Loophole in Eligibility laws welcomed news for Pacific Island Nation

[Sam Owen]

So every player in NZ, Aus, SA, England or whoever outside the national squad should be fine to go play for someone else?! you realise how that would make a joke of the international game right?

I dont think it'll make it a joke. I think you and I will still watch the games regardless.

Besides its already been done. One example was the Manu losing Frank Bunce, did we moan? no we didnt, we understood.

 

[LittleGuy]

Jan Christian Stewart moved way back in the day from Canada to South Africa, and it was pretty farcical, in the 1995 RWC he's involved in a massive punch up versus the Boks, than three years later he gets three caps with them.

 

[Jaguares]

WTF?????!!!! This is ridiculous!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

So every player in NZ, Aus, SA, England or whoever outside the national squad should be fine to go play for someone else?! you realise how that would make a joke of the international game right?

I dont think it'll make it a joke. I think you and I will still watch the games regardless.

Besides its already been done. One example was the Manu losing Frank Bunce, did we moan? no we didnt, we understood.

Jan Christian Stewart moved way back in the day from Canada to South Africa, and it was pretty farcical, in the 1995 RWC he's involved in a massive punch up versus the Boks, than three years later he gets three caps with them.

I think there is certainly potential for it to become pretty ridiculous. The JC Stewart (Canada->SA) and Tiaan Strauss (SA -> Aus) ones being a bit meh for me BUT purely because it was isolated instances. If it were to become the order of the day then that would be a problem.

That said having seen a ton of SA players (Botha, Stevens, Strauss, Diack, Coetzee, Le Roux, Claassen, Barritt, Fourie..) jog out for European sides with the current laws means I couldn't care less about potential loop holes arising now because we are already seeing a bleed of talent. When the 'switch-over' rule goes to 3 years after 2016 I can't see it being more of a farce than the current situation BUT I do feel a player with a couple of seasons/caps should be seen as not eligable; there is a difference between seeing an Aus legend like George Smith playing for Tonga vs someone who has only a season with say NZ.

 

[ratsapprentice]

there is a difference between seeing an Aus legend like George Smith playing for Tonga vs someone who has only a season with say NZ.

No there isn't.

Both undermine the premise of representative rugby equally.

 

[smartcooky]

Here is, as far as I can tell, the key Regulation...

[TEXTAREA]8.7 A Player who is a national of the country or Union for which he has been captured under Regulation 8.2 and who holds the nationality of another country or Union, may apply to participate in an Olympic Event to represent his new country or Union subject to the following conditions;

...

8.7.2 The Player will be required to observe and demonstrate a stand down period of at least 3 years since the time the Player last represented their former Union and the time the Player first plays for the second Union or country, which must be in an Olympic Event. The Player may not represent the second Union in any other form of the Game until after they have participated in such Olympic Event.[/TEXTAREA]


I agree there is a loophole, but its hardly one that will have players flooding to exploit.

► No test rugby for three years
► After that they would have to wait until an Olympic qualifying event
► The timing would have to be right


Circumstances could result in a player having to wait for as long as seven years before playing for their new union. While the 2014/15 iRB World Sevens Series is a qualifying event, the 15/16. 16/17, and 17/18 events are not, so, for example, a player who last played for his current national team in late 2012 would be too late to qualify for the 2016 Olympics so he would not be able to represent a new union until 2019 because the first available Olympic Qualifying event will be the 2018/19 iRB World Series.

I really cannot see the iRB allowing this loophole to remain open, if it even is really a loophole anyway. What I think you will find will happen is that, with Sevens being an Olympic Sport (and therefore having to comply with Olympic National Eligibility criteria), the iRB will change Regulation 8 to have Sevens and Fifteens eligibility treated separately. i.e., if you play Sevens for one country, it will only capture your eligibility for Sevens, not for Fifteens. You may be able to switch countries to play Sevens, but your eligibility for Fifteens will remain with the country you first played Fifteens for.

I don't feel this is unreasonable as Sevens has over the years morphed into a different game from Fifteens with different styles of play and significantly different tactics. It even has different Laws (apart from the obvious ones relating to the number of players and the length of the match).


ETA: I believe this might close the loophole anyway

[TEXTAREA]8.9.1 Where the Player has been captured under Regulation 8.2 for a Union he
shall remain captured for such Union notwithstanding the Player’s
representation for the Olympic Sevens Team of a National Olympic
Committee in an Olympic Event;[/TEXTAREA]

For reference...

[TEXTAREA]8.2 A Player who has played for the senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the next senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the senior National Representative Sevens Team
of a Union is not eligible to play for the senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the next senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the senior National Representative Sevens Team
of another Union.[/TEXTAREA]

 

[ratsapprentice]

It's 18 months for the inaugural event - not three years.

 

[smartcooky]

It's 18 months for the inaugural event - not three years.

I know that, but a player who misses the chance to play in 14/15 will not have another chance to qualify until the 18/19 iRB World Series, then he'll have to actually play in the 2020 Olympics so he misses the 2019 RWC as well.

The other thing is (as far as a player like Steffon Armitage goes), are France going to pick him at sevens just so they can get him for 15s?

 

[ratsapprentice]

The other thing is (as far as a player like Steffon Armitage goes), are France going to pick him at sevens just so they can get him for 15s?

Can't see why they wouldn't - he just has to play on one leg - and it's not like France are medal contenders anyway.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I dont think it'll make it a joke. I think you and I will still watch the games regardless.

Besides its already been done. One example was the Manu losing Frank Bunce, did we moan? no we didnt, we understood.

Is that Auckland born and raised Frank Bunce (with mainly Niuean heritage) you are referring to? Who only played for them to go to the World Cup (as he wasn't in the AB squad) while knowing that it wouldn't affect his future eligibility for the AB's? How exactly did Samoa lose him?

 

[Sam Owen]

Is that Auckland born and raised Frank Bunce (with mainly Niuean heritage) you are referring to? Who only played for them to go to the World Cup (as he wasn't in the AB squad) while knowing that it wouldn't affect his future eligibility for the AB's? How exactly did Samoa lose him?

Frank is part Samoan read his book and not wikipedia.

He wasnt considered for the All Blacks untill the All Blacks saw how good he was in the RWC for Niue, sorry I meant Samoa.

For your last question, I'll break it down for ya so you can understand ok. So here it goes, you ready?

Frank Bunce played for the Manu Samoa ok? we got that just like say Sitiveni Sivivatu played for New Zealand so we got that part sussed ok..

Then he was finally chosen to play for the All Blacks ok?..so now Samoa has lost a player right?

Do you now understand?

Anyway that getting away from our intial arguement, so lets get back to that because to carry on about Bunce is to run from the initial arguement.

Frank Bunce is just an example that its already happened a long time ago. A player pledging his allegiance and then leaving for another country, there is no disputing thats what happened, it is what is. So now that its your countries team thats gonna have one of its former players play against them, its now that you have an issue with it. I understand your issue, Im just saying it happened ages ago because in your post it sounded like were saying that its yet to happen, it SOUNDED like what you were saying.

Its happened and thats that, everything else is just an excuse. If you're gonna say 'but Bunce was..' bottom line he played for the Manu colours and then the Samoan colours. So back then our main player was Bunce and we lost him, now that its the Islands turn to do something similar, of all people the Kiwis should be supporting that, instead Im shocked to find that on TRF its mainly the N.H posters that support this and not our own Kiwi brothers (well some, like we all know who). Unbelievable!

Please stick to the point of this thread and not stray, not saying you are just in the past when Im trading these kind of posts, it usually strays away from the thread.

 

[aucklander]

of all people the Kiwis should be supporting that, instead Im shocked to find that on TRF its mainly the N.H posters that support this and not our own Kiwi brothers (well some, like we all know who). Unbelievable!

I agree with you on this too Sam Owen. "Unbelievable"

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Frank is part Samoan read his book and not wikipedia.

He wasnt considered for the All Blacks untill the All Blacks saw how good he was in the RWC for Niue, sorry I meant Samoa.

For your last question, I'll break it down for ya so you can understand ok. So here it goes, you ready?

Frank Bunce played for the Manu Samoa ok? we got that just like say Sitiveni Sivivatu played for New Zealand so we got that part sussed ok..

Then he was finally chosen to play for the All Blacks ok?..so now Samoa has lost a player right?

Do you now understand?

Anyway that getting away from our intial arguement, so lets get back to that because to carry on about Bunce is to run from the initial arguement.

Frank Bunce is just an example that its already happened a long time ago. A player pledging his allegiance and then leaving for another country, there is no disputing thats what happened, it is what is. So now that its your countries team thats gonna have one of its former players play against them, its now that you have an issue with it. I understand your issue, Im just saying it happened ages ago because in your post it sounded like were saying that its yet to happen, it SOUNDED like what you were saying.

Its happened and thats that, everything else is just an excuse. If you're gonna say 'but Bunce was..' bottom line he played for the Manu colours and then the Samoan colours. So back then our main player was Bunce and we lost him, now that its the Islands turn to do something similar, of all people the Kiwis should be supporting that, instead Im shocked to find that on TRF its mainly the N.H posters that support this and not our own Kiwi brothers (well some, like we all know who). Unbelievable!

Please stick to the point of this thread and not stray, not saying you are just in the past when Im trading these kind of posts, it usually strays away from the thread.

Don's point is that Bunce only played for Samoa because he knew he would still be able to play for the All Blacks later. If the one country rule had existed at that point in time he never would have played for Samoa. It's very analogous to the current U20 situation, where lots of young Kiwis with Island heritage play for an Island team when they're 19, because NZ won't select them, but they know that the next year they'll still be eligible for NZ and therefore they have nothing to lose. The Islands are their second choice (as evidenced by the fact that as soon as NZ offers them a place they switch allegiances), and they get the benefit of the lenient rules, but you shouldn't for one second think that the players are being 'stolen' by NZ or 'lost' by the Islands - everyone is well aware in advance as to what is going to happen.

Effectively, Bunce was temporarily on loan to Samoa. Bunce was doing them a favour by representing them (not that I'm suggesting he didn't get anything out of it), and therefore to suggest that he was 'lost' to NZ is a bit of a misnomer - he was a temporary gain for Samoa, they only benefited from the rules, their was no cost to them.

of all people the Kiwis should be supporting that, instead Im shocked to find that on TRF its mainly the N.H posters that support this and not our own Kiwi brothers (well some, like we all know who). Unbelievable!

I agree with you on this too Sam Owen. "Unbelievable"

How many NH players are going to switch allegiances? Few to none, the NH countries aren't having their investments suddenly switch countries, it is mainly NZ and Australian players that this will affect.

I can understand you thinking the NH teams wouldn't support this chance, but I don't really see why'd you'd expect the SH nations to support it?

 

[Darwin]

Though I don't at all like the loophole that has been created here (for a number of reasons), as Smartcooky suggests I don't think there will be many players who will actually be able to exploit it. The best solution in my opinion would be to make eligibility in 15's and 7's separate (as they are quite distinct games). I'm not sure exactly the best way to do this, but I feel it would be better than these new regulations....

 

[Sam Owen]

Thank you Fish for speaking on Frank Bunces and dons behalf.

I asked not to stray away from the subject and what does the next person do?...

If you read our first traded posts on this thread, Frank Bunce was just an example to dons post. Just to show that what he doesnt want to happen (and I understand why) with players playing for one country and then playing for another has already happened FACT!

Bunce was playing for the Manu and then he played for the All Blacks. The Manu had him, he did well, and when the All Blacks realised just how good he was in that RWC, they took him back so Samoa lost a player. I dont want to get into a war of words over lost and gain 'cos I'd say we're both right.

I did realise that Bunce had that option to go back to the ABs, if he played well, so you could say the Manu was being used by the NZRFU in Bunces case. Did our people moan? no and believe me some people moan about this kind of stuff happening to their country.

Like I said before he was just an example of what don doesnt want to happen but the thing is, if its ok for the ABs, why cant it be ok for us?.. everything else is just an excuse. To say Bunce was just loaned to the Samoans is kind of insulting to our national side, and then when we get the chance to do what the ABs did SOME Kiwis quickly get off their butt to say 'no, no, you're not allowed to play for them, you played for us, we dont care if you're tier 2, 100% Fijian, Kiwi accent like Sitiveni, we dont care that you've served our country well and wish to represent your ethnicity with pride like you did ours just dont put their jersey on, Bunce? oh Bunce was a different story etc..' it is what it is.

Anyway lets get back to the thread and not Bunce. Go back and read it from the start and you'll see what I mean. Agree with the other things you said though Fish, not certain about that N.H thing though but nice of you to speak on their behalf

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Overly passive-aggressive response

 

[Sam Owen]

Lol, I dont even remember writing that quote.

 

[nickdnz]

Thank you Fish for speaking on Frank Bunces and dons behalf.

I asked not to stray away from the subject and what does the next person do?...

If you read our first traded posts on this thread, Frank Bunce was just an example to dons post. Just to show that what he doesnt want to happen (and I understand why) with players playing for one country and then playing for another has already happened FACT!

Bunce was playing for the Manu and then he played for the All Blacks. The Manu had him, he did well, and when the All Blacks realised just how good he was in that RWC, they took him back so Samoa lost a player. I dont want to get into a war of words over lost and gain 'cos I'd say we're both right.

I did realise that Bunce had that option to go back to the ABs, if he played well, so you could say the Manu was being used by the NZRFU in Bunces case. Did our people moan? no and believe me some people moan about this kind of stuff happening to their country.

Like I said before he was just an example of what don doesnt want to happen but the thing is, if its ok for the ABs, why cant it be ok for us?.. everything else is just an excuse. To say Bunce was just loaned to the Samoans is kind of insulting to our national side, and then when we get the chance to do what the ABs did SOME Kiwis quickly get off their butt to say 'no, no, you're not allowed to play for them, you played for us, we dont care if you're tier 2, 100% Fijian, Kiwi accent like Sitiveni, we dont care that you've served our country well and wish to represent your ethnicity with pride like you did ours just dont put their jersey on, Bunce? oh Bunce was a different story etc..' it is what it is.

Anyway lets get back to the thread and not Bunce. Go back and read it from the start and you'll see what I mean. Agree with the other things you said though Fish, not certain about that N.H thing though but nice of you to speak on their behalf

The point Sam that you are missing, is that yes it has already happened. It was bullsh*t back then as well, which is why it was changed. Caucaunibuca could have been an All Black had the rules remained, but people generally agreed that it was ridiculous (and it wasn't as one way as you make it sound...). I'd be very happy for U20s to lock in a national team and then Samoa and Tonga wouldn't get guys like Piatau playing for them in U20s, or the ton of players in the NZ U20s team who they'll eventually get when they don't make the All Blacks.

Many would argue that wearing a national jersey with pride, wouldn't involve eventually swapping it for another one. And wearing another jersey with pride isn't playing for a team as a consolation prize for not being picked for the All Blacks.

 

[Sam Owen]

The point Sam that you are missing, is that yes it has already happened.

Thats the point Im trying to make nick. Yes I read the rest of the paragraph and like I said before it can get a bit ridiculous but its happened before and now the roles are reversed, it should be all good. I understand NZRFU dont have a problem with this but a few of our "kiwi" posters here on TRF do.

Many would argue that wearing a national jersey with pride, wouldn't involve eventually swapping it for another one. And wearing another jersey with pride isn't playing for a team as a consolation prize for not being picked for the All Blacks.

True.

 

[nickdnz]

Thats the point Im trying to make nick. Yes I read the rest of the paragraph and like I said before it can get a bit ridiculous but its happened before and now the roles are reversed, it should be all good. I understand NZRFU dont have a problem with this but a few of our "kiwi" posters here on TRF do.

True.

But my point is, it wasn't all good then and it's not all good now. Samoa benefited from converts as well. The reason it was stopped was because it was farcical - and in fact was finally stopped in 2002 because of New Zealand wanting Rupeni Caucaunibuca. If it was unfair back then it is unfair now.