IRB vote on eligibility changes

[Son of Mathonwy]

Bottom line is that I think players should only play for the nation they think of as their own. I'd much prefer not to have the Parkeses, Halaholos and McNicholls if they feel otherwise (as I suspect is the case . . . which one of them would say they were Welsh?). And I feel a mere 3 year stand down will lead to more players playing tests for mercenary reasons.

given the impossibility of quantifying, and get right for every player, we're left with making a random, arbitrary rule, and applying it to everyone. Cas's point here is that plenty of people in NZ (and everywhere else - and we really should be aware of this in Britain as well) think of multiple countries as their own.

It's important to note that residency can result in you considering a country your own as well. Quite apart from the likes of Tshiunza who moved when a baby, living somewhere as an adult for a long time can absolutely lead to you having a strong connection to it. The 3 year projects were clearly nonsense, but I never had a problem with someone like Mouritz Botha who moved here without a rugby contract and lived here for 7 years before being capped. He's gone back to SA now he's retired, but that doesn't mean that England was also his home.

Puja

Agreed, there are plenty of people who have more than one nation they call home, or could if they wanted to, especially in Great Britain.

We could handle this in a completely different way if we wanted to: allow players with multiple links to play for any of them at any time. We could do this. But I wouldn't want to. For me it would take some of the meaning out of nations playing nations. And obviously the richest nations would have a big advantage. Personally I think a player should make a choice to play for one nation and one only. It should be a serious decision. The new rule detracts from this in a big way (although it helps in other ways). For me 5 years would strike a better balance than 3. But better 3 than 1. Or 0.

Agreed that residency can create links to a nation, but 3 years was a joke and even 5 years feels like the bare minimum to me. I've lived in England for more than half of my life now but I would absolutely never say I was English. And that's what I think it should take to play for a country, that you can honestly call yourself English or Welsh or whatever, not that you've got your career here. Okay, we can't read minds so this can't be the test. So we need to set some guessed-at time of 5 years. Personally I'd also want them to be a naturalized citizen of that country (or at least show that their application is well on the way, for countries which make that process particularly difficult).

[morepork]

It is at the end of the day though, a job with a relatively finite window of opportunity. Why can't you play for a national team without the amateur era loyalty stuff?

[paddy no 11]

It is at the end of the day though, a job with a relatively finite window of opportunity. Why can't you play for a national team without the amateur era loyalty stuff?

They're just national club teams then, bought and sold?

[Puja]

It is at the end of the day though, a job with a relatively finite window of opportunity. Why can't you play for a national team without the amateur era loyalty stuff?

They're just national club teams then, bought and sold?

Exactly. National loyalties may be a quaint idea that might not stand up to scrutiny in the current age, but it does add something to have an artificial limitation on who you can pick and how good your team is and to have them represent something, even if that's just the player development systems in your home nation. It wouldn't be the same experience as an England fab to bemoan our lack of decent locks if we could just go and pick one up with our greater wealth.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

It is at the end of the day though, a job with a relatively finite window of opportunity. Why can't you play for a national team without the amateur era loyalty stuff?

They're just national club teams then, bought and sold?

Exactly. National loyalties may be a quaint idea that might not stand up to scrutiny in the current age, but it does add something to have an artificial limitation on who you can pick and how good your team is and to have them represent something, even if that's just the player development systems in your home nation. It wouldn't be the same experience as an England fab to bemoan our lack of decent locks if we could just go and pick one up with our greater wealth.

Puja

No idea why anyone other than England or France would see any advantage in having a free market in players for the national team. It would certainly wreck NZ and SA's strong positions in world rugby. And there's the small matter of going against the principle of the whole thing. They don't even do that in football....