Narrow minded continue to inhibit minnow nations like Samoa

[AfakasiAssasin]

Ideally what i would like to see happen is if a player who has been capped less than 5 times, or one season of sevens for a tier one nation wanted to switch alleigance to a tier 2 nation than it can be done after say a three year stand down period from International rugby. It could only work by going from tier 1 to tier 2 and not the other way around. I would also change being capped for a tier 1 'A' side means you are binded to that country. Realistically I dont see anything changing in the near future. The rules have been in place for a while now and after a few proposals to change, the rules still stays the same 'one country for life'. I am over this now to be honest so I just worry about who we have currently and who IS available as opposed to who is not and who cant be. No point crying over spilt milk!

 

[smartcooky]

I will repost here what I posted on the last thread about this

[TEXTAREA]I am in favour of this idea, but not in the way it has been proposed. I would expect a LOT more stringent criteria to be set.

I would also expect it NOT to be a special "Pacific Islands" exception, but rather, one that applies across all countries (with restrictions I will outline later). I see no reason why such a set of exceptions should not allow, for example, Matt Dunning to return to be eligible for Canada, David Pocock for Zimbabwe, or Leslie Vainikolo for Tonga.

My conditions would be as follows

One Switch Only
A player would only be allowed to change allegiances once in their lifetime. This would allow the player a one-off opportunity to either repair a mistake in judgement that may have made when they were younger, or to give something back to the country of their birth/ancestry.

Immediate ancestry only
The player can only switch to the country of their birth, or of their immediate natural parent's birth. No grandparent clause.

Down a tier or two, but never up
The player can only switch from a higher Tier to a lower one. Switches within Tiers would not be allowed, and nor would going up a Tier be allowed. This would make it too easy for rich Top tier unions to buy established international players from Tier 2 & 3 unions.

Residency period
The player must live and play in the country they wish to switch to for 24 months before they can represent it. This would ensure that the player shows commitment to the country and isn't just continuing to play Club Rugby in Europe or Super Rugby in SANZAR.

Stand down period
The player cannot have been selected for their current country in any International match for five years before they become "re-eligible" to represent the country of their birth. This would ensure that a player could not, for example, retire from being an All Black immediately after one world cup, and represent Samoa at the next. They will have to skip a world cup.

Prior notification and Irreversibility
The player must declare their intention before they commit to the Residency requirement of becoming re-eligible for the country they wish to switch to. Once this happens, they can never go back, even if they do not complete the process. For example, Player A, an ex Wallaby, declares the intent to play for his birth country, Tonga. If after living in Tonga for only 12 months he decides its not what he wants to do, he cannot simply go back to become eligible for Australia.[/TEXTAREA]

 

[AfakasiAssasin]

Residency period
The player must live and play in the country they wish to switch to for 24 months before they can represent it. This would ensure that the player shows commitment to the country and isn't just continuing to play Club Rugby in Europe or Super Rugby in SANZAR.

I agree 100% with your article except for this bit. Are you saying, if a Samoan eligible player who was born in Samoa but played a test for the All Blacks but now plies his trade in Europe, has to go back to Samoa to play for 24 months before he can switch allegiance ? I'm sorry this wouldn't work as most of the tier 2 countries with Japan the only exception do not have resourceful enough club levels of rugby to be able to support a full time professional. I fear if this was the case then you wouldn't see too many players switching allegiance unless they were club less and at the end of their careers.

 

[DariusLovehall]

I will repost here what I posted on the last thread about this

[TEXTAREA]I am in favour of this idea, but not in the way it has been proposed. I would expect a LOT more stringent criteria to be set.

I would also expect it NOT to be a special "Pacific Islands" exception, but rather, one that applies across all countries (with restrictions I will outline later). I see no reason why such a set of exceptions should not allow, for example, Matt Dunning to return to be eligible for Canada, David Pocock for Zimbabwe, or Leslie Vainikolo for Tonga.

My conditions would be as follows

One Switch Only
A player would only be allowed to change allegiances once in their lifetime. This would allow the player a one-off opportunity to either repair a mistake in judgement that may have made when they were younger, or to give something back to the country of their birth/ancestry.

Immediate ancestry only
The player can only switch to the country of their birth, or of their immediate natural parent's birth. No grandparent clause.

Down a tier or two, but never up
The player can only switch from a higher Tier to a lower one. Switches within Tiers would not be allowed, and nor would going up a Tier be allowed. This would make it too easy for rich Top tier unions to buy established international players from Tier 2 & 3 unions.

Residency period
The player must live and play in the country they wish to switch to for 24 months before they can represent it. This would ensure that the player shows commitment to the country and isn't just continuing to play Club Rugby in Europe or Super Rugby in SANZAR.

Stand down period
The player cannot have been selected for their current country in any International match for five years before they become "re-eligible" to represent the country of their birth. This would ensure that a player could not, for example, retire from being an All Black immediately after one world cup, and represent Samoa at the next. They will have to skip a world cup.

Prior notification and Irreversibility
The player must declare their intention before they commit to the Residency requirement of becoming re-eligible for the country they wish to switch to. Once this happens, they can never go back, even if they do not complete the process. For example, Player A, an ex Wallaby, declares the intent to play for his birth country, Tonga. If after living in Tonga for only 12 months he decides its not what he wants to do, he cannot simply go back to become eligible for Australia.[/TEXTAREA]

I agree with most of what you have posted except i would have a 15 test restriction wherein if a player plays more than 15 tests for a country he cannot change his allegiance, ever.
You are an established international by the time you have played 15 tests and that is about as many tests as most people will get in a normal International career.

Immediate ancestry only
The player can only switch to the country of their birth, or of their immediate natural parent's birth. No grandparent clause.

I don't agree with that because i know many Polynesians who are 3rd and 4th generation NZ'ers but they are as Proudly Samoan / Tongan / Cook Island etc as the next person.
I know there must be some kind of measure for ancestry so i would keep at the Grandparents...

 

[smartcooky]

I agree 100% with your article except for this bit. Are you saying, if a Samoan eligible player who was born in Samoa (or whose parents were born in Samoa) but played a test for the All Blacks but now plies his trade in Europe, has to go back to Samoa to play for 24 months before he can switch allegiance ? I'm sorry this wouldn't work as most of the tier 2 countries with Japan the only exception do not have resourceful enough club levels of rugby to be able to support a full time professional. I fear if this was the case then you wouldn't see too many players switching allegiance unless they were club less and at the end of their careers.

NOTE: added a bit to your quote

We need to have some means of ticking the box that shows the player wants to switch allegiances for the right reasons (not switching simply because they are no longer good enough to be selected for England/Australia/NZ etc), that is, showing some commitment.

If they wish to continue to ply their trade in Europe, then perhaps they can trade off part of that residency period by doing other work for their National Union such as holding coaching clinics for young players in Samoa.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

What a Load of Crap!

It is ignorance like this which reinforces the massive misconceptions surrounding NZ Rugby ....

You have stated, and i quote (probably could have play for someone else)
Well you could go thru the rugby squads of any of the top 5 or 6 countries and say the same thing as most people have some kind of mixed blood you 'Genius'

Aled de Malmanche and Tamati Ellison are proud Maori's who have represented NZ Maori and have been fringe All Blacks - do you really think that they entertained the idea of
playing for Wales or anyone else growing up? :/
Benson Stanley is as kiwi as they come - his Uncle Joe is an All Black legend of the 1980's and his cousin Jeremy - Joe's son is another one test All Black... he has cousins in the NRL eligible for The Kwis as well
The Stanley family are proud kiwis...


You do NOT know what you are talking about - Aled de Malmanche is a proud Maori - he is a born and bred kiwi...
Benson Stanley doesn't want to play for Samoa he is a kiwi - born and bred and still a fringe All Black who could represent NZ again in future.
Tamati Ellison is a born and bred Maori boy from Porirua who i happen to know - He doesn't want to play for any other country.
Mike Delany is a kiwi - get it!

All you have done is found a few players with not many caps and without any idea of who these players actually are you have made up some crap about NZ not 'letting' them play for other countries....
thats just bad form aye.

You my friend are mis-informed and ignorant.

I don't see the need for the agressivity. I have stated that I don't support the minor nations' claims, I am trying to add prespective to the discussion. I obviously am not as knowledgeable in NZ rugby as a kiwi would be and I explicitely said that NZRU are not to blame for this situation and are nothing like "poaching ********".

Now, what I did was go through the All Blacks that had been capped in the last couple of years that had only a few tests and made that short list, obviously a mistake given the reactions.

It is true that I know a lot less about this particular topic that other posters, but that is easy to see when looking to the left and when you see a flag that has nothing to see in this discussion. My view is obviously an outsider's view, there is no need for pedantery or insulting.

Now, back on topic. Does anyone find weird that some people are eligible to play for five or six nations? Wouldn't all be much simpler if the eligibility conditions were hardened?

 

[smartcooky]

Now, back on topic. Does anyone find weird that some people are eligible to play for five or six nations? Wouldn't all be much simpler if the eligibility conditions were hardened?

Its not peculiar at all, given the current criteria. As I said earlier, I would be eligible to play for five countries, New Zealand (residency), England (father & grandfather), Switzerland (mother and grandfather), Wales (grandmother) and France (grandmother). I understand it is not that unusual for people in Great Britain to be eligible for two, three and sometimes even all four home unions.


Judging by the people I run into in my trade, i.e. a LOT of British, Irish, South African, Zimbabwean and Asian immigrants, we are going to see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future. My nephew's junior rugby team has several foreign kids including Saffas, Japanese and some Poms. I don't think it will be very many years long before we seeing Asian and South African kids getting though the system and becoming All Blacks .

 

[nickdnz]

I don't see the need for the agressivity. I have stated that I don't support the minor nations' claims, I am trying to add prespective to the discussion. I obviously am not as knowledgeable in NZ rugby as a kiwi would be and I explicitely said that NZRU are not to blame for this situation and are nothing like "poaching ********".

Now, what I did was go through the All Blacks that had been capped in the last couple of years that had only a few tests and made that short list, obviously a mistake given the reactions.

It is true that I know a lot less about this particular topic that other posters, but that is easy to see when looking to the left and when you see a flag that has nothing to see in this discussion. My view is obviously an outsider's view, there is no need for pedantery or insulting.

Now, back on topic. Does anyone find weird that some people are eligible to play for five or six nations? Wouldn't all be much simpler if the eligibility conditions were hardened?

Haha, as you can see you have tripped upon a some what touche subject in New Zealand. I tried to respond without the name calling. The reason for the responce is that the overwelming view of the All Blacks by overseas (ironically the English and Australians included) tend to think that the All Blacks are essentially successful due to them "cherry picking" players from overseas. As pointed out (and I'm sure you have got the message) this isn't the case, as New Zealand have so many Polynesians who move here at a young age with no plans to be a professional rugby player, that eventually come here. I think what makes it worse is when Australia and England fling these accusations, despite haveing many players who have come through the New Zealand schooling and age grade or even professional systems. I think you were a casualty in the middle.

Personally I think the grandparents thing should be ruled out. I know some people on this forum think that playing for a country based on family ties is perfectly fine, but if you aren't born in the country, or have parents who were, then you should never be allowed to play, despite living in the country for 99% of your life. This view I totally disagree with. As mentioning the grandparents thing, it is really pretty silly. I've never been to England and yet I am able to play for them due to my parents and grandparents. It becomes ever more farcical in New Zealand, as it is such a young country, nearly everyone has a parent, grandparent or great grandparent who has come from another country (usually the UK). I would say change it so that only if you have parents who were born in the country, you were born in the country or you have lived in the country for over four years, are you eligable to play for that country. I'd also say if you have played international sport for another country past age-grade level, then you are ruled out.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I'd propose that you also could not represent another nation if you've played for one country at a time where you were over a certain age (say, 25).

For instance, a 22 year-old player who plays 3 tests for Wales could switch allegiance after meeting other criteria (such as Cooky's). However, if he reaches 25, and plays a test for Wales, he is no longer able to switch allegiances.

 

[psychic duck]

this thread mainly speaks about Pacific players

but what about the case of Robins Tchale-Watchou, who was selected by France but then had to withdraw after they found out that he had played for Cameroon

it's a shame for him that he cannot play at a World Cup now, so I would be for allowing players from lowest tier (Cameroon world ranking=78) nations play for tiers above

also Tim Visser who has to ignore his native Netherlands to play for higher nation, I think the rules should be relaxed so he canplay for them and then still play for Scotland

also I think players like Serge Betsen returning to play for Cameroon after his France career finished would be a big boost for bottom tier nations

Phil Christophers could play for Germany also and Magnus Lund for Norway

 

[ZeFrenchy]

Haha, as you can see you have tripped upon a some what touche subject in New Zealand. I tried to respond without the name calling. The reason for the responce is that the overwelming view of the All Blacks by overseas (ironically the English and Australians included) tend to think that the All Blacks are essentially successful due to them "cherry picking" players from overseas. As pointed out (and I'm sure you have got the message) this isn't the case, as New Zealand have so many Polynesians who move here at a young age with no plans to be a professional rugby player, that eventually come here. I think what makes it worse is when Australia and England fling these accusations, despite haveing many players who have come through the New Zealand schooling and age grade or even professional systems. I think you were a casualty in the middle.

Personally I think the grandparents thing should be ruled out. I know some people on this forum think that playing for a country based on family ties is perfectly fine, but if you aren't born in the country, or have parents who were, then you should never be allowed to play, despite living in the country for 99% of your life. This view I totally disagree with. As mentioning the grandparents thing, it is really pretty silly. I've never been to England and yet I am able to play for them due to my parents and grandparents. It becomes ever more farcical in New Zealand, as it is such a young country, nearly everyone has a parent, grandparent or great grandparent who has come from another country (usually the UK). I would say change it so that only if you have parents who were born in the country, you were born in the country or you have lived in the country for over four years, are you eligable to play for that country. I'd also say if you have played international sport for another country past age-grade level, then you are ruled out.

Yeah, I can take criticism as yours, and I had been proven wrong in the previous posts, so there was no need for that other message. Anyway, moving on.

The grandparent thing is kind of tricky. I have an english grandmother but don't feel english at all. Something like Waldrom I guess. I think the different points of view come from a different perception of what a nationality is... If DariusLovehall's friends, who are 3rd or 4th generation NZers, feel Samoan or Tongan, they should play in a team of the NZ Maori sort, but for the other islands, but test matches should be played according to the nationality, and not the ethnicity. Imagine Jean de Villiers playing for France!

 

[DariusLovehall]

Yeah, I can take criticism as yours, and I had been proven wrong in the previous posts, so there was no need for that other message. Anyway, moving on.

The grandparent thing is kind of tricky. I have an english grandmother but don't feel english at all. Something like Waldrom I guess. I think the different points of view come from a different perception of what a nationality is... If DariusLovehall's friends, who are 3rd or 4th generation NZers, feel Samoan or Tongan, they should play in a team of the NZ Maori sort, but for the other islands, but test matches should be played according to the nationality, and not the ethnicity. Imagine Jean de Villiers playing for France!

Where im from un-informed opinions get smacked back to where they belong...

What exactly do you mean by "they should play in a team of the NZ Maori sort" ?

 

[Peat]

This thread is mostly bullshit.

However, I can't help myself from replying...

Anyway

I don't like this comment. New Zealand is in Polynesia is it not? It is to my understanding that people move to New Zealand from the islands for a better life and not for sport. The sport is just a thing that comes later. It's like Thomas Waldrom now in the England squad, he didn't set out to play for England but you could accuse England of poaching him... He just happened to be selected off of a good season. It is similar but slightly different as not every islander goes to New Zealand to play sports, infact very little do.

This isn't true. Waldrom always intended to qualify through residency. The fact the halfwit didn't bother to check his ancestry makes this story all the more hilarious.

Elsewise, nickdnz is pretty much on the money. And Olyy's right about England's foreign legion. In fact, there's a pretty good case to made for Samoa being the poachiest team in world rugby (save they're not Japan).

 

[AfakasiAssasin]

In fact, there's a pretty good case to made for Samoa being the poachiest team in world rugby (save they're not Japan).

The big differance though is that New Zealand and to some extent Australia are getting most of the cream of the crop of players who are eligible for the Pacific islands whilst the P.I nations mostly have to pick off the scraps that are willing to put their hand up and play for us.

 

[LittleGuy]

This thread is mostly bullshit.

However, I can't help myself from replying...

Anyway



This isn't true. Waldrom always intended to qualify through residency. The fact the halfwit didn't bother to check his ancestry makes this story all the more hilarious.

Elsewise, nickdnz is pretty much on the money. And Olyy's right about England's foreign legion. In fact, there's a pretty good case to made for Samoa being the poachiest team in world rugby (save they're not Japan).

Its especially funny since Japan is perhaps the most ethnically homogenous country on earth with 99% being ethnically Japanese, and about 0.7% being South Korean, there is almost no precedent for them having a foriegn legion except perhaps for those inspired by this particular tune...

 

[Peat]

The big differance though is that New Zealand and to some extent Australia are getting most of the cream of the crop of players who are eligible for the Pacific islands whilst the P.I nations mostly have to pick off the scraps that are willing to put their hand up and play for us.

I am aware of that, and am sympathetic to the challenges faced by the Pacific Islands - but the cold, hard facts of the matter are that come match day, Samoa probably field more players who were born in another country, were trained in another country, and have never lived in the country they represent, than any other major rugby country on earth. Which makes them fair game for the ***le, no matter how good or pressing the reasons behind it.

 

[AfakasiAssasin]

I am aware of that, and am sympathetic to the challenges faced by the Pacific Islands - but the cold, hard facts of the matter are that come match day, Samoa probably field more players who were born in another country, were trained in another country, and have never lived in the country they represent, than any other major rugby country on earth. Which makes them fair game for the ***le, no matter how good or pressing the reasons behind it.

I hear what your saying, but to me poaching is taking players that are WANTED by the country of birth but elect to play elsewhere. Most of the players that turn out for the P.I nations are UNWANTED at international level by countries such as New Zealand and Australia. What you got to also take into consideration is the only thing to play for when you play for the Pacific Islands is pure pride. There is no money playing for the Pacific islands with alot of players having to PAY out of their OWN pockets in order to play. Poaching to me is having talent who are born in a country and are wanted by their national team but CHOOSE to turn out elsewhere that they are eligible. With that in consideration the only player currently in a P.I team who I think could be considered as 'poached' would be Kahn Fotuali'i.

 

[nickdnz]

The big differance though is that New Zealand and to some extent Australia are getting most of the cream of the crop of players who are eligible for the Pacific islands whilst the P.I nations mostly have to pick off the scraps that are willing to put their hand up and play for us.

As I've mentioned before, it's not a case that the All Blacks are steelling the Jerry Collins and the Muliaina's, it a case that the New Zealand system is making those players into top quality players. It's a rather annoying and frankly arrogant idea that some people from PI nations have that because there are great PI players that play for the All Blacks, then the AB's are taking them away from the PI nations. They're not. They are developing players, with PI ancestory or not, to be the best players in the world and those players, if good enough and with the desire, will play for the All Blacks.

Your attitude seems to be (and I don't mean this with disrespect), that the players in the All Blacks are Samoans who New Zealand have stolen and left Samoa with the left overs, when in actual fact New Zealand players, who have become good players in New Zealand but are eligable to play for Samoa, are being taken by Samoa. It's not the other way around, no matter how much of a victim spin is put on it. The idea that the All Blacks are taking the cream of the crop of Samoan players is rubbish. They are developing New Zealanders rugby skills from an early age, some of whom qualify for other countries (be it Samoa/Fiji/England), and the best make the All Blacks, and the others who don't look like International quality players often look for another way to play International rugby, through residency or heritage.

I hear what your saying, but to me poaching is taking players that are WANTED by the country of birth but elect to play elsewhere. Most of the players that turn out for the P.I nations are UNWANTED at international level by countries such as New Zealand and Australia. What you got to also take into consideration is the only thing to play for when you play for the Pacific Islands is pure pride. There is no money playing for the Pacific islands with alot of players having to PAY out of their OWN pockets in order to play. Poaching to me is having talent who are born in a country and are wanted by their national team but CHOOSE to turn out elsewhere that they are eligible. With that in consideration the only player currently in a P.I team who I think could be considered as 'poached' would be Kahn Fotuali'i.

As I've said before, the players who are wanted by their countries of bith (or their parents birth), are usually the product of an entire life spent living in, being educated in and learning and playing rugby in New Zealand. They are New Zealanders, providing they didn't move to New Zealand to play professional rugby (which as I've pointed out, there are no All Blacks except Sivivatu who have not spent a large majority of their lives in New Zealand). Poaching players is taking talented rugby players out of the Islands and putting them in the All Blacks. What the New Zealand rugby system does is train rugby players of mixed ethnicities from an early age. Case and point AfaksiAssasin, if you are born in Samoa, move here at three years old, play rugby for Wellington College, join OBU, get selected for Wellington U19, New Zealand U20, Wellington Lions, The Hurricanes and then the All Blacks, have you been stolen as a rugby player for Samoa? Of course not.

 

[Larksea]

Thought.

Does PI do more for NZ rugby than NZ does for PI rugby?

... or is it the other way around.

 

[nickdnz]

Thought.

Does PI do more for NZ rugby than NZ does for PI rugby?

... or is it the other way around.

As I've said, with 10 of the starting 22 players who played for Samoa actually being born in New Zealand, trained in New Zealand and many playing for New Zealand teams (including players outside of the 10 who were born here)...

Sadly all of this is very quickly overlooked.