IRB rule against Pacific Islander's switch

[Gavin]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/news/4398589/AB-Islanders-told-they-can-t-switch-countries

Any hopes for All Blacks of Pacific descent rounding out their international careers with the country of their heritage are dead in the water.
The New Zealand Rugby Union's long campaign to have eligibility rules changed to allow players to give back to the Pacific Islands once their All Blacks careers were over was roundly dismissed at a full IRB council meeting in Dublin on Tuesday.
The NZRU's proposed regulation offered players with "close and meaningful ties" to another country the chance to represent that nation at test level after a stand-down period.
"Unfortunately that was resoundingly defeated," NZRU chief executive Steve Tew said after arriving in a snow-swept Cardiff. "Almost everybody voted against. We didn't get as much support as we did last time and I'm not sure if Fiji drawing with Wales last weekend helped the cause.
"That's probably the end of that for a few years I'd say which is disappointing. We proposed a few variations to try and smooth it through, but there was not the support."
New Zealand's bid got only the expected support of Australia and, surprisingly, England, who Tew said were keen to help Pacific Island rugby.

"They saw the benefits of the Pacific Islands becoming more competitive. England played their role around the council table. I couldn't see half the table, but we got nowhere near the two-thirds majority we needed when there was a show of hands."
The NZRU is of the belief that players like Joe Rokocoko or Sitiveni Sivivatu, if they chose to and had finished out their All Blacks' careers, should be allowed to give something back to their birth country through playing tests.
However, many of the home nations were concerned the Pacific Island sides Samoa, Fiji, and Tonga could stack themselves with talent before the Rugby World Cup.

The NZRU did gain one victory at the meeting: defeating a proposal for tough new measures on foul play. The IRB had proposed the introduction of an "administrative warning" â€" effectively the ability for a citing commissioner to issue retrospective cards after viewing footage of a match.
"So if he thinks an incident is not serious enough for a red card he can issue a yellow card. "If a player ends up with so many yellow cards from that process they would end up in front of the judicial panel just like they do if they get a yellow card on the field."

The NZRU was of the view that the process had merit, but should not be rushed through before the world cup as was being proposed. The major concern was understood to be over who would have the ultimate say over whether an incident warranted further examination and the potential for players from a particular country to be targeted prior to a world cup.

Any thoughts on this ruling? To be fair if the players wanted to play for their birth nation they would never have left in search of an New Zealand cap.

 

[dullonien]

Good. Srupid to have one rule for some and another for others. If players have chosen NZ in the first place, that means they consider themselves as New Zealenders, meaning they are not Fijian, Samoan or Tongan. Allowing them to then change their allegiences just because their all blacks career had dried up would have been a farce.

I would like to see them ban cross code switches where a player changes country aswell for the same reasons.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

As above,
You choose to play for a different country, that's that. Shouldn't change the rules for a specific small group of people.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

It's ridiculous it was possible for people to play for 2 national teams anyway. You make a choice and you stick with it. Kinda like marriage

 

[lynam1104]

It's ridiculous it was possible for people to play for 2 national teams anyway. You make a choice and you stick with it. Kinda like marriage[/QUOTE]

Divorce is all i have to say to counter argue that. I don't agree with player changing nation tho.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Marriage is also something you should stick with. The fact that people get a divorce, doesn't make it right

 

[gingergenius]

Agree with Olyy and others. Also, would an ancient Roks and Sivi actually do Fiji any good?

The way the Pacific Islands are going to get good is by having the same power that the Tier 1 nations have over players - which will mean money. These guys are earning $$$ in Europe so will want to spend more time with their clubs than their international sides. We see it every time Fiji, Samoa and even Tonga get a long period of time together - they're competitive with everyone else. So if the FRU etc. have a large wod of cash to entice their top players to train and prepare properly for international series then they'll become far more competitive.

Call me a cynic, but this short-term fix proposed by the NZRU is all PR, and the Aussies and English are doing the same by supporting it. What it means is that they can accuse others of not trying to help PI rugby instead of helping to front the necessary cash to help the Islands improve.

On a similar topic, SANZAR sides are going to have to start handing out contracts to Argies to synchronise them with the SH season, otherwise the 4 Nations (a great development on paper) will be a joke with tired Argentines from Europe playing through the Summer as well.

 

[ranger]

I'm against it in principal just like everyone else, but i think that the ends justify the means. International rugby union needs more tier one sides. Yes its unfair, but having another 3 teams that are capable of beating any other team in the world would be worth it.

Im also against sevens and "A" caps determining eligibility while we are at it

 

[TRF_Cymro]

As mentioned above, if they decide to play for NZ then they made their bed, can't go round changing it.

 

[Sam Owen]

Im quite the opposite not that it matters anyway 'cos its been turned down.

New Zealand's bid got only the expected support of Australia and, surprisingly, England, who Tew said were keen to help Pacific Island rugby.

Good to see these countries tried to help but to no avail.

 

[nickdnz]

Yeah, I agree once again. Joe Rokocoko, Sitivini Sivivatu, Mils Muliaina, Jerome Kaino and Isia Toeava, were all born overseas, but only Sivivatu come to New Zealand past the age of 5 years old. In total, that's a collection of 272 All Blacks caps. I can kind of understand it to players like Casey Laulala, John Schwalger, Saimone Taumoepeau and Sosene Anesi, who were born over seas but have represented New Zealand a total of 8 times, as they are kind of wasted at international rugby, but then again, you should initially play for the country your loyalties lie with, rather than do your dash with one country, to then play for another.

Im quite the opposite not that it matters anyway 'cos its been turned down.



Good to see these countries tried to help but to no avail.

I'd be interested in hearing why, a different view is always welcomed. In terms of claiming that two countries can be home, which is a fair and valid argument, doesn't seem that one set of rules should apply for a few countries, rather than every country.

 

[Peat]

I could maybe see my way clear to saying playing for A/7s sides doesn't matter but it still doesn't feel right.

Even if it did feel right there's some logistical questions...

Are we going to redefine Tiers 1 and 2? Italy are below Fiji in the rankings I believe. They also drew with Wales. In terms of raw ability, why do Fiji/Samoa/Tonga deserve a leg up that the likes of Italy doesn't?

Why only Tier 2? A lot of teams in Tier 1 could make good use of this ruling - Scotland might quite like Lee Dickson and Ryan Lamb, while Byron Kelleher would have solved Irish problems at scrum-half nicely. And so on.

If it does turn the PIs into teams that can contend with anyone, then surely they become Tier 1? At which point, do they no longer becom valid for the ruling? Do we go through ridiculous phrases of bust and bubble as they yo-yo between the two depending on whether they can recruit ex-All Blacks and how old the current crop is?

If the IRB really wanted to help them, it would give them the money to be competitive. This is just window dressing and poorly thought out window dressing which I find distasteful as well. National allegiances should not be flittered between so lightly.

 

[ranger]

I'd be interested in hearing why, a different view is always welcomed. In terms of claiming that two countries can be home, which is a fair and valid argument, doesn't seem that one set of rules should apply for a few countries, rather than every country.

Its not fair to let the Islanders have a different set of rules to everyone else, no one could argue against that. But at the end of the day it would be better for everyone as a whole. I'm sure that if the motion was passed every NH team would find themselves with increased revenues during the End of year tours. More top flight teams means more quality matchups (games that could realistically go either way), that means more games that people are willing to stack the stadiums to see. More teams in the rotation of top flight nations also helps to keep international rugby fresh, it will allow teams to go years without playing each other. When matchups like Wales-NZ do eventually take place it will actually be a special occasion like it used to be before everyone played each other every year..

I also think the Islands are pretty hard done by as it is. They don't have the money to compete with NZ when it comes to players with 50/50 allegencies. They dont have the infrastucture or population to host any meaningful games to raise money either. All their best players have to ply their trade overseas, weakening the national side. They are the most taleneted rugby nations around but have obsticles stacked against them. Its unfair that they should have special rules in place, but isn't it about time they caught a break? Swings and roundabouts? I can't see any other way that these nations can reach teir 1 besides a rule like this.

I could maybe see my way clear to saying playing for A/7s sides doesn't matter but it still doesn't feel right.

Even if it did feel right there's some logistical questions...

Are we going to redefine Tiers 1 and 2? Italy are below Fiji in the rankings I believe. They also drew with Wales. In terms of raw ability, why do Fiji/Samoa/Tonga deserve a leg up that the likes of Italy doesn't?

Why only Tier 2? A lot of teams in Tier 1 could make good use of this ruling - Scotland might quite like Lee Dickson and Ryan Lamb, while Byron Kelleher would have solved Irish problems at scrum-half nicely. And so on.

If it does turn the PIs into teams that can contend with anyone, then surely they become Tier 1? At which point, do they no longer becom valid for the ruling? Do we go through ridiculous phrases of bust and bubble as they yo-yo between the two depending on whether they can recruit ex-All Blacks and how old the current crop is?

If the IRB really wanted to help them, it would give them the money to be competitive. This is just window dressing and poorly thought out window dressing which I find distasteful as well. National allegiances should not be flittered between so lightly.

My real problem is with 7s. Its a completely different code, with different rules. Selectors also tend to pick very young players for international sevens and disgard them quickly. Lefemi Mafi for instance, he was never anywhere near international 15s selection in NZ but he can't play for Tonga (or Ireland) because he played a sevens tournament once.

-Fiji deserves a leg up over Italy (according to my own internal morals and because i say so) because Italy has the advantage of getting to play in the 6 nations and having professional club rugby teams. That makes it a step above Fiji who have to play joke international compeititons (Pac nations) and have no professional teams to raise talent(nor the ability to ever have any realistically).

-Why only teir 2? because its about helping struggling sides become competitive. Again based on my own morals, just because Ireland could do with an imported halfback doesnt mean they need one. They are a top side as it is. The Islanders are also in a unique position in that no other country is losing so much potential talent to other countries as they are (besides NZ..)

-Giving them money wont really accomplish much in the scheme of things. It seems like a give a man a fish/ teach a man to fish situation to me.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I wonder what this says to those who suggest that NZ "poaches" from the Pacific Island teams? Here the NZRU is proposing to try and give them some very recently retired or "unlikely to get games again" players like Casey Laulala the chance to play for somewhere his ancestry is from and give something to the islands and it gets shot down by the very same nations from which some have pointed the finger at NZ as "not doing enough" to help the Pacific Island teams.

Make no mistake, the players who play for New Zealand are not players who grew up anywhere but New Zealand, but fairly recent ancestral links are there, so maybe the NZRU thought it'd help those teams improve, being able to have their youngsters around New Zealanders who have been there done that and maybe can teach them a thing or two.

I guess it puts to bed the idea that New Zealand aren't into trying to help the little guys (smaller nations) of their region. I guess some must feel that the island nations are strong enough.

 

[TrueSlawter]

As others have said you chose your national side and stick with it, any of those players could've turned down NZ and said they wanted to play for their island team.. Also as others have said if they can get together for a month or two before a tour they can beat anyone on their day they dont need this help all they need is some money to be able to do it.

 

[nickdnz]

Its not fair to let the Islanders have a different set of rules to everyone else, no one could argue against that. But at the end of the day it would be better for everyone as a whole. I'm sure that if the motion was passed every NH team would find themselves with increased revenues during the End of year tours. More top flight teams means more quality matchups (games that could realistically go either way), that means more games that people are willing to stack the stadiums to see. More teams in the rotation of top flight nations also helps to keep international rugby fresh, it will allow teams to go years without playing each other. When matchups like Wales-NZ do eventually take place it will actually be a special occasion like it used to be before everyone played each other every year..

I also think the Islands are pretty hard done by as it is. They don't have the money to compete with NZ when it comes to players with 50/50 allegencies. They dont have the infrastucture or population to host any meaningful games to raise money either. All their best players have to ply their trade overseas, weakening the national side. They are the most taleneted rugby nations around but have obsticles stacked against them. Its unfair that they should have special rules in place, but isn't it about time they caught a break? Swings and roundabouts? I can't see any other way that these nations can reach teir 1 besides a rule like this.

Yeah, it's a tricky one. That being said, I don't think Fiji/Samoa/Tonga would truley increase the popularity of the sport world wide, and three extra tier one teams is little more competition. We've seen how good Samoan, Tongan and Fijian teams can be, but their economy will never be able to support a huge national competition, with well paid players, so I can see how getting well trained players from other nations could be a cheap option, but realistically Fiji, Samoa and Tonga will always have to rely on over seas players to fill their squads. The IRB would be better off giving them cash to secure players playing in other nations, to initially play for Fiji, rather than take used players from other countries.

I think if NZRU really wanted to help, they'd be offering more spots to players who are ineligable to play for the All Blacks, as that's a big career risk of over seas players, who are eligable for both countries, to play for their home nation and still have a Super contract. We've seen what Kahn Fotuali'i can do in the Samoan jersey, so there is a lot of talent that Samoa can get from players whom have not represented New Zealand.

 

[gingergenius]

I guess it puts to bed the idea that New Zealand aren't into trying to help the little guys (smaller nations) of their region. I guess some must feel that the island nations are strong enough.

Call me a cynic, but this short-term fix proposed by the NZRU is all PR, and the Aussies and English are doing the same by supporting it. What it means is that they can accuse others of not trying to help PI rugby instead of helping to front the necessary cash to help the Islands improve.

not quite put t bed, imo.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

not quite put t bed, imo.

Fair to have your opinion, but the IRB know full well that the NZRU have made a loss of over $10 million dollars every year for the last few years and stand to lose a lot of money hosting the world cup. At one stage the projection was $37 million dollars. After the world cup there'll be a huge financial shake-up in New Zealand Rugby and we'll lose a lot of players that we simply won't be able to afford to keep.

So, how much should we cough up for the islands in view of that, whilst rich rugby nations wring their hands and say "it's not our problem, it's a business", but blame us for supposed poaching?

We've spent our natural resources bringing rugby players through our systems from 5-6yrs old to 25 only to have to give them away for no fee to whoever wants to take them off a financially weak country. That's business sure, but if things were fair we'd be able to sign a player from our nation as soon as they hit any representative team to a contract that guarantees the NZRU a market value transfer fee for their talent should they choose to go abroad.

Then the NZRU might come out of the red and be able to give the Island nations something. Mind you that'll never happen short of our government stepping in and passing a law allowing player development contracts to be handled that way in our country. I hope they do, but the IRB would warn us very heavily should we start thinking that way.

 

[Sam Owen]

I think it should be allowed to all countries not just the Pacific Islands. We (Samoa) just dont have as many playing numbers, our depth is always shallow compared to other countries. We never really threaten in the RWCs and this rule not going our way reinforces that. We struggle to field a decent side and when we do our boys only have a few weeks to get it together. Its a struggle after struggle but we seem to prevail.

Like Ranger said money is the other issue. I dont need to explain it 'cos Rangers done that for me on his post (Im not good with the money thing tbh lol).

Another thing is some guys that are have played for the All Blacks might want that dream to some day play for their home country, it shouldnt matter if he wants to play for Fiji or South Africa just as long as he has some Fijian or South African blood in him.

You know its a good thing Brad Thorn (former Kangaroo) got to fufill his dream.

 

[ranger]

Yeah, it's a tricky one. That being said, I don't think Fiji/Samoa/Tonga would truley increase the popularity of the sport world wide, and three extra tier one teams is little more competition. We've seen how good Samoan, Tongan and Fijian teams can be, but their economy will never be able to support a huge national competition, with well paid players, so I can see how getting well trained players from other nations could be a cheap option, but realistically Fiji, Samoa and Tonga will always have to rely on over seas players to fill their squads. The IRB would be better off giving them cash to secure players playing in other nations, to initially play for Fiji, rather than take used players from other countries.

I think if NZRU really wanted to help, they'd be offering more spots to players who are ineligable to play for the All Blacks, as that's a big career risk of over seas players, who are eligable for both countries, to play for their home nation and still have a Super contract. We've seen what Kahn Fotuali'i can do in the Samoan jersey, so there is a lot of talent that Samoa can get from players whom have not represented New Zealand.

Really? three extra teir one teams is a shitload more competition. There are only 10 teir 1 teams right now, if that number stretched to 13 it would be hugely significant. More quality international teams will help rugbys popularity, one of the things international rugby really lacks is credibility when compared to football. Look at all the teams from the football world cup that had a realistic chance at victory, then look at the teams that have a realistic chance of winning the rugby trophy. There is a severe lack of depth. Three more teams wont put it up there with football, but 10 to 13 is a worthwhile change.

Also, the idea of giving Fiji a wad of cash to lure young players is just fraught with danger. The IRB wont have much to give them, they would be pinning their all their hopes on two young players a year at the most, then praying that they turn into top internationals and don't Dan Kirkpatrick out on them. Thats no way to run a rugby team, they wont get anywhere doing that. As you said they can't run their team from their own country, they need to base their players overseas. They are disadvantaged in that way, maybe this rule could even the playing field. Even if it was just for a short time to increase their popularity and create a winning culture that young players would want to play for.

What you suggested is a good option, but i don't think it will ignite the team like this rule change could.