squad than New Zealanders in the Samoan squad apart from that the only examples are Manu Tuilagi who chose to represent England because he was brought up through their system. The real problems will arise in 10-20 years when Fijian/ Tongan/ Samoan players' children combine their natural ability with the superior coaching and facilities. We're going to see a lot of Manu Tuilagi type players, the Islands have no ability to stop this or even complain about it.

It is not about numbers personal attack removed

The all blacks currently get first pick of the best new zealand and samoan born players. Pacific island nations are left with those players not good enough for the all blacks.

Another example is Alapati Leiua who was born and raised in samoa but who now plays for the Wellington Hurricanes.

He has not yet confirmed whether he will take up his selection in the samoa squad because he has heard that hansen might select him for the All Blacks.

The only players who end up playing for Samoa are those not deemed good enough for the All Blacks.

Kingshu wrote:It normally takes 5 years of living and working in a country, to receive citzenship. yet rugby players can turn out for the national team after 3 years, and not being citzens of the coutry they are representing.

Football has it as a 5 year rule, and you have to be a citzen of the country before you can represent them. Why Rugby have it at 3 years is the crux to the problem.

Increase it to 5 years and you will have a lot fewer players turning out for other countries.

Agree 100%. Pretty much exactly what I've been saying all along in fairness. If you're good enough and you've been committed enough to stay put at least five years then that for me is a sufficient indicator that you feel a part of that country and are not merely trying to opportunistically scoop a cap or two.

Think the granny rule ought to be binned as well. Either direct parentage, birth or citizenship qualification.

Scrumdown wrote:

123456789 wrote:
There are a lot fewer Samoans in the NZ squad than New Zealanders in the Samoan squad apart from that the only examples are Manu Tuilagi who chose to represent England because he was brought up through their system. The real problems will arise in 10-20 years when Fijian/ Tongan/ Samoan players' children combine their natural ability with the superior coaching and facilities. We're going to see a lot of Manu Tuilagi type players, the Islands have no ability to stop this or even complain about it.

It is not about numbers you cretin!

The all blacks currently get first pick of the best new zealand and samoan born players. Pacific island nations are left with those players not good enough for the all blacks.

Another example is Alapati Leiua who was born and raised in samoa but who now plays for the Wellington Hurricanes.

He has not yet confirmed whether he will take up his selection in the samoa squad because he has heard that hansen might select him for the All Blacks.

The only players who end up playing for Samoa are those not deemed good enough for the All Blacks.

Fair enough, maybe a ruling that if you're country of birth calls you up first you have to prove to the IRB you reasons for not accepting although that would have scuppered Tim Visser

We just need to be a bit wary about binning parentage/grand-parentage rules. Given the itinerant nature of so many jobs in the UK, it is not inconceivable that, due to work commitments, a boy could be born of, say, Scottish parents in London. The family settle well in England so when grandson comes along, if we do away with the ancestry ruling, the grandson would only be eligible for England.
Ok, the UK may be a fairly set of circumstances but it still needs to be borne in mind

InjuredYetAgain wrote:We just need to be a bit wary about binning parentage/grand-parentage rules. Given the itinerant nature of so many jobs in the UK, it is not inconceivable that, due to work commitments, a boy could be born of, say, Scottish parents in London. The family settle well in England so when grandson comes along, if we do away with the ancestry ruling, the grandson would only be eligible for England.
Ok, the UK may be a fairly set of circumstances but it still needs to be borne in mind

And? So a kid born and raised in England to parents born a raised in England should be able to play for somewhere may never even visit until the training camp? Why stop at grandparents? If you think cultural descent can go that far back why not another generation or another?

I mean, I'm interested in family history and traced some of my family tree and that. But I'd never define myself on my grandparents (or even my parents). I think that is the big problem with all this. People see nutter national rugby team representing very different things.

Some think blood is important (meaning cultural rather than actual genetics). Others it's about where you learnt your rugby. Some people think where your parents happened to be when you were born is important.

Unfortunately it's nigh on impossible to set up a fair system because there is no fair system. Certainly not one that is simple enough that we don't have lawyers making a fortune navigating them.

I think most people would accept an increase in residency of 5 years. I think most people would accept a requirement for citizenship. I'd also make it a requirement for two grandparents from the same place. The other changes I would like are completely unworkable, over complicated and probably not what most people want.

Recwatcher wrote:The PIs come to Europe because they will not get a professional contract in the SH because of the reduced number of sides and the closed shop ethos.

Top down centralised control has created this migrant stream and if they are good enough in their chosen place of residence, then why an earth not. The rest is iust debate on a sensible qualification which should be realistic in order for any test side to invest in a player.

But if in some way the IRB could help makethese nations players available to their countries maybe they would proudly represent their origins, thus making teams like Fiji, Tonga and Samoa more competitive.

Which is what the aim should be. More competitive international sides.

The main problem is players not playing for thier country. If you look at the pacific nations cup, barely any European based players turn out for their country.

If Fiji and Samoa could select all their best players all the time they would have a very good team. Samoa proved this in the AIs.

maestegmafia wrote:

Recwatcher wrote:The PIs come to Europe because they will not get a professional contract in the SH because of the reduced number of sides and the closed shop ethos.

Top down centralised control has created this migrant stream and if they are good enough in their chosen place of residence, then why an earth not. The rest is iust debate on a sensible qualification which should be realistic in order for any test side to invest in a player.

But if in some way the IRB could help makethese nations players available to their countries maybe they would proudly represent their origins, thus making teams like Fiji, Tonga and Samoa more competitive.

Which is what the aim should be. More competitive international sides.

NZ offered a solution to that - allowing PI-qualified players who've opted for another country to turn out for them after serving a 5 year stand-down. England was the only other country to vote in favour at the IRB.

The Pacific diaspora has reached massive levels. Samoa has a population of ~180,000. There are ~55,000 Samoan-born New Zealanders and ~90,000 NZ-born of Samoan descent. Add in another 15,000 Samoan born and 40,000 ancestry in Australia and a similar number in the USA and you wind up with well over 200k Samoans living elsewhere.

There's a fair few Polynesians turning up in American football teams too - in 2002 ESPN estimated that a Samoan male in the US was 40 times more likely to earn an NFL contract than a non-Samoan.

I read an opinion piece over the weekend (can't find it know ) that talked about the family links in the Islands. Young men with sporting talent are expected to go out and earn as much money as they possibly can to support parents, grandparents, cousins etc. All too often that means opting for the All Blacks or Wallabies (or England, Wales or France ) with the players doing that knowing that a few international caps leads to lucrative contracts in France or Japan too. And that's on top of natural competitiveness - there's often more cachet in proving you're good enough to play for a top tier team.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
NZ offered a solution to that - allowing PI-qualified players who've opted for another country to turn out for them after serving a 5 year stand-down. England was the only other country to vote in favour at the IRB.

The Pacific diaspora has reached massive levels. Samoa has a population of ~180,000. There are ~55,000 Samoan-born New Zealanders and ~90,000 NZ-born of Samoan descent. Add in another 15,000 Samoan born and 40,000 ancestry in Australia and a similar number in the USA and you wind up with well over 200k Samoans living elsewhere.

There's a fair few Polynesians turning up in American football teams too - in 2002 ESPN estimated that a Samoan male in the US was 40 times more likely to earn an NFL contract than a non-Samoan.

I read an opinion piece over the weekend (can't find it know ) that talked about the family links in the Islands. Young men with sporting talent are expected to go out and earn as much money as they possibly can to support parents, grandparents, cousins etc. All too often that means opting for the All Blacks or Wallabies (or England, Wales or France ) with the players doing that knowing that a few international caps leads to lucrative contracts in France or Japan too. And that's on top of natural competitiveness - there's often more cachet in proving you're good enough to play for a top tier team.

The solution offered by the NZRU served only to protect their own self interest. So Jerry Collins plays for all blacks first and samoa once he is old and worthless.

The NZRU are only interested in exploiting the pacific islands for their rugby talent.

They have refused to play any matches in the pacific islands which is fast becoming case of national embarrassement given that scotland toured there last year and wales will tour in 2017.

When it comes to solving the pacific island nations problem, the nzru are morally bankrupt.

Including the pacific island nations cup as part of the super 15 competition would be my solution with Japanese and US television money beng the financial carrot.

Scrumdown wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
NZ offered a solution to that - allowing PI-qualified players who've opted for another country to turn out for them after serving a 5 year stand-down. England was the only other country to vote in favour at the IRB.

The Pacific diaspora has reached massive levels. Samoa has a population of ~180,000. There are ~55,000 Samoan-born New Zealanders and ~90,000 NZ-born of Samoan descent. Add in another 15,000 Samoan born and 40,000 ancestry in Australia and a similar number in the USA and you wind up with well over 200k Samoans living elsewhere.

There's a fair few Polynesians turning up in American football teams too - in 2002 ESPN estimated that a Samoan male in the US was 40 times more likely to earn an NFL contract than a non-Samoan.

I read an opinion piece over the weekend (can't find it know ) that talked about the family links in the Islands. Young men with sporting talent are expected to go out and earn as much money as they possibly can to support parents, grandparents, cousins etc. All too often that means opting for the All Blacks or Wallabies (or England, Wales or France ) with the players doing that knowing that a few international caps leads to lucrative contracts in France or Japan too. And that's on top of natural competitiveness - there's often more cachet in proving you're good enough to play for a top tier team.

The solution offered by the NZRU served only to protect their own self interest. So Jerry Collins plays for all blacks first and samoa once he is old and worthless.

The NZRU are only interested in exploiting the pacific islands for their rugby talent.

They have refused to play any matches in the pacific islands which is fast becoming case of national embarrassement given that scotland toured there last year and wales will tour in 2017.

When it comes to solving the pacific island nations problem, the nzru are morally bankrupt.

Including the pacific island nations cup as part of the super 15 competition would be my solution with Japanese and US television money beng the financial carrot.

I agree with you on NZ not playing in the Pacific - especially not managing to even turn up to Fiji's centenary celebrations.

Samoa were offered a chance to tender for the expansion spot which ultimately went to the Melbourne Rebels, however they opted not to apply - and sadly the US and Japanese tv rights aren't worth that much (most Japanese club teams run at a massive loss - the companies that run them write off the losses as marketing and staff team-building expenses).

That said, I'd love for the next expansion (to Super 18) to include a PI and an Argentine side (politics and $ will mean the Lions will be back in as the 3rd side). However, neither of those will stop NZ-born Samoans (25% of all Samoans) opting for NZ, or PI/Argentine players taking up the extra money available in France or Japan.

I liked the stand down idea personally and I think someone such as Sivivatu could still teach the young Fijian players something.

However the issue is then presumably that it allows 2 bites at the cherry. Move to NZ/OZ/Europe, try and get a pro contract and then international caps. Then if that fails, or you only get a couple of token caps, you have a backup.
So while I like the idea behind it, the reality might yet further increase the 'brawn drain'.

Certainly NZ and OZ need to tour there soon, saying they are too busy just isnt good enough.

The real issue for me is that the current top tier countries like the idea of improving the PI's, but the reality is do certain teams want to promote their rivals? NZ dont want young Aucklanders opting to play for their parents country as opposed to where they were born, despite any noises they make about helping the islands.

The current standings:

1(1) NEW ZEALAND 90.08
2(2) SOUTH AFRICA 86.94
3(3) AUSTRALIA 86.87
4(4) ENGLAND 83.72
5(5) WALES 83.36
6(6) FRANCE 81.59
7(7) SAMOA 78.71
8(8) ARGENTINA 78.71
9(9) IRELAND 78.05
10(10) SCOTLAND 76.86
11(11) TONGA 76.80
12(12) ITALY 76.06
13(14) CANADA 71.80
14(13) FIJI 71.52
15(15) JAPAN 69.39

Lets be honest, do Scotland and Ireland want that table to become the norm? I'd say no and therefore they are unlikely to bend over backwards to help.

If you were to hold the competition during a time when no domestic competitions were being held then the "paid to not play for your nation" issue would disappear.

I think maestegmafia is right about the solution towards keeping players wanting to play in their country. Its about money mainly. The talent is there, but without financial security players will leave and in the above cases, end up representing someone else at national level.

There is one issue which I think could be a major block in getting the PI's moving forward long term and thats competition. If those chaps ever got real serious everyone else would be bang in trouble.... and do AUS, ENG, FRA, SA and even NZ want that???

Lets say the PI's were able to field 2 teams in super rugby perhaps based abroad in cities like Auckland... players would get paid well, be playing regularly together and be close to home and freely available to represent their nations when asked. Just think how good they would get?
You may even get chaps who were born in the PI's like Umaga, Tuqiri, Rokocoko etc choosing their land of their birth rather than the one where they were brought up.

It would be great for rugby in general but in reality can it happen... without a global season and a complete overhaul of the domestic game then not a chance.

France have always had foreign players though...

Serge Blanco, born Venezuala
Serge Betsen, Born Cameroon
Abdel Benazzi - Born Morroco (actually represented them at rugby)
Fulgence Ouedraogo - Born Burkina Faso
Thierry Duautoir - Born Ivory Coast
Yannick Nyanga - Born Zaire

just a couple of examples....

Whats frustrating, as where it used to be links with the colonies etc...now its just money mercenaries...and i do believe this should be stopped......3 years qualifying simply isnt enough. It should be much more.

On an interesting note, the reverse is happening in football, where the french team often had players from their links with Africa...however now as the African nations are becoming much stronger the French born of African decent are electing to play for those countries...

Could this ever happen in Rugby if the African teams ever reach a certain level?

fa0019 wrote:If you were to hold the competition during a time when no domestic competitions were being held then the "paid to not play for your nation" issue would disappear.

I think maestegmafia is right about the solution towards keeping players wanting to play in their country. Its about money mainly. The talent is there, but without financial security players will leave and in the above cases, end up representing someone else at national level.

There is one issue which I think could be a major block in getting the PI's moving forward long term and thats competition. If those chaps ever got real serious everyone else would be bang in trouble.... and do AUS, ENG, FRA, SA and even NZ want that???

Lets say the PI's were able to field 2 teams in super rugby perhaps based abroad in cities like Auckland... players would get paid well, be playing regularly together and be close to home and freely available to represent their nations when asked. Just think how good they would get?
You may even get chaps who were born in the PI's like Umaga, Tuqiri, Rokocoko etc choosing their land of their birth rather than the one where they were brought up.

It would be great for rugby in general but in reality can it happen... without a global season and a complete overhaul of the domestic game then not a chance.

Umaga was born in Wellington but otherwise I agree with you.

my mistake Pete.... I always thought he was for some reason. They made a big deal about him when he was made captain post RWC03, I always thought it was because of that!

fa0019 wrote:my mistake Pete.... I always thought he was for some reason. They made a big deal about him when he was made captain post RWC03, I always thought it was because of that!

Tana was the first captain with PI ancestry which was the reason for the big deal. Tana's cousin Jerry Collins was born in Apia, and Rodney So'oialo was the first Samoan born AB's captain (he filled in for an injured McCaw in 2008).

The first foreign born captain was also the first captain. But we poached Dave Gallagher from the Irish

Bathman_in_London wrote:I liked the stand down idea personally and I think someone such as Sivivatu could still teach the young Fijian players something.

However the issue is then presumably that it allows 2 bites at the cherry. Move to NZ/OZ/Europe, try and get a pro contract and then international caps. Then if that fails, or you only get a couple of token caps, you have a backup.
So while I like the idea behind it, the reality might yet further increase the 'brawn drain'.

Certainly NZ and OZ need to tour there soon, saying they are too busy just isnt good enough.

The real issue for me is that the current top tier countries like the idea of improving the PI's, but the reality is do certain teams want to promote their rivals? NZ dont want young Aucklanders opting to play for their parents country as opposed to where they were born, despite any noises they make about helping .

The thing is Fiji or any of the PIs for that matter don't need retired internationals playing for them. What they need is for their best players to be available for selection.

Fiji have a wealth of talented backs but guys like Nalanga, Nangusa, Goneva and Mantanavou are almost never available for selection. Imagine a backline with those players!!

Even if you look at Tonga; the amount of good forwards they have. If only the likes Tonguia, Taumalolo, Aulika and Mafi could get selected regularly.

As others have pointed out, the NZ idea of PI players repping with NZ or Aus then going back to their Island is flawed.

Samoa is as good as (if not better than) Scotland. If it's to increase the competitiveness of tier 2, why let Samoa benefit and not Scotland?

Case 1. NZ born with PI ancestry. This player is a New Zealander and should be representing the All Blacks. Nationally, they are not Samoan or Tongan so they shouldn't be representing them too

Case 2. PI born living in NZ. If they come young, like Jerry Collins or Jerome Kaino then they should be allowed for the All Blacks. If they come later (like Sitiveni) they should represent their Island. If we bring in the dual representation idea then this player would play for the All Blacks at their peak, and then when they are washed up they can play for Samoa or Fiji and it'll be a case of an old geezer taking up a spot that a promising youngster should have. This scenario is not helping these smaller nations.

Isnt there a current system in place whereby if a player has played for the AB's...but only had one or two caps, then doesnt cap again...once two years have passed with no cap they can be seelcted for one of the islands...

I'm with you on this. It doesn't affect that many players. Noholo and Halai come to mind (scholarships to Wanganui and Wesley). Even though they have secondary schooling here it sits more comfortably with me if they'd chosen to play for Fiji and Tonga (they both have 7's caps for NZ).

dallym wrote:As others have pointed out, the NZ idea of PI players repping with NZ or Aus then going back to their Island is flawed.

Samoa is as good as (if not better than) Scotland. If it's to increase the competitiveness of tier 2, why let Samoa benefit and not Scotland?

Case 1. NZ born with PI ancestry. This player is a New Zealander and should be representing the All Blacks. Nationally, they are not Samoan or Tongan so they shouldn't be representing them too

Case 2. PI born living in NZ. If they come young, like Jerry Collins or Jerome Kaino then they should be allowed for the All Blacks. If they come later (like Sitiveni) they should represent their Island. If we bring in the dual representation idea then this player would play for the All Blacks at their peak, and then when they are washed up they can play for Samoa or Fiji and it'll be a case of an old geezer taking up a spot that a promising youngster should have. This scenario is not helping these smaller nations.

blackcanelion wrote:I'm with you on this. It doesn't affect that many players. Noholo and Halai come to mind (scholarships to Wanganui and Wesley). Even though they have secondary schooling here it sits more comfortably with me if they'd chosen to play for Fiji and Tonga (they both have 7's caps for NZ).

dallym wrote:As others have pointed out, the NZ idea of PI players repping with NZ or Aus then going back to their Island is flawed.

Samoa is as good as (if not better than) Scotland. If it's to increase the competitiveness of tier 2, why let Samoa benefit and not Scotland?

Case 1. NZ born with PI ancestry. This player is a New Zealander and should be representing the All Blacks. Nationally, they are not Samoan or Tongan so they shouldn't be representing them too

Case 2. PI born living in NZ. If they come young, like Jerry Collins or Jerome Kaino then they should be allowed for the All Blacks. If they come later (like Sitiveni) they should represent their Island. If we bring in the dual representation idea then this player would play for the All Blacks at their peak, and then when they are washed up they can play for Samoa or Fiji and it'll be a case of an old geezer taking up a spot that a promising youngster should have. This scenario is not helping these smaller nations.

So what your saying is it's ok to entice the special talents at a young age with promise of financial, educational and social support (ie Muliaina, Toveoa, Kaino) but to allow uncapped uncompetitive NZ players the opportunity to play international rugby is wrong?

In todays game international rugby is about such small margins, and individual players provide match winning performances every top class player to leave the PI nations (in ANY direction (including the likes of Tuilagi/Falatau etc)) weakens the PI nations teams, 100 inferior players will not aid the international set up as 1 world class player can, and lets be honest all 3 PI nations would be far stronger if they could keep hold of their best and brightest (some of the best players ever to play the game). The trend of NZ receiving the benefits of the PI nations is one that will now be followed around the world, and the big money in France and England will start cultivating PI talent of the highest quality.

I'm interested to know how NZers feel about this, if France and England (or any other nation) start making concsious efforts to outbid the quality of life offered by NZ to the best and brightest young talents in the PI's, is this wrong or is it just the trend of rugby in the pro era that teams are looking for every edge they can to gain an advantage?

AUS have introduced something called the Jake White scholarship which looks solely at South African kids with offers an option to join the Brumbies academy with full board and offers degrees at the university of Canberra in tandem (from what I understand one of the lesser uni's in AUS).

The specific targeting is rather alarming.... although compared against a similar option of a full scholarship at Stellenbosch etc I don't think its that attractive.

fa0019 wrote:AUS have introduced something called the Jake White scholarship which looks solely at South African kids with offers an option to join the Brumbies academy with full board and offers degrees at the university of Canberra in tandem (from what I understand one of the lesser uni's in AUS).

The specific targeting is rather alarming.... although compared against a similar option of a full scholarship at Stellenbosch etc I don't think its that attractive.

That place is WOW, visited 2011 as the missus is a graduate from there and it is amazing, will be at Canberra in a few weeks so can make comparisons (can you tell I'm excited I can't stop mentioning the trip).

But yes thats another worrying sight, soon the team who dominates at the top will be the nation who can offer the most attractive packages to juniors from all over the world.

Quick question that I genuinely don't know the answer to.

Let's assume that a player has a Scottish (chosen because I happen to be in Scotland right now) grand parent but was born and raised in say South Africa to one parent born and raised in England, the other NZ. He represents Scotland but lives and plays club rugby in France. He has a son, born to an Italian mother in France. The son gets residency in Australia

OK, so, who can the youngest person in this rather convoluted tale represent?

Aus - Residency
France - born there
Italy - Mother is Italian
South Africa - His dad was born there
England - He has an English Grand Parent
NZ - He has a kiwi grand parent

This in itself seems a bit ridiculous, but, the question I would like answered...

Can he also play for Scotland? His dad represented them, but it is actually his great grand father who has any direct link to the country.

If he played for Australia could his son then play for Scotland? Because his grand dad played for Scotland (qualifying because HIS grand dad is Scottish).

This may all seem very over the top, but something like this is fairly likely to come up next generation, with all the players moving around so much.

Canbera is THE most boring place in the world...bar none!!

but was born and raised in say South Africa

Then he will play for the England Cricket Team...easy

GeordieFalcon wrote:

but was born and raised in say South Africa

Then he will play for the England Cricket Team...easy

Ha! :-)

screamingaddabs wrote:Quick question that I genuinely don't know the answer to.

Let's assume that a player has a Scottish (chosen because I happen to be in Scotland right now) grand parent but was born and raised in say South Africa to one parent born and raised in England, the other NZ. He represents Scotland but lives and plays club rugby in France. He has a son, born to an Italian mother in France. The son gets residency in Australia

OK, so, who can the youngest person in this rather convoluted tale represent?

Aus - Residency
France - born there
Italy - Mother is Italian
South Africa - His dad was born there
England - He has an English Grand Parent
NZ - He has a kiwi grand parent

This in itself seems a bit ridiculous, but, the question I would like answered...

Can he also play for Scotland? His dad represented them, but it is actually his great grand father who has any direct link to the country.

If he played for Australia could his son then play for Scotland? Because his grand dad played for Scotland (qualifying because HIS grand dad is Scottish).

This may all seem very over the top, but something like this is fairly likely to come up next generation, with all the players moving around so much.

Not qualified for Scotland. Only things that matter are places of birth for yourself, parents and grandparents. And if your current place of permanent residency has been static for the previous 3 consecutive years.

maestegmafia wrote:In soccer it seems the national pride in representing your nation despite working in another country supercedes rugby.

That is an important point and I wonder why?

Biltong wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:In soccer it seems the national pride in representing your nation despite working in another country supercedes rugby.

That is an important point and I wonder why?

Probably got more to do with citizenship requirement and since players want to move all over the place it's not simple. Also squad tends to be bigger don't they? There are more international competitions so more oppotunity to get capped.

HammerofThunor wrote:

InjuredYetAgain wrote:We just need to be a bit wary about binning parentage/grand-parentage rules. Given the itinerant nature of so many jobs in the UK, it is not inconceivable that, due to work commitments, a boy could be born of, say, Scottish parents in London. The family settle well in England so when grandson comes along, if we do away with the ancestry ruling, the grandson would only be eligible for England.
Ok, the UK may be a fairly set of circumstances but it still needs to be borne in mind

And? So a kid born and raised in England to parents born a raised in England should be able to play for somewhere may never even visit until the training camp? Why stop at grandparents? If you think cultural descent can go that far back why not another generation or another?

I mean, I'm interested in family history and traced some of my family tree and that. But I'd never define myself on my grandparents (or even my parents). I think that is the big problem with all this. People see nutter national rugby team representing very different things.

Some think blood is important (meaning cultural rather than actual genetics). Others it's about where you learnt your rugby. Some people think where your parents happened to be when you were born is important.

Unfortunately it's nigh on impossible to set up a fair system because there is no fair system. Certainly not one that is simple enough that we don't have lawyers making a fortune navigating them.

I think most people would accept an increase in residency of 5 years. I think most people would accept a requirement for citizenship. I'd also make it a requirement for two grandparents from the same place. The other changes I would like are completely unworkable, over complicated and probably not what most people want.

I agree with a lot of what you said there, and yes it might not be able to find the perfect system, but you can definitely get a more fair and logical system than the current one.

Birth place should not be a factor in my view, unless you consider the parents and whether they were permanent residents/citizens at the tie of birth.

If I for example worked In England on a two year contract and my son was born in England for the first two years of his life, then moved back to South Africa I would not consider him English in any way.

For me the 5 year residency rule, coupled with citizenship should be the first criteria. If you want to represent a country, prove your loyalty to that country by becoming a citizen.

Biltong wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:In soccer it seems the national pride in representing your nation despite working in another country supercedes rugby.

That is an important point and I wonder why?

Could be the amount of money and global exposure in football, south american teams although lacking in financial clout can still be compatitive at world cups, and the South American tournaments are huge in South America. Players can still earn high wages and exploit low living costs in lesse leagues, whereas there is no living to be earnt in less developed nations where the governing bodies are running of pittances.

National pride is easy when you can earn a great living wage at home, and then step onto the international stage in huge competitions such as the Copa America, African cup of nations, Euro cup, Pan Arab, World cup etc...

Despite the lure of big european money, players spend all their junior and early adult careers at home too, The big europen teams do not need to pilage lesser developed nations talent due to the level of talent in europe being so high, the depth of talent in football being far greater and the actual game itself not being so specialised that a good footballer is a good footballer and positional preferences can be changed easier later on. Rugby specialised positions occur far younger than other sports, so bigger nations who find they have less depth or options in certain specialised positions are better off recruiting others than trying to change a player from in the system already.

So many reasons...

For me the 5 year residency rule, coupled with citizenship should be the first criteria. If you want to represent a country, prove your loyalty to that country by becoming a citizen.

Make it 7 and ill vote for you...

Five years and citizenship would sort a lot I think. Also, it doesn't really matter what you think of your son's nationality. It's up to him

GeordieFalcon wrote:

For me the 5 year residency rule, coupled with citizenship should be the first criteria. If you want to represent a country, prove your loyalty to that country by becoming a citizen.

Make it 7 and ill vote for you...

I find it a bit ridiculous that it would take longer to gain rugby qualification than it would to gain citizenship based on residency.

Biltong wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:In soccer it seems the national pride in representing your nation despite working in another country supercedes rugby.

That is an important point and I wonder why?

Because of the calendar. There is much less overlap between international windows and club games in football and less high-intensity games throughout the year. Also, international football doesn't affect earning potential as greatly as international rugby does.

In football, we're seeing clubs having problems with releasing players for the African Cup of Nations which is in January because it overlaps with the European club season. In rugby we have the Rugby Championship, Autumn Tests, Six Nations and World Cup all overlapping with the European season!

Our calendar is a big problem in rugby.

Take the Welsh system for example...

4 Academies offering the best facilities, best coaching and best chance of playing pro rugby in Wales, therefore for a certain position there is at best 4 players a year per position making the grade of pro rugby, take into account the competition of pro players from previous years, those who are succesfull and those who are not the conversion rate of succesfull prospects to fully fledged pro rugby players is about 6.5% (if I remember correctly)

Meaning 1 player in every position every in 16 who graduate from the academy system in a position makes it as a pro player, that is all the room there is for potential pro players in Wales, therefore every spot is precious, and only the very best is offered the chance to play pro rugby, 15 others play amateur and fall away. If Wales come across a player who can be qualified and up to the standard of pro rugby they need to fit him in somewhere to develop their player pool, wherever he comes from whatever nationality he may be.

Welsh football talent is in a potential far better place as even Welsh league football is competitive enough to keep the player depth high, they can export players to English leagues in their hundreds with no chance of ever becoming English internationals, they can cap the best players at an age early enough to tie them in (ala Giggs, Bale, Ramsey) and allow the best training facilities in the world to develop their players, rugby players do not have that option as moving to England means they are less likely to play for Wales, and the players good enough for pro rugby who move uncapped are far more likely to be offered caps by other nations through easier qualification rules.

HammerofThunor wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

For me the 5 year residency rule, coupled with citizenship should be the first criteria. If you want to represent a country, prove your loyalty to that country by becoming a citizen.

Make it 7 and ill vote for you...

I find it a bit ridiculous that it would take longer to gain rugby qualification than it would to gain citizenship based on residency.

Agree. 3 is too short but 7 is too long. 5 is a good middle ground.