Bundee Aki commits to Ireland

Bundee Aki has announced he's signed with Connacht. He will qualify for Ireland by 2018 and he's setting his eyes on making the Irish team if he can (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/9938620/Bundee-Aki-targets-Irish-jersey-as-he-quits-NZ). If that doesn't work out he is also Samoa qualified.

I'm sad to see him go. He's a useful no 12 and I feel he would eventually have gained some AB's caps. However, at 24 with SBW returning next year, and a young family you can see his perspective. Good luck to him.

Here's the question. How do Irish fans see their depth at 12, both in terms of current players and young players coming through?

At 12 we have Marshall, Olding and Hanarahan.

All young and all exceptional talents.
To be honest he would have to be as good as SBW to make the team.

Argueable our strongest position in the entire team in the coming years.
He has definitely picked the wrong position - given he is going to Connaught I have to say his chances are extremely slim.

This is the attitude im very worried about in international rugby.

Its almost like "Ah i cant make the NZ / SA/ Australia squad so ill just go play for Ire / Wales/ England etc etc under the 3 year residency rule. "

Surely the IRB need to see this and finally put it up to 7 or 8 years. That will put an end to much of the debate that still anoys so many of us rugby fans.

geoff998rugby wrote:At 12 we have Marshall, Olding and Hanarahan.

All young and all exceptional talents.
To be honest he would have to be as good as SBW to make the team.

Argueable our strongest position in the entire team in the coming years.
He has definitely picked the wrong position - given he is going to Connaught I have to say his chances are extremely slim.

Interesting. Samoa it might be then.

GeordieFalcon wrote:This is the attitude im very worried about in international rugby.

Its almost like "Ah i cant make the NZ / SA/ Australia squad so ill just go play for Ire / Wales/ England etc etc under the 3 year residency rule. "

Surely the IRB need to see this and finally put it up to 7 or 8 years. That will put an end to much of the debate that still anoys so many of us rugby fans.

If no one else finds this disturbing then I'm extremely concerned for our game.  Are Ireland fans excited, worried or indifferent?

Has Bundee played Intl Under 20's?  The IRB should ensure that if any player plays at this level upwards internationally, they cannot play for another country.  Also, make residency 7 years for anyone over 18, 3 years for those under 18 and restrict ancestry to parents.  That should stop this problem.

I can't attack this bloke for wanting to provide for his family but his desire is to wear the green of Ireland?  WTF??

If you have represented the U20's can you still swap?

If so then this must be stopped aswell.

chewed_mintie wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:This is the attitude im very worried about in international rugby.

Its almost like "Ah i cant make the NZ / SA/ Australia squad so ill just go play for Ire / Wales/ England etc etc under the 3 year residency rule. "

Surely the IRB need to see this and finally put it up to 7 or 8 years. That will put an end to much of the debate that still anoys so many of us rugby fans.

If no one else finds this disturbing then I'm extremely concerned for our game.  Are Ireland fans excited, worried or indifferent?

Has Bundee played Intl Under 20's?  The IRB should ensure that if any player plays at this level upwards internationally, they cannot play for another country.  Also, make residency 7 years for anyone over 18, 3 years for those under 18 and restrict ancestry to parents.  That should stop this problem.

I can't attack this bloke for wanting to provide for his family but his desire is to wear the green of Ireland?  WTF??

Ireland fans are definitely not excited - overwhelming  indifferent I would say.

This may be the wishes of the player but I dont think he registers in any shape or form on Ireland's radar.
It is a common misconception that the players who qualify for Ireland through residency are brought in to bolster Ireland - they are not.
They are brought in to address shortfalls in the Provinces.

This can be illustrated by the fact only 1 player has qualified through residency alone in over a decade - does any other front line country come even remotely close to that record - Saffers perhaps?
Even he (Strauss) has only played a couple of games and is not 1st or 2nd choice in his choosen position.

Jared Payne will, very much, be the exception to the rule and again he came because Ulster lacked a quality full back not to address an Ireland shortfall.

chewed_mintie wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:This is the attitude im very worried about in international rugby.

Its almost like "Ah i cant make the NZ / SA/ Australia squad so ill just go play for Ire / Wales/ England etc etc under the 3 year residency rule. "

Surely the IRB need to see this and finally put it up to 7 or 8 years. That will put an end to much of the debate that still anoys so many of us rugby fans.

If no one else finds this disturbing then I'm extremely concerned for our game.  Are Ireland fans excited, worried or indifferent?

Has Bundee played Intl Under 20's?  The IRB should ensure that if any player plays at this level upwards internationally, they cannot play for another country.  Also, make residency 7 years for anyone over 18, 3 years for those under 18 and restrict ancestry to parents.  That should stop this problem.

I can't attack this bloke for wanting to provide for his family but his desire is to wear the green of Ireland?  WTF??

Only if the country of origin nominates their U20 side as their Second team will it limit a player to represent another country. That is if he has played for his country of origin at U20.

SARU recently nominated their U20 as their second side to protect their youngsters.

GeordieFalcon wrote:This is the attitude im very worried about in international rugby.

Its almost like "Ah i cant make the NZ / SA/ Australia squad so ill just go play for Ire / Wales/ England etc etc under the 3 year residency rule. "

Surely the IRB need to see this and finally put it up to 7 or 8 years. That will put an end to much of the debate that still anoys so many of us rugby fans.

 
I agree. Very poor indeed.
 
Would rather see home grown players coming through to wear the green jersey.
 
May be a good addition for Connacht. But cant see him ever wearing the green of Ireland.

So a country with an 'A' Side like the Saxons or Wolfhounds are their second teams. So someone could play for the Irish or English U20's but then still switch.

I think thats bad Bilts.

It should be once you've had U20 appearances then you must stay with that side.

Only exception might be if that player has had no further senior representations and has dual nationality with a lower tier side...and could benefit them.

But it would need to be controlled very tightly.

You do realise that means Martin Johnson would never have played for England

Biltong wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:This is the attitude im very worried about in international rugby.

Its almost like "Ah i cant make the NZ / SA/ Australia squad so ill just go play for Ire / Wales/ England etc etc under the 3 year residency rule. "

Surely the IRB need to see this and finally put it up to 7 or 8 years. That will put an end to much of the debate that still anoys so many of us rugby fans.

If no one else finds this disturbing then I'm extremely concerned for our game.  Are Ireland fans excited, worried or indifferent?

Has Bundee played Intl Under 20's?  The IRB should ensure that if any player plays at this level upwards internationally, they cannot play for another country.  Also, make residency 7 years for anyone over 18, 3 years for those under 18 and restrict ancestry to parents.  That should stop this problem.

I can't attack this bloke for wanting to provide for his family but his desire is to wear the green of Ireland?  WTF??

Only if the country of origin nominates their U20 side as their Second team will it limit a player to represent another country. That is if he has played for his country of origin at U20.

SARU recently nominated their U20 as their second side to protect their youngsters.

Does the player have to play against another team who have also nominated their U20's as their 2nd side for that to work.It used to work that way but things might have changed.

As far as the signing of this new player goes I'm delighted that Connacht are getting a quality young player committing to him but really underwhelmed about his desire to play for us,especially as he also says if it doesn't work out he can just play for Samoa instead.It really sounds like he's an intelligent young man who is doing his best for himself and his family but he doesn't care who he plays for so I don't really want him representing Ireland.

geoff998rugby wrote:You do realise that means Martin Johnson would never have played for England

Yes im well aware he played U20's for NZ.

But i still say it should not be allowed.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:You do realise that means Martin Johnson would never have played for England

Yes im well aware he played U20's for NZ.

But i still say it should not be allowed.

Those were the days when there were no rules on playing for more than 1 country even at test level. It happened a number of times.

Jamie Salmon (NZ & ENG)... 1980s
John Allan (SA & SCO)...1990s
Va'a Tuigamala (NZ & SAM)... 1990s
Frank Bunce (NZ & SAM)... 1990s
Graeme Bashop (NZ & JAP)...1990s

are just a few and I know there are more.

Even Clive Woodward was trialled by AUS after he emigrated in the 80s.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its almost like "Ah i cant make the NZ / SA/ Australia squad so ill just go play for Ire / Wales/ England etc etc under the 3 year residency rule. "

Totally agree- it's not like Ireland lack for homegrown talent at inside centre. I understand Aki can play outside centre as well where there are slightly less options but it still makes me uncomfortable.

Without the residency laws Aki would probably go and play for Samoa who need him more. I don't begrudge Bundee Aki the chance to improve his career prospects, nor do I begrudge Jared Payne or Richardt Strauss the same. In a way it's a great compliment to Irish Rugby that they want to come over here and fight for a place in our national team. But I do feel this law is too easy to use to boost your career. It's true the the IRFU only use it to augment our efforts to develop homegrown options but it makes me feel uncomfortable. Basically we, in this situation, are taking advantage of another countries hard work in developing a player because we can afford to pay them a bit more and can offer them more opportunities to play at a higher level.

On the whole it makes me feel very uncomfortable and I wish the IRB would act on this.

I've seen suggestions of making the residency period longer, but another good solution for me would be adding a clause that says you can only have one player who has qualified on residency in your match day 23 for any IRB sanctioned test match.

As per the fiasco over the Welsh lad who suddenly discovered he was "Scottish" a while back, the rules should be very simple:
If you have played at over 18 or B Team level that's your country.
If you have family connections with more than one country then the first country you play for at the above level is your country.
The residency rule should extend with age - e.g. 2 years if you are under 18 (as you are probably moving with your parents) but up to 5 or more years and increasing as you get older thereafter.
If you are playing for a country that is not the country of your birth you must take out citizenship of that country - e.g. if you are a Kiwi moving to Ireland then you must take up Irish citizenship.
If you have played representative sport for another country as an over 18 you cannot play rugby for another country - e.g. play league for Australia and union for Scotland.

This is pathetic, Bundee Aki, you are a joke mate and that goes for other idiots like Jared Payne et al. This deciding to be from another country is really starting to wind me up. Disgraceful.

I cant say I agree with these project players...

Its different when someone born in another country has spent a chunk of his life growing up and learning his rugby here, but to have a fully grown adult moving to another country with the goal of eventually representing that country just seems wrong to me.

The issue with Shingler was that he was not aware that Wales U20's were the Welsh "B" team.

The rules are actualy clear. The issue is some folk just dont read them!

I don't really agree with the 3 year residency rule. Its a bit like "players for hire". Guys will head off to other countires where the club game will pay them better wages! I'd say 5 would be a more appropriate number of years

I disagree with that IL. You say he 'discovered' he was Scottish when it was convenient. Given that his mum is Scottish, one entire side of his family is Scottish, I'd say he's pretty dim if he wasn't aware of those familial links to Scotland at a very young age! It's part of his identity and heritage, whereas Bundee Aki has no familial link to Ireland whatsoever. He has as much right to represent Scotland as any other member of their international squad and I thought it was a travesty how he was prevented from doing so.

Qualifying via residency and qualifying via actually having familial connections to that country are completely different things for me.

U20s shouldn't be binding. If you're 18/19 and dual qualified and someone offers you the chance to play for an U20s side you're going to bite their hand off no matter what country it is because at that age, you're not yet a fully fledged professional rugby player and it's a massive chance to improve your game and put yourself in the shop window. You're trying to establish yourself as a player and win a professional contract. You shouldn't then be penalised for that later in your career if you have a legitimate claim to play for another nation. It will only damage less established nations like Samoa and Fiji who have a number of dual qualified players.

We can tighten the laws on qualifying via residency without having to force players who are in age group rugby to choose their allegiance way too early in their career. In my mind no nation should ever be allowed to make their U20s side their second team.

Residency qualification rules should be seriously tightened, yes, but only senior caps at 'A level or senior level should be binding in my eyes.

Notch, my take on it is that when you are over 18 you are able to vote, get drunk, get married, join the military, join the police, and all sorts of other stuff, all of which come with consequences, then choosing your national side should be exactly the same. Very few people are given the opportunity (I would even say priviedge) to compete internationally and dipping in and out is not should not be an option.

The whole thing needs regulated far better though Notch.

Id have the residency at 7-8 years.

U20's is a curious one. I agree that Tier two nations could suffer if we blocked switchng altogether...ie if players played for NZ u20's but never made any further senior test appearances,....and they are dualled with Fijian or Samoan heritage.

That would need to be taken time to discus.

Cross Code changing should be banned. If you play for Australia in RL you are Australian in RU. If you play RL for NZ you represent NZ at Union. No more Henry paul, Vainikolo debacles!!

Risking opening a can of worms here, but here goes.

A player leaves one country for another purely because he wants to make money playing rugby?

I think we can all agree on that, yes, sometimes it is because they want to experience new things, or whatever, but the fact is they want to a career and they feel they can make a better career elsewhere as in their own country.

Now none of us want to deny any rugby player or sportsman the opportunity to have a career, but the fact is (apart from those who moved due to their parents) those countries who are on the losing end of this "professional poaching" don't like it one bit, especially when it is youngsters who show promise.

So how far does this "go make money with my blessing son" go?

Is it right that countries with strong economies or currencies effectively "buy" playersfor their national teams (even though it isn't guaranteed?

It is exactly for this reason the residency rule should be hiked up to 7-8 years...even more if need be Bilts.

Yes, I wouldn't mind if residency was significantly harder to attain. I think it should be five years with a strict limit on how many players qualified via residency you are allowed to have in your team.

I agree the residency rule must be increased, but your problem is those countries who are benefitting from it, is not going to vote that way.

Pride these days does not prevent the money hungry, and power hungry blokes in glass offices and pinstriped suits to care.

Maybe you have a point there Bilts...but i dont see why it couldnt be enforced.

The question is...how big a problem is this.
In the 6n teams...who currently is from another country.

Probably England and Italy have the most.
1) The Vunipolas seemingly NZ, then had residency in Wales and England. Not sure they're classed as profesional poaching though as they came here very young.
2) Hartley came over young (16 i think) and has an English mother doesnt he.
3) Tuilagi...has been here since he was a kid
4) Barritt probably on residency grounds

Is there any others? Scotland?

Visser, Maitland?

Are there other cases like Flutey or such in the current 6n teams...playing purely because they passed the residency?

I cant think of a huge amount.

Globally...Japan probably. Fiji and Samoa have a lot of NZ's but hardly professional poaching...that'll be heritage based. US probably have a few aswell.

geoff998rugby wrote:You do realise that means Martin Johnson would never have played for England

bit nonsensical to apply todays rules to 20 years ago and assume the individuals would have made the same decisions isnt it?

ebop wrote:This is pathetic, Bundee Aki, you are a joke mate and that goes for other idiots like Jared Payne et al. This deciding to be from another country is really starting to wind me up. Disgraceful.

Wind your neck in - why is Payne an idiot?

He join Ulster to play professional rugby for more than he could get from home.
That meant he had, effectively, burnt his bridges re the AB's.
After three years he is given the opportunity to play International rugby and who can blame him for saying yes.
Bottom line even if the International opportunity did not become available he would still be here next year.

That is a completely different from a player moving abroad whose prime reason is to play for another country.

I do believe the residency qualifications need to be considerably tighten up.
As I said Ireland's record on this is far better than just about every leading rugby nation.

I'd make international tries worth 4 points for naturalized players.

Biltong wrote:I agree the residency rule must be increased, but your problem is those countries who are benefitting from it, is not going to vote that way.

Pride these days does not prevent the money hungry, and power hungry blokes in glass offices and pinstriped suits to care.

One thing I will say is that NZ don't have to give up on this guy if they don't want to.It's their choice that any player not playing Super rugby can't be play for them so they share a small part of the blame for this situation.

quinsforever wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:You do realise that means Martin Johnson would never have played for England

bit nonsensical to apply todays rules to 20 years ago and assume the individuals would have made the same decisions isnt it?

Times do change but any young lad in NZ at that age offered a game is likely to say yes and close the door on his home country.
At the time he did not know he was going to return he only did so because his girlfriend wanted to travel.
If we jump forward 20 years it is quite liley we would have a young man regreting a snap decision.

Of course if the residency rules were stricker, i nthe first place, he would not have been allowed to play.
Another reason to tighten them up - stops a short term decision, at a young age, which a player later regrets

GeordieFalcon wrote:Maybe you have a point there Bilts...but i dont see why it couldnt be enforced.

The question is...how big a problem is this.
In the 6n teams...who currently is from another country.

Probably England and Italy have the most.
1) The Vunipolas seemingly NZ, then had residency in Wales and England. Not sure they're classed as profesional poaching though as they came here very young.
2) Hartley came over young (16 i think) and has an English mother doesnt he.
3) Tuilagi...has been here since he was a kid
4) Barritt probably on residency grounds

Is there any others? Scotland?

Visser, Maitland?

Are there other cases like Flutey or such in the current 6n teams...playing purely because they passed the residency?

I cant think of a huge amount.

Globally...Japan probably. Fiji and Samoa have a lot of NZ's but hardly professional poaching...that'll be heritage based. US probably have a few as well.

This type of problem is only going to come under serious consideration when you have a RWC tournament and the players who have recently moved begin to represent other countries, right now it doesn't seem to be an issue, but when you consider how many have pledged allegiance to other nations in the past few years.

When they start representing other nations in bigger numbers you might find the SARU and NZRU beginning to make waves.

Biltong wrote:I agree the residency rule must be increased, but your problem is those countries who are benefitting from it, is not going to vote that way.

Pride these days does not prevent the money hungry, and power hungry blokes in glass offices and pinstriped suits to care.

Which countries do you have in mind ?

I suspect GeordieFalcon has a point - the number of players disbarred if the rules were change from 3 to 5 years and were to include all aged teams would not actually be that many.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Biltong wrote:I agree the residency rule must be increased, but your problem is those countries who are benefitting from it, is not going to vote that way.

Pride these days does not prevent the money hungry, and power hungry blokes in glass offices and pinstriped suits to care.

One thing I will say is that NZ don't have to give up on this guy if they don't want to.It's their choice that any player not playing Super rugby can't be play for them so they share a small part of the blame for this situation.

Problem is mate, each Union does what they believe is best to protect their player stock, I am of the same mind as the NZRU, for me those not playing in SA shouldn't be considered. I know it is harsh, but for me it is either the money or the Boks.

geoff998rugby wrote:

Biltong wrote:I agree the residency rule must be increased, but your problem is those countries who are benefitting from it, is not going to vote that way.

Pride these days does not prevent the money hungry, and power hungry blokes in glass offices and pinstriped suits to care.

Which countries do you have in mind ?

Anyone who benefits. Let's say SARU has 5 players that they know will qualify via residency in the next year or so, and it has been discussed that a few of them will benefit the Boks, they aren't going to be want anything to do about increasing the residency rules.

That can be simply covered by a staggered introduction

Next year 3 rule.
The following year 4 years.
Year after that 5 years.

Stops any problem with players in the pipeline - again I suspect the number of players in the pipeline are very few and far between

I still am unclear which countries would actually vote against it if proposed

The main question here is what do we consider as poaching?

If a youngster leaves school and decides his future lies elsewhere (Like Mauritz Botha) then I cannot see anyone complaining about it, he paid his dues and made the England team.

When are players identified? In SA it is at Craven Week, and to my mind the Classic school matches showed on TV every weekend.

So you find Scouts ( which has been confirmed) from all over coming to look for talent, now you may argue those Scouts aren't there to recruit for their national teams.

However, it all depends on the manner of how these players are recruited, money, national honours etc can be promised or discussed. You will never know, so I just don't see how this will ever be curbed or halted.

In my view it is what it is, whether we are happy with it or not, you may want to increase the residency rules, but I still don't see it reducing the number of players leaving.

The problem with U20's is that a lot of players get capped at that level and it is no indicator of even a good professional career, let alone the prospect of full international honours. so I don't think it should count. The world is just to cosmoplitan these days with so many people having duel or even more qualifications and no-one is going to say no to the chance to further their career at that age even if it does come back to haunt them in the future. The Shingler case being probably the best recent example of that. He had a Scottish mother at the end of the day and no-one should have had any issue with him playing for Scotland. He may or may not have done that as interestingly, like a lot of other U20 players, his career seems to have gone on a downward spiral recently.

I think we are generally far to hung up on residency qualifications as well. The reality is that very few people do actually go on and play international rugby on that basis, certainly in the northern hemisphere. If you make the qualifying period too long then you are effectively going to bar that route, professional rugby careers are just not that long. Three years in professional rugby, where contracts are often a lot less than that, is actually quite a long time especially when one bad injury can quickly end a career.

The rules are not a million miles away now, they give people who move to other countries for whatever reason, an avenue and incentive to play international rugby if they are good enough. I find the idea that they show less committment than home grown players a bit quaint. No-one is ever successful at international rugby if they are not fully committed. In Scottish terms it is often the committment of some of the home based players that I question, who may just feel that they are there by right!

The funny thing is i wonder if England (Lancaster) may have learned a big lesson from Johnsons reign. Johnson used alot of these types of players...Vainikolo, Hape, Henry Paul, Flutey etc and it didnt really go all that successfully did it.

Agree with BIgGee about the cosmopolitan mix these days.

Especially when you look at the UK, mother can be irish, father can be English, Grandma Scottish and Grandpa Welsh.

How to you sort that one out?

Just for clarity, Maitland qualified for Scotland through parentage, not residency

Its a minefield and not just in the UK. Sean Maitland could have played for Scotland, New Zealand or Samoa. Pat Lambie could have played for SA or Scotland and lets not even mention Tommasso Allen. The same people who moan about Scotland recruiting on residence or by grandparent basis, moaned like hell when he went off from our U20's to play for Italy!

As I say, don't get to worked up about it. This has been going on from the begining of rugby, russian princess playing for England. Georgian emigres playing for France, various antipodeans playing for Scotland. People have always moved for economic reasons, it is not new. I am happy with the rules as they are. By the time Josh Strauss gets to play for Scotland, he will have made a significant contribution to Scottish professional rugby and will deserve to be capped in much the same way that Jarred Payne has for Ireland!

BigGee wrote:Its a minefield and not just in the UK. Sean Maitland could have played for Scotland, New Zealand or Samoa. Pat Lambie could have played for SA or Scotland and lets not even mention Tommasso Allen. The same people who moan about Scotland recruiting on residence or by grandparent basis, moaned like hell when he went off from our U20's to play for Italy!

As I say, don't get to worked up about it. This has been going on from the begining of rugby, russian princess playing for England. Georgian emigres playing for France, various antipodeans playing for Scotland. People have always moved for economic reasons, it is not new. I am happy with the rules as they are. By the time Josh Strauss gets to play for Scotland, he will have made a significant contribution to Scottish professional rugby and will deserve to be capped in much the same way that Jarred Payne has for Ireland!

I don't understand why people have a problem with the Tommasso Allan situation.

tigertattie wrote:Just for clarity, Maitland qualified for Scotland through parentage, not residency

Ah right...is he the one who had never set foot in Scotland before hand though?

Still i dont think there are huge numbers at the moment. I dont know what in the "pipeline" but still dont think theres a huge amount.

But what there is needs to be stopped and regulated further.

Its teams further down the tiers that abuse it more...now this is considered appropriate to develop rugby...but are we being hypocritical?

Biltong wrote:
Especially when you look at the UK, mother can be irish, father can be English, Grandma Scottish and Grandpa Welsh.

How to you sort that one out?

Mammy always knows best....  

Thats kind of my point given the cosmopolitan nature of life these days many us have more than one nationality and the number of players who would not be eligable under longer residency rules would be very minor indeed.

Biltong wrote:Agree with BIgGee about the cosmopolitan mix these days.

Especially when you look at the UK, mother can be irish, father can be English, Grandma Scottish and Grandpa Welsh.

How to you sort that one out?

I was born in England, to an English father, Scottish mother, Irish grand father, English grand mother.
And i was brought up and raised in Liberia, West Africa from 3 months old to 11 years old.

I consider myself English.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Just for clarity, Maitland qualified for Scotland through parentage, not residency

Ah right...is he the one who had never set foot in Scotland before hand though?

Still i dont think there are huge numbers at the moment. I dont know what in the "pipeline" but still dont think theres a huge amount.

But what there is needs to be stopped and regulated further.

Its teams further down the tiers that abuse it more...now this is considered appropriate to develop rugby...but are we being hypocritical?

I would not agree with that, England are probably the most mulit-national of all the home nations and France don't seem to be so far behind them now.

It seems to cauase far more angst in the other countries of the UK than it does in England.