U20 Eligability Rules

[nickdnz]

I also would be happy for it to be locked off. I just don't believe the NZRU should just "let them have them" for the entirety of the U20 tournament under the reasoning "we do well enough without them". It would be fine for us - not so good for the Islands however. Keep in mind that in the last RWC 15 of the 30 players for Samoa were born and trained in NZ. The reality is that many of these U20 players who play for Samoa/Tonga will not make the All Blacks (which is often a first ambition), but will elect to play for Samoa, Tonga and Ireland (jokes ) later in their careers.

 

[goodNumber10]

A sort of agree, so long as you wouldn't apply your "lock off" when they graduate adult rugby. No 16 year old should be forced to make their permanent international representative decision at such a young age.

Do keep mind however, that these players don't live in the islands, they live in NZ, and they are almost all NZ born and NZ citizens who have grown up here. If those players thought they were going to be locked out of NZ age group representation if they turn out for Samoa, they won't make themselves available,. Samoa would then have to pick a team primarily from players who live in Samoa. Now this is no slight on Samoan resident age group players, but such a team would be in no way competitive at that level.

Sometimes these things that seem on the face of it to be wrong, are actually the best thing for those players' development.

No, as i said i think it should be u16-U20 as that is generally the development path of a team, you could pull it down to u18 i suppose.

I get that these kids mostly live in NZ, but why not let them play right through to U20, so the Samoan team (or any other) can develop right through the age group and mount a strong challenge at U20 level rather than having to rebuild each year - and this goes for England and ireland, Wales, Australia etc...?

- - - Updated - - -

I also would be happy for it to be locked off. I just don't believe the NZRU should just "let them have them" for the entirety of the U20 tournament under the reasoning "we do well enough without them". It would be fine for us - not so good for the Islands however. Keep in mind that in the last RWC 15 of the 30 players for Samoa were born and trained in NZ. The reality is that many of these U20 players who play for Samoa/Tonga will not make the All Blacks (which is often a first ambition), but will elect to play for Samoa, Tonga and Ireland (jokes ) later in their careers.

that has nothing to do with the point i've made, i am happy for players to swap out post U20's, i just dont' think they should represent two countries in the same competition.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Aaaah, I get what you're saying now.
Completely misunderstood - I can definitely see where you're coming from, though, it's a bit weird for someone (in theory) to lift the Six Nations trophy for Wales one year, then England the next, or whatever.

 

[nickdnz]

No, as i said i think it should be u16-U20 as that is generally the development path of a team, you could pull it down to u18 i suppose.

I get that these kids mostly live in NZ, but why not let them play right through to U20, so the Samoan team (or any other) can develop right through the age group and mount a strong challenge at U20 level rather than having to rebuild each year - and this goes for England and ireland, Wales, Australia etc...?

- - - Updated - - -



that has nothing to do with the point i've made, i am happy for players to swap out post U20's, i just dont' think they should represent two countries in the same competition.

Then taking them back when they are good enough to play for them... Just let them play through, it's not like NZ is short of quality players.

Huh? You just made the same point again.

We're not telling these kids they aren't allowed to play for Samoa/Tonga in the last year of eligibility. They are welcome to play through with them as it currently is. They choose to play for the NZ U20 team, largely because they are all New Zealander's. Do you suggest we force them to play for Pacific Island teams? And surely the NZRU's goal should be to try and win the U20s competition, by having the best players. Seeing as we haven't won it in a few years now, I'm not sure how you can argue we can afford to let these players (who we have invested resources in developing) go. Why doesn't England give them their players who have been eligible? For the same reason. They have invested resources in these players, and why should they not play for the country they live/have been born in? If they have no intention of playing for those nations later - what is the benefit to the development of U20s teams?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Why doesn't England give them their players who have been eligible?

We already give a ton to Scotland/Wales/Ireland, stop trying to bleed us dry :lol:

 

[goodNumber10]

Huh? You just made the same point again.

that's in response to a different part of your post.

We're not telling these kids they aren't allowed to play for Samoa/Tonga in the last year of eligibility. They are welcome to play through with them as it currently is. They choose to play for the NZ U20 team, largely because they are all New Zealander's. Do you suggest we force them to play for Pacific Island teams? And surely the NZRU's goal should be to try and win the U20s competition, by having the best players. Seeing as we haven't won it in a few years now, I'm not sure how you can argue we can afford to let these players (who we have invested resources in developing) go. Why doesn't England give them their players who have been eligible? For the same reason. They have invested resources in these players, and why should they not play for the country they live/have been born in? If they have no intention of playing for those nations later - what is the benefit to the development of U20s teams?

what didn't you understand about "eligibilty should be locked off until post U20's?"

Of course they are going to opt to play for NZ, i doubt any kid in the world who plays rugby would pass that up, but the point is they have played for Samoa at that very same competition, and for them to 12 months later jog out for a stronger side is pretty poor in my opinion.

They stay through to the end of the U20's tournament, they do well, they are in a compeitive team they may even think "might stay with the Samoans form here".

 

[nickdnz]

that's in response to a different part of your post.



what didn't you understand about "eligibilty should be locked off until post U20's?"

Of course they are going to opt to play for NZ, i doubt any kid in the world who plays rugby would pass that up, but the point is they have played for Samoa at that very same competition, and for them to 12 months later jog out for a stronger side is pretty poor in my opinion.

They stay through to the end of the U20's tournament, they do well, they are in a compeitive team they may even think "might stay with the Samoans form here".

And which part of this scenario does the NZRU get paid back on their investment in these players? Why should we encourage players to not be a part of the NZ U20s system? We already know that half of the senior Samoan team and plenty of the senior Tongan team will have players that have been developed by our U20s program.

I agree that on a 'national pride' level it is a bit poor playing for two nations. But where we seem to diverge is the outcome of your proposal. Those players would not choose to play for Samoa/Tonga at all, if it blocked their pathway to the NZ U20s. And that doesn't just extend to the few that switch. The current Samoan team already has many, many players who were born and developed in New Zealand. Of the few that switch over to the NZ U20s when they are in selection frame, most stay with those teams as they are not in the selection frame. If you stop them switching, they will in all probability lose even more who are a year out from NZ U20s selection frame, because they don't want to lose the chance to play NZ U20s. The outcome is Samoa/Tonga will lose out on a bunch of 18 year old players who may not even make the NZ U20s the following year.

If you are suggesting that we should lock players who have currently played for other teams into those teams instead of our squad - then please answer:

1). Why should we lose those players we have invested in and developed?
2). Is it fair to lock players to those teams when they made it on the assumption they could play for NZ U20s later?
3). How will this benefit the U20 teams past this year, when those players no longer elect to play for Samoa/Tonga and instead wait it out?

 

[psychic duck]

hat has nothing to do with the point i've made, i am happy for players to swap out post U20's, i just dont' think they should represent two countries in the same competition.

You do realise that would considerably reduce the level of the Samoan U20 side when you're saying that though?

 

[goodNumber10]

yes, we've already done that point.

 

[Peat]

Aaaah, I get what you're saying now.
Completely misunderstood - I can definitely see where you're coming from, though, it's a bit weird for someone (in theory) to lift the Six Nations trophy for Wales one year, then England the next, or whatever.

The world is full of weird things.

It would be pretty weird if, as a result of players being locked in through U16-U20, the Welshman Ross Jones would be unable to represent Wales U20 due to having gone to Ireland for school and having represented them at schools level (at least I think he did); a Fijian on a scholarship in England wouldn't be able to represent a Fijian U18 team without incredible sacrifice but may well take a place in the England U18s to continue developing themselves, to then bar them from representing Fiji at U20 level if they so chose would be pretty weird. Or as weird as a Samoan guy on a scholarship turning out for NZ Schools because they're the only game in town he can reach and then being barred from Samoa U20s, and I bet there's been examples of that...

There will never ever be a set of consistent rules that apply logically and fairly to the entire situation.

 

[goodNumber10]

The world is full of weird things.

It would be pretty weird if, as a result of players being locked in through U16-U20, the Welshman Ross Jones would be unable to represent Wales U20 due to having gone to Ireland for school and having represented them at schools level (at least I think he did); a Fijian on a scholarship in England wouldn't be able to represent a Fijian U18 team without incredible sacrifice but may well take a place in the England U18s to continue developing themselves, to then bar them from representing Fiji at U20 level if they so chose would be pretty weird. Or as weird as a Samoan guy on a scholarship turning out for NZ Schools because they're the only game in town he can reach and then being barred from Samoa U20s, and I bet there's been examples of that...

There will never ever be a set of consistent rules that apply logically and fairly to the entire situation.

Of course there will always be odd cases, but i just think it incredibly wrong that you could for Al intents and purposes field a JWC winning team and they then all turn out for a different country the following year and win it for them... Extreme and ridiculous example but by the letter of the laws it's what could happen.

 

[psychic duck]

Of course there will always be odd cases, but i just think it incredibly wrong that you could for Al intents and purposes field a JWC winning team and they then all turn out for a different country the following year and win it for them... Extreme and ridiculous example but by the letter of the laws it's what could happen.

Are you also against Tim Nanai-Williams and Warwick Lahmert switching to Samoa and England Sevens respectively? Both won the World Sevens Series with NZ and could have technically won the same trophy with a different nation this year.

 

[goodNumber10]

Yes.

 

[smartcooky]

Are you also against Tim Nanai-Williams and Warwick Lahmert switching to Samoa and England Sevens respectively? Both won the World Sevens Series with NZ and could have technically won the same trophy with a different nation this year.

Well, I am 100% against this loophole WR have created that will allow players to change nationalities for sevens and then use that change to change their nationalities for the 15 a side game.

I can understand why players might want a shot an the Olympic Games, and I also understand that they had to change the eligibility for Sevens in order to comply with Olympic regulations. I just didn't see any need for extending it to the 15s game.

I think they should partially separate the eligibility for sevens and fifteens as follows:

1. A player who has played for a National Union's First or Second international 15 aside team cannot change nationalities at all.

2. A player who has only ever played for a National Union's First or Second international 7 aside team can change nationality once only, and their new nation becomes permanent for both 15s and 7s They can never play for another Nations 7s or 15s team.

 

[Shaggy]

To look at the NZ example at U16 - U20 level, if the eligibility rules changed, and excluded the possibility of playing for NZ if they have already represented another nation, I can see the opportunities drying up for those players at Super Rugby, and ITM cup level also ... Players of slightly less potential, but are still eligible for NZ are
Ikely to get given the opportunities.

The likes of Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji don't always qualify for the top tournament either, so the likelihood of any of the U20 players turning out for those sides is remote, if they can't play for NZ at a later date.