IRB on Residency Laws; "There's little we can do about it from an IRB perspective."

First topic message reminder :

Seems to me like there is quite a large amount they can do about it... ultimately they can do whatever they like about it. They just don't give a shoite.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_9299770,00.html

On the subject of eligibility, it's worth pointing that the IRB residency rules won't apply at the Olympics. Only passport holders will be entitled to play for qualified sides so there are quite a few on the Sevens circuit who won't be eligible.

Their teams won't necessarily make the cut for Rio but there is some uncertainly about whether players who are ineligible for the Olympics should play in next season's sevens series. Next season's results will determine which sides qualify for so it may not make a lot of sense to have ineligible players influencing the pecking order.

The 7s in Rio will be somewhat different in that we will have a team GB, and no Home Nations squads. Do you know how the qualification works in the case of Team GB?

Well, if England qualify then maybe Team GB should qualify. They'll be the bulk of the team. Maybe they should just make it if any of the British teams qualify. I assume they'll just pick the best players for the England, Scotland and Wales teams that are on the Sevens circuit so if any one of those three teams is good enough then it logically follows that a team comprised of those players and more would be even better. It's not an even system but that is impossible for rugby when the Olympics is organised along different national lines.

I expect there will be a gentleman's agreement not to consider any Ulster-born players with the IRFU, which is likely a moot point as we have no team on the sevens circuit anyway. I can't imagine someone who is contracted by the IRFU to play international rugby for Ireland going and representing Team GB in the Olympics and given the lack of N.Irish sevens specialists I expect that there will be a clandestine agreement not to put any players in that position with the attendant controversy it would generate.

It would be logical that the formal and informal agreements have been in place for a while.  I had no idea, so I just performed a Google search.  
Looks like only one of Scotland, Wales, England can be Team GB - this is just plain dumb.  

It is the Olympics.  We are one country.  Epic Fail.  Epic Bureaucratic Fail:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/no-chance-of-a-team-gb-in-rugby-sevens-at-rio-after-ioc-and-irb-ruling-states-only-one-of-england-wales-or-scotland-can-represent-britain-9112299.html

And more clarification of how Darwin was wrong (in particular instances):
http://ur7s.com/news/team_gb_rugby_7s_rocked_by_ioc_decision

Well thats amusing. But Olympic sports being organised along one country basis in the UK and rugby being organised along the basis of the constituent countries of the UK does make the qualifying process fundamentally awkward.

There was a GB football team in 2012 but that was solely because GB were hosting the games. Thats the only reason it was there.

I have no doubt that if the UK hosts the games again they'll get to enter a Sevens side, as they won't have to qualify, but you know... you just had it. So that could be a long, long way away.

doctor_grey wrote:It would be logical that the formal and informal agreements have been in place for a while.  I had no idea, so I just performed a Google search.  
Looks like only one of Scotland, Wales, England can be Team GB - this is just plain dumb. It is the Olympics.  We are one country.  Epic Fail.  Epic Bureaucratic Fail:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/no-chance-of-a-team-gb-in-rugby-sevens-at-rio-after-ioc-and-irb-ruling-states-only-one-of-england-wales-or-scotland-can-represent-britain-9112299.html

And more clarification of how Darwin was wrong (in particular instances):
http://ur7s.com/news/team_gb_rugby_7s_rocked_by_ioc_decision

I think doc that we look on these issues from how they affect us and dont consider it from others point of view. If Great Britain is allowed to field thre teams in the Olympics, ie England, Scotland and Wales then New Zealand should be allowed to field three teams as well.

Tbh, 7s being in the Olympics is a complete joke anyway.

Wonder if the home nations would have worked so hard on the 7s bid and invested so much money if they would have known there would be no team GB entry.

Aucklandlaure it is only 1 team.

If u get To enter the best if the PI as team NZ why can't GB enter the best of GB as team GB?

I repeat - 7s should never have gotten into the Olympics.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:It would be logical that the formal and informal agreements have been in place for a while.  I had no idea, so I just performed a Google search.  
Looks like only one of Scotland, Wales, England can be Team GB - this is just plain dumb.  It is the Olympics.  We are one country.  Epic Fail.  Epic Bureaucratic Fail:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/no-chance-of-a-team-gb-in-rugby-sevens-at-rio-after-ioc-and-irb-ruling-states-only-one-of-england-wales-or-scotland-can-represent-britain-9112299.html

And more clarification of how Darwin was wrong (in particular instances):
http://ur7s.com/news/team_gb_rugby_7s_rocked_by_ioc_decision

 I think doc that we look on these issues from how they affect us and dont consider it from others point of view. If Great Britain is allowed to field thre teams in the Olympics, ie England, Scotland and Wales then New Zealand should be allowed to field three teams as well.

GB would only be entering one team. I think doc's point is that rather than best players from GB it'll be the best players from England or Scotland or Wales. But wasn't this because the WRU and SRU refused to have a joint team? Or is that football?

That was football

Sorry guys I completely misunderstood/read Docs remarks I apologise.

No worries

Olympics should be the very top level of that particular sport/event.

Team sports like soccer and rugby shouldn't be part of it.

I guess I'm a bit of a traditionalist and it should be fastest/longest/highest etc.

Yeah the heart of the Olympics is track and field, I love that other under appreciated sports are in there too like judo, shooting, archery etc. They need the exposure. I also love that amateur boxing remains a big part of the Olympics as it has a different ethos to the very commercial world of professional boxing.

Mens Football and tennis don't need the exposure, nor does mens rugby or golf.

But I will say one thing thats good about it and thats in terms of both football and rugby it puts the womens game on an even footing and gives it some much needed exposure.

why should the womens game be on an even footing with the mens game in soccer and rugby?

when the product is on an equal footing, and the demand to pay to see it is on an equal footing, then it will BE on an equal footing. politically correct billing by IOC or the BBC website dont alter the fact women's football, rugby and cricket are completely uninteresting commercially. and thats because they are a rubbish standard, and not that many women play any of those 3 sports. compare it to womens tennis which is very very popular. Political correctness in sport in this respect is just another form of absurd government intervention that is completely doomed to fail.

yeah, Moody Cows.

quinsforever wrote:when the product is on an equal footing, and the demand to pay to see it is on an equal footing, then it will BE on an equal footing. politically correct billing by IOC or the BBC website dont alter the fact women's football, rugby and cricket are completely uninteresting commercially.

Well, you've shifted the goalpost there. Womens sport doesn't have to be on a equal footing commercially with mens to be viable. I can't think of many sports which match the revenue or profile of the men's version. Certainly not athletics, tennis or golf, but they are all viable. Possibly ice skating and, on occasion, table tennis, volleyball and judo.

The IOC asks that any sport which wants to be included in the Olympics be genuinely global, and open to all. Women get so little in the way of resources that anything which encourages associations to invest in increasing women's participation in their sport is a good thing. There's more to sport worldwide than just the professional level.

quinsforever wrote:I repeat - 7s should never have gotten into the Olympics.

Rubbish. It's the perfect Olmypic format and will be debuting in London 2016.

quinsforever wrote:why should the womens game be on an even footing with the mens game in soccer and rugby?

when the product is on an equal footing, and the demand to pay to see it is on an equal footing, then it will BE on an equal footing. politically correct billing by IOC or the BBC website dont alter the fact women's football, rugby and cricket are completely uninteresting commercially. and thats because they are a rubbish standard, and not that many women play any of those 3 sports. compare it to womens tennis which is very very popular. Political correctness in sport in this respect is just another form of absurd government intervention that is completely doomed to fail.

It's not that it should be, it's nothing to do with commercial imperatives- it's to do with providing sporting role models for girls and encouraging participation. Sport is just a healthy thing to do. Anything that gets more girls involved in sport is good. And so the Olympics giving equal billing to women's sport is potentially a very good thing. After all, unless participation rises then the standard never will.

The Olympics giving equal exposure to womens sport has absolutely nothing to do with government intervention or political correctness either. I don't know where that came from. It's just part of the Olympic ethos.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Sorry guys I completely misunderstood/read Docs remarks I apologise.

Nothing to apologise for Lauire.
Hammer was right, I think it's nuts for there not to be a unified Team GB in the 7s. GB is about the whole of Great Britain not a part of it. In my opinion, one of the reasons the London Olympics were successful was the support of the entire country, regardless of our historical national borders. Very much of a B&(N)I Lions 7s team. However, they would go, would be great for the country.

Scratch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:I repeat - 7s should never have gotten into the Olympics.

Rubbish. It's the perfect Olmypic format and will be debuting in London 2016.

You mean Rio in 2016, methinks.
It should have been in London 2012.  Would have been massive.  But was kept out exclusively for political reasons.

I don't usually wade into these debates as firstly they tend to repeat themselves a lot and they're also a hot bed for easily loosing your cool (excuse the pun).

However the possible selection of Paterson via the grandparent rule has pushed me back to it. I'm the first to admit that I'm not the most informed on the topic (especially views and workings of it in the SH) but it just frustrates me as to my eyes the below could simply solve many of the issues surrounding it which frustrate fans so much:

- Get rid of the grandparent rule

- Raise residency to 5 years for people who have been residents in said country since younger than 18

- Raise residency to 7 years for people who have been residents in said country since aged 18 or older

- If you hold dual (or more) eligibility but have represented a different country in Rugby League you can't then switch sides upon moving to Union

- International sides should have to name an official second string side so we don't end up with another Shingler debacle such as Wales and Scotland had

I accept nationality is a delicate issue and an increasingly ambiguous one as International migration has become easier and therefore more likely. I also wish in no way to offend anyone and as said don't consider myself massively informed on the subject. I just feel the above would solve many issues if inevitably not all of them.

doctor_grey wrote:You mean Rio in 2016, methinks.
It should have been in London 2012.  Would have been massive.  But was kept out exclusively for political reasons.

I think Scratch might have been cheekily referring to Rio's lack of preparedness, and the rumour that London has been sounded out to provide an alternative if it all looks too hopeless.

Rugby Fan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:You mean Rio in 2016, methinks.
It should have been in London 2012.  Would have been massive.  But was kept out exclusively for political reasons.

I think Scratch might have been cheekily referring to Rio's lack of preparedness, and the rumour that London has been sounded out to provide an alternative if it all looks too hopeless.

Quite right, the IOC have unofficially put London on warning that they might have to step in, fact is Rio has only 10% preparedness and is regarded as being unlikely to be ready.

I believe that the 3 year residency rule is because for some countries you are eligable for citizenship & passport after 3 years & it would be strange to have a passport but not be able to represent that country.

Rugby Fan wrote:

quinsforever wrote:when the product is on an equal footing, and the demand to pay to see it is on an equal footing, then it will BE on an equal footing. politically correct billing by IOC or the BBC website dont alter the fact women's football, rugby and cricket are completely uninteresting commercially.

Well, you've shifted the goalpost there. Womens sport doesn't have to be on a equal footing commercially with mens to be viable. I can't think of many sports which match the revenue or profile of the men's version. Certainly not athletics, tennis or golf, but they are all viable. Possibly ice skating and, on occasion, table tennis, volleyball and judo.

The IOC asks that any sport which wants to be included in the Olympics be genuinely global, and open to all. Women get so little in the way of resources that anything which encourages associations to invest in increasing women's participation in their sport is a good thing. There's more to sport worldwide than just the professional level.

Will there be gold medals for woman rugby 7s?

That would be a total joke.

It's not about equality, it's simply a nothing sport to woman. There are so few woman who play rugby that the competition is simply not going to be thorough enough. It's rode in on the back of the 15s format and popularity and that 7s is quicker to complete and is more competitive amongst nations.

You don't haves male synchronised swimming in the Olympics... For a very good reason, it just ain't a sport that males are interested in... Bring it in and of course you'd get Russia and China entering because to them gold medals are very import stunt to their pseudo image they portray to the world.

It just lessens the value of a genuine Olympic event. A real shame if true, but if that's what it took to get rugby on board then so be it.

fa0019 wrote:...it's simply a nothing sport to woman. There are so few woman who play rugby that the competition is simply not going to be thorough enough...

Just as in men's sevens, different countries have come to the fore compared with the fifteen a side code. The first women's sevens side to get funding for full time players was the Netherlands, and they aren't even one of the best sides. Here's the current standing:

NZ
Australia
Canada
England
Russia
Spain
United States
Fiji
France
Brazil
Netherlands
Ireland
China
Argentina
Tunisia
Japan


Its inclusion in the Olympics has done a great deal for the sport in countries where the full code had no real traction with women. Japan, for instance, how has a National High School Sevens tournament for girls. That's a big deal in a country where high school sport has a popularity akin to college sport in the US. The IRB says womens rugby is the fastest growing side of the sport (albeit from a low base)

Women's rugby sevens is not as competitive as football or basketball but, even at this early stage, it ranks ahead of softball in terms of the number of competitive sides. Just look at that list: the North Americans are better positioned than in XVs or mens sevens; two Asian sides are playing regular tournaments and we've hardly got going with Africa, Tunisia plays regularly but South Africa only signed up its elite players a few months ago.

fastest growing... as in doubled their playing numbers from 1000 to 2000.... probably when Russia and China gave the green light for funding as it became an olympic sport.

In the end if its what got the go ahead to get the event then so be it.... its simply a farce though. Nothing to do with woman's sport.... if there is a sport favoured by woman specifically over men I hope its considered as a female sport only.

The olympics should be about the pinnacle of sport, a gold medal in one should equal a gold medal in another.

fa0019 wrote:The olympics should be about the pinnacle of sport, a gold medal in one should equal a gold medal in another.

I think we disagree about what the Olympics has actually represented in the past, and also what the aims of the Olympic movement should be.

Leaving that aside, it's worth noting that the few of the world's best rugby players will be at Rio. The outgoing Australian sevens coach Michael O'Connor thinks only Folau and Hooper would be worth bringing in, and he thinks they'll need at least four sevens tournaments to get up to speed.

If elite rugby players had the time to focus on sevens, many would be great players in the short code. They don't, so most sevens teams are made up of players the average rugby fan has never heard of. With a few exceptions, these people are the best sevens exponents available by virtue of the unavailability of better options.

By contrast, the womens sevens teams are mostly made up of players who turn out for their country in the fifteen a side code too. They are actually the best rugby players in their respective countries.

Scratch wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:You mean Rio in 2016, methinks.
It should have been in London 2012.  Would have been massive.  But was kept out exclusively for political reasons.

I think Scratch might have been cheekily referring to Rio's lack of preparedness, and the rumour that London has been sounded out to provide an alternative if it all looks too hopeless.

Quite right, the IOC have unofficially put London on warning that they might have to step in, fact is Rio has only 10% preparedness and is regarded as being unlikely to be ready.

There really are a lot of reports that Rio is unprepared and won't make it.  Amazing.  I hear the Soccer World Cup is going to make it by a hair, and a lot of the Brazilian national infrastructure enhancements in the country will not be complete.  A mate just got back from Brazil and told me the new terminal being built in the Sao Paulo Airport to handle the crowds for the Soccer World Cup is not close to being ready.  Apparently it is like this all over the country.  

So London is on the unofficial back-up list?  I hadn't heard that, but it makes perfect sense.

doctor_grey wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:You mean Rio in 2016, methinks.
It should have been in London 2012.  Would have been massive.  But was kept out exclusively for political reasons.

I think Scratch might have been cheekily referring to Rio's lack of preparedness, and the rumour that London has been sounded out to provide an alternative if it all looks too hopeless.

Quite right, the IOC have unofficially put London on warning that they might have to step in, fact is Rio has only 10% preparedness and is regarded as being unlikely to be ready.

There really are a lot of reports that Rio is unprepared and won't make it.  Amazing.  I hear the Soccer World Cup is going to make it by a hair, and a lot of the Brazilian national infrastructure enhancements in the country will not be complete.  A mate just got back from Brazil and told me the new terminal being built in the Sao Paulo Airport to handle the crowds for the Soccer World Cup is not close to being ready.  Apparently it is like this all over the country.  

So London is on the unofficial back-up list?  I hadn't heard that, but it makes perfect sense.

Apparently Sydney is as well.

Whatever happens the Olympics will happen in Brazil, the IOC would never allow that to fail as it would be the end of the gravy train, just like FIFA giving the World Cup to Quatar despite it having no stadiums or infrastructure.

Irish Londoner wrote:Whatever happens the Olympics will happen in Brazil, the IOC would never allow that to fail as it would be the end of the gravy train, just like FIFA giving the World Cup to Quatar despite it having no stadiums or infrastructure.

"London saves the day" has a nice ring to it but, in reality, no-one would thank us for stepping in. There'd be quite a few who would see London as stealing the games. We would do very well to politely decline if asked.

I remember after the Sydney games that because they had gone so well some people were wondering if they should go there permanently, but then we didnt do too badly either

police in brazil warn football fans, "dont scream if robbed" in order to avoid being murdered

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-27373457

how scary is that?

There were also the shots of Brazilian paramilitary police carrying light machine guns. I know Brazil isnt all like that but...

Ever played Max Payne III?

Irish Londoner wrote:Whatever happens the Olympics will happen in Brazil, the IOC would never allow that to fail as it would be the end of the gravy train, just like FIFA giving the World Cup to Quatar despite it having no stadiums or infrastructure.

i disagree

if they go ahead in Brazil and are a fiasco then heads will roll, if the IOC calls it and moves the games they will be saving the day from the Brazilians who just announced that if you get robbed in Brazil during the footie you shouldn't scream or you may die…….bodes well for the greatest sporting spectacle on earth.

I've been to Rio, its a safe city as long as you're not an idiot.

There will be a lot of police around the tourist areas during the competition so I doubt it will be massive problem.

In the last FIFA world cup the wind up british media said all the fans were going to get mugged/contract HIV from hookers etc. Did it happen?

Mmmm Brazilian cops have been well documented as being involved in robberies and murders themselves and when you throw some booze into the mix you'll see some incidents after dark.

Scratch wrote:Mmmm Brazilian cops have been well documented as being involved in robberies and murders themselves and when you throw some booze into the mix you'll see some incidents after dark.

Been watching Danny Dyers - toughest towns international again on Bravo???

Actually been to Brasil? Perhaps living in SA has neutralised my fear (hey I've never been mugged here either, touch wood)!!! Am I simply one of the vocal minority? Perhaps muggers don't like my face, too much rugby perhaps???

Going on holiday to a place doesn't mean you know the city well I agree... but cops are the same around the world... don't mess during major global events or you can kiss goodbye to those human rights in custody.

fa0019 wrote:

Scratch wrote:Mmmm Brazilian cops have been well documented as being involved in robberies and murders themselves and when you throw some booze into the mix you'll see some incidents after dark.

Been watching Danny Dyers - toughest towns international again on Bravo???

Actually been to Brasil? Perhaps living in SA has neutralised my fear (hey I've never been mugged here either, touch wood)!!! Am I simply one of the vocal minority? Perhaps muggers don't like my face, too much rugby perhaps???

Going on holiday to a place doesn't mean you know the city well I agree... but cops are the same around the world... don't mess during major global events or you can kiss goodbye to those human rights in custody.

er, no they aren't. very naive.

Yes been to SA on tour and felt safe except in Joburg, Brazil twice and both times in Rio, sketchy is an understatement. Get drunk in this city after dark and the hawks will be on you….

Scratch wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Scratch wrote:Mmmm Brazilian cops have been well documented as being involved in robberies and murders themselves and when you throw some booze into the mix you'll see some incidents after dark.

Been watching Danny Dyers - toughest towns international again on Bravo???

Actually been to Brasil? Perhaps living in SA has neutralised my fear (hey I've never been mugged here either, touch wood)!!! Am I simply one of the vocal minority? Perhaps muggers don't like my face, too much rugby perhaps???

Going on holiday to a place doesn't mean you know the city well I agree... but cops are the same around the world... don't mess during major global events or you can kiss goodbye to those human rights in custody.

er, no they aren't. very naive.

Yes been to SA on tour and felt safe except in Joburg, Brazil twice and both times in Rio, sketchy is an understatement. Get drunk in this city after dark and the hawks will be on you….

I live south of Johburg and haven't been in the city in many a year, it is dirty, dangerous, over populated and generally very unpleasant.

Hope that pr1ck Pat Lam hasn't seen this

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11255027

So the All Blacks will soon have to change their name to the All Comers!!

Like Samoa you mean?

ebop wrote:Like Samoa you mean?

Well they had to backfill somehow

Bet Thor becomes Kiwi PDQ.

True, I guess if Faletau can become Welsh, anything is possible huh.

ebop wrote:True, I guess if Faletau can become Welsh, anything is possible huh.

He has been in Wales for 17 years. More than half his life, think he qualifies as pure Taff.