having our pacific players back would be awesome

[mania]

My example would include Denny Solomona, he has 1 cap for England, so would be eligible to play for Samoa, as he dud in Rugby League. Another loophole that needs closing. Represent a nation at any sport and you are tied.

of course we wouldnt want Samoans playing for Samoa. much better that they play for tier 1 nations and stay there and punish them when they want to play for their tier 2 home nations. cool idea lets stop as many players as possible playing for tier 2 nations

that sounds fair


ps this is sarcasm

 

[Kiwiwomble]

My example would include Denny Solomona, he has 1 cap for England, so would be eligible to play for Samoa, as he dud in Rugby League. Another loophole that needs closing. Represent a nation at any sport and you are tied.

why would playing fro a different sport matter? really dont get why we want to limit seeing good sports people play

 

[mania]

why would playing fro a different sport matter? really dont get why we want to limit seeing good sports people play

because of fear of losing to a lowly tier 2 nation

 

[higgik]

why would playing fro a different sport matter? really dont get why we want to limit seeing good sports people play

The best players will still move to the top clubs and that becomes the vehicle for watching them perform.

 

[higgik]

because of fear of losing to a lowly tier 2 nation

Agree. Just look at the 7s series. Yes smaller squads is easier, but the much lower costs allows T2 nations to keep their own players and we see nations like Spain and the PI performing well above their WR 15s ranking, often at the exoense of T1 nations who gave a history of 'poaching'.
Not thinking of Ireland of course.

 

[Groundhog]

Agree. Just look at the 7s series. Yes smaller squads is easier, but the much lower costs allows T2 nations to keep their own players and we see nations like Spain and the PI performing well above their WR 15s ranking, often at the exoense of T1 nations who gave a history of 'poaching'.
Not thinking of Ireland of course.

Glad you're not thinking of Ireland, because that wouldn't make sense. Which Spain and PI or indeed any minnow players have Ireland poached out of interest?
Also our 7s program is a grand total of 5 years old, and ranked at 10 ahead of Spain who you just mentioned as well as Samoa. Tough to say they've been good at the expense of a country that wasn't playing until 2015.
It's fair enough to criticise our project player programme on principle, but it straight up doesn't apply in the context of Pacific or Tier 2 Nations.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What's the point of international sport if you can just pick and choose where to play for with no consequence or loyalty?

Just scrap the world cup and have a world club tournament instead.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

100% against this.

The entire point, the whole bloody point of having nations against each other was not to be able to purchase talent from others. It levelled the playing field between rich and poor. I don't have a problem with Manu Tuilagi playing for England. I do have a problem with him wanting to play for Samoa (he's pretty much said this a couple of times) and choosing to play for England for money.
But I don't have a realistic solution as things stand now.

I understand someone born in country A, moved as a kid to country B and playing for country B. You can also have country's A nationality while being born in country B. Fine, that's perfect.
But once you wear country A's national jersey, you shouldn't be able to wear any other national side. Junior's included.

At the moment there aren't that many pacific players willing to sacrifice the money in order to play for their country. Having to choose between money and representing your country is a first world problem. Pacific people tend to prefer getting the money to help out their families, especially if the money is short lived as you can't play rugby forever.

point is, the concept of preventing people from playing for two countries so they decide against taking the money is not one that works for lower income nations.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

It's never lost on me that these conversations are always fairly partisan.

Generally those arguing for the strictest possible restrictions are from big countries who benefit in all sports from the immigration that their massive economies draw. The motive may be pure but the perspective just isn't there if you're arguing for massively strict rules and having English Vunipolas, Kruis, Tuilagi, Lozowski, Farrell etc... or French N'tamacks, Vakatawa, Bamba, Houaos etc... [Insert islanders playing for Aus or NZ as you like] representing you.

And then those from smaller nations who realise nationality is a fair bit more malleable than just being from where you were born and that a bit more lenience somewhat levels what is a naturally unfair playing field.

The residency rules are fine, if you qualify at 30 under the current rules you've spent 1/6th of your life in that country and paid more taxes there than anywhere else.

This proposed change, if restricted to T1 > T2 moves is fine too, considering its letting players play for their home country after earning a living elsewhere.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What have Kruis, Lozowski and Farrell got to do with eligibility?

I'm no big fan of residency for international sports and have always said I would increase the strictness/length of the rules around it massively.
That's a completely different argument to allowing people to play for multiple international sides though.

considering its letting players play for their home country after earning a living elsewhere.

Eh, is it though?
A lot of players who get named when talking about this are Kiwis and Aussies who qualify for PIs through grannies etc.
Like Solomona getting name dropped above: Born in New Zealand, moved to Australia in his mid teens, moved to England at 19, yet should be playing for Samoa?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

What have Kruis, Lozowski and Farrell got to do with eligibility?


I'm no big fan of residency for international sports and have repeatedly said I would increase the strictness/length of the rules around it massively.

The contrast between the first and second sentence is totally my point. You've got Dutch, Polish and Irish names representing England, and yeah there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, their families moved for better opportunities generations ago. But someone moving and dedicating at least a sixth of their life for a better opportunity or choosing their parent's/grandparent's countries of origin is diluting the game though? It's the same thing to me really except it's actually in the player's control.

That's a completely different argument to allowing people to play for multiple international sides though.

Is it though?
A lot of players who get named when talking about this are Kiwis and Aussies who qualify for PIs through grannies etc.
Like Solomona getting name dropped above: Born in New Zealand, moved to Australia in his mid teens, moved to England at 19, yet should be playing for Samoa?

Again, you lack the perspective here. Ask the NZ born Samoans or Tongans if they're not one bit Samoan/Tongan, or ask the numerous 2nd or even 3rd generation Irish living in England and supporting Ireland against them every time they play if they're not Irish and you probably won't get a simple yes or no answer once. Some people forget where their families are from, which is fine, some don't and the connection varies from person to person.

And you're probably thinking why not let anyone play for whoever they want but it's clearly not the case. 5+ years of your life when you're in your early thirties is far from insignificant and if you're qualifying through a grandparent it is in all likelihood someone you know/knew quite intimately. Without getting far too invasive into player's personal lives and upbringings I don't see how the current rules aren't adequate. And as for this proposed rule I think it improves the product that is international rugby and doesn't hurt any stakeholders at all. There's no perfect answer to this and people will take the **** but I think the balance with the current regs and this added is the best for allowing players earn a living and not destroying international rugby beyond recognition.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

You've got Dutch, Polish and Irish names representing England

This thread has jumped the shark ridiculously

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

This thread has jumped the shark ridiculously

Shoulda just posted this the first time!

 

[BPM]

...how many players can you name that currently play for a PI team that would walk into a tier 1 team but decided to stick with home?...if not...who are we worried about?

I think it depends on which Tier 1 team you're talking about. You could easily reverse the question and ask 'how many Italians would make the Fiji team' and then the answer could be uncomfortable/complicated because most of their better players aren't Italian (I'm thinking of Steyn and Hayward BTW).

IMO Semi Radradra would walk in to pretty much any team. Personally I think he's the best 13 in the world right now. Peceli Yato would be in with a very good shout too.

A good few of the other Fijian players would make a lot of Tier 1 23s. I'm thinking Tuisova and Nakarawa for sure and Nayacalevu, Mata and Botia as possibles/probables.

Much tougher with Tonga and Samoa. You could make a case for Veainu and Takulua or maybe Michael Ala'alatoa, but it's not a clear cut claim.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Set up an international club competition with clubs from different country's, some country's having more clubs than others, have salary caps and quotas for how many players from other countries a club can have (a reasonable number like 7 in a squad), for an even competition that still enables countries and regions to retain their own style and playing culture. Have the salary cap high enough and the number of clubs low enough to ensure you get all the dollars you can into the game while ensuring most clubs can actually afford to pay as much as the cap. Have few enough clubs that there is a good concentration of the best players, ie the teams are real good.

for internationals, you have a one nation rule but you strip all the money from it so there is no incentive to buy players. The one nation rule applies to coaches too. You have some money for expenses, an equal amount for each country paid by the irb using taxes from the club competition and shared amongst the nations.

not gonna happen of course.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

What's the point of international sport if you can just pick and choose where to play for with no consequence or loyalty?

Just scrap the world cup and have a world club tournament instead.

not the most constructive, its been very clear form the start this is a very specific situation with people pretty universally accepting strict rules would have to govern, all with the interest a bringing a bit more excitement into the international game, bring more contenders up to speed

I think it depends on which Tier 1 team you're talking about. You could easily reverse the question and ask 'how many Italians would make the Fiji team' and then the answer could be uncomfortable/complicated because most of their better players aren't Italian (I'm thinking of Steyn and Hayward BTW).

IMO Semi Radradra would walk in to pretty much any team. Personally I think he's the best 13 in the world right now. Peceli Yato would be in with a very good shout too.

A good few of the other Fijian players would make a lot of Tier 1 23s. I'm thinking Tuisova and Nakarawa for sure and Nayacalevu, Mata and Botia as possibles/probables.

Much tougher with Tonga and Samoa. You could make a case for Veainu and Takulua or maybe Michael Ala'alatoa, but it's not a clear cut claim.

awesome, obviously someone that knows more than i do about the actual players and so can talk a bit more specifics

the next questions then is why these players haven't been lured overseas, most people accept recruiting from the PI's is rampant and yet you've names 10 guys who at least arguably could play tier 1 rugby. Is it purely the national pride? they would be a rare bunch if so, did they develop late and so not seen as as good an investment as others? or are they not as good as you think, just look good compared to the rest of the team?

 

[BPM]

I think it's a bit easier for Fijians as their team is typically stronger plus they often capture a lot of heir players through 7s where they are often one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the world.

Having said that, age grade and 7s can also do the opposite. For example, Fritz Lee would almost certainly walk in to the Samoa side but can't because he's tied to NZ from some kind of historical representation which sucks.

Michael Ala'alatoa is an interesting case considering his brother plays for Australia. I suspect he quite possibly would be too had he not been playing in NZ.

TBH, I also think the potential impact of 'returning PI' players probably isn't quite as big as is being suggested. A lot of Fiji's players lining up for other nations are mostly wingers so you couldn't pick all of them.

 

[higgik]

What have Kruis, Lozowski and Farrell got to do with eligibility?

I'm no big fan of residency for international sports and have always said I would increase the strictness/length of the rules around it massively.
That's a completely different argument to allowing people to play for multiple international sides though.


Eh, is it though?
A lot of players who get named when talking about this are Kiwis and Aussies who qualify for PIs through grannies etc.
Like Solomona getting name dropped above: Born in New Zealand, moved to Australia in his mid teens, moved to England at 19, yet should be playing for Samoa?

Yes, He could be playing for NZ, Aus or Samoa, but not England.
Born in NZ, Eligible
Lived in Aus before age 18, Eligible
Parents Samoa, eligible
He must choose one of those and stick to it. Maybe WR need to gave some sort of salary cap for playing internationals

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Yes, He could be playing for NZ, Aus or Samoa, but not England.

He's been living in England just under a quarter of his life though? And from what I can make of his Wikipedia about as long as he lived in Oz? Living somewhere before you're 18 is as arbitrary a measure as any.

He must choose one of those and stick to it.

Why?

Maybe WR need to gave some sort of salary cap for playing internationals

I presume you're talking about match fees? They're only the tip of the ice berg when it comes to the financial benefits of being a T1 international over a T2.

E.g. World Rugby can't implement restrictions on how much more Adidas are going to pay an England player over a Samoan to wear their boots.

 

[mania]

what i dont understand is why people are so afraid of this happening. you talk about the purity of picking one nation and being loyal yet you mention nothing about the players being loyal to their families and taking the money that teir2 nations just cant compete with. thats not loyalty, thats players picking whats viable not whats right
i dont blame tuilagi for playing for england. its awesome to see a brother succeed. im not going to begrudge him making money for the the financial security of him and his family.

but also i know england will eventually drop him after a decade or so of faithful service. if he can still play after england dont want him and he's still an awesome player, wiouldnt you want to see those awesome players on show? for the good of the game?