Sounds like NZRU aren’t totally against, talk of “goodwill” & “serious consideration” and Shields having been a “good servant of the game.”
I'm still not convinced there's anything for him to be released from. The NZherald article states every professional rugby player in NZ signs schedule 3, and it's been said Francis was generously released from it. Reg 9.38 cannot be signed by non-dual eligible players, and also not by players who aren't eligible for NZ. Either schedule 3 is not 9.38, and it's not binding, or it is 9.38, and nzru are attempting to abuse it on a mass scale, and have a large number of lawyers who are badly advising their clients when they have apparently explained it to them.
I do suspect NZRU will much prefer to go with the "Look at how generous we are." line, rather than taking it to World Rugby, and having their contracts actually tested.
EDIT - And beard jealousy is a terrible thing.
At a guess if they're doing this en masse rather than as a targeted thing there is a decent chance to go after the standard of legal advice received. That Shields didn't seem to think he had a problem is telling, or maybe not as rugby players aren't the brightest. There's not much time mind so if we want him we'd need to get moving.
And I think the IRB need to look again at 9.38, it's almost likes it's been added by a union who centrally contracts players with a view to their own game over the interests of test rugby, which is more along the lines of what reg 9 is supposed to stop
It reads to me like 9.38 was out in place so that if a dual nationality player agrees in writing that he feels bound to one of his nations, the other can't try to pick him (as opposed to picking and being refused).
It can then be exploited by unions who centrally contract all club/franchise players.
Which Tyler wrote:It reads to me like 9.38 was out in place so that if a dual nationality player agrees in writing that he feels bound to one of his nations, the other can't try to pick him (as opposed to picking and being refused).
It can then be exploited by unions who centrally contract all club/franchise players.
Any which way it seems to go against the stated intent of IRB 9, it's just a weird bit of protectionism. Even if in this case I might be grateful it forces us to pick an English player
J Dory wrote:So is "protectionism" the new evil replacing "poaching"? Hard to keep up really.
Depends. What are you guys doing at the moment? Cause whatever that is, it's distasteful and wrong. Unless we end up doing it, in which case it's okay.
It's an interesting point. I can't remember any NZ contracted Super Rugby players being denied the right to play for one of the Island nations because of this, may well be the case behind the scenes, but given the number NZ born PI players in super rugby I would have expected it to come up before now. Maybe the NZRU let's them go, or maybe the PI nations don't have the mullah to lure them away? Would be interested to hear from anyone that knows more on this topic.
Regardless, it's good to see English fans still have PI interests at heart.
Raggs wrote:Thing is, it's likely it's illegal jiggery pokery, and now a large number of PI potential players could well be aware that it's non-binding...
Raggs wrote:Thing is, it's likely it's illegal jiggery pokery, and now a large number of PI potential players could well be aware that it's non-binding...
Why would it be illegal?
Illegal in terms of world rugby regulations, rather than illegal in terms of people going to jail.
much as I hate the idea of Shields (or anyone decent) playing for England, just for the sake of argument:
my son was born in england (his Mum and I are Welsh), he has grown up playing in HK where he is in the age grade programme (and they are awesome). Big IF but if he turned out to be good enough to play for Wales I would hate for people to tar him with the whole 'flag of conveninece, what connection does he have with Wales?'....in his mind, and ours he is WELSH!
Saison wrote:much as I hate the idea of Shields (or anyone decent) playing for England, just for the sake of argument:
my son was born in england (his Mum and I are Welsh), he has grown up playing in HK where he is in the age grade programme (and they are awesome). Big IF but if he turned out to be good enough to play for Wales I would hate for people to tar him with the whole 'flag of conveninece, what connection does he have with Wales?'....in his mind, and ours he is WELSH!
And that there is why I support residency and ancestry qualifications (although I feel it should stop at parents) every time someone says, "It should just be about what passport you have/where you were born and nothing else." There are legitimate reasons to have feelings for more than one country or one that is not the obvious.
Saison wrote:much as I hate the idea of Shields (or anyone decent) playing for England, just for the sake of argument:
my son was born in england (his Mum and I are Welsh), he has grown up playing in HK where he is in the age grade programme (and they are awesome). Big IF but if he turned out to be good enough to play for Wales I would hate for people to tar him with the whole 'flag of conveninece, what connection does he have with Wales?'....in his mind, and ours he is WELSH!
And that there is why I support residency and ancestry qualifications (although I feel it should stop at parents) every time someone says, "It should just be about what passport you have/where you were born and nothing else." There are legitimate reasons to have feelings for more than one country or one that is not the obvious.
Puja
Agree wholeheartedly & for all those who go on about it should just be where you are born, what country should my
nephew represent as he was born 2 months prem on a cruise ship in the middle of international waters, can he play
for anyone?
Saison wrote:much as I hate the idea of Shields (or anyone decent) playing for England, just for the sake of argument:
my son was born in england (his Mum and I are Welsh), he has grown up playing in HK where he is in the age grade programme (and they are awesome). Big IF but if he turned out to be good enough to play for Wales I would hate for people to tar him with the whole 'flag of conveninece, what connection does he have with Wales?'....in his mind, and ours he is WELSH!
And that there is why I support residency and ancestry qualifications (although I feel it should stop at parents) every time someone says, "It should just be about what passport you have/where you were born and nothing else." There are legitimate reasons to have feelings for more than one country or one that is not the obvious.
Puja
In most cases that would work - but stopping at parents still has its shortfalls.
In my example:- (I consider myself to be English through and through so its not a real issue)
My Mother is Welsh, My Father English. My Grandfather and all of his heritage before him for several generations are Irish. My mother just happened to be born in Wales but she considers herself to be Welsh.
There is so much Irish 'blood' in my family that I would be drawn to play for Ireland nearly as much as England, and would never consider playing for Wales at all.
Mellsblue wrote:Does he see himself as English? He’s certainly showed that playing for NZ was his first choice.
That's the crunch. Do we want other countries' rejects? Or, are we just resentful of the fact that those rejects might be better than our 'natural' alternatives?
Mellsblue wrote:Does he see himself as English? He’s certainly showed that playing for NZ was his first choice.
And Hughes would rather play for Fiji were money no object, Hartley for NZ were skills no issue (which might also be the case with Shields), even Manu might at times rather play for Samoa.
It's hard to hold it against the player, but it does also reduce the meaning of international rugby, good news for the clubs I suppose
Equally, should you only get one choice? You may have a preference, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't give your all for your adopted country, or ancestral one.
I don't really see why Shields needs another choice. It'd make more sense to me if he was picked by NZ or not in his situation, but if you make the ruling that strict it'd likely capture players where I think there could/should be a choice
It was a genuine question. If he doesn’t feel English and this is just a career move I have issues. If he sees himself as both a Kiwi and English then that’s fine by me, even if wearing the England shirt seems to be second best.
It’s not an objective thing. I’ve been in N Yorkshire for five years now and N Yorkshire feels like home. I went to uni and lived in Nottingham for just over 10 years and it never felt like home.
Digby wrote:I don't really see why Shields needs another choice. It'd make more sense to me if he was picked by NZ or not in his situation, but if you make the ruling that strict it'd likely capture players where I think there could/should be a choice
I mean in terms of who you feel allegiance to, rather than once your capped you're fixed to it.
