• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

IRB rule against Pacific Islander's switch

Sorry, I saw the request to get it working so set it up for you. Didn't realise you'd since decided for something else. The to-do list occasionally gets backlogged.
 
No worries and thanks a lot man. I love it! Don't take it away from me... ;)

Please next time send me a PM to let me know
 
nickdnz said:
I would turn it down. I guess that makes me a ******. It's not about trying to keep the PI nations down, it just goes against everything that international rugby stands for. If you've said, New Zealand is my home, and I want to represent them, then that is it. You may hold affinities to your countries of heritage, and that's fine, but if you represent your country, it should be because you hold it foremost it your heart, not as a consolation prize. I personally don't think it will fix many problems at all, and it does devalue an international jersey, to that of a club jersey.

I don't know where the attacking of dullonien if from. He hasn't had a dig at New Zealand having any players from the Picific Nations, he is meerly saying that when you represent a country in a sport, it should be out of loyalty and dedication to that nation, and by allowing players who won't represent a country again to change allegiances, cheapens both jerseys. Which I totally agree with. I'm not totally convinced giving Fiji, Samoa or Tonga second hand players will sort the roof of any problem, as they have the athletes to be competitive against the best teams, just not the right amount of money or time to get those great players into great teams. If New Zealand really wanted to help out the PI nations they'd take several actions -
1. Open up more spots for PI players in the Super 15, and allow them to have starting positions with good development.
2. Campain to give the PI Nations more quality games, with allowing PI players paid leave times during the June Series, Pacific Six Nations and EoyT. Right now they can rarely get a full team together, if they had the same intervals as other players, they would be competitive.
3. Big cash injection.
Click to expand...

Would it really devalue an international jersey? or would it add value to the international scene? I have the feeling the coaches of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga wouldn't think it devalued an international jersey, as would the pacific island players. I think it's bullshit that a player from the islands may get 1 AB/AUS/SA/ENG cap and then be thrown into the international wilderness. It's just a waste of talent and it's the international scene that suffers. You should be able to change allegiences once, that would help all countries and ensure that the best players are out there (which is what we want isn't it?). It shouldn't matter that so and so played one game for the junior ABs therefore cannot play for any other country even if NZ don't want their services anymore. Only reason this rule came in was to stop countries like NZ poaching pacific island players from their international teams. Maybe you should be able to change once and only for international teams ranked lower.
 
I think wer'e wasting our time with this guy..he obviously believes that you cannot regard yourself as from a country if you wernt born there. narrow minded
 
markshaw said:
I think wer'e wasting our time with this guy..he obviously believes that you cannot regard yourself as from a country if you wernt born there. narrow minded
Click to expand...

Come again? I wasn't born in the Cook Islands yet I regard myself as Cook Island Maori...
 
Maybe turning down this proposal will make players more cautious with picking a country to play for. If someone from Samoa gets a chance for the All Blacks, knowing he will waste his chances for Samoa, he might think about it a little bit more before making a decision
 
Ezequiel said:
Maybe turning down this proposal will make players more cautious with picking a country to play for. If someone from Samoa gets a chance for the All Blacks, knowing he will waste his chances for Samoa, he might think about it a little bit more before making a decision
Click to expand...

It won't change a thing. Any people of Samoan ancestry who live in New Zealand since they were children will still have dual eligibility due to their circumstances and if they are good enough they'll want to play for the All Blacks after having spent nearly their entire lives here.

How will that change?
 
Maybe they will seriously consider the option of just playing 1 or 2 matches if they have massive competition for their position. If someone from Samoa is a really good kicker and fly-half, why play 1 or 2 matches for the All Blacks when you know you cannot compete with Daniel Carter in the long run for instance?
 
Ezequiel said:
Maybe they will seriously consider the option of just playing 1 or 2 matches if they have massive competition for their position. If someone from Samoa is a really good kicker and fly-half, why play 1 or 2 matches for the All Blacks when you know you cannot compete with Daniel Carter in the long run for instance?
Click to expand...


Because when you are young and your potential is rocketing up, you don't know where the ceiling of that talent is. You could be an all time great and you were raised in New Zealand. I personally agree with something similar to Cooky. I think it should only be allowable for anyone who's played 5 or less tests and did so below the age of 25 and realises they've made a mistake in where they should've gone with their talent. We've all been young and made mistakes and regretted them. Why destroy the good potential for talent to be exposed on an international scene?
 
I agree it just mean nothing will change, It was another way to move the game forward a little which has gone by the way, it didn't need to last for ever but its hard to push Rugby into new areas when there is such a huge gap in class (for what ever reason) withing the existing Rugby nations

I said it earlier, Its a game and should be fun, as long as there were controls (only once, only down a tier, even something like can only have played less then ten games for first country) I hons=estly cant see how it would do anything but help.


Originally Posted by nickdnz
I would turn it down. I guess that makes me a ******. It's not about trying to keep the PI nations down, it just goes against everything that international rugby stands for.

International Rugby stands for emegration control? I thought it was a game where the best players competed against each other, one way or the other
 
The only teams this helps in any way is the islanders, as mentioned before personally they should be given more time for tournaments and tours like every other nation which will build their team, as proven they dont need much help to compete.. Fiji v wales is an example.. yes wales played shockingly bad and fiji made them look bad they aren't bad teams and imo dont need this extra help in regards to ex all blacks or wallabies etc.. they just need time to gel as a team before tours etc and if possible a bit more money to develop young players there.
 
Totally preventing a player from changing countries just once in their playing career makes no sense to me in the professional era.

If I am working for a New Zealand company, say Fisher-Paykel, and I decide to go to England (or some other country) and work for AEG, who compete with F-P in the New Zealand marketplace, surely that is my right to do so?
 
Like Steve Tew said, Wales drawing with Fiji didnt help the cause at all.
 
Apparently, England voted for the proposal. That surprised the hell out of me!!
 
I wonder if this was a motion was instead something completely different that would've only de-powered the All Blacks somehow (thereby creating a more tightly contested situation should they be playing certain teams), if it would've passed or not?

After all, it's doing the same thing in reverse, instead of bringing the top teams down, it'd help bring some of the teams near the bottom up.
 
Jabby said:
I agree it just mean nothing will change, It was another way to move the game forward a little which has gone by the way, it didn't need to last for ever but its hard to push Rugby into new areas when there is such a huge gap in class (for what ever reason) withing the existing Rugby nations

I said it earlier, Its a game and should be fun, as long as there were controls (only once, only down a tier, even something like can only have played less then ten games for first country) I hons=estly cant see how it would do anything but help.


Originally Posted by nickdnz
I would turn it down. I guess that makes me a ******. It's not about trying to keep the PI nations down, it just goes against everything that international rugby stands for.

International Rugby stands for emegration control? I thought it was a game where the best players competed against each other, one way or the other
Click to expand...

Hang on, I have no issue with letting players play for New Zealand who have lived here for a long time. They're as much New Zealanders as anyone. My issue is that I don't think having a Doug Howlett play for Tonga, will solve any of their root problems, which I've outlined before. When you play for a nation, it is a huge honour, no matter which nation you've decided to play for. You are supposed to play for a country because you have pride in your country, and you want to represent it. I think this will be very lost in International rugby, if you can change your allegiances after already playing for a country.

It's nothing to do with immigration control. Players are more than welcome to join over seas based clubs, which I think has in many ways helped the professional era. But I have a lot of time for players such as Paul ***o, who was never given the oppertunity to play for the All Blacks, and yet he has said he feels too Kiwi to play for Wales if the selection was offered, despite loving playing in Wales. I think it shows what it is to be loyal to the nation in which you actually believe is your home. Smartcookies plan actually seemed quite good, and it means players like Ben Atiga, can have a second chance it what could have been a long career, while 60+ test veterens would be very hard pressed to get selected, while they actually have to have lived in that country.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Totally preventing a player from changing countries just once in their playing career makes no sense to me in the professional era.

If I am working for a New Zealand company, say Fisher-Paykel, and I decide to go to England (or some other country) and work for AEG, who compete with F-P in the New Zealand marketplace, surely that is my right to do so?
Click to expand...

Are you really equating playing for your country, one of the highest honor, with earning your crust? Really?

Do you think then players should go for the highest bidder, no loyalty involved?
 

Similar threads

M
Scotland v South Africa -application of “use it” 5 second rule.
Replies
2
Views
189
nh206
N
W
Wales summer Tour of Australia (and 1 off match against SA)
5 6 7
Replies
129
Views
4K
Welsh Exile
W
LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)
Fekitoa set to make Tonga switch.
2 3
Replies
57
Views
7K
Not Mike Brown's Sock
Not Mike Brown's Sock
Dai Perk
Pacific Nations Cup
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
Dai Perk
Dai Perk
L
wayne barns record against new zealand?
Replies
11
Views
3K
RedruthRFC
R

Latest posts

Top