RugbyRebels

Raggs wrote:

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.

It's at the heart of test rugby and seemingly impossible to regulate. For me the likes of Shield playing for England lessens test rugby, similar to Hughes, Barritt, Hape, Vainikolo, Flutey, Abbott, MVG, Paul, Stevens, Botha, Solomona... where I have an issue is I never had an issue with Catt playing for England which is inconsistent with my own concerns, maybe that stems from him playing for England before I even knew he was a Saffer, and I'm a bit on the fence about Rokoguguni even though that's very different to some of the above

belgarion wrote:

Puja wrote:

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?

I think your nephew might be qualified for which every country that ship was registered in. Do you know what it was called?

Lizard wrote:I think your nephew might be qualified for which every country that ship was registered in. Do you know what it was called?

Rainbow something I heard

Allegiance can have layers. I played underwater hockey until I had some sinus problems that stopped me from diving deep enough. I was never good enough for the British team, though perhaps with more training I could have got to the fringe. But I was good enough for Hungary. Even though Britain would obviously be my first choice, I would still love to play international sport for Hungary and give it my all and even learn the lyrics to that dirge of a national anthem.

Would that make me on a kin to Flutey? Or is it perhaps more nuanced than that. As shown by Mouritz Botha, Mike Catt, Thomas Waldrom, Dyls...

Just to add Pichot who recently got through the changes to residency still wants to push much further with changing/restricting the transfer of allegiance in test rugby. Though specifically what changes he'll be after I don't know

Digby wrote:Just to add Pichot who recently got through the changes to residency still wants to push much further with changing/restricting the transfer of allegiance in test rugby. Though specifically what changes he'll be after I don't know

I'd like to see change in nationality being allowed (more than what the olympics allow). Revert to parentage/birthplace, if you haven't been picked (but have been available) for 3+ years by the former national side, maybe only for those under 10 caps.

Basically, those PI players that get picked for a few games, locked in, and then miss out on a proper international career.

Digby wrote:Just to add Pichot who recently got through the changes to residency still wants to push much further with changing/restricting the transfer of allegiance in test rugby. Though specifically what changes he'll be after I don't know

How much more restricted can you get than not being allowed to except through the Olympics loophole which can't be closed?

Puja

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:Just to add Pichot who recently got through the changes to residency still wants to push much further with changing/restricting the transfer of allegiance in test rugby. Though specifically what changes he'll be after I don't know

I'd like to see change in nationality being allowed (more than what the olympics allow). Revert to parentage/birthplace, if you haven't been picked (but have been available) for 3+ years by the former national side, maybe only for those under 10 caps.

Basically, those PI players that get picked for a few games, locked in, and then miss out on a proper international career.

Like with Joyce and others for Ireland in the cricket.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Just to add Pichot who recently got through the changes to residency still wants to push much further with changing/restricting the transfer of allegiance in test rugby. Though specifically what changes he'll be after I don't know

How much more restricted can you get than not being allowed to except through the Olympics loophole which can't be closed?

Puja

I've looked back through messages and it's possible I've made more of an assumption than is warranted. It might only be he's after heavy fines, and maybe bans, for teams found guilty of rule 8 eligibility transgressions. Though even that's not clear as he's basically in favour of Spain qualifying, and Spain would fall foul of his heavy fine and even expulsion mantra (comments are even some tier 1 sides might fall foul of Pichot's crusade, though I don't know which sides that might be). Anyway, he can't be in favour of heavy fines and expulsions and want Spain to go through, so something is amiss.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:Just to add Pichot who recently got through the changes to residency still wants to push much further with changing/restricting the transfer of allegiance in test rugby. Though specifically what changes he'll be after I don't know

I'd like to see change in nationality being allowed (more than what the olympics allow). Revert to parentage/birthplace, if you haven't been picked (but have been available) for 3+ years by the former national side, maybe only for those under 10 caps.

Basically, those PI players that get picked for a few games, locked in, and then miss out on a proper international career.

Examples?

morepork wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:Just to add Pichot who recently got through the changes to residency still wants to push much further with changing/restricting the transfer of allegiance in test rugby. Though specifically what changes he'll be after I don't know

I'd like to see change in nationality being allowed (more than what the olympics allow). Revert to parentage/birthplace, if you haven't been picked (but have been available) for 3+ years by the former national side, maybe only for those under 10 caps.

Basically, those PI players that get picked for a few games, locked in, and then miss out on a proper international career.

Examples?

Isa Nacewa?

Puja

Lizard wrote:

belgarion wrote:

Puja wrote:
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?

I think your nephew might be qualified for which every country that ship was registered in. Do you know what it was called?

After 23yrs I can't remember but my sister probably does

morepork wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:Just to add Pichot who recently got through the changes to residency still wants to push much further with changing/restricting the transfer of allegiance in test rugby. Though specifically what changes he'll be after I don't know

I'd like to see change in nationality being allowed (more than what the olympics allow). Revert to parentage/birthplace, if you haven't been picked (but have been available) for 3+ years by the former national side, maybe only for those under 10 caps.

Basically, those PI players that get picked for a few games, locked in, and then miss out on a proper international career.

Examples?

Semesa Rokoduguni, Denny Solomona?
Plenty of others in the past, but being 1-4 cap wonders, they're not likely to stand out in the mind

Aye. It’s pretty nuts thinking where Fiji and Samoa could be now if they’d had every good Fijian player available to them in he last decade or so. Not that that’s anywhere near the whole story.

As noted in the squad thread, the NZRU has graciously decided to kindly assist the development of rugby in a lesser nation by not insisting on the letter of the law (well, the letter of Regulation 9.38). The generous NZ Union has given its blessing to Brad Shields abandoning his All Black dream and settling for an England jumper instead.

Although the NZRU's heart is in the right place here, I can't help but wonder how much long term good is done by undermining a lower tier nation's native development path in this way?

I can only assume some neo-liberal, waterfront lawyer drew up Shields’ contract and it had more holes in it than the Titanic.

Mellsblue wrote:I can only assume some neo-liberal, waterfront lawyer drew up Shields’ contract and it had more holes in it than the Titanic.

Liberal?

As it turns out, the NZRU are scared of the English lawyers, but not so much of the Australian ones, as they've just given Australia a "We'll get back to you later/never," on almost exactly the same situation as Shields: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a ... d=12061644

Puja

Puja wrote:As it turns out, the NZRU are scared of the English lawyers, but not so much of the Australian ones, as they've just given Australia a "We'll get back to you later/never," on almost exactly the same situation as Shields: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a ... d=12061644

Puja

Still doesn't detract from the desperation of Fast Eddie.

Bitch

Puja wrote:As it turns out, the NZRU are scared of the English lawyers, but not so much of the Australian ones, as they've just given Australia a "We'll get back to you later/never," on almost exactly the same situation as Shields: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a ... d=12061644

Puja

If anything, the NZRU's case is weaker with Samu than it was for Shields. In some circumstances, where a dual-qualified player has committed under a contract to be available for one country, that country is not obliged to release him for another country - (see Regulation 9.38.. But that only applies if the player was dual-qualified before entering into that contract. Shields was dual-qualified from birth so reg. 9.38 could have applied to him (assuming all the other conditions were met). Samu, on the other hand, only qualifies for NZ by residency (AFAIK). Wikipedia says he moved here for the 2014 club season, so presumably he only became NZ qualified just over a year ago. He first signed for the Crusaders in 2015 (for the 2016 season). So unless he signed a new contract (that meets all the conditions of reg 9.38) after early 2017, the NZRU's position looks shaky.

EDIT: this article suggests Samu did sign a new contract in August 2017, so the NZRU could be ok here...

World rugby aren't going to like the idea that every dual qualified player is signing these agreements. Even if it is 9.38. I can see it getting cut in the next set of revisions.