IRB rule against Pacific Islander's switch

[Peat]

I am playing devil's advocate here slightly. Ok, a lot.

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.

A number of players do go on from 7s to the real thing though, its represented by the same unions and although a different code its still the same sport.

And yes, I would bar rugby league players from playing for different countries to the one they represented in that code when they switch. I might be somewhat biased there...

-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).

Good points, but they're as equally competitive at international rugby. How long do you think it will take Italy to become a team capable of threatening any other Tier 1 team? They're not at the moment. Do you think that access to unrequired ex-internationals of Italian heritage might speed it up?

-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..)

Clearly you haven't watched Eoin Reddan a lot!

Ok, its aimed at helping struggling sides become competitive, so right now thats not Ireland or Scotland although gods knows you could point to periods in their rugby history where it was.

Oh, and I think other countries are losing as much potential talent. Consider how many British people are qualified for more than one of the home nations and think how much they lose to each other. And then consider all the TriNations players eligble for one or more Home Nations through ancestry who obviously chose not to.

Of course, the difference is there's a very big gulf between New Zealand and Samoa and the ties are still very fresh... but there's a very big gulf between New Zealand and most Home Nations.

-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.

You yourself point out they don't have the money to compete with New Zealand for players. Money can also build the infrastructure that you say is lacking, could secure contracts in which PI players got substantial amounts of time together at national camps, give them genuine first rate facilities for when they do so and when they go to World Cup and even possibly pay enough to the Super League that they'd agree to expand and include them despite the lack of TV revenue.

I agree its the fish situation, but feel you have it back to front. Giving them ex-All Blacks is just a dribble of players, some over the hell, some not much more talented than the current Samoan players, all of them now under the same geographic scattering and financial constraints as the current lot. Giving them the money to build a genuine professional infrastructure of sorts and then continuing to support it would be teaching them how to fish.

Also, correct me if wrong, but in this scheme aren't Samoa going to do best, Tonga quite well and Fiji will end up stood there going "Ahh..." ?

Finally, I notice you didn't address whether this continues once they reach Tier 1.

p.s. the link in my sig might at least amuse a few of you on the 'poaching' score

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I am playing devil's advocate here slightly. Ok, a lot.



A number of players do go on from 7s to the real thing though, its represented by the same unions and although a different code its still the same sport.

And yes, I would bar rugby league players from playing for different countries to the one they represented in that code when they switch. I might be somewhat biased there...



Good points, but they're as equally competitive at international rugby. How long do you think it will take Italy to become a team capable of threatening any other Tier 1 team? They're not at the moment. Do you think that access to unrequired ex-internationals of Italian heritage might speed it up?



Clearly you haven't watched Eoin Reddan a lot!

Ok, its aimed at helping struggling sides become competitive, so right now thats not Ireland or Scotland although gods knows you could point to periods in their rugby history where it was.

Oh, and I think other countries are losing as much potential talent. Consider how many British people are qualified for more than one of the home nations and think how much they lose to each other. And then consider all the TriNations players eligble for one or more Home Nations through ancestry who obviously chose not to.

Of course, the difference is there's a very big gulf between New Zealand and Samoa and the ties are still very fresh... but there's a very big gulf between New Zealand and most Home Nations.



You yourself point out they don't have the money to compete with New Zealand for players. Money can also build the infrastructure that you say is lacking, could secure contracts in which PI players got substantial amounts of time together at national camps, give them genuine first rate facilities for when they do so and when they go to World Cup and even possibly pay enough to the Super League that they'd agree to expand and include them despite the lack of TV revenue.

I agree its the fish situation, but feel you have it back to front. Giving them ex-All Blacks is just a dribble of players, some over the hell, some not much more talented than the current Samoan players, all of them now under the same geographic scattering and financial constraints as the current lot. Giving them the money to build a genuine professional infrastructure of sorts and then continuing to support it would be teaching them how to fish.

Also, correct me if wrong, but in this scheme aren't Samoa going to do best, Tonga quite well and Fiji will end up stood there going "Ahh..." ?

Finally, I notice you didn't address whether this continues once they reach Tier 1.

p.s. the link in my sig might at least amuse a few of you on the 'poaching' score

Amuse is the right word. The whole article was one of those joke pieces, but what a lot of work to put into a comedy piece.

Kaino was in New Zealand as a pre-teen, obviously a cunning plan from the start that. Ben Franks never developed into a rugby player in Australia either.

Poaching is when a player has already played age grade rugby for another country or at least provincial or state rugby.

 

[Teh Mite]

Unless you have some sort of heritage tie to a country, you shouldn't be eligible to represent them. Simple as that.

 

[gingergenius]

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.

Fair point, on this basis it should be the wealthier unions putting more money into the development of the game - which makes it even worse that England are supporting this free, short-term 'development'.

Why is it the NZRU don't make any money? I don't know the details but every game I see in NZ seems to be poorly attended, besides internationals (which only fill out small stadiums anyway). I think the RFU make a huge amount of money from Twickenham attendances alone - why are attendances low in a country that is far more rugby obsessed than England?

 

[cardassian]

p.s. the link in my sig might at least amuse a few of you on the 'poaching' score

Definately an amusing read.

Interesting point about how some players may feel that their home is their adopted country.

As a Kiwi who is living in England I can see how this may happen.

I definately support England in a lot of things now and the idea of returning to live in NZ fills me with dread, so I can see how in the future I may feel stronger ties to England than NZ (definately want to live here not in NZ and can't see that changing even tho I'm freezing my balls off over here).

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Unless you have some sort of heritage tie to a country, you shouldn't be eligible to represent them. Simple as that.

That is my view on things as well. Hendre Fourie has played in England for 5 years but does that make him eligible to play for England?

 

[cardassian]

Unless you have some sort of heritage tie to a country, you shouldn't be eligible to represent them. Simple as that.

I think this would be a bit too harsh.

Like what if you're parents immigrated when you were 6 months old.
All you know is the country you were brought up in but you can only play for the country of your birth (which you may of never been to since you were a baby).

 

[Teh Mite]

I think this would be a bit too harsh.

Like what if you're parents immigrated when you were 6 months old.
All you know is the country you were brought up in but you can only play for the country of your birth (which you may of never been to since you were a baby).

It's not as if they'd be raised as a native as their new country. Chances are (and this does happen) that people are raised at home with a different tongue to those of their now homes. On a more basic level, I'm a Northamptoner so will never "be from Staffordshire", even if I lived there for a few years as a kid.

Fourie may have done well for England, but he's not English and because he played, there are English youngsters who didn't because the import took the shirt which (technically) is their birthright. Therefore he shouldn't have played.

The Hape example makes me even more annoyed.

 

[yafeka]

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.



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.

Your so right man these big nations that did not back nz aus and england are all greedy.. we are a small nation of tiny islands we go out to play for big nations so we can have money to help out our poor families.. its not because we chose play for them but because we had to.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

It's not as if they'd be raised as a native as their new country. Chances are (and this does happen) that people are raised at home with a different tongue to those of their now homes. On a more basic level, I'm a Northamptoner so will never "be from Staffordshire", even if I lived there for a few years as a kid.

Fourie may have done well for England, but he's not English and because he played, there are English youngsters who didn't because the import took the shirt which (technically) is their birthright. Therefore he shouldn't have played.

The Hape example makes me even more annoyed.

See, that is what I mentioned earlier. My son is born in South Africa but with me as his father being from Holland, he would be eligible to play for Holland. It's his heritage. If he moves to Australia and lives there for 10 years I don't see why he should be eligible to play for the Wallabies. It has nothing to do with heritage.

 

[Faatau82]

You should only be allowed to play for your nation you was actually born in. It's not hard really. Ok, yes, you'd get a player like Rory Clegg play for Germany. But that's tough luck.

In my estimation, SupeRugby should have a 2nd tier of professional clubs from all the islands, and Japan, Korea, Argentina etc. You could put the teams in the PRC into it, as well as some clubs from Japan, Argentina, Chile etc. This way those players don't have to become mercenaries for european clubs and can play at home at a decent level.

Sure, all the money is in Europe.. but in my mind a player like Manu Tuilagi is NOT english, he is samoan.. and should play for Samoa.. and be playing nearer Samoa. The iRB need to make it worthwhile for players from minnow nations to compete at the highest level.. again, why not have an expanded tri-nations with Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and Argentina? Sure, they may lose by 40 points, but they will improve over time.. and ultimately, if players are playing high level rugby near their nation they will be much better off as a national squad.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

The question isn't whether if they will join the 3N but when. Argentina is joining in 2012, opening the door for especially Tonga, Fiji and Samoa to enter. The max would be 6 though. Having a NH Six Nations and SH Six Nations would be truly amazing.

Isn't it an idea to create a division-system with the Four Nations (SA, NZ, AU and AR) and a second tier Nations Cup with Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Uruguay and Namibia for instance. In that format there is a promotion and relegation system.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Fair point, on this basis it should be the wealthier unions putting more money into the development of the game - which makes it even worse that England are supporting this free, short-term 'development'.

Why is it the NZRU don't make any money? I don't know the details but every game I see in NZ seems to be poorly attended, besides internationals (which only fill out small stadiums anyway). I think the RFU make a huge amount of money from Twickenham attendances alone - why are attendances low in a country that is far more rugby obsessed than England?

It's basically a few reasons, one of them that ticket prices can be too high for a lot of people. Economically, we aren't third world, but really we're second world if there's such a term and although there are a lot of wealthy kiwis, there are a lot who now weigh up very carefully what to spend our money on.

Also, as hard as it is for me to say this, sometimes the UK, Irish & French rugby supporters can be a little more fervent in the way they support rugby. Many places over there fill their stadiums with ease most of the time. I don't know what it is with Aucklanders in particular, but they have well and truly enough people to at least 3/4 fill their stadium every week, but sometimes it's so empty it's astounding.

New Zealand Rugby isn't marketed that well either. They need to actually market players personalities and have them talk things up a bit more leading in to a match to make people want to turn up. The mayor of Wanganui in New Zealand was trashing talking Southland before playing us for the Ranfurly Shield down here and he called our players a bunch of over-rated Swede eating rednecks. Of course everyone turned out to support them and we had at least an extra 4,000 odd bums on seats because of that. I'm not saying it's just because of things like that that change would happen. It's just there's no real hype or marketing for games down here. Some rivalries are good and everyone attends, others are a little tame.

 

[Teh Mite]

The question isn't whether if they will join the 3N but when. Argentina is joining in 2012, opening the door for especially Tonga, Fiji and Samoa to enter. The max would be 6 though. Having a NH Six Nations and SH Six Nations would be truly amazing.

Isn't it an idea to create a division-system with the Four Nations (SA, NZ, AU and AR) and a second tier Nations Cup with Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Uruguay and Namibia for instance. In that format there is a promotion and relegation system.

The problem there is the IRB doesn't govern these tournaments, SANZAR control the Tri (quad) nations (who are allowing Argentina to play) while Six Nations Rugby ltd equally controls the 6N, which is made up of the host nations unions. These lot look after number 1 first of all and all don't see a reason to let the little nations have a slice of the cake - Hence why Test rugby is becoming so stagnant as the same 10 teams play each other 3-4 times every year.

The PI players given a reason to remain with their respective PIs would give rugby the kick up the backside it needs. The same is needed for all the other European nations and the Americas.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I know it's a long shot but look at rugby compared to football. When you look at both, you have to agree that rugby is much more flexible when it comes to changes. Whether it's the rules that are changed or the format of competitions, rugby is much more versatile.

 

[Teh Mite]

Nah, rugby has too many committees trying to "fix" things that aren't broke to begin with. Is it far too complicated compared to 10 years ago? Yes. Of all these law changes that have happened over the bast 4-5 years, have they improved the game? No. Is rugby more enjoyable then it was 10 years ago? No.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

What I do notice and what bugs me most is the scrum rule... When I watch old matches from the nineties and before, I hardly ever see a scrum collapse. Now with the whole crouch-touch-pause-engage hassle I see scrums collapse sometimes 5 or 6 times.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

You should only be allowed to play for your nation you was actually born in. It's not hard really. Ok, yes, you'd get a player like Rory Clegg play for Germany. But that's tough luck.

Heaslip would certainly bolster Israels backrow! :lol:

On a more basic level, I'm a Northamptoner so will never "be from Staffordshire", even if I lived there for a few years as a kid.

We wouldn't have you anyway!

 

[dullonien]

Your so right man these big nations that did not back nz aus and england are all greedy.. we are a small nation of tiny islands we go out to play for big nations so we can have money to help out our poor families.. its not because we chose play for them but because we had to.

Sorry, I can't accept that excuse. Yes it's the reason many have left the small islands to settle in NZ in the first place. However if they were still passionate about their place of birth, and wanted to represent that country that's what they should do from the start, no-one is forcing them to play for NZ instead. Players make their money playing for their clubs, not for their international team, therefore I don't understand how money has any bearing on why many islanders choose to play for NZ. They choose NZ because they have lived there from a young age, being allowed to switch back to their county of birth after their All Blacks career dries up is unacceptable, and for me demonstrates that they either only chose NZ in the first place because of the potential for glory, or are only switching back to playign for their place of birth because it's a chance to prolongue their international playing career. Whilst I'm not saying people can't have ties to two countries, one of those ties will always be stronger, and should be the reason for picking a team to play for.

You should only be allowed to play for your nation you was actually born in. It's not hard really. Ok, yes, you'd get a player like Rory Clegg play for Germany. But that's tough luck.

Erm no I don't agree atall. A balance must be found. I don't think I'd ever consider myself anything other than Welsh, and would personally be ashamed to represent another country in sport. However this comes from the fact that Welsh people often have huge pride in being Welsh. I think this comes from the history our country has suffered, and the fact we have fought to keep hold of our language, our heritage and our identity. However not all countries have such a strong sense of identity. I'll take England as an example here. Many English people I've spoken to about the matter, often consider themselves British above being English. You'd be hard pressed to find a Welshman or Scotsman who thought the same. Because of this, I know plenty of people who were born in England, but moved to Wales at a young age who consider themselves Welsh (my girlfriend beign one). Who has the right to tell them their wrong, when they can speak the native tongue and have grown up surrounded in the culture. It has got to be a personal decision, however it's a decision that should not be made lightly, and should not be one they can change their mind about depending on their playign career.

 

[nickdnz]

You should only be allowed to play for your nation you was actually born in. It's not hard really. Ok, yes, you'd get a player like Rory Clegg play for Germany. But that's tough luck.

Unless you have some sort of heritage tie to a country, you shouldn't be eligible to represent them. Simple as that.

1. That's rubbish though. Andrew Mehrtens was born in South Africa, while his parents were on a several week work holiday, but he is nothing other than a kiwi. Surely you should be allowed to play for where ever you consider to be home, not just what ever place you were born.

2. Does that mean all citizens who weren't born in a country, shouldn't be allowed the same jobs as people who were born in that country? If I was someone like Jerry Collins, I'd be incredibly offended being told I'm not a New Zealander, as I was born and lived somewhere else till I was 2-3 years old. In England, I can see why it would both you that someone like Flutey or Hape, whom have only lived in England for a few years, are now taking those jerseys because they couldn't get a New Zealand one, but on the flip side for every Riki Flutey, you get a Mike Catt, who gave his all to English rugby for many years, and is now as English as anyone.

I think you should choose who you play for, but you only choose once. It means that you have decleared loyalty to one nations for rugby, and that's it. To stop people playing for a nation, because they weren't born in the country means they're less English or less of a New Zealander, sends a very wrong message.

New Zealand Rugby isn't marketed that well either. They need to actually market players personalities and have them talk things up a bit more leading in to a match to make people want to turn up. The mayor of Wanganui in New Zealand was trashing talking Southland before playing us for the Ranfurly Shield down here and he called our players a bunch of over-rated Swede eating rednecks. Of course everyone turned out to support them and we had at least an extra 4,000 odd bums on seats because of that. I'm not saying it's just because of things like that that change would happen. It's just there's no real hype or marketing for games down here. Some rivalries are good and everyone attends, others are a little tame.

I think in New Zealand, the player marketing has gone down even further. Back in 2000, every poster in Wellington had Cullen, Umaga and Lomu on it, and they were the personalities that got bums on seats. Players just don't have the same pull now. I think it's still a bit of a recession after the 2007 RWC, which seemed to be the straw that broke the camels back. Hopefully if we win 2011, New Zealand rugby will grow in popularity a bit.

The thing about rugby in New Zealand that I've noticed. We don't have the same degree of die hard fans as most countries. Most people in the country are semi-informed, but it's only a small minority that are really interested in everything rugby. Proportionally it's probably the same as most nations, but because we're so small, it can be rather unimpressive.

Your so right man these big nations that did not back nz aus and england are all greedy.. we are a small nation of tiny islands we go out to play for big nations so we can have money to help out our poor families.. its not because we chose play for them but because we had to.

Name one Pacific Islander who was forced to play for New Zealand? Terrible excuse as said above. The only player in the All Blacks, whom hasn't lived in New Zealand since he was 5 years old is Sivivatu, whom moved in his mid teens. Ignorent statement. In fact, we could very easily look at how many more players, whom were born in New Zealand, have played for Samoa. There have been 13 All Blacks in history born in Samoa, who have represented New Zealand. A vast majority moved to New Zealand before they were 5. Now if you look at players from New Zealand who have represented Samoa, there is more than 13 players from Wellington, never mind New Zealand.