parlez vous Afrikaans?

[Browner]

If france play like they did last weekend, it's going to be a very long day at the office for Australia. Spedding was clinical and he looks like he's going to be one of the first names on the team sheet for a while to come (just wish the sharks had realised his potential years ago!).

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/scott-speddings-test-debut

Speeding is the latest to add their name to the "worn x2 countries international badge - hall of shame"

Switching employers is fine, switching nationalities .....no thanks
Make the International choice at u16 ( or the very least u18) and stick with it.

 

[crossref]

Re: Wallabies NH November Tour

Speeding is the latest to add their name to the "worn x2 countries international badge - hall of shame"

Switching employers is fine, switching nationalities .....no thanks
Make the International choice at u16 ( or the very least u18) and stick with it.

for most countries, the national union IS their employer!

Are you really saying that if one country picks you as an U17 and then doesn't ever want you again, then you shouldn't be allowed to move somewhere else and try again?

 

[RobLev]

Re: Wallabies NH November Tour

for most countries, the national union IS their employer!

"Most countries"? Even if that is true, it is emphatically not true for most players.

Are you really saying that if one country picks you as an U17 and then doesn't ever want you again, then you shouldn't be allowed to move somewhere else and try again?

What criterion would you use? And why?

 

[crossref]

Re: Wallabies NH November Tour

"Most countries"? Even if that is true, it is emphatically not true for most players.
What criterion would you use? And why?

You are right, I don't know if it is 'most' but for a lot countries the elite professional players are contracted to the union, not to clubs. the point I am making is that in a professional sport this isn't only about nationalities it is, also, about earning a living. Browner himself says that of course people must be free to change employers, but then contradicts himself by saying not for international rugby players.

I think qualification for a country by residency is sensible (It actually makes more sense to me than qualification by grandparent)
As we have discussed many times before qualificiation by passport doesn't work as
- rugby countries don't align well with passport nationalities
- qualification by passport could actually make it too easy, passports are not always hard top obtain.

 

[Browner]

Re: Wallabies NH November Tour

for most countries, the national union IS their employer!

Are you really saying that if one country picks you as an U17 and then doesn't ever want you again, then you shouldn't be allowed to move somewhere else and try again?

Yep, why not.

The notion that the whole Romanian side could be former NZ, SA, Eng youth internationals lured by cash is a ridiculous , or just ditch international and have franchise rugby .....no thanks

Pin your colours to one flag, once.

 

[DrSTU]

I moved these all to a new thread.

As a huge supporter of the Sharks and South Africa (family ties) I've kept a keen eye on all facets of the game. I have no problem with Spedding representing France, SA didn't want him.

Browner, I assume that you are OK with Kockott playing for France as he never played representative rugby? Or was it his bad luck to be born in another country at the same time as a bunch of other good scrummies?

 

[L'irlandais]

International Rugby Board’s (“IRB”) Eligibility Criteria

Regulations 8.1 and 8.2 of the IRB Eligibility Criteria provide as follows:

8.1 Subject to Regulation 8.2, a Player may only play for the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team and the senior National Representative Sevens Team of the Union of the country in which:
a.he was born; or
b.one parent or grandparent was born; or
c.he has completed thirty six consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing.

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.

The IRB itself defines the rationale for Regulation 8.1 (as it presently stands) in the following way:

“The rationale/philosophy of Regulation 8 is to ensure that Players selected to represent either the senior and next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Teams of a Union or a Union’s senior National Representative Sevens Team have a genuine, close, credible and established national link with the country of the Union for which they have been selected. Such a national link is essential to maintain the unique characteristics and culture of elite international sporting competition between Unions. The integrity of International Matches between Unions depends upon strict adherence to the eligibility criteria set out in the Regulations.”

 

[The umpire]

International Rugby Board’s (“IRB”) Eligibility Criteria

Regulations 8.1 and 8.2 of the IRB Eligibility Criteria provide as follows:

8.1 Subject to Regulation 8.2, a Player may only play for the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team and the senior National Representative Sevens Team of the Union of the country in which:
a.he was born; or
b.one parent or grandparent was born; or
c.he has completed thirty six consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing.

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.

The IRB itself defines the rationale for Regulation 8.1 (as it presently stands) in the following way:

“The rationale/philosophy of Regulation 8 is to ensure that Players selected to represent either the senior and next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Teams of a Union or a Union’s senior National Representative Sevens Team have a genuine, close, credible and established national link with the country of the Union for which they have been selected. Such a national link is essential to maintain the unique characteristics and culture of elite international sporting competition between Unions. The integrity of International Matches between Unions depends upon strict adherence to the eligibility criteria set out in the Regulations.”

So, if you qualify by residence for country A, by living there for thirty six consecutive months, and then move to country B e.g. for a better wage, you're no longer eligible for country A as your 'thirty six consecutive months' are no longer 'immediately preceding the time of playing', and under 8.2 you can't represent any other country. :chin:
Now, if they applied that properly, there'd be fewer foreigners playing in France.

 

[L'irlandais]

Praat Meneer Afrikaans? Ja, 'n bietjie.

...
Now, if they applied that properly, there'd be fewer foreigners playing in France.

:france:Which would be great for the French team, with Home-grown players actually getting game time at their prefered posts in their own clubs.

Except Southern Hemisphere players were born in the countries they play international rugby for.
That's all that counts for the iRB. A player can spent 36 months in France & still play for NZ, RSA, Argentina or who ever.... (Georgia figures heavily too in "mercenary" stats here in France.)

 

[Ian_Cook]

Re: Wallabies NH November Tour

Yep, why not.

The notion that the whole Romanian side could be former NZ, SA, Eng youth internationals lured by cash is a ridiculous , or just ditch international and have franchise rugby .....no thanks

Pin your colours to one flag, once.

So, a 15 year old, still living at home with his parents in Wales, plays a couple of matches for Wales U16.

Shortly afterwards, his parents emigrate to Australia to live (and being only 15, he has little choice but to go with them).

He starts playing for his new Australian school and then ends up playing for a Sydney Club and by the time he is 21, he is a regular for the Waratahs. He's a naturalised Australian, has married an Australian girl and has two Australian born children.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that he should not be eligible for selection for Australia because of something he did then he was a child? You think that Wales is the only team he should be eligible for; a country with which he now has only a historic connection.

 

[crossref]

And what if his first home was, say, Netherlands, rather than Wales.. And he turns out to be a world class player. How would the game benefit from denying him the chance of playing world class rugby. And why shouldn't he have that chance

 

[Pegleg]

For me you make the choice as an adult. Once made you stick with it. The "Grannygate" nonsense in Wales was too embarrassing for words. As was Zola Budd wearing the Union Flag and a flag of convenience so she could compete in the Olympics.

 

[Pegleg]

And what if his first home was, say, Netherlands, rather than Wales.. And he turns out to be a world class player. How would the game benefit from denying him the chance of playing world class rugby. And why shouldn't he have that chance

George Best, Ryan Giggs and today Gareth Bale. All played world class football at CLUB level but not at International level. Such is life.

 

[Guyseep]

Let's not forget that playing rugby is a job for professional players and they have every right to try and earn as much as possible and achieve the highest level they can in their careers. And unlike most careers they have a very limited time frame to earn and achieve as much as possible.

I would argue that most players have approximately a 10 year window between ages 20-30 to ply their trade at the top level. Some may start younger and some may play until their early 30s. I'm not advocating that players should be able to switch allegiances on a whim but they should be able to change at least once if they meet certain criteria.

There are any number of players that can be used as an example so imagine a player who early in his career gets picked for his national side, then falls out of favour with the coaches after a handful of caps. Or he falls behind another player in his position who is a once in a generation player. Or he decides he wants to emigrate to another country for any other personal reason.

As long as he meets the IRB criteria for selection to that team, I see no reason why he should be denied the opportunity to change his allegiances once and only that one time.
The current regulations state he must be:
1) born in that country,
2) one of his grandparents or parents were born in that country, or
3) he has been a resident for 36 consecutive months.
I would argue that the last stipulation should be reduced to 24 months. To have a player sit out 1/3 of their potential career is unfair(based on a 10 year career).

As for those who say countries will suddenly start buying up foreign players to fill their national team, it simply won't happen. It doesn't happen in the Olympic games nor does it happen in other sports that allow players to change countries.

 

[RobLev]

Re: Wallabies NH November Tour

You are right, I don't know if it is 'most' but for a lot countries the elite professional players are contracted to the union, not to clubs.

Among the top ten - the 6N and the Rugby Championship - so far as I know only one country (NZ) centrally employs all its players.

Both Australia and South Africa have central contracts, but the players are employed by the franchises/clubs.

Argentina's players don't play in Argentina (apart from those who play Lawn Tennis, and a few others) - so we can discount them.

Gatland is trying to do it in Wales for international players, with limited success (one player so far?) - and in any event the deal there are dual contracts, so again the players are employed by both.

Scotland's a mess; it does employ some players direct, but many of its players play for Premiership clubs and elsewhere.

Ireland is probably closest to NZ, with its provincial structure playing second fiddle to the national team; but even it doesn't employ all its players (Sexton is a/the notable exception).

England and France simply don't...

Italy's players play all over the place - again no central employing.

Outside the top ten, which Unions do you think can afford centrally to employ their players?

In any event, this argument entirely misses the point.

the point I am making is that in a professional sport this isn't only about nationalities it is, also, about earning a living.

At international level - no. International sport is not about whether England Mercenaries RFC are better than Wales Mercenaries RFC.

Browner himself says that of course people must be free to change employers, but then contradicts himself by saying not for international rugby players.

He doesn't say that, He says that they shouldn't change nations. International rugby players are however perfectly free to change employers - their clubs. And, unusually, I agree with him. Because it's not about international rugby players, it's about representative international rugby teams. As the IRB has been known to comment:

The rationale/philosophy of Regulation 8 is to ensure that Players selected to represent either the senior and next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Teams of a Union or a Union’s senior National
Representative Sevens Team have a genuine, close, credible and established national link with the country of the Union for which they have been selected. Such a national link is essential to maintain the unique characteristics and culture of elite international sporting competition between Unions. The integrity of International Matches between Unions depends upon strict adherence to the eligibility criteria set out in the Regulations.

qualification for a country by residency is sensible (It actually makes more sense to me than qualification by grandparent)
As we have discussed many times before qualificiation by passport doesn't work as
- rugby countries don't align well with passport nationalities
- qualification by passport could actually make it too easy, passports are not always hard top obtain.

For me, qualification by birth or residence and nationality. The only lack of alignment between passport nationalities and rugby Countries is the UK, and we seem to get along OK, barring the odd grannygate controversy....

 

[crossref]

I would be OK for the residency to be reduced to 24 months.

At the same time I would remove the qualification by grandparent. A person's grandparent's place of birth is of no relevance to anyone. Also it is very unsymetrical, favouring the old world countries, and the new world players - there will much higher proportion of NZ, Aus, Canadian, South African players with european-born grandparents than the reverse.

The only lack of alignment between passport nationalities and rugby Countries is the UK, and we seem to get along OK, barring the odd grannygate controversy....

Also Ireland

 

[RobLev]

...

As for those who say countries will suddenly start buying up foreign players to fill their national team, it simply won't happen. It doesn't happen in the Olympic games nor does it happen in other sports that allow players to change countries.

It does, you know...

From the linked story:

The brawn drain has been linked to a decision by the Qatari government to fund the construction of an athletics stadium in north-western Kenya. Both countries deny that the new facility is a quid pro quo.

"Sportsmen across the world change allegiance for money," the Nation noted. "David Beckham can leave Manchester United for Real Madrid and life goes on.

"After a few tears from the fans who bemoan the loss of a favourite superstar, it's just a good business deal for all concerned.

"Now they can take it to the next level. Athletics Kenya and the ministry of sport can set up a fully-fledged marketing agency to hawk our athletes."

 

[RobLev]

And what if his first home was, say, Netherlands, rather than Wales.. And he turns out to be a world class player. How would the game benefit from denying him the chance of playing world class rugby. And why shouldn't he have that chance

He has every chance of playing representative rugby for any nation for which he is qualified. If that nation doesn't play world-class rugby, then move to a club which plays high-class rugby.

As for the suggestion that you can identify which players will succeed in Test rugby before they actually play it, and build a qualification system around that supposition, I offer you (again) the career of Graeme Hick. He was the best batsman in the world - until he started to play Test cricket for England.

As for the loss to world rugby; an international scene where all the world's best players are centrally contracted by the IRB and parcelled out amongst the various countries so they all get to have a game isn't one I want to see. I want to see countries playing each other; not teams of superstars. I don't want to see a qualification system that would allow that.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Let's pretend there is an England U20 squad member born in Germany to a German mother and an English father who has lived in England all his life.

What say you then?

What if he moves to France next year and stays there for 3 years?

 

[SimonSmith]

International rugby is a privilege, not a right.