France to stop selecting 'foreign' players - Bernard Laporte

by king_carlos Thu Dec 22, 2016 8:11 am

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38389827

France will stop selecting non-French players who have qualified under the three-year residency rule, national federation boss Bernard Laporte says.

He announced the move after meeting World Rugby president Bill Beaumont.

"I told Bill that we've taken the political decision to stop playing foreign players in the national team," Laporte said.

Foreign-born players who currently play for France will remain eligible but new players will require a French passport.

The decision means the likes of New Zealand-born prop Uini Atonio, South Africa-born full-back Scott Spedding and Fiji-born wings Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa will continue to be available for France.

"Obviously, it's not retroactive. Those playing can continue playing but it's a strong signal for French academies and our youngsters that we'll play a maximum number of Frenchmen," added Laporte, the former France head coach who was elected president of the French Rugby Federation on 3 December.

World Rugby rules allow a player to represent another country if he has lived there for three consecutive years and has not played for anyone else, although the global governing body is looking to extend the period to five years.

France have become renowned for picking foreign players in recent years as the financial strength of the Top 14 has brought a flood of foreigners into their top division at a time when the national team has been struggling.

In the past five years, France have come fifth four times in the Six Nations and last on the other occasion.

However, virtually all Tier One teams field players who have qualified on residency grounds.

The issue of foreign-qualified players has also been highlighted by the plight of the Pacific Islands - Fiji, Samoa and Tonga - who often lose talented players to the bigger and richer nations.

The gist is that France will continue selecting residency qualified players who have already played for France, for instance Scott Spedding, Uini Antonio, Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa in the current squad. From now on new caps will require a French passport to be eligible to play for France.

Interesting move and a good one for the game in France and as a whole. It's sad that individual Unions are taking action against the 3 year residency rule before World Rugby are. The decision was announced after Laporte met with Bill Beaumont though which is another positive indication that World Ruby are looking to do more about eligibility problems whilst led by Beaumont and Pichot.

by Guest Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:56 pm

marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

What coaches are pretending to be different?

The ones that fly in and fly out and flick about

Hows that being different?

Trying to be different would be putting on an accent ala Schteve McClaren or changing their name to a local equivalent

Being different would be to coach Australia, South Africa, Japan and England like a 2 bob hooker. Coaches can pimp themselves out at will without shame.

by The Great Aukster Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:16 am

Recwatcher16 wrote:I would argue coaches do represent their employer/ country. The phrase Test match was meant to represent the best each rugby nation could produce which includes the management and coaching.
(Perhaps) there is a surplus of quality coaches because there are not enough top tier professional sides competing in enough domestic leages - ie.Sanzar, Wales, Scotland.

To clarify - scrapping the granny rule does not mean ruling out the birthplace of parents.

Fans with their colours in the stand are also representing their country, should they all be checked too for relevant documentation!

Residency period, grandparents, country of birth, passport, whatever criteria are used will all have loopholes. The qualification issue that International rugby is trying to deal with is caused by the club game. Fans don't seem to mind that their clubs are populated by 'non-nationals'. In fact the incentive for club owners is to recruit players that will never play Test rugby as they won't be away on International duty or get injured doing so, therefore the market for capped All Blacks has never been higher.

France's problem is not the tiny number of uncapped players being selected for Les Bleus, but rather the legion of 'foreign' capped imports blocking indiginous players development at club level.

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:28 am

ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

What coaches are pretending to be different?

The ones that fly in and fly out and flick about

Hows that being different?

Trying to be different would be putting on an accent ala Schteve McClaren or changing their name to a local equivalent
Being different would be to coach Australia, South Africa, Japan and England like a 2 bob hooker. Coaches can pimp themselves out at will without shame.

Ill bow to your expertise on 2 bob hookers but they aren't being different they are doing what they are paid to do, otherwise you just don't know the meaning of the word different

by Guest Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:34 am

marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

What coaches are pretending to be different?

The ones that fly in and fly out and flick about

Hows that being different?

Trying to be different would be putting on an accent ala Schteve McClaren or changing their name to a local equivalent
Being different would be to coach Australia, South Africa, Japan and England like a 2 bob hooker. Coaches can pimp themselves out at will without shame.

Ill bow to your expertise on 2 bob hookers but they aren't being different they are doing what they are paid to do, otherwise you just don't know the meaning of the word different

Players and coaches are paid

What's the difference

Go on, tell me

by aucklandlaurie Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:34 am

marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

What coaches are pretending to be different?

The ones that fly in and fly out and flick about

Hows that being different?

Trying to be different would be putting on an accent ala Schteve McClaren or changing their name to a local equivalent
Being different would be to coach Australia, South Africa, Japan and England like a 2 bob hooker. Coaches can pimp themselves out at will without shame.

Ill bow to your expertise on 2 bob hookers but they aren't being different they are doing what they are paid to do, otherwise you just don't know the meaning of the word different

Marty, I cant think of a player that has played for Australia, Japan, South Africa and England, hence different.

by Guest Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:39 am

And to be fair Eddie Jones was a 2 bob hooker

by Recwatcher16 Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:40 am

Ha - you appear to be promoting that clubs should only employ pure blood nationals rather than on merit - be careful where you end up with that.
Clubs do not represent their local area/ national identity and haven't done so for a long time.
Those players from countries that do not have comparable domestic leagues would just be abandoned under your scenario - nice.

In any other walk of life you obtain employment on merit where the admin allows - why not professional rugby players.

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:42 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

What coaches are pretending to be different?

The ones that fly in and fly out and flick about

Hows that being different?

Trying to be different would be putting on an accent ala Schteve McClaren or changing their name to a local equivalent
Being different would be to coach Australia, South Africa, Japan and England like a 2 bob hooker. Coaches can pimp themselves out at will without shame.

Ill bow to your expertise on 2 bob hookers but they aren't being different they are doing what they are paid to do, otherwise you just don't know the meaning of the word different

Marty, I cant think of a player that has played for Australia, Japan, South Africa and England, hence different.

Well if that's your argument maybe we should include the physios, team managers and chairmen of the different unions too

by Guest Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:49 am

Recwatcher16 wrote:Ha - you appear to be promoting that clubs should only employ pure blood nationals rather than on merit - be careful where you end up with that.
Clubs do not represent their local area/ national identity and haven't done so for a long time.
Those players from countries that do not have comparable domestic leagues would just be abandoned under your scenario - nice.

In any other walk of life you obtain employment on merit where the admin allows - why not professional rugby players.

That's arrogance for you right there

Spelt out in all its humble glory

Those poor Fijians wouldn't have anywhere to play their rugby if it wasn't for all those thoughtful NH clubs throwing them a bone. Probably more money in it than playing sevens.

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:01 am

Recwatcher16 wrote:
Clubs do not represent their local area/ national identity and haven't done so for a long time.

Speak for yourself, some still retain an identity and place within local communities

by Guest Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:26 am

The Great Aukster wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Good for France. Hopefully Ireland will follow their example, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

What I really want to see is the 3 year residency rule expanded to 5 right now.

So France will now select players of lesser ability because they are "French" - that sounds like a recipe for success.

In the long-term, absolutely. I agree with you.

On the other hand, France, or Ireland, could actually recruit as many of the really talented foreign players, and really boost their chances of winning big. I'm sure all the French and Ireland fans will lap up a foreign side playing for them.

There's also the question of blocking French born, or Irish born, players from coming through, but who cares when we get success? Who cares if it demotivates others from performing to their best? And who cares if we rob other nations of their talent? It's definitely the way to go.

When a national rugby president (who is tasked with success) decides to unilaterally make it a bit harder for his country, the question has to be asked - why?
Before his current position Laporte was appointed Minister of Sport by François Fillon - the Prime Minister who described himself as 'right of the right'. Could this recent stance in support of blood qualification simply be a populist political statement?

Regarding blocking, it's surprising to learn you agree with Nucifora, that foreign players should not be allowed to block indigenous ones, whatever the consequences on success.
Ulster have a potential Test tighthead in Wiehahn Herbst, who will have trained and played for three years alongside his provincial competition before being eligible. If he's raising the standard, surely that competition is good, showing others what's required (same as Ruan). OTOH blood qualified Michael Bent sets his foot for the first time in Ireland and is given a green shirt at the airport - now that's demotivating. Rather than castigate those muggles for earning qualification through residency, maybe it would be far fairer if all Ireland representatives had to be living in and have spent at least three years in the country?

When countries like Fiji have a national wage of 87p per hour, perhaps they are thankful that there is an increasing demand for their players abroad, some of whom will play for other nations (rather than just New Zealand), but many won't and in general they will have a bigger pool to pick from.

Perhaps Monsieur Laporte has evidence that the presence of 'sang français' coursing through the veins of his team affects their performance or perhaps he is just pandering to the right of the right?

So, if the the Prime Minister described himself as 'left of the left', that would make everything ok? The decision of Laporte should be judged on its impact on French rugby, not on the politics of the French Prime Minister.

Thought you might counter with my views on Nucifora, and you are wrong. First of all, Pienaar isn't blocking any player, and Pienaar certainly isn't going to play for Ireland. I have said that if Pienaar was blocking Irish born talent, then fair enough. I could then understand Nucifora turning down Pienaar's extension. I don't think Herbst, or Ludik, should be qualifying to play for Ireland at the seasons end. That's why I said I would like at least a 5 year residency rule.

You're right that foreign signings help raise the standard, but then Pienaar proves that we can sign world class talent, such as Pienaar and Piutau, who will help raise standards yet will never play for Ireland.

The minimum wage level for Fiji is about £1.90 per hour, but the average wage level is £12 - £13k, annually. Nobody is saying the Fijians shouldn't play abroad. Just that those in Europe should not poach them for their national side.

by Recwatcher16 Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:52 am

ebop wrote:
Recwatcher16 wrote:Ha - you appear to be promoting that clubs should only employ pure blood nationals rather than on merit - be careful where you end up with that.
Clubs do not represent their local area/ national identity and haven't done so for a long time.
Those players from countries that do not have comparable domestic leagues would just be abandoned under your scenario - nice.

In any other walk of life you obtain employment on merit where the admin allows - why not professional rugby players.
That's arrogance for you right there

Spelt out in all its humble glory

Those poor Fijians wouldn't have anywhere to play their rugby if it wasn't for all those thoughtful NH clubs throwing them a bone. Probably more money in it than playing sevens.

What???
If, to use your example, a Fijian wants to play for Fiji - how many are employed for S18 side in the south or a Union franchise in the north ????

by Recwatcher16 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:00 am

marty2086 wrote:
Recwatcher16 wrote:
Clubs do not represent their local area/ national identity and haven't done so for a long time.

Speak for yourself, some still retain an identity and place within local communities

At your elite professional level ??

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:00 am

Recwatcher16 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Recwatcher16 wrote:
Clubs do not represent their local area/ national identity and haven't done so for a long time.

Speak for yourself, some still retain an identity and place within local communities

At your elite professional level ??

Yes

by Recwatcher16 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:01 am

Ok I understand you consider Ulster a club.

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:02 am

And I understand now you are trolling Rolling Eyes

by Recwatcher16 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:06 am

I can't be bothered wih any of that. I just don't consider Provinces to be clubs. Their history, ownership, representative reason for existence is different.

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:08 am

Didn't know there was specific criteria Erm

by Recwatcher16 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:15 am

There isn't any criteria. The provincial set-up is perfectly valid if that is what folk want to use for their top tier of the game.
It is only in recent times that these sides have had access to a league, for fans to consider them clubs. I don't.

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:17 am

So come back in 10 or 20 years?

by Recwatcher16 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:21 am

In 10 years they might be sold by the Union (as the Scottish clubs have recently voted to do so) and your club won't be told who you can employ and when you can play them.

by GunsGermsV2 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:22 am

Recwatcher16 wrote:I can't be bothered wih any of that. I just don't consider Provinces to be clubs. Their history, ownership, representative reason for existence is different.

What are you on about? A province is just a club that represents a differently defined area, a province, just like all clubs really. Other clubs represent towns, some cities, some villages, others counties, others regions. They are all clubs they just define the area they represent in a different way.

What makes Bath a club and Leinster or Ulster not a club?

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:23 am

So a club who are told who they can employ might be sold to a new owner and be told who they can employ? Makes loads of sense Tumbleweed

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:23 am

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
Recwatcher16 wrote:I can't be bothered wih any of that. I just don't consider Provinces to be clubs. Their history, ownership, representative reason for existence is different.

What are you on about? A province is just a club that represents a differently defined area, a province, just like all clubs really. Other clubs represent towns, some cities, some villages, others counties, others regions. They are all clubs they just define the area they represent in a different way.

What makes Bath a club and Leinster or Ulster not a club?

Because he says so

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:24 am

If only they competed in CLUB rugby

by Recwatcher16 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:27 am

marty2086 wrote:So a club who are told who they can employ might be sold to a new owner and be told who they can employ? Makes loads of sense

Not sure I understand the comparison.

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:29 am

Recwatcher16 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:So a club who are told who they can employ might be sold to a new owner and be told who they can employ? Makes loads of sense

Not sure I understand the comparison.

All owners decide who you can and cant employ

by Recwatcher16 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:36 am

marty2086 wrote:
Recwatcher16 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:So a club who are told who they can employ might be sold to a new owner and be told who they can employ? Makes loads of sense

Not sure I understand the comparison.

All owners decide who you can and cant employ

And when a Union has a different objective to a team trying to compete week in week out, in a league or cup ?
As I say by all means consider them a club - they clearly are close to your heart and good for you and rugby in general, I say

by geoff999rugby Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:42 am

whocares wrote:CJ Stander has an Irish passport ?

You are correct 2 out of the 23 not 1

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:42 am

Recwatcher16 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Recwatcher16 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:So a club who are told who they can employ might be sold to a new owner and be told who they can employ? Makes loads of sense

Not sure I understand the comparison.

All owners decide who you can and cant employ

And when a Union has a different objective to a team trying to compete week in week out, in a league or cup ?
As I say by all means consider them a club - they clearly are close to your heart and good for you and rugby in general, I say

Every team competes week in week out and every owner and club have their own objectives

by Recwatcher16 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:46 am

I have family in Edinburgh and no-one considers that team to be a club. Likewise a mate who lives just outside Swansea would laugh too at anyone who calls Ospreys a club.
Different interpretations I guess.

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:48 am

They are called different things it doesn't change what they are

by GunsGermsV2 Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:58 am

Recwatcher16 wrote:I have family in Edinburgh and no-one considers that team to be a club. Likewise a mate who lives just outside Swansea would laugh too at anyone who calls Ospreys a club.
Different interpretations I guess.

Thats only because they are both fairly new clubs. They are still clubs.

by aucklandlaurie Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:42 am

Recwatcher16 wrote:I have family in Edinburgh and no-one considers that team to be a club. Likewise a mate who lives just outside Swansea would laugh too at anyone who calls Ospreys a club.
Different interpretations I guess.

I'm not from Wales, but I wouldn't have thought Ospreys was a Rugby club.

by GunsGermsV2 Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:44 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Recwatcher16 wrote:I have family in Edinburgh and no-one considers that team to be a club. Likewise a mate who lives just outside Swansea would laugh too at anyone who calls Ospreys a club.
Different interpretations I guess.

I'm not from Wales, but I wouldn't have thought Ospreys was a Rugby club.

What would you call them?

by Gooseberry Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:55 am

Can you be a member? Its not a club.

by LordDowlais Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:56 am

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
Recwatcher16 wrote:I have family in Edinburgh and no-one considers that team to be a club. Likewise a mate who lives just outside Swansea would laugh too at anyone who calls Ospreys a club.
Different interpretations I guess.

Thats only because they are both fairly new clubs. They are still clubs.

Ospreys are not a club.

They are a Professional rugby team that represent an area bigger than the sum of their parts. The club where Ospreys play their rugby is called Swansea. All the clubs in Ospreys catchment area have a direct pathway to Ospreys.

The four Welsh Pro teams are the representatives of a number of clubs in their catchment area/pathway. That is they way we are meant to see it. Others will tell you differently.

The die hard fans will still say they are Swansea,Cardiff, Llanelli and Newport though. Rolling Eyes

by LordDowlais Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:59 am

marty2086 wrote:If only they competed in CLUB rugby

They don't. The Pro12 is not a club competition.

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:00 am

LordDowlais wrote:
marty2086 wrote:If only they competed in CLUB rugby

They don't. The Pro12 is not a club competition.

Yes it is as is the ERCC thumbsup

by GunsGermsV2 Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:11 am

LordDowlais wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:
Recwatcher16 wrote:I have family in Edinburgh and no-one considers that team to be a club. Likewise a mate who lives just outside Swansea would laugh too at anyone who calls Ospreys a club.
Different interpretations I guess.

Thats only because they are both fairly new clubs. They are still clubs.

Ospreys are not a club.

They are a Professional rugby team that represent an area bigger than the sum of their parts. The club where Ospreys play their rugby is called Swansea. All the clubs in Ospreys catchment area have a direct pathway to Ospreys.

The four Welsh Pro teams are the representatives of a number of clubs in their catchment area/pathway. That is they way we are meant to see it. Others will tell you differently.

The die hard fans will still say they are Swansea,Cardiff, Llanelli and Newport though.

Lots of clubs have feeder clubs. Just because Ospreys have feeder clubs doesnt mean they arent a club. All you need to be a club is to have a team and play in a club competition.

by The Great Aukster Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:43 am

Munchkin wrote:So, if the the Prime Minister described himself as 'left of the left', that would make everything ok? The decision of Laporte should be judged on its impact on French rugby, not on the politics of the French Prime Minister.

The decision of Laporte reduces the player pool and therefore harms French rugby. So if there isn't a good rugby reason, and since he is in an influential political position, maybe he is just saying what his supporters want to hear?

Munchkin wrote:Thought you might counter with my views on Nucifora, and you are wrong. First of all, Pienaar isn't blocking any player, and Pienaar certainly isn't going to play for Ireland. I have said that if Pienaar was blocking Irish born talent, then fair enough. I could then understand Nucifora turning down Pienaar's extension. I don't think Herbst, or Ludik, should be qualifying to play for Ireland at the seasons end. That's why I said I would like at least a 5 year residency rule.

You're right that foreign signings help raise the standard, but then Pienaar proves that we can sign world class talent, such as Pienaar and Piutau, who will help raise standards yet will never play for Ireland.

The minimum wage level for Fiji is about £1.90 per hour, but the average wage level is £12 - £13k, annually. Nobody is saying the Fijians shouldn't play abroad. Just that those in Europe should not poach them for their national side.

The discussion is about objective qualification rules, they cannot be written to apply globally and still have a clause 4.3c to assess the understudies of Ruan Pienaar. Ineligible players whether they have been capped or not will restrict the opportunities of home talent. Simply increasing the residency period from three to five years will not remove the foreign talent, just reduce the potential benefit to Ireland.
In defence of someone like Herbst. at least he is prepared to live in Ireland for three years to earn the chance of an Ireland cap whereas Bent was seduced by an instant green shirt to come to Ireland. Which one was showing more desire to be an Ireland player? Does the average Aviva supporter know the difference between the two or even care?
The truth is that neither of them may be good enough for regular Test rugby irrespective of qualification method but both are 'blocking' home produced players just as much as John Afoa or BJ Botha.
A far bigger problem than the residency period is tying a player to one country with one cap. Eligibility is all about the rules for a player's first cap, but why should 10 minutes off the bench for a country exclude them forever from playing for a nation where they've made their home. The scandal of poaching is far more about exclusion than inclusion, ensuring other nations remain weak or to circumvent Union restrictions on the club game. Why shouldn't Pienaar become IQ if he hasn't played for SA for 3 or 5 years and lived in his adopted country during that period?

by Guest Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:28 am

Why bother having international rugby? Why not stop at pro club rugby seeing as we have that level available to us in our sport (unlike athletics, for example)? Serious question. What is the point? Do we need another level above club rugby? And if so, should it be the same as pro club rugby where the rich can dictate who plays where and, often, who has the success?

by Exiledinborders Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:38 am

Griff wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:Surely this goes against the Kolpak ruling.

The Kolpak ruling is in no way relevant here! The ruling does not dictate who an international coach picks. If he doesn't want to pick Bundee Aki, for example, then he doesn't have to. Just as a coach doesn't have to pick Jamie Heaslip either if he doesn't want to. Right to work is different to selection for a representative team.

That is not so.

The Union is an employer and so they are covered by employment law including Kolpak and all anti-discrimination laws in the same way as any other employer.

The coach can indeed pick who he likes as long as he does so for rugby reasons. He may not do so for illegal discriminatory reasons. Having a policy of not employing non nationals who have the right to work in the EU and who are qualified under World Rugby rules would be very dodgy legally. In your example he can of course pick or not pick Bundee Aki. However having a policy (written or unwritten) that meant Aki could not be picked would be illegal.

by Guest Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:13 am

The Great Aukster wrote:
Munchkin wrote:So, if the the Prime Minister described himself as 'left of the left', that would make everything ok? The decision of Laporte should be judged on its impact on French rugby, not on the politics of the French Prime Minister.

The decision of Laporte reduces the player pool and therefore harms French rugby. So if there isn't a good rugby reason, and since he is in an influential political position, maybe he is just saying what his supporters want to hear?

Munchkin wrote:Thought you might counter with my views on Nucifora, and you are wrong. First of all, Pienaar isn't blocking any player, and Pienaar certainly isn't going to play for Ireland. I have said that if Pienaar was blocking Irish born talent, then fair enough. I could then understand Nucifora turning down Pienaar's extension. I don't think Herbst, or Ludik, should be qualifying to play for Ireland at the seasons end. That's why I said I would like at least a 5 year residency rule.

You're right that foreign signings help raise the standard, but then Pienaar proves that we can sign world class talent, such as Pienaar and Piutau, who will help raise standards yet will never play for Ireland.

The minimum wage level for Fiji is about £1.90 per hour, but the average wage level is £12 - £13k, annually. Nobody is saying the Fijians shouldn't play abroad. Just that those in Europe should not poach them for their national side.

The discussion is about objective qualification rules, they cannot be written to apply globally and still have a clause 4.3c to assess the understudies of Ruan Pienaar. Ineligible players whether they have been capped or not will restrict the opportunities of home talent. Simply increasing the residency period from three to five years will not remove the foreign talent, just reduce the potential benefit to Ireland.
In defence of someone like Herbst. at least he is prepared to live in Ireland for three years to earn the chance of an Ireland cap whereas Bent was seduced by an instant green shirt to come to Ireland. Which one was showing more desire to be an Ireland player? Does the average Aviva supporter know the difference between the two or even care?
The truth is that neither of them may be good enough for regular Test rugby irrespective of qualification method but both are 'blocking' home produced players just as much as John Afoa or BJ Botha.
A far bigger problem than the residency period is tying a player to one country with one cap. Eligibility is all about the rules for a player's first cap, but why should 10 minutes off the bench for a country exclude them forever from playing for a nation where they've made their home. The scandal of poaching is far more about exclusion than inclusion, ensuring other nations remain weak or to circumvent Union restrictions on the club game. Why shouldn't Pienaar become IQ if he hasn't played for SA for 3 or 5 years and lived in his adopted country during that period?

No, that's only your opinion on the effect of Laporte's ruling. Some might argue that Laporte is increasing the French playing pool. Also, I'm not convinced by the argument that because someone believes differently to you it must be for political reasons. That's pretty much a conspiracy theory.

Your point on eligible players is both true and false. True if there are indigenous players that could make it to test level, and are blocked by a foreign signing. False, if there are no real indigenous prospects for foreign signings to block (As with Pienaar playing for Ulster), and also false if a team can accommodate the foreign signing and the home prospect.

Increasing the residency rules would reduce the amount of foreign opportunists, if that's what you mean. And will help prevent these opportunists from blocking the path of indigenous players.

I'm not surprised Herbst is prepared to live in Ireland for three years. He's getting well paid to do so, and with the prospect of playing for Ireland, the cherry on the top.

I agree with you on Bent. I don't agree that foreign players can just walk in on the basis of having an Irish granny.

You make fair points about players being tied to one country after only having earned one cap. I don't agree that players should be able to switch which nations they play for but, under the current rules, I do think it's morally wrong for Unions to prevent players from playing for other nations by giving them a cap, if the main purpose is to stop those players being poached by other nations.

by aucklandlaurie Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:37 pm

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Recwatcher16 wrote:I have family in Edinburgh and no-one considers that team to be a club. Likewise a mate who lives just outside Swansea would laugh too at anyone who calls Ospreys a club.
Different interpretations I guess.

I'm not from Wales, but I wouldn't have thought Ospreys was a Rugby club.

What would you call them?

If you want to call Ospreys a club then thats fine, Its just that your levels of rugby are structured completely different to what we have.

In Auckland we have over 40 Rugby clubs, which feed into three Provincial Unions, Auckland, North Harbour and Counties manukau (partly), the Super rugby Franchise that covers this area plus Northland is The Blues. none of the Rugby clubs are called the Blues.

This is most noticeable when you come on to a forum like this which has Super Rugby in the Club section, but hey its not the end of the World.

by GunsGermsV2 Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:08 pm

Well the Blues are still a club. The only reason you dont call them a club is to distinguish them for the clubs already in existence which feed into the Blues.

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:42 pm

Munchkin wrote:No, that's only your opinion on the effect of Laporte's ruling. Some might argue that Laporte is increasing the French playing pool. Also, I'm not convinced by the argument that because someone believes differently to you it must be for political reasons. That's pretty much a conspiracy theory.

They'll suddenly be French when they can sing La Marseillaise convincingly and name the monarch of the House of Orleans Rolling Eyes

by aucklandlaurie Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:37 pm

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Well the Blues are still a club. The only reason you dont call them a club is to distinguish them for the clubs already in existence which feed into the Blues.

A club has Rugby from seniors down to the under 6s. anyone can go pay a membership and play/coach or even be a social member of a club, the clubs have delegates that in turn can be voted on to be delegates to the provincial Union, and in turn those delegates can be voted on to be members that sit on the New Zealand Rugby Union completely different to the Blues which merely is an entity that exists purely for the purposes of its one team, that participates in Super Rugby. the Blues dont have to contract players only from within Auckland Province, they could contract and select a player from England or Wales even another Rugby province.

Jerome keino, his teams are;

International: New Zealand (All Blacks).
Proffessional Super rugby: The Blues.
Provincial: Auckland
Club: Auckland University.

In a year he can at one stage or another play for any of those four teams, however to be selected for the All Blacks you MUST be the financial Registered member of a club in a New Zealand provincial Union, NOT a Super Rugby team.

by marty2086 Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:46 pm

A sports club or sport club, sometimes athletics club or sports society or sports association, is a group of people formed for the purpose of playing sports. A club is solely created by its members, players and supporters, hence a separate entity from its owning (usually Limited) Company

by chris_501 Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:52 pm

With danger of derailing this arguement of what a club is or isn't, I have been thinking about what being 'French' is (substitute with English, Australian, Samoan etc.)

I think that outside the sphere of sport, it is purely down to what the individual feels. This could be influenced by residency, place of birth, influence of parents etc. It's one of those intangibles, where nobody can be accused of wrong, as it's down to a feeling, its unquantifiable.

However, in sport, if being able to qualify for a certain team was purely down to this, the sport would be carnage. That's why I applaud what Laporte is trying to do, he is attempting to make sure that only those with a genuine affinity for feeling French can represent the national team.
By extending residency periods, scrapping grandparents rules, tying players down to countries earlier in their careers etc, what you do is restrict those players who represent nations for something other than a genuine feel of being of that nation. That can only be a good thing.

by Sponsored content