Pacific nations (im)possible line-ups

[nickdnz]

It's a stupid complaint quite frankly. It's not at all unfair that a player who chooses to play for one country, is not allowed to play for another. Look at it any way that you like, it's a general rule in most sports, to stop corruption and to make a national jersey valuable. Does it suck that some of the PI countries can't afford the player facilities? Of course it does, but what most people seem to forget, the players who have Tongan eligability, mainly learned rugby while in NZ, and have lived here most of their lives. If anyone said Tana Umaga or Jerry Collins was less of a New Zealander then anyone else, they'd be told their an idiot, and rightly so, so I don't see how anyone who has played for a country, should be allowed to change allegiances. Smartcookie proposed a good solution, in which they'd have to live in that country for several years before they can change their nation to play for, but right now, what Tonga wants is a quick influx of New Zealanders to help them in a RWC, while local rugby players watch at home.

Playing for a nation is supposed to be a huge honour, not a career move.

 

[gingergenius]

I don't think this situation really applies. As far as I’m aware the rule change would only apply to players who have heritage in a pacific nation (Samoa, Fiji and Tonga) and have played international rugby someone else. Your New Zealand to England switch would still not be allowed. Why should the Pacific nations get special treatment? Two reasons. 1. They struggle in other areas (budget/population) and anything that can make them more competitive should be given serious consideration. 2. They are the getting players poached. The situation is quite common. A young talented Tongan player gets a scholarship to a Australian boarding school and makes the Australian schoolboys rugby squad and continues into the Wallabies. It would be stupid for the kid to decline the offer because he wants to play for Tonga as he would be turning his back on a lot of money. I can't see the All Blacks poaching talented English youths to try and turn them into All Blacks and even if they decided it was a good idea it would still be against the rules for them to return to England under the rule changes because, as I said, the rules only apply to Pacific nations. The Hape situation is a completely different debate, as is the international transfer market one, because you would likely only see older players (Aenesi/Lauaki/Jerry Collins) who aren't going to play for the All Blacks again anyway (even if they were allowed to switch back-which they aren't) who would be agreeing to change countries and again, the rule would only apply to Pacific nations.

Why should they get special treatment?

we'd say, so they can be competitive and therefore enhance the overall quality of international rugby.

BUT. The population of these 3 island nations combined is considerably smaller than that of any of the 'major' nations. Simply by being on a similar level to the likes of England, France, South Africa, they're already over-achieving.

What's to gain in giving the Pacific Islands special treatment? They're already rugby mad, so it's not an area the game can develop in. The populations are, by our standards, poor and therefore not a viable marketing oppurtunity. Simply having these 3 tiny islands, with their spectacular athletes and exciting brand of play, at the highest level is enough for me.

I think the rugby community would do better to focus their efforts on the likes of Japan, Georgia etc. who realistically could become top 10 nations consistently (many years down the line).

 

[Shaggy]

I don't think this situation really applies. As far as I'm aware the rule change would only apply to players who have heritage in a pacific nation (Samoa, Fiji and Tonga) and have played international rugby someone else. Your New Zealand to England switch would still not be allowed. Why should the Pacific nations get special treatment? Two reasons. 1. They struggle in other areas (budget/population) and anything that can make them more competitive should be given serious consideration. 2. They are the getting players poached. The situation is quite common. A young talented Tongan player gets a scholarship to a Australian boarding school and makes the Australian schoolboys rugby squad and continues into the Wallabies. It would be stupid for the kid to decline the offer because he wants to play for Tonga as he would be turning his back on a lot of money. I can't see the All Blacks poaching talented English youths to try and turn them into All Blacks and even if they decided it was a good idea it would still be against the rules for them to return to England under the rule changes because, as I said, the rules only apply to Pacific nations. The Hape situation is a completely different debate, as is the international transfer market one, because you would likely only see older players (Aenesi/Lauaki/Jerry Collins) who aren't going to play for the All Blacks again anyway (even if they were allowed to switch back-which they aren't) who would be agreeing to change countries and again, the rule would only apply to Pacific nations.

Yeah I get that the change is mean't to apply to Pacific Island teams only ... interestingly enough New Zealand and Australia tried to get this very change last year, but they were the only two IRB members that voted for it. I guess given that, I have assumed that the only way a similar change would be made is if it applied to all nations.

The current rules are probably not ideal but "poaching" occurs to most rugby nations, and in both codes ... many of the players that Australia and New Zealand supposedly poach are born in Australia and New Zealand or bought up from a young age, so if the player chooses to play for them, i'm not sure that "poaching" really applies.

The Island countries, like all countries, also get the benefit of players eligible for their country by having a grand parent or parent who was born in an island nation. They also can have their players play in any comp in the world and still be eligible for selection.

I know it's still a struggle with a small population and very limited finances, but long term they will have more chance of retaining young talent by including them in the money competitions (SupeRugby and regular test matches), and providing a profitable revenue stream

 

[Charles]

It's kind of ironic when you know that lots of Manu Samoa players are actually born and bred in NZ...

 

[187]

It's not a matter of where they were born or where they learned to play, it's just them wanting to do something for their country. Although they may be born here, they still have strong ties to their homeland.

 

[Charles]

It's not a matter of where they were born or where they learned to play, it's just them wanting to do something for their country. Although they may be born here, they still have strong ties to their homeland.

I think everybody understands that, but if it's their country, why did they choose to play for NZ or Oz in the first place?

 

[187]

I think everybody understands that, but if it's their country, why did they choose to play for NZ or Oz in the first place?

Oh I thought we had already determined that. Generally money & who wouldn't want to play for the best teams in the world if they had the choice?

 

[nickdnz]

Oh I thought we had already determined that. Generally money & who wouldn't want to play for the best teams in the world if they had the choice?

Well, I guess if their loyalty can be bought, then they have no right to complain later?

 

[187]

Well, I guess if their loyalty can be bought, then they have no right to complain later?

I agree but I think it's more the admin/general public complaining about it. Not the players.