RugbyRebels

Shingler is a good example and that's pretty much what I was referring to with Fritz Lee as well.

I hope the rule doesn't apply to 60-cap internationals like Flood TBH. That feels like a loophole that shouldn't exist.

Perhaps World Rugby should put some limits on it. For example 5 caps or less.

That would mean players like Frankie Saili who had 2 NZ caps but is highly unlikely to play for them ever again could play for Samoa (although from a selfish point of view, I'd rather he's available all season round for Quins).

They can't limit it. It's got to be by Olympic law if rugby wants to be in the Olympics.

Raggs wrote:They can't limit it. It's got to be by Olympic law if rugby wants to be in the Olympics.

The IRB can't stop them from playing in the Olympics, but they can (and do) decide if a player can transfer their eligibility for XVs.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:They can't limit it. It's got to be by Olympic law if rugby wants to be in the Olympics.

The IRB can't stop them from playing in the Olympics, but they can (and do) decide if a player can transfer their eligibility for XVs.

Puja

ETA: the following is going by memory having looked into it in exhaustive detail 4ish years ago...

If they want to be kicked out of the Olympics, then yeah.

As the governing body, they have to have the loophole in, to be considered an Olympic sport.

The only way we could have rugby in the Olympics and not have this loophole for XVs would be to split the sport fully, and play with different laws, and separate governing bodies.
For 7s to stay in the Olympics, XVs would have to split from 7s. If 7s split from the IRB, then the new governing body would have to reapply on its own merits.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:They can't limit it. It's got to be by Olympic law if rugby wants to be in the Olympics.

The IRB can't stop them from playing in the Olympics, but they can (and do) decide if a player can transfer their eligibility for XVs.

Puja

ETA: the following is going by memory having looked into it in exhaustive detail 4ish years ago...

If they want to be kicked out of the Olympics, then yeah.

As the governing body, they have to have the loophole in, to be considered an Olympic sport.

The only way we could have rugby in the Olympics and not have this loophole for XVs would be to split the sport fully, and play with different laws, and separate governing bodies.
For 7s to stay in the Olympics, XVs would have to split from 7s. If 7s split from the IRB, then the new governing body would have to reapply on its own merits.

Not necessarily. The IRB has the same eligibility for 7s and XVs because it makes their life easier (and because they wanted to keep 7s representation a serious business back in the 90s and 2000s). They have no requirement to have the same eligibility criteria for both - in fact, they don't, because you can't switch nationalities by solely playing XVs.

Puja

rowan wrote:I'm not a fan of nation-hopping, tbh. Perhaps it's because I remember the shamateur era too well when union was becoming as big of a farce as league and Samoa sent a team largely comprised of NZers to the World Cup and the Scots had their kilted Kiwis as well.

I get your point, but this happens every World Cup. I think it's the last three that Samoa have been the team with the most players not born in the country they're representing.

But then it's probably inevitable, given that there are more 2nd gen Samoans in NZ than in Samoa.

I think it's about even these days. & I did say the players should have a choice, so long as they stick with it. So if New Zealanders of Samoan or Tongan extraction choose to play for their ancestral homeland, I don't have a problem with. But in those cases they should have been playing for them at age-grade level as well. It shouldn't just be a case of opting for Samoa or Tonga because they failed to make the grade for the All Blacks - although that's always going to be a difficult thing to control.

rowan wrote:I think it's about even these days. & I did say the players should have a choice, so long as they stick with it. So if New Zealanders of Samoan or Tongan extraction choose to play for their ancestral homeland, I don't have a problem with. But in those cases they should have been playing for them at age-grade level as well. It shouldn't just be a case of opting for Samoa or Tonga because they failed to make the grade for the All Blacks - although that's always going to be a difficult thing to control.

Completely disagree. I can absolutely see why players might feel themselves linked to two countries and a decision made in teenage years, probably just based around where they happened to go to school, should not determine their entire adult career in rugby. Age group should never capture a player to a particular nationality and I'm glad that the IRB have finally changed it so that it doesn't.

Puja

I'm not disputing that players might feel themselves linked to two countries - or more. I'm in that position myself, in fact. Just that the choice should be made at some point before the All Blacks selector calls you with the bad news . . .

Flood's interview with The Times is a good read in general, particularly when it comes to why he left Toulouse for Newcastle and his view on professional standards at French rugby.

As for him playing for Germany... I'm not sure I like players playing for two different countries, but if its going to go on, I think this is as decent a use of the rule out there. If he can help Germany win a few matches, maybe even hit the World Cup and boost the sport's profile there, that's a decent outcome for world rugby.

rowan wrote:I'm not disputing that players might feel themselves linked to two countries - or more. I'm in that position myself, in fact. Just that the choice should be made at some point before the All Blacks selector calls you with the bad news . . .

But that, like everything in the eligibility debate, has some fairly significant caveats. If age groups captured players, then there would be no point in the PIs participating at that level - they'd be inundated with polite declines. And on the other side, what about PI players who are playing for schools in NZ? Turn down NZ U20s and watch your prospects of a Super Rugby contract disappear, accept it and you can never play for your homeland even if your adopted nation has no further interest in you after age groups.

Puja

Sure, but now you're talking about problems within the system which need to be ironed out, which takes us in a slightly different direction.

Given that international age-group rugby starts at U16 (probably younger in "simple" cross-border competitions) - at what age do you think it's fair for someone to make a decision that is irreversible for the rest of their career (which hasn't even started yet)?

Personally, I think that the only levels at which selection should tie you to a country is where selection is open (within nationality bounds); so no teams limited by age or heritage sub-group, hair colour or religion... or anything else.

We should really look to have future players making gestational decisions

Which Tyler wrote:Personally, I think that the only levels at which selection should tie you to a country is where selection is open (within nationality bounds); so no teams limited by age or heritage sub-group, hair colour or religion... or anything else.

I like this idea. So we can have the England Sikhs team, who you can be eligible for if any of your grandparents were a Sikh. Or if you convert to Sikhism and practice for 3 years?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Personally, I think that the only levels at which selection should tie you to a country is where selection is open (within nationality bounds); so no teams limited by age or heritage sub-group, hair colour or religion... or anything else.

I like this idea. So we can have the England Sikhs team, who you can be eligible for if any of your grandparents were a Sikh. Or if you convert to Sikhism and practice for 3 years?

Puja

Play for England Kenyans... and you'd no longer be eligible to play for Kenya...

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Personally, I think that the only levels at which selection should tie you to a country is where selection is open (within nationality bounds); so no teams limited by age or heritage sub-group, hair colour or religion... or anything else.

I like this idea. So we can have the England Sikhs team, who you can be eligible for if any of your grandparents were a Sikh. Or if you convert to Sikhism and practice for 3 years?

Puja

See this just skews things massively in favour of the Mormons given their proclivity for posthumous baptisms.

Maybe a case could be made for a mechanism that would allow players to petition the country they are tied to that they be released to play for a specific alternate side that they are otherwise qualified to represent?

That would give their current representative side a measure of control to prevent strong rivals luring developed top tier talent while still allowing the player a mechanism to disentangle themselves from a nation that has no interest in utilizing their services anymore.

Joz wrote:Maybe a case could be made for a mechanism that would allow players to petition the country they are tied to that they be released to play for a specific alternate side that they are otherwise qualified to represent?

That would give their current representative side a measure of control to prevent strong rivals luring developed top tier talent while still allowing the player a mechanism to disentangle themselves from a nation that has no interest in utilizing their services anymore.

Works in theory, but I can only see that being abused with teams basically offering transfer fees to release players.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Personally, I think that the only levels at which selection should tie you to a country is where selection is open (within nationality bounds); so no teams limited by age or heritage sub-group, hair colour or religion... or anything else.

I like this idea. So we can have the England Sikhs team, who you can be eligible for if any of your grandparents were a Sikh. Or if you convert to Sikhism and practice for 3 years?

Puja

I am now curious as to who'd win a match between England Blacks and England Gingers.

Peat wrote:Flood's interview with The Times is a good read in general, particularly when it comes to why he left Toulouse for Newcastle and his view on professional standards at French rugby.

As for him playing for Germany... I'm not sure I like players playing for two different countries, but if its going to go on, I think this is as decent a use of the rule out there. If he can help Germany win a few matches, maybe even hit the World Cup and boost the sport's profile there, that's a decent outcome for world rugby.

Tigersman wrote:TBH i'm not against this idea of players dropping down to another tier country.

Agreed. We spread the love, that's rugby.
Good on him.

Peat wrote: I am now curious as to who'd win a match between England Blacks and England Gingers.

As you're obviously talking about hair colour - England blacks would walk it. Are gingers even allowed to play rugby? Aren't they usually allergic to being outside?

Which Tyler wrote:

Peat wrote: I am now curious as to who'd win a match between England Blacks and England Gingers.

As you're obviously talking about hair colour - England blacks would walk it. Are gingers even allowed to play rugby? Aren't they usually allergic to being outside?

Summer rugby is almost over. Gingers are on a level playing field when it's tipping it down.

kk67 wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Peat wrote: I am now curious as to who'd win a match between England Blacks and England Gingers.

As you're obviously talking about hair colour - England blacks would walk it. Are gingers even allowed to play rugby? Aren't they usually allergic to being outside?

Summer rugby is almost over. Gingers are on a level playing field when it's tipping it down.

After years of being mercilessly bullied at school the Gingers wouldn't have the mental fortitude to win that game, regardless of the weather.

Which Tyler wrote:

Peat wrote: I am now curious as to who'd win a match between England Blacks and England Gingers.

As you're obviously talking about hair colour - England blacks would walk it. Are gingers even allowed to play rugby? Aren't they usually allergic to being outside?

No, I am that insensitive. If I was going solely by hair colour, black has such a bigger population pool its not fair. Blacks vs Blonds might be an interesting pointless debate though. Besides, you were the one to lump heritage sub-group in with hair colour, I was just riffing off of that for maximum ridiculousness.

Also, my club has a very strong ginger contingent and I can confirm they're far more allergic to the rules than rugby itself. Particularly the ones about whether you're allowed to punch people. But then, that's not exactly uncommon around the club...