Tied to 1 country? Not any longer.....

[RobLev]

Not quite RobLev. For what crossref is talking about, there is a specific exception.

13. If a Player plays for a combined team in an Olympic Event does it
affect his eligibility in relation to the IRB?
If a Player plays for a combined team of a country in an Olympic Event (e.g. Team GB) and he was previously not captured for a Union (under Regulation 8.2) then the Player will be deemed to be captured for one of the underlying Unions of the combined team of country he represented. So in the case of Team GB it would mean that the Player would then be free to play for one of England, Scotland, Wales and/or Ireland.If a Player plays for a combined team of a country in an Olympic Event (e.g. Team GB) and he was previously was captured for a Union (under Regulation 8.2) then the Player remains captured for such Union and their participation in the combined team in the Olympic Event will not affect their status.

Paragraph 13 of the Olympic Explanatory Guidelines (from which you are quoting) explains Regulation 8.9 (which I have quoted)...

 

[Guyseep]

I find it very unfair that players can not switch their allegiances. Here's what I would propose and why:

A pro rugby player has a very small window to play and earn money in the sport- roughly 10 years, from age 20 to 30. You would assume a player who puts his body on the line would want to not only make the most money possible in that time frame but also reach the highest level of the sport.

I would propose that a player can change allegiances once and that there would be a waiting period of 18 to 24 months from when they declare the switch to when they are allowed to play. They can also not switch back to the original country they were capped for. Anything longer would cut into the short window that players have to earn a living in rugby. As well it would mean that the best players in the world are in fact playing international rugby.

Let's look at two hypothetical examples.

1 - A South African forward, say Shalk Brits, is capped for SA early on in his career at 23. He then finds that he is behind two great hookers in Bismarck Du Plessis and Adrian Strauss. Brits might get playing time on the national level but only in the case of injury. So he decides to move to England and pursue rugby there. He plays a season and then decides he wants to play for England. He goes through the process of getting citizenship and meeting the requirements to play for England, but has to wait an additional 2 years before he can be capped for England. By now he is 25. That leaves him 5 years to play international rugby and earn as much as possible.
He is not guaranteed a spot in the English team, but he has now tied himself to that country.

2- A New Zealand player of Tongan decent. He is capped by New Zealand and then falls out of favour with the selectors in the highly competitive NZ rugby landscape. Meanwhile Tonga struggles to fill his position. He is definitely a world class player and can slot right into the Tongan team. He already qualifies for Tonga through birth so he meets the requirements. Again he sits out 2 years and then he can play for the national team.

The one drawback of this may be that a wealthy nation can poach up and coming players that have been capped a few times with the lure of a big paycheck. To prevent this there can be a restriction on the number of players who have switched allegiances that can be part of the national team to say 4 or 5.

I think this allows the players to get the most out of their short careers and also have national teams field the best possible players in the world

 

[crossref]

I find it very unfair that players can not switch their allegiances.

Guyseep - yes I agree. you and I are less caught up in the idea of natural countries and looking at this much more from the player's point of view.

 

[dave_clark]

why bother with the international game at all then, why not create global franchises who compete in a world league?

 

[FlipFlop]

Personally I would like to see different regulations for Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 nations.

I would like to see a player (think Tim Visser) who has changed allegiance based on residency, be able to switch back, provided the country he is switching to is in a lower tier.

This would require there to be official descriptions of the Tiers, but it would enable many players to help their original countries rugby, promote the sport, raise it's profile etc.

 

[TNT88]

Good on him. He lives and plays in France, maybe he feels more aligned to them now. If the general rugby community there accept him as French there should be no problem.

 

[Toby Warren]

Guyseep - yes I agree. you and I are less caught up in the idea of natural countries and looking at this much more from the player's point of view.

But international sport is so much more than the players. It is about the fans and the volunteers as well. Of course the players should be rewarded for their element of this process and by and large they are - but surely everyone else involved needs to see levels of integrity - otherwise it is no longer international sport but 'club' sport.

I like flip flops idea that there is flexibility down the tiers - this would be beneficial - but it still needs to be linked to residency as well for me.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Guyseep

I see where you are coming from but its a dreadful concept. Its already bad enough that we have mercenary club teams like Toulon, ostensibly a French team except that it is composed of mostly Kiwis, Aussies, South Africans, English, Irish and Welsh players with hardly any Frenchmen.

Imagine what would happen if a cash-rich Union decided to go on a four year campaign to win the RWC by buying up the world's best players to make a "superteam". The integrity of international rugby would be shot to pieces.

 

[crossref]

Guyseep

I see where you are coming from but its a dreadful concept. Its already bad enough that we have mercenary club teams like Toulon, ostensibly a French team except that it is composed of mostly Kiwis, Aussies, South Africans, English, Irish and Welsh players with hardly any Frenchmen.

Imagine what would happen if a cash-rich Union decided to go on a four year campaign to win the RWC by buying up the world's best players to make a "superteam". The integrity of international rugby would be shot to pieces.

but would it happen? their own self interest would deter unions from doing that. they need to keep fans on board, and the unions who run the national teams are interwested not only in the success of the national team, but also in success of their domestic game.

The restriction on England picking Steffon A isn't due to IRB rules, it's self imposed
the refusal of NZRFU to pick qualified players living overseas isn't due to IRB rules - it's self imposed.

in both cases they are balancing different objectives and chossing the long term strength of their domestic games over the short term interests of the national team.

 

[Ian_Cook]

but would it happen? their own self interest would deter unions from doing that. they need to keep fans on board, and the unions who run the national teams are interwested not only in the success of the national team, but also in success of their domestic game.

The restriction on England picking Steffon A isn't due to IRB rules, it's self imposed
the refusal of NZRFU to pick qualified players living overseas isn't due to IRB rules - it's self imposed.

in both cases they are balancing different objectives and chossing the long term strength of their domestic games over the short term interests of the national team.

Well 20 years ago, if someone had told me that a major French Rugby Club would have a starting XV that contained only two Frenchmen, I'd have told them they were bonkers, and that it would never happen!

 

[crossref]

Well 20 years ago, if someone had told me that a major French Rugby Club would have a starting XV that contained only two Frenchmen, I'd have told them they were bonkers, and that it would never happen!

true, but that's a club. Clubs have different objectives that the national unions.

 

[Toby Warren]

true, but that's a club. Clubs have different objectives that the national unions.

But if you make national sides 'free' from national qualification criteria - or greatly reduced criteria then international rugby becomes 'club' sport.

 

[crossref]

But if you make national sides 'free' from national qualification criteria - or greatly reduced criteria then international rugby becomes 'club' sport.

but my point is that many of the restrictions are not IRB ones - they are self-imposed, illustrating that unions want to pick from 'their own'

 

[OB..]

The restriction on England picking Steffon A isn't due to IRB rules, it's self imposed

I presume the decision is significantly affected by the problem in getting him released for England training sessions.

 

[crossref]

I presume the decision is significantly affected by the problem in getting him released for England training sessions.

all clubs resist that- arent' they all covered by IRB windows?

 

[OB..]

all clubs resist that- arent' they all covered by IRB windows?

AIUI the English clubs have an agreement with the RFU on release which is not restricted just to the IRB window. Obviously there is no such agreement with French clubs, though there was some talk about potential England internationals seeking release clauses in their French contracts.

 

[FlipFlop]

The IRB window only covers games and the week before the test. England have numerous training sessions, can demand players are rested, have meeting outside the windows etc. And they pay for this under agreement with the PRL (??).

It is not the issue of release for tests that is the issue, it is all the other stuff. Drs, physios, monitoring, training sessions, video sessions, rests, recovery etc.

Top England player plays something like 25-30 games max a year. A Top 14 player plays 28 games plus H cup, plus internationals. The French clubs won't pay the same for a player who has to go back to UK, and has to rest when the RFU says so etc.

You see the pressure in France of injured players returning too soon, playing through injury etc. Whereas in RFULand - Elite players are prevented from doing this by the RFU - so the club can't burn them out, then spit them out.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The IRB window only covers games and the week before the test. England have numerous training sessions, can demand players are rested, have meeting outside the windows etc. And they pay for this under agreement with the PRL (??).

It is not the issue of release for tests that is the issue, it is all the other stuff. Drs, physios, monitoring, training sessions, video sessions, rests, recovery etc.

Top England player plays something like 25-30 games max a year. A Top 14 player plays 28 games plus H cup, plus internationals. The French clubs won't pay the same for a player who has to go back to UK, and has to rest when the RFU says so etc.

You see the pressure in France of injured players returning too soon, playing through injury etc. Whereas in RFULand - Elite players are prevented from doing this by the RFU - so the club can't burn them out, then spit them out.

This is primarily the reason why the NZRU will not pick from the pool of NZ players playing in Europe. It would make them beholden to the clubs for access to their players, as well as being hugely disruptive of preparations and training camps. The NZRU places its emphasis on building a team culture, valuing that above the possible advantage of having one or two better players in the side.

 

[Toby Warren]

but my point is that many of the restrictions are not IRB ones - they are self-imposed, illustrating that unions want to pick from 'their own'

But this is driven by the current qualification rules as well.

Under your view Dan Carter could move to England and play for England after a short break. It's simply barmy and would ruin the game at international level. The England cricket team has suffered from this.

 

[crossref]

Under your view Dan Carter could move to England and play for England after a short break. It's simply barmy and would ruin the game at international level. The England cricket team has suffered from this.

no, not really - this discussion started on the subject of pacific islanders coming to NZ as teenagers and waiting out long qualification processes. Or someone who comes from a non-rugby playing nation but is truly world class and wants to play for a first class team.
or someone who has grown up in a country, feels part of it, learned rugby there, but doesn't have a passport. Or someone who foolishly once played for his national team, the republic of Lictenstralstan whaen hwe was 19, and now finds hhimself captured.

In all those cases I don't see anything but a very short residency period (if at all) being needed.

But for someone who already plays for a 1st class team, like Dan Carter I would support the concept of being captured.