Loophole in Eligibility laws welcomed news for Pacific Island Nation

[IKALETAHI]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...saia-Toeava-linked-to-Samoa-for-the-World-Cup

Good news for Samoa

Isaia Toeava, DIgby Ioane, Lelia Masaga to name a few rumoured to make the switch

 

[Feicarsinn]

Pathetic.

 

[smartcooky]

The iRB might be looking at closing this loophole by using an "Eligibility Committee".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11313377

I have a better solution. Why not separate eligibility for Sevens and Fifteens, i.e. rewrite the Regulation so that playing Sevens does not capture eligibility for 15's (and vice versa)? They are, after all, Sevens has become a very specialist game with many different Laws and different tactics. OK, you could end up with some players turning out for different countries in the two codes, but so what? It would be far better than the travesty we have now.

If not that, then why not have the Regulation written so that players can swap ONLY for Olympic Sevens qualifying and the Games tournament itself? After the Olympics is over, the player cannot continue to play for their swapped nation until the next Olympics qualifying begins; they must revert back to their first captured nation.

 

[ratsapprentice]

To be fair I think that individual cases of eligibility are generally complex enough that an "Eligibility Committee" might be quite a good idea IMO.

Blatant attempts to "have their cake and eat it" can be discerned from genuine cases.

 

[nickdnz]

I prefer the one rule fits all type of thing - I think it's much more problematic making exceptions for people.

You can't really tell someone what they are and aren't, you can just place criteria for everyone to follow.

Sadly I think the whole eligibility process under the Olympics has made a mess of things. I'm not sure I'd want to compromise it anyway...

What I don't understand, is that Football doesn't have these problems. Yes it's a convoluted selection of U23 players and a few over, but it's not like an U23 player can play for Brazil's national team, play for Argentina in Olympics football, and then play for Argentina. How is it rugby is somehow subjected to it?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken...but I think footballers switch nationalities all the time, I certainly heard it mentioned about several players during the world cup.

I'd agree the system we've used up until now is the best way.

A committee to deal with the cases that are being put forward as a result of the 7s situation in order to simply switch 15's eligibility would be a good thing.

 

[goodNumber10]

The iRB might be looking at closing this loophole by using an "Eligibility Committee".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11313377

I have a better solution. Why not separate eligibility for Sevens and Fifteens, i.e. rewrite the Regulation so that playing Sevens does not capture eligibility for 15's (and vice versa)? They are, after all, Sevens has become a very specialist game with many different Laws and different tactics. OK, you could end up with some players turning out for different countries in the two codes, but so what? It would be far better than the travesty we have now.

If not that, then why not have the Regulation written so that players can swap ONLY for Olympic Sevens qualifying and the Games tournament itself? After the Olympics is over, the player cannot continue to play for their swapped nation until the next Olympics qualifying begins; they must revert back to their first captured nation.

^this

 

[LittleGuy]

I love that article smartcooky linked, I especially love the line...."But now that several nations have sought clarity around the detail - and asked whether individuals need to be in the squad or get on the field at a sevens tournament to satisfy the criteria" so some of these countries didn't even want to go through the motions of sending the guy out on the field in a slightly jokey manner and instead wanted to stuff their names on a squad leave the rest of their 7's team shorthanded that particular event and have him come to their XV's sides for the RWC.

Absolutely embarrasing stuff, dosen't mention the countries by name but I have a feeling MOANu Samoa was on the forefront.

 

[aucklander]

Agree with IKALETAHI
Good news for samoa to have the likes of isaia toeava, wulf etc put their hands up. So excited to see some close matches at the coming world cup. Hoping sopoaga comes across as well.

 

[Tautahi]

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11413629
Seems will be swimming against the tide again. Understandable but why now?

 

[smartcooky]

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11413629
Seems will be swimming against the tide again. Understandable but why now?

If a PI player genuinely wants to play ITM Cup as a path to Super-Rugby and eventual All Black selection, then sign a full contract with the NZRU. If they they are not willing to do that, then the ITM Cup team would have to suspect they are going to want to play for a PI country, so they don't sign him.... simples!

 

[Tautahi]

So we just gonna build a warehouse full of rugby players (who could be playing for their island nation) and save them for a rainy day. Not everyone can be an All Black, so let's be fair here and give the player his freedom of picking who he wishes to play for. Not be told to stick around to make up numbers.

 

[The Man]

So we just gonna build a warehouse full of rugby players (who could be playing for their island nation) and save them for a rainy day. Not everyone can be an All Black, so let's be fair here and give the player his freedom of picking who he wishes to play for. Not be told to stick around to make up numbers.

International rugby is not about playing "who one wishes to play for", is about playing for the country that happens to be your country. I'd go as far as forcing every player to pick a country when they turn 21, and then forbidding them to play for any other.

 

[Tautahi]

International rugby is not about playing "who one wishes to play for", is about playing for the country that happens to be your country. I'd go as far as forcing every player to pick a country when they turn 21, and then forbidding them to play for any other.

By "who one wishes for" I mean country of birth and country of origin/decent.

 

[Shaggy]

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11413629
Seems will be swimming against the tide again. Understandable but why now?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect this is only an issue in RWC year as the timing of the internationals, and the small amount of time that the PI players get to train together (another issue, I know), normally means that there's no/little conflict between the ITM cup, and test rugby for PI players.

Things may have changed a bit with the compensation for All Blacks, because I remember when Ben Franks left the Tasman Makos a few years ago, the Makos didn't seem to upset because of the lack of games that Franks actually got to play for them, and the savings that could be made by contracting a non All Black/ability to use those savings elsewhere.

It's interesting that these comments come out of the Auckland Rugby Union, who seem to be one of the richer unions in NZ ... some unions, such as the Makos, operated below the imposed salary cap for years (not sure if they still do), and have a distinct lack of international players, and seem to select their players on the basis of who's going to provide the best value for them, not on the player's availability for a particular nation

So we just gonna build a warehouse full of rugby players (who could be playing for their island nation) and save them for a rainy day. Not everyone can be an All Black, so let's be fair here and give the player his freedom of picking who he wishes to play for. Not be told to stick around to make up numbers.

Well, there's an element of risk involved for any player in the NZ rugby environment. All players that want to represent NZ, must play rugby in NZ, and. as you rightly point out, not everyone can play for the All Blacks, but the players must make the choice, and forgo the opportunity to earn better wages elsewhere. Many other test playing nations have a similar selection criteria involving a requirement to play in their domestic competition (to varying degrees), if a player wants to represent their country, but there's no requirements on the PI players to do so - they can play anywhere in the world, taking advantage of the best deal in monetary terms, and still play for their country, so it's not all disadvantages for PI players.

Building "a warehouse full of rugby players" may seem unfair from one point of view, but is it fair to leave/lose other players that could play for NZ, because there's no room in the warehouse, because the space is taken up by players that can't play for NZ?

 

[Tautahi]

I fully understand were your coming from and the NZRU have all the right to protect there national rugby. My stance on this is most of our players from NZ are ITM cup players, most have never secured a Super Rugby Contract and have played a few seasons in the ITM. Because they are privileged then most NZ rugby players, due to their dual eligibility, they opt for their Island Nation. Why ? because they and like all rugby players have aspirations of becoming fully professional rugby players. Classifying them as risks is unfair most only make the decision of playing for their Island nation when they realise their future in NZ rugby is not so bright. But shutting the door on them before they enter the scene. Because their dual eligibility only encourages these players coming through the grades to realise pledging yourself to purse that All Blacks jersey is risky. Why? Most realise that their only here to make up the numbers, when the offer of moving offshore were they get the choice of playing international and professional rugby is more appealing. NZ rugby is competitive because the diverse cultures that play the game here. I would rather have PI born/PI decent players stay here and given the freedom to pick between NZ/Islands because we both can benefit from it. Having them offshore is a bigger worry because we can not compete with the money those Europeans offer to play for them internationally and locally. A example of this Ben Tameifuna now that he is eyeing up a contract offshore he is seriously considering playing for France when last year the only two options were Tonga or New Zealand.

 

[Shaggy]

I fully understand were your coming from and the NZRU have all the right to protect there national rugby. My stance on this is most of our players from NZ are ITM cup players, most have never secured a Super Rugby Contract and have played a few seasons in the ITM. Because they are privileged then most NZ rugby players, due to their dual eligibility, they opt for their Island Nation. Why ? because they and like all rugby players have aspirations of becoming fully professional rugby players. Classifying them as risks is unfair most only make the decision of playing for their Island nation when they realise their future in NZ rugby is not so bright. But shutting the door on them before they enter the scene. Because their dual eligibility only encourages these players coming through the grades to realise pledging yourself to purse that All Blacks jersey is risky. Why? Most realise that their only here to make up the numbers, when the offer of moving offshore were they get the choice of playing international and professional rugby is more appealing. NZ rugby is competitive because the diverse cultures that play the game here. I would rather have PI born/PI decent players stay here and given the freedom to pick between NZ/Islands because we both can benefit from it. Having them offshore is a bigger worry because we can not compete with the money those Europeans offer to play for them internationally and locally. A example of this Ben Tameifuna now that he is eyeing up a contract offshore he is seriously considering playing for France when last year the only two options were Tonga or New Zealand.

Absolutely, and by shutting the door for PI players, it also pushes those that are undecided who they want to play for internationally, offshore, so the ABs also miss on those potential players too.

This is why I can't see why the NZFU would want this to occur, nor can I see that the risk of not retaining a PI player at a provincial ITM cup player, is significantly greater than that of a non PI player.

I'm curious to know if the compensation paid to the ITM cup sides is in effect only in RWC year, or not.

It's always a shame when you see any player leave, and then end up playing for an international side they don't really have any emotional buy in with, but, in the end, it's the players choice, and I can't really blame them for taking any opportunity that's advantageous to them.

 

[Tautahi]

It would be alright if it was for this World Cup year and you can understand unions would suffer greatly if everyone left on a plane to England. Let's just hope it is for this year only

 

[smartcooky]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect this is only an issue in RWC year as the timing of the internationals, and the small amount of time that the PI players get to train together (another issue, I know), normally means that there's no/little conflict between the ITM cup, and test rugby for PI players.

Things may have changed a bit with the compensation for All Blacks, because I remember when Ben Franks left the Tasman Makos a few years ago, the Makos didn't seem to upset because of the lack of games that Franks actually got to play for them, and the savings that could be made by contracting a non All Black/ability to use those savings elsewhere.

It's interesting that these comments come out of the Auckland Rugby Union, who seem to be one of the richer unions in NZ ... some unions, such as the Makos, operated below the imposed salary cap for years (not sure if they still do), and have a distinct lack of international players, and seem to select their players on the basis of who's going to provide the best value for them, not on the player's availability for a particular nation



Well, there's an element of risk involved for any player in the NZ rugby environment. All players that want to represent NZ, must play rugby in NZ, and. as you rightly point out, not everyone can play for the All Blacks, but the players must make the choice, and forgo the opportunity to earn better wages elsewhere. Many other test playing nations have a similar selection criteria involving a requirement to play in their domestic competition (to varying degrees), if a player wants to represent their country, but there's no requirements on the PI players to do so - they can play anywhere in the world, taking advantage of the best deal in monetary terms, and still play for their country, so it's not all disadvantages for PI players.

Building "a warehouse full of rugby players" may seem unfair from one point of view, but is it fair to leave/lose other players that could play for NZ, because there's no room in the warehouse, because the space is taken up by players that can't play for NZ?

Also, you have to consider who has actually paid for these players to become good enough to play at international level. Remember, the ITM does not make the NZRU any money; its a dead loss on the books, but a good business will recognise when they have something that on paper, loses money, but that has a value greater than money. The NZRU are no fools. They know ITM Cup has a value that is a long way beyond just money; why do you think the ARU are trying to emulate it with the National Rugby Championship.

In paying for the ITM Cup financial shortfall, the NZRU has created the stage upon which players show off their skills. Why should they continue to pay for the raising and nurturing of new talent, only to have others take it away as it comes to maturity. Imagine how you would feel if you were a corn-farmer, and after a year of tending your crop carefully and with considerable expense, just as the corn ripened, someone came along and harvested 1/3 of your crop without paying for it!

 

[Shaggy]

Also, you have to consider who has actually paid for these players to become good enough to play at international level. Remember, the ITM does not make the NZRU any money; its a dead loss on the books, but a good business will recognise when they have something that on paper, loses money, but that has a value greater than money. The NZRU are no fools. They know ITM Cup has a value that is a long way beyond just money; why do you think the ARU are trying to emulate it with the National Rugby Championship.

In paying for the ITM Cup financial shortfall, the NZRU has created the stage upon which players show off their skills. Why should they continue to pay for the raising and nurturing of new talent, only to have others take it away as it comes to maturity. Imagine how you would feel if you were a corn-farmer, and after a year of tending your crop carefully and with considerable expense, just as the corn ripened, someone came along and harvested 1/3 of your crop without paying for it!

What, you mean like taxation! ... seriously though, your comparison is apt in the sense that there's an element of risk in both Rugby and corn farming in that both have to plan for/expect unforeseen loss - both are subject to market pressures, and experience loss, the corn farmer to weather conditions, and pests. Yes, the NZRU should try to protect what they have developed, but impeding players that might otherwise play for NZ seems unwise to me. It kind of makes the decision for those players, or, at the very least, encourages them to play their Rugby somewhere other than NZ.

Like I said/implied in a previous post, the only real player retention tool the NZRU has, is the prospect of playing for the All Blacks if the players stay in NZ, and the loss of some players is inevitable, regardless of a players ethnic background, hence the risk.

I know the unions are after financial compensation for lack of player availability, and you and I have talked about transfer and other fees to compensate for player development previously on other threads, but it's hard to see any of the PI unions having the means to compensate the ITM cup sides, unless World Rugby itself comes up with the cash.

As for the ITM cup's value, and the ARU trying to emulate it, your singing to the choir here ... the ARU needs a domestic competition to develop a wider pool of players, and to retain the ones they already have.