Sorry, this story is unavailable
I have to say the Murphy situation seems pretty farcial ,he is an Australian citazen after all.,and im sure he thinks of himself as such In these modern times your place of birth can be totally accidental.,given surviabilty rates of premature babies today and fast air traval.God knows both Australia and Ireland need good props ,and im sure he will be playing for Australia before 2014.
Posted 14:41 08th August 2012
@Trinats...whne Cooper was playing badly at the RWC 2011, you said that it was the Kiwis in the Wallabies that choked, Deans and Cooper...what's the story with you, they are Kiwis when they suck and when playing great they are Wallabies through and through? make up your mind...
Posted 01:37 19th July 2012
@APV1 I guess my answer to your thought is why? - I used the Fiona May example because it has nothing to do with Rugby. I agree that there needs to be a set of rules (the athletics example should be considered along with a few gulf states "Paying" Sudanese and Ethiopian athletes to represent them). But why should Fiona May (who's shift appears to be purely an emotional one) not be allowed to represent her new country.
Every world cup there is a spate of autobiographies and one feature of all of the players concerned is their desire to represent their country from a very early age, but an overriding desire is to be the very best and the impression I get is that that latter would override the former if the 2 came into conflict. (I wonder if Rupert Moon would have played for Wales were it nor for Hill and Morris, ironically a Welshman, occupying the England 1 and 2 positions).
Like I said, the rules are there to prevent the mercenaries from stopping domestic talent being stifled quite rightly but, on a shrinking planet, we have to make allowances for the player that chooses a new home.
Posted 19:37 17th July 2012
@ jonesy2 - fair-to-middling. But you're making progress. ;-)
And as for the "Top 4..." bit, I hate to tell you but we are:
Posted 17:36 17th July 2012
APV1-- cheers, didnt know all that. it seems pretty clear cut but like i say i dont really have a problemo with it to honest i dont care who plays for who but those rules seems alright to me. im a fan of the playing in the country for a certain amount of time aspect.
heathy -- APV1 is on the money its a jealousy thing i wish england werent so dominant when it comes to sport particularly rugby because its boring i mean cmon (you like that APV1? it was taken straight from your book of sarcasm) ;)
jameslivesinhope-- england a top 4 side- hmmm verrrrrry highly debatable but thats neither here nor there
Posted 16:43 17th July 2012
@ heathy - jonesy2 is just jealous, although he'll never admit this and deny it to the hilt.
@ jamesliveinhope - I disagree with the Fiona May example. She has represented GB and, as such, has nailed her colours to the mast. I could understand her representing GB and England - there's a clear logic there and it depends on how the competition categorises the nationalities. However I do not feel that, despite her nationality changing through marriage, that she should be able to represent another nation - especially in the same sport. Her child(ren..?) qualify for England (and GB), Jamaica and Italy and should be able to choose any one of the above (should they be that lucky and talented). But only one.
That's why I have an issue with Hape's eligibility, as a clear example. Not his residency, but his cap for NZ should prevent him being capped for any other country, in any other sport.
Posted 11:57 17th July 2012
@APV1 the rules are fine, if they are tightened they will prevent more legitimate applications than they will stop the more mercenary ones.
I understand your point about representing another country but even then I don't see that becoming a barrier to someone switching. Look at Fiona May in athletics, represented Great Britain, married an Italian, represented Italy. No reason for her not to continue as a British athlete, no benefit in representing Italy, it was purely a matter of choice.
@jonesy - completely disagree, Tuilagi has lived in the UK since he was 13 and was subject of quite lengthy legal action to prevent his deportation due to the wrong visa. He has had most (if not all) of his education in England and I'm sure that most of his friends are English. He also (I am sure) had the choice of playing for either country and chose that of his home. IMO he is morally much more qualified to play for play for England than Murphy who seems to be hedging his bets anyway.
I think that what should also be remembered is that, to use England as an example, they are a top 4 side irrespective of their recent challenges, if you are good enough to play for them one would assume that a "heart not really in it" would be found out fairly quickly.
Posted 09:54 17th July 2012
@ APV1 - I agree. That's just the way it is, like it or lump it.
@ jonesy2 - I know you hate all things English (and I'm not sure why it is so passionately so) but you could give the same old story about virtually EVERY nation where players come from different countries. Your side as well matey. Even if it is just one or two players, once it happens then you can't say anything about any other nation.
It just seems like this guy wants to play international rugby. For me it is much more than that as there needs to be a feeling of belonging and passion. That for me is either one or the other (and yes, that includes selected players for England). However, that is just my opinion. Rules are the rules I'm afraid so all the spouting means nothing.
Posted 09:28 17th July 2012
@ jonesy2 - the IRB set the rules, not the individual nation. Regulation 8:
Hape was capped by NZ in League and I feel that he should be excluded from representing another nation in any sport.
Flutey played for the NZ Maori and, although they are not the National side, one could argue that they're more NZ than NZ..! Again, I think that should exclude him.
Thomas The Tank was planning to move over here and wait until he qualified by residency. That was until his mother (I think) told him about his English grandparent. As such, he qualified immediately.
Personally I feel that if you have earned a "cap" at any National level (including age-grade), that should be you setting out your stall and making a commitment. But the IRB have made their view very clear in the Shingler case and if I had my way, Martin Johnson wouldn't have played for England and we probably wouldn't have won the RWC! I also think that, perhaps, 5 years would be better than 3 for residency. But that's how I feel and one has to live within the rules and accept the consequences.
But the rules are basicially:
1 Place of birth
3 3 years' Residency.
And we can't change them by whinging on a rugby forum. If you don't like them, petition the IRB:
Posted 16:48 16th July 2012
Surely it should be a case of what you feel in yourself. If he feels Australian then why can't he play for them? I mean come on, the idea of national borders and nationalism (national pride) in general is kind of a primitive human condition in itself, who actually really cares all that much..
Posted 22:25 15th July 2012
I say let him play for either...he's as good as should qualify for both, ironically both Oz and Ireland need class props and he aint half bad so he's in demand and the choice should be his...no doubt he wants the starting gold jersey and that would be an easier (albeit longer) route than to the starting green jersey...however he should have to abide by IRB rules same as everyone.
Posted 19:30 15th July 2012
APV1 -- fair enough perhaps i should have said "minimal" or "virtually no" instead of "no". my question may be an obvious one but all the nations have different eligibility rules right? that seems crazy if its the case. the biggest joke though i think you will agree is that thomas waldrom can play for england
jamesliveinhope -- starting to toe the irrelevant there mate. plus i dont understand what the difference between tuilagi who is as samoan as samoan can be and hape or whoever else.
Posted 06:46 15th July 2012
What on earth are you on about?
He went to school in Ireland and then went on to further honours in Ireland that way. How is that aspiring to be an Irish international? More like just trying to make it as a pro rugby player, which is the goal for most youngsters who play rugby to a high standard.
He's no back in Australia and has perhaps fallen in love with the country. Why can't he represent them imo, he has a passport afterall and has lived in Perth when he was younger.
Jeezus christ, give the lad a break son...
Posted 18:24 13th July 2012
@jonesy - if you're white, you have an affiliation with Europe. It may be a few generations down the line but you have an affiliation.
You only need to look at that famous Welshman who coached Australia - Eddie Jones I think his name was, or even that famous Irishman who captains the All Blacks.
I agree with APV1, you make a rule you make a loophole, I have no desire to see the Fluteys or the Hapes flying a flag of convenience but I am equally delighted that the same rules allow players like Mike Catt, Matt Stevens, Manu Tuilagi and Alex Corbisiero play for the country that they call home.
With regard to Murphy, a quality prop? - No wonder the Aussies are so keen to get him aboard. It will mean that they have at least one quality prop. ;-)
Posted 16:59 13th July 2012
Taking into account the current state of Irish propping reserves, the cynic in me would be thinking that if this guy couldnt make into the IRFU's reckoning after his years over here then how good could he be?
Posted 12:56 13th July 2012
@ jonesy2 - at the risk of appearing even more stoopid than I usually do, please explain your comment, "...england pick up players who have no association or affiliation with england anyway..." Even Flutey and Hape have some association, albeit tentative (and, no, I don't agree with their eligibility, but them's the rules).
Or are you just up to your usual nonsensical trolling when it comes to all things Blighty?
Posted 09:27 13th July 2012
its a pretty moot point fellas. hes a good player but he isnt close to the wallabies squad at this point in time.
APV1- i think the difference in most cases anyway is that england pick up players who have no association or affiliation with england anyway i for one dont care in the slightest who plays for england
Posted 07:07 13th July 2012
Any years in NZ are worthless !!!
Cooper didn't move, he was too young, his family moved here (after spending many summers here) and brought their children !!!!. I was referring more to his rugby, he played for Aus School BOYS. Chris Latham only took up rugby at the age of 14. Scott Higginbothom was even older so you don't have to be born with a rugby ball in your hand.
Stephen Moore was born in Saudi Arabia !! but he is 100% Australian. Just like the great All Black Andrew Mehrtens, born in South Africa !!!
At the end of the day (for any nation) it's where your heart is, who you end up playing for. Cooper is a Wallaby and a dam fine one, end of story.
Posted 05:22 13th July 2012
I think this guy has some identity issues. Why did he spend all that time in Europe, supposedly aspiring to play for the Irish national team, then go back to OZ and join the brumbies? On the subject of Quade Cooper, I would hardly say he grew up in OZ. He moved there at the age of 13, so does that mean those years spent in NZ mean nothing?
Posted 15:48 12th July 2012
Trinats2 - what's this got to do with the NZ-passport holder and citizen QC? He is still both. I provided you the link on an earlier thread.
Murphy was born in Ireland, played in the Leinster Senior Schools team, before later joining the Leinster Academy, played for Ireland Under 19 and Under 20 level, and until this year spent five years playing rugby in Ireland/England - does not meet residency on that basis, hence reason Brumbies were only allowed to recruit him under the foreign player category not as a local.
I too could have gained an Australian passport (via residency pre-2002) but would still be disqualified by ARU for exactly the same reason - not born there, not lived there for the past three years.
Posted 07:24 12th July 2012
|All times are local|
|Friday , May 31|
|Crusaders vs Waratahs||08:35|
|Brumbies vs Hurricanes||10:40|
|Saturday , June 1|
|Highlanders vs Blues||08:35|
|Reds vs Melbourne Rebels||10:40|
|Stormers vs Southern Kings||16:05|
|Cheetahs vs Bulls||18:10|
|Friday , June 7|
|Brumbies vs Melbourne Rebels||10:40|
|Sunday , June 9|
|Western Force vs Waratahs||07:05|
|Friday , June 28|
|Chiefs vs Hurricanes||08:35|
|Saturday , June 29|
|Highlanders vs Crusaders||08:35|
|More Super Rugby fixtures|
|All times are local|
|Saturday , May 25|
|Blues 13 - 20 Brumbies|
|Western Force 19 - 18 Highlanders|
|Southern Kings 22 - 34 Cheetahs|
|Sharks 16 - 18 Bulls|
|Stormers 20 - 15 Reds|
|Friday , May 24|
|Chiefs 28 - 19 Crusaders|
|Melbourne Rebels 24 - 22 Waratahs|
|Saturday , May 18|
|Crusaders 23 - 3 Blues|
|Waratahs 28 - 22 Brumbies|
|Bulls 35 - 18 Highlanders|
|More Super Rugby results|