S.Armitage the frenchman?

Found this off another forum I was lurking

 Apparently the rugby paper is suggesting Armitage could play for France.

 Here the "loophole" that he could use:
 
ELIGIBILITY. As its Olympic Qualification next year, it means all players have to be qualified under Olympic eligibility rules and that means they have to have a passport for that nation. No exceptions. As you have seen with Halai’s exclusion from the NZ sevens side to compete at the Commonwealth Games (they have the same eligibility criteria), not everyone that has played international sevens also holds a passport for that country. Qualifying on residency is a lot easier than getting a passport in nearly every competing country so there will be players next season that will not be able to play for their respective teams until they have a passport. Having seen at first hand the pacific players in other countries teams playing under residency criteria, it might now be the time to look at this globally and see whether three years is just too short a time frame to become eligible to play for another country. I haven’t got a firm opinion on this but targeted poaching happens in other Olympic sports and this whole area needs a careful eye kept on it to see how it develops.

SWITCHING NATIONS. A ripple from this is a window that will also exist next year for players to effectively ‘switch’ countries back to a country they have a passport to. Ill try to explain this as simply as possible, so: If you haven’t played for 18 months for one of the “capped” teams in the nation you have already played for, AND hold a passport for another country then you can play in next year’s series for that country. Interestingly, once you make the switch, you are then available to be chosen for the nations XV’s test side too. You cannot switch back. After this season, the 18 months will go up to 3 years and the switch can only happen in an Olympic qualifying event or the Olympics itself, so if you don’t do it next season then its not again possible until the actual Olympics. If it I put this into a practical example, I will use Josh Drauniniu – sure you don’t mind Josh! Gets you some airtime! He played for England 7s in 2011 and hasn’t played for any other national England sides since. He holds a Fijian Passport (as well as a UK one) as was born and raised in Fiji so would be eligible for me to select if I wanted to and he wanted to. He could then play for Fiji at national 15’s level. Let me just make clear that this is just an example and not a clever ploy to lure Josh to back to Fiji! I just know the timings in this example in this and it just illustrates the point and also shows you that players do exist out there in this -

 As said I didn't see the article just saw this on a forum.

 Anyone who has seen the article care to way in.

Yep. Armitage could qualify for France if he wanted. The implications are very troubling; the floodgates could open.

Ozzy mentioned this in his thread last week. It came up in an interview given by sevens coach Ben Ryan. Here's the link:

http://ur7s.com/news/ben-ryan-goes-inside-olympic-rugby-sevens-and-talks-qualification-eligibility-player-availability-and-just-about-everything-you-need-to-know-

The Multi Coloured World of The Olympics.

Why should a totally different sporting body to the IRB be able to use it's qualifying critera to completely change the exiting qualifying criteria of International rugby?

Does the Olympic Movement own all sports globally?

Hopefully this will mean that the IRB will follow the Olympic rules (i.e. needing a passport) as well as retaining their current ones.

But does Armitage have a French passport? Is he eligible to get one? If he does I would have no problem with him playing for France.

Not sure that you really need a passport to represent a country. Have all the NI athletes that have represented Ireland over the years really got Irish passports? I doubt it.

I know McIlroy said in the past that he only holds a British one. Does that really mean that in order to represent Ireland he will have to get an Irish one? I not so sure.

Not so much worried about the idea of having passport identification.  More concerned with the 'seeming' - and I put that between quotes because this is what it seems to me from what I read but I could be mistaken - more concerned with the seeming ability of International players to use Olympic timetables to change International allegiances.  Yes, controlled by a four year cycle but that still gives players the theoretical opportunity to change allegiances perhaps three times in a career?

Some might say the theory would never become a stampede but that's not the point - the point is that it 'seems' to become legally okay.  And when that loophole becomes legally okay - you can bet that money offers will start informing where certain allegiances might lie in one four year cycle and where it might drift to in another 'going where the financial incentives are highest' one.

Or am I simply reading the intial post all wrong?

According to the article you do.

According to this you do too (Ice Skating but it's still the Olympics).

http://www.iceskating.org.uk/archive/files/SUMMARY%20OF%20ELIGIBILITY%20TO%20REPRESENT%20A%20COUNTRY%20IN%20THE%20OLYMPIC%20GAMES.pdf

The wording in the Charter is "a national", which means eligible for a passport rather than having to have one. I was told a while ago that everyone born in NI we eligible for an Irish passport...is that right? If so then they can compete even if they don't have one. I suppose it's like any Jew representing Israel because all Jews are nationals and can have a passport if they want (I think...old, vague information).

Ok well that is different to actually holding a passport. Makes more sense.

SecretFly wrote:Not so much worried about the idea of having passport identification.  More concerned with the 'seeming' - and I put that between quotes because this is what it seems to me from what I read but I could be mistaken - more concerned with the seeming ability of International players to use Olympic timetables to change International allegiances.  Yes, controlled by a four year cycle but that still gives players the theoretical opportunity to change allegiances perhaps three times in a career?

Some might say the theory would never become a stampede but that's not the point - the point is that it 'seems' to become legally okay.  And when that loophole becomes legally okay - you can bet that money offers will start informing where certain allegiances might lie in one four year cycle and where it might drift to in another 'going where the financial incentives are highest' one.

Or am I simply reading the intial post all wrong?

That seems about right but you have to be a national to represent a team at the Olympics. So that person would have to keep changing his nationality (or belong to more than one). If this forces a change in the IRB rules to require a passport I'd be all for it. Effectively makes residency 5 years.

But how do you prove you're a Jew. Could I say I'm a Jew (given that private religious convictions are my own concern and privilege) and get an Israeli passport? I certainly know a few Israelis in the past have gotten Irish ones easily enough   

HammerofThunor wrote:According to the article you do.

According to this you do too (Ice Skating but it's still the Olympics).

http://www.iceskating.org.uk/archive/files/SUMMARY%20OF%20ELIGIBILITY%20TO%20REPRESENT%20A%20COUNTRY%20IN%20THE%20OLYMPIC%20GAMES.pdf

The wording in the Charter is "a national", which means eligible for a passport rather than having to have one. I was told a while ago that everyone born in NI we eligible for an Irish passport...is that right? If so then they can compete even if they don't have one.  I suppose it's like any Jew representing Israel because all Jews are nationals and can have a passport if they want (I think...old, vague information).

There's a difference between being a citizen of a country (which entitles you to live and work there) and being a national of that country (which entitles you to apply for a passport). You can be a French citizen, and thus be eligible to play for France (on residency or heritage) but not be eligible to become a French National.

HammerofThunor wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Not so much worried about the idea of having passport identification.  More concerned with the 'seeming' - and I put that between quotes because this is what it seems to me from what I read but I could be mistaken - more concerned with the seeming ability of International players to use Olympic timetables to change International allegiances.  Yes, controlled by a four year cycle but that still gives players the theoretical opportunity to change allegiances perhaps three times in a career?

Some might say the theory would never become a stampede but that's not the point - the point is that it 'seems' to become legally okay.  And when that loophole becomes legally okay - you can bet that money offers will start informing where certain allegiances might lie in one four year cycle and where it might drift to in another 'going where the financial incentives are highest' one.

Or am I simply reading the intial post all wrong?

That seems about right but you have to be a national to represent a team at the Olympics. So that person would have to keep changing his nationality (or belong to more than one).  If this forces a change in the IRB rules to require a passport I'd be all for it.  Effectively makes residency 5 years.

But don't you see my point? That an athlete would have to keep changing his nationality is not an altogether unreasonable thing to assume some of them would do - if coaxed by mega buck offers.  Going to the highest bidder as a Mercenary International.  Not bound by the present law???? (is it? - isn't it?) that if you play for one International outfit, that's your lot for your entire career.

Unless you guys have some very different laws from what I am used to dealing with (as an adviser to the NZ passport and citizenship offices). A citizen is entitled as of right to a passport (very few exceptions in modern western countries). A citizen and a national is the same thing. Whether a person holds a passport or not makes no difference to their citizenship/nationality a passport is simply a document to facilitate international travel.

A person who is able to live and work in a country but is not a citizen usually holds a residence permit (also called permanent resident visa or green card in the US)

Frank Halai has been in NZ for many years and is therefore eligible for NZ citizenship (5 years in NZ). He has not taken out citizenship yet so is only a permanent resident so was not eligible for the Commonwealth games but since our Citizenship Office is very efficient (I worked on streamlining the process) most cases of Citizenship only take 1-3 months to process and can be done urgently in just a couple of days so he could easily be available for the Olympics)

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:That seems about right but you have to be a national to represent a team at the Olympics. So that person would have to keep changing his nationality (or belong to more than one).  If this forces a change in the IRB rules to require a passport I'd be all for it.  Effectively makes residency 5 years.

But don't you see my point? That an athlete would have to keep changing his nationality is not an altogether unreasonable thing to assume some of them would do - if coaxed by mega buck offers.  Going to the highest bidder as a Mercenary International.  Not bound by the present law???? (is it? - isn't it?) that if you play for one International outfit, that's your lot for your entire career.

I see your point, I'm just not worried about it. I think the idea there is a blanket ban on someone repesenting more than one country, while understandable, needless. I have no problem with people having more than one allegance (the multitudes of PI born and raised in New Zealand with strong links to their island(s) of familial origin).

nganboy, that's how I see it.

Jimpy, Armitage can only play rugby union for France if he first represents them at the Olympics. He can only represent them at the Olympics if he is a France national, eligible for a French passport.

Isn't his Mother or Father French though? That would allow him to qualify automatically wouldn't it?

nganboy wrote:Unless you guys have some very different laws from what I am used to dealing with (as an adviser to the NZ passport and citizenship offices). A citizen is entitled as of right to a passport (very few exceptions in modern western countries). A citizen and a national is the same thing. Whether a person holds a passport or not makes no difference to their citizenship/nationality a passport is simply a document to facilitate international travel.

A person who is able to live and work in a country but is not a citizen usually holds a residence permit (also called permanent resident visa or green card in the US)

Frank Halai has been in NZ for many years and is therefore eligible for NZ citizenship (5 years in NZ). He has not taken out citizenship yet so is only a permanent resident so was not eligible for the Commonwealth games but since our Citizenship Office is very efficient (I worked on streamlining the process) most cases of Citizenship only take 1-3 months to process and can be done urgently in just a couple of days so he could easily be available for the Olympics)

It does though because only a person eligible to apply for a passport in that country can hold one. In other words, a 'Citizen' or a 'National' of that country.

Japan is an interesting case in this respect. Dual nationality is not legal so, officially, anyone taking Japanese citizenship must renounce their former allegiance. Likewise, any Japanese national applying for a passport overseas is assumed to have renounced Japanese citizenship.

If you are born to a Japanese parent and another nationality parent, then you can have two (or more) passports but must choose only one by the age of 22.

Unofficially, there are hundreds of thousands of dual nationals. Those born as dual nationals often elect to be Japanese by 22 but never renounce their other allegiance. Japanese spouses granted passports overseas never bother to inform the Ministry of Justice.

Some of the foreign-born rugby players representing Japan have naturalized but it's not always that easy. Until recently, it could often take nine years just to earn permanent residency (the equivalent of a Green Card in the US)

Incidentally, I think the idea of some mercenary rugby player gaming the system is fanciful.

Jimpy wrote:Isn't his Mother or Father French though? That would allow him to qualify automatically wouldn't it?

I've never heard of that. His birth parents are from Trinidad and Tobago and his link to France is that his English step-father moved there for work for 6 years. That's why they count as JIFF as they came through the French system at the time. Not sure if that's enough to make you a French national (but they would qualify for France under IRB regs by residency only). Ben Botica supposedly has a UK passport as he lived here from 1 to about 9. But he's not eligble for England (although he would be if he played in the Olympics).

I think Nganboy's point is that if you have a passport you are a national or citizen. If you're a national or citizen you don't have to have a passport but the only reason you don't have one is because you haven't applied for one (or are not allowed to leave the country I suppose).

Unless I've slightly misunderstood, this could be an interesting chance for Fiji, Samoa etc to claim some ex All Blacks for the world cup. Presumably the likes of Sivivatu/Rockoko etc. are still passport holders for PI countries and could provide invaluable experience for the 15 a side teams.

Of course this would require potentially kicking out a 7's specialist and maybe damaging the chances of Fiji's only medal, but it does seem as if it would be a way to get around the only play for one team rule, which I know both NZ and the PI's have been keen to remove.

Jimpy wrote:Isn't his Mother or Father French though? That would allow him to qualify automatically wouldn't it?

Were he uncapped that would suffice if true, but he has played for England. Reg 8.2 says that you can only play for one country (now subject to the new Olympic regulations). His only route to playing for France would therefore be by representing them at the Olympics first, which requires nationality, not just the usual qualifying criteria such as grandparents or three years' residency. Have a look at regulation 8.7 onwards if interested. On my phone now so can't provide link easily.

Bathman_in_London wrote:Unless I've slightly misunderstood, this could be an interesting chance for Fiji, Samoa etc to claim some ex All Blacks for the world cup. Presumably the likes of Sivivatu/Rockoko etc. are still passport holders for PI countries and could provide invaluable experience for the 15 a side teams.

Of course this would require potentially kicking out a 7's specialist and maybe damaging the chances of Fiji's only medal, but it does seem as if it would be a way to get around the only play for one team rule, which I know both NZ and the PI's have been keen to remove.

I guess it depends on whether they hold passports. Sivivatu probably holds a Fijian passport. I'm guessing Rokocoko doesn't. I'm assuming he has a NZ passport given he moved to NZ at the age of 4, probably on his mothers passport. The players in NZ that would be most likely are those who came as students (i.e. Halai and Fekitoa). Interestingly SBW now has a Samoan passport. he needed one to play for Toulon and I understand the Samoan PM intervened to get him one. I guess you might have a point as players can increase their marketability with an Island passport (i.e. they work rights under European law). There may be more people than you'd normally expect to be working on Samoan, Tongan and Fijian passports.

Just to be clear, the IRB regulation 8 has been changed. The change is obviously to do with the Olympics.

To represent a team at the Olympics you have to be a National (eligible for a passport) and meet the IRB regulations. If you have already represented a country and want to represent another at the Olympic then:

1) You're a national of the country you've represented (most people) then you have to have approval by the IRB for your individual case.

2) You're not a national of the country you've represented (Hape?) then you can switch to another country you ARE a national of.

Both cases require a cool down period. So in the case of Armitage, assuming he is a UK national via his step-father if nothing else, then he would require IRB approval in his specific case to play for France (would probably get it for spending 6 years there as a kid even if they're being 'strict').

For cases like the UK you're still tied to your original Union (e.g. North can't switch to England after playing in the Olympics). Depending on whether the IRFU are official covering Team GB because of NI (I know there's been an agreement but don't know if that's offical or unofficial) then it may or may not be possible for a NI player to switch from Ireland to British team (they would still require IRB eligibility for that team).

IMO the IRB should use the same criteria as the IOC, with the exception of the Home Nations. This whole changing your nation thing is making international rugby into a farce.

Are you aware that currently the IRB doesn't allow you to change your nation and that they are now to fit with the IOC requirements? Or do you mean playing for a different nationality? Because the IOC just require you to be a national, which isn't exactly restrictive.

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/17248/exclusive-steffon-armitage-eyes-world-cup-chance-with-france/

blackcanelion wrote:http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/17248/exclusive-steffon-armitage-eyes-world-cup-chance-with-france/

The funny part of that it would seem he blames Lancaster for not picking him when he left LI for Toulon knowing that he was sacrificing his international aspirations  

marty2086 wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/17248/exclusive-steffon-armitage-eyes-world-cup-chance-with-france/

The funny part of that it would seem he blames Lancaster for not picking him when he left LI for Toulon knowing that he was sacrificing his international aspirations  

Does he? There is absolutely no substance to that article at all. And given the 'articles' they've been churning out means they could very easily have completely made it up.

But it does suggest that Armitage isn't a French national. So he'd have to sort that out first, then play for their Olympic team.

Yes L'Equipe was running a similar story... I also dont think he has a french passport or that he could get one easily. So it stops here.

I am still confused on this one (not hard i know) but is it only the French national/passport route open, does this or would this rule apply via residency.

For e.g. lets say Hook or Byrne had been out there long enough to qualify on residency and hadn't played for Wales in 18 months (Byrne hasn't but should of done) would they then also be available to the French 7s side?

Please correct me if I an wrong but thought the IOC rule to qualify for the olympic 7s implied that you need to have the relevant nationality?

To qualify for an Olympic rugb event you have to qualify via the IRB regs (birth, parents, residency) AND you have to be a national for that country.

If you've played union for another country you have to have not played international rugby for 3 years (or 18 months for Rio) AND, if you were a national of the country, you played for you need IRB approval for your specific case.

Once you've played an Olympic game, you're tied to that country instead. Olympic games include the qualification games.

The more I hear about this, the less I think it is going to have much of an impact.

It can only realistically affect a player who

- has represented one international team but is also a national of another country with a team which qualifies to play in the Olympic sevens tournament)
- has been ignored by the selectors of his primary team for the relevant period (as Hammer notes, 18 months for Rio)
- Is good enough at sevens to warrant selection for the other team, or is so good that the team would sacrifice a sevens spot for him just so he could qualify for their fifteens side.

Most players who have been ignored for selection are too old, not good enough, and/or not a national of another relevant country. There's another group - Sonny Bill Williams might be in it if he's entitled to a Samoan passport - who wouldn't be interested.