Paperwork: Who needs it?
Few topics get fans hotter under the collar than the IRB's three-year residency rule, which has blurred the lines of loyalty, national pride and sporting fairness.
Last week, a national press agency released a story headlined "Strauss released to play for Scotland" in which Golden Lions president Kevin de Klerk explained how the Johannesburg team had released former captain Joshua Strauss following his "request to pursue his international career with Scotland" via a stint with Glasgow Warriors that would "make him eligible to... participate in the next World Cup."
Strauss is not Scottish by birth nor heritage, even if his impressive beard would have us believe he is a time-travelling Highlander from 1297. While you can't fault his desire to play Test rugby, it's hard not to tag him as a mercenary.
The British and Irish Lions are set to jet out to Australia next year with a squad - led by a Kiwi - likely to feature such names as Manu Tuilagi, Tim Visser, Richardt Strauss and Mouritz Botha.
Japan's squad at the 2011 World Cup was liberally sprinkled with New Zealanders and Pacific Islanders. Salesi Ma'afu is a Wallaby but his brother, Campese, plays for Fiji. A third brother, Apakuka, has played Sevens for Tonga...the list goes on and on.
It's a purist's nightmare.
But in the world of professional sport, where national teams have become commercial commodities, is it the responsibility of a team's coach/selectors to defend the integrity of that country's national identity? Is that even possible when the coach is also a foreigner?
Perhaps the question should be whether such ideas of nationality still have a place in the cultural mixing pot of today's Global Village. Should we condemn notions of exclusive nationality to the 1930s and accept that in 2012, your home is where you lay your hat?
Let's not however lose sight of the fact that rugby is steeped in tradition. Powerful images like Martin Castrogiovanni shedding a tear as he belts out his national anthem, James Small almost tearing a hole in his jersey as he tries to prevent the pride in the badge on his chest from bubbling over or Piri Weepu leading the haka are part and parcel of what has made our game so special for so long.
Compare that to the uncomfortable image of former New Zealand Rugby League international Shontayne Hape, clad in a white England jersey, mouthing the words to 'God Save the Queen' before facing his countrymen at Twickenham.
Advocates of the three-year rule will point to the example of Visser, who would probably be a popular choice for mayor of Edinburgh. The Dutchman is a world-class talent, of that there is no doubt. Would it be fair to restrict his international career to the country of his birth? (The Netherlands play in European Nations Cup division 2A with Lithuania, Malta, Croatia and Switzerland).
Visser, however, is the exception to the rule and the Crooked Feed believes that - and this a rare occurrence - the rest of the world should follow South Africa's example. In the Republic, the equation is simple: if you want to wear the green and gold, in any sport, then you must be a South African citizen, as 'Beast' Mtawarira found out (the hard way) a few years ago.
Of course that's an unworkable solution in the real world because it's just a matter of time before result-hungry governments start handing out passports will-nilly.
The easiest solution, assuming everyone agrees that there IS a problem with the current system, would be to extend the residence rule to five years, as is the case in the round-ball version of the game (much as it pains us to acknowledge that FIFA are doing something right). Of course, the three-year rule should still apply to players younger than 21.
Meanwhile, on a not-entirely-unrelated topic, we'd like to award in inaugural Idiot of the Month gong to former Springbok coach Peter de Villiers. After spending four years insisting that all his team selections were based solely on merit, P-Divvy hit out at current Bok coach Heyneke Meyer this week for not picking enough black players.
Now we're not saying that we agree with all of Meyer's choices but for PDV to insinuate that his successor is a racist is a massive call that smacks of sour grapes. It seems pretty clear to all that Meyer picks the players he thinks are right for the job whether they are black, white or blue. Especially blue.
This is an extract from our free weekly newsletter, The Crooked Feed. To read more and stand in line to win lots of weekly prizes, subscribe by clicking HERE.
Comments
tha_mai says...
a comment on the talk of players gaining citizenship, passports for their new countries - in many cases this is not possible, ever. While Asian countries are not near the top of any rankings - except for the Asian ones! - in many of them there is no option, ever, of either gaining permanent residency, citizenship or gaining a passport. Never.
so there goes that idea - otherwise we are back to a rule that applies for some countries and not others.
Posted 10:18 22nd September 2012
kybone says...
rockman- I actually don't like the residency rule as i have said previously. But you can't just keep wagging your finger at England . There have been a lot of English born sportsmen that have represented the other home nations over the years. Take football as the main example, there have been more mediocre English cast offs play their international football for Scotland, Wales, and particularly the Rep of Ireland. As ive said, i don't like it, but it happens all of the time, all over the world.
Posted 16:03 21st September 2012
quietbrit says...
If people want to embrace a new homeland and play for their adopted national team I feel that few would begrudge them. If you want to play test Rugby whatever the Jersey people feel less charitable. Regardless of the rules people should accept those who are playing legally for a Nation - rail against the rules not the players.
I would suggest the following rules:
1) 3 Years residency without exception if you are not a citizen when you turn 18.
2) Give up all other citizenships and get the appropriate passport.
3) If you have played for any other National side in ANY sport as an adult you have made your choice - they are your nation.
Posted 14:51 21st September 2012
Maubec says...
@APV1 : I think that's the best rules.
5 years on residency is a good option : you'll have to wait the next world cup to make the team.
All the others cases of eligibility are logic.
You can be born oversea and have the nationality (Dussautoir or O'Gara for examples)
And I agree for the no-eligibility if you have represented another country whatever the sport.
You can't say to supporters you're playing with all your heart Fiji in Junior, then telling the same when playing for NZ in Rugby League and the same again when playing for Australia in Rugby Union, for example (I don't know if it even happened but it could with the actual IRB rules and it also works with SA Junior, England League then Scottish Union)
And it would preserve "smaller" nations from being spoiled of some Junior players.
And for Pacific Islands, lot of Samoan players born in NZ have Samoan passport (so it's OK)
And Visser'd have waited 2 more years but wouldn't have change his mind, imo. So it's OK.
Posted 14:41 21st September 2012
jmehrtens says...
"Compare that to the uncomfortable image of former New Zealand Rugby League international Shontayne Hape, clad in a white England jersey, mouthing the words to 'God Save the Queen' before facing his countrymen at Twickenham."
It is but because God Save the Queen is the New Zealand national anthem and not the English
Posted 14:24 21st September 2012
rockman says...
@APV1
No insult intended mate, every nation has played foreign players, some more then others!
Posted 12:42 21st September 2012
APV1 says...
@ Ferdie - I guess the passport rule is a good idea except, as Waz4before mentioned, different countries have different criteria for passports. I think it should be the same across the board and set by the IRB.
It is a bit of a mess, but I think we're all roughly in the same place. So how's this then..?
Eligible:
<18 yo (when move to country) = 3 years' residency
>18 yo (when move to country) = 5 years' residency
Passport Holder
Born in country
At least 1 Parent is a passport holder
At least 2 grandparents hold passports (could be one from either side)
Ineligible:
Full Cap for a different country (regardless of the sport = no Hape for England)
"Lower-level" cap >18 yo for a country in any sport
Full cap, regardless of age, for any sport (if you're good enough to get a full cap at 17, that's the decision made)
Does that make sense?
Posted 12:27 21st September 2012
Ferdie says...
apv1 - re olympics, don't the sportspeople have to gain a passport for the country they represent ? I just thought that could be an option in terms of meeting a country's requirements rather than a particular sport's rules of the day. If they become a citizen, no problem. I'll exclude UK/Team GB as - I'll be honest - I do not know enough about the requirements of individual countries there re representation..
Re the '2nd team' well that one, as per Shingler, is a mess of a rule. Countries can nominate their 2nd team each year, and change it each year - so last year's U-21 may be 'in', this year's 'out'. A think France have changed #2 nominated teams from 2012 to 2013.
Someone mentioned Martin Johnson - I'd say that firstly his time in NZ was well before the current rule was brought into place, and secondly that either NZ 'A' or possibly NZ Juniors (which used to be Under-23) would have been next in line.
Posted 11:40 21st September 2012
APV1 says...
@ philipjfry - I did specifically mention SA, as it was in response to a SA's comment. I'd also mention Anglo Saxons and Britons, as I am English (and, of course, British).
@ Andy1000 - thanks for that. I was a little unsure on the numbers and that's a real help. I must say though, I think there has to be unity with the rules. I don't think we can have a different rule for different countries, as that would lead to advantages and disadvantages in the system.
@ chesh10 - Perhaps there should be a limit, so 18+, rather than any age...
@ rockman - I think those players mentioned are perfect examples for this debate:
Where a person is born vs where they grow up vs where they decide to settle vs who they play for.
And a country's 2nd XV has to be declared to the IRB at the time (see the Shingler debate, as a perfect example).
And please try to be civil. Insulting the English, or anyone else, is unnecessary (if you were joking, sorry that I missed it).
@ craigsman - I think that whether you play for a county you're qualified for and ply your trade "overseas" is a different debate. Is there any difference for an English player to play in France, Scotland, Ireland..? How far? Russia? They could play for Russia and probably be closer to london than Perth is to Sydney!!
@ leinsterblue - I wouldn't agree with the "last option" proposal you suggest. If they're qualified, fit and available, it should be the best person for the job. Otherwise you're penalising them. Didn't Johnno once say that it was for the other players to improve, not the other way round (or similar)?
@ Ferdie - not sure what you mean by the Olympic bit. Team GB in the Olympics could play for England as well, was my point. What've I missed?
And, other than rockman's dig (or joke..?), thanks to all for keeping this civilised. It had (still has) the potential to get daft.
Posted 10:52 21st September 2012
lawynd says...
Additionally, I was interested to read the Crooked Feed email, which expanded on this article. It went on to mention rugby's 'traditions', and cited Martin Castrogiovanni "...shedding a tear as he belts out his [Italian] national anthem."
Martin Castrogiovanni, who is of course Argentinian.
Posted 09:51 21st September 2012
lawynd says...
@rockman - I don't know about the specific criteria for the Emerging Boks, but if they were the official second-string then he wouldn't be able to play for England, unless that rule was changed after the 2006 U21 World Cup or 2007 Nations Cup. I guess this one depends on which side of the Steven Shingler issue - I certainly don't believe that age-grade rugby should tie a player to a country, otherwise quite a few English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish players would have been playing for the 'wrong' team!
Waldrom may have found an expedient way to qualify for England (and I hope by 'convenient' you don't mean it was faked!), but again, them's the rules. Brett Wilkinson, Isaac Boss and Tom Court all took advantage of the same rule. And again, for Richardt Strauss I give you Moruitz Botha, who started his career in the sixth tier of English rugby with Bedford Athletic RFUC.
And aren't Mike McCarthy and Dan Tuohy English? ;)
Posted 09:46 21st September 2012
three6three6 says...
This is a vexed question.... what is "nationality" and does it really matter anymore? Under current rules my son would be entitled to play for at least four nations right now.... should he decide to live another EU country (which he currently has the right to do) then he would become eligible for a fifth nation.
Should the eligibility be based purely upon nationality (as defined by the right to hold the passport of a particular nation) then this also poses problems.... what happens to the British National born outside of the UK? Should they get to choose which Home Nation to represent? Should there be a more suitable test relating to "family connections" with a country? Should we invoke the "Norman Tebbit cricket test" to decide on nationality? Imposing a nationality test is also problemmatic simply because some countries have different eligibility requirements - e.g. Ireland, UK and Australia.
Posted 09:25 21st September 2012
rockman says...
@ lawynd says
I did not know that Barritt had English grandparents but it has to be said that he did represent South Africa right up to A level, IRB rules state that you cannot play for another nation after representing a nations second XV, which Barritt had done twice by lining out for the Emerging Springboks. So how did he get away with this? FYI Waldrom did not know about that his grandmother was born in England until well into his quest to get three years residency, so him finding this out just before the world cup was very convenient.
I again refer to my previous post whereby i am against the Residency Rule and think it should not apply to the top ten seeded nations. But the point has been made recently about Richardt Strauss. He didn't come to Ireland to play for Ireland. Indeed when he first came he was playing AIL rugby with Blackrock College RFC and worked his way up over a few years to a starter with Leinster.
We have Best and Cronin, we don't need imports, that would lower us to English standards! I believe it would hurt grassroots rugby as foreigners could just swoop in and take home grown talents places.
Posted 08:45 21st September 2012
pog_mahone says...
I just hope we don't see any carpetbaggers on next year's Lions tour, because it's just more grist to the mill of the SH. I for one don't need to see Richardt Strauss, Moritz Botha or Thomas Waldrom kissing the Lions badge and telling us that representing the Lions is something they always wanted to do, when up to 3 or 4 years ago playing against the Lions would have been the pinnacle of their dreams. As others have said the criteria need to be much more stringent, preferably formative years and underage rugby played in the country they're representing. No Granny rules!
Posted 08:44 21st September 2012
nefari says...
If there was no residency matches against tier 2 countries will become even more humiliating. Damaging the game in those countries even more.
Josh straus will likely never play for the boks, but if he makes the scotland team, good on him and good for scotland.
Posted 06:51 21st September 2012
Ferdie says...
Change grandparent to parent - one generation. This solves the question for players born overseas eg when parents on working holiday etc. Cuts out the eg Thomas Waldroms who discover grandma was born in England.
Like many NZers I am very 'mixed heritage' - four grandparents from four different countries - I struggle to see how people have affinity/ties with a country two generations before they were born. Perhaps gaining citizenship/passport would be confirmation of this commitment - isn't that how the Olympics qualification works?
One to note for the future re the comment on 15 of the Samoan squad being born NZ, qualifying through parents/grandparents - I'd suggest that one more generation will almost see the end of this. Samoa was a NZ territory until 1962 hence the large numbers who had rights to settle here. As these numbers have bottomed out, soon fewer will have grandparents born out of NZ, removing that option.
APV1 - i disagree on your ANY other sport. Refer to Olympics criteria I think that one would fail at any legal/court level.
Posted 01:24 21st September 2012
Waz4before says...
as this is generally a matter of law if the IRB get it wrong then it will end up in court which is expensive and sporting bodies normally lose when it ends up in court as most countries law would naturally work against sporting rules and regulations ..
So you can't stop it but what you could do is align the eligibility laws with respective country residency laws e.g. in Australia it takes 5 years from arriving in the country to getting a passport - therefore 5 years should be the eligibility rule and not 3 as under current IRB guidelines (and make the rule 5 years and not whether you actually hold the passport sooner to stop cronyism issuing passports sooner than expected). Other than this I can't really see what the IRB can do about it;
Posted 23:46 20th September 2012
leinsterblue says...
agree with APV1's criteria in his first post...I would add a further caveat, and to use Richardt Strauss as an example - if he decides to declare for Ireland, then he cannot displace an Irish born hooker in the national team and cannot play unless all other options are injured...
Posted 22:38 20th September 2012
lawynd says...
@rockman - if you're ok with Tom Court, then you've got to be ok with Brad Barritt - he has two English grandparents, as well as a UK passport. The same can be said of Dylan Hartley (emigrated at 14, has an English mother), Alex Corbisiero (emigrated at 5, has an English mother), Matt Stevens (has English parents), Thomas Waldrom (has an English grandmother) and Charlie Sharples (has English parents). Mouritz Botha and Manu Tuilagi qualify solely on residency but the former has played all of his rugby in England (since 2004) and the latter completed all of his schooling in England from secondary onward.
Posted 22:27 20th September 2012
melkdave says...
If you ask me the residancy rules work ok atm,there is alot of movement between countries today.As people look further afield for work .In the past people went to the USA for new oppotunties ect,now its more wifespread,with greeks,spainish,australians ,New Zealanders africans from many countries,and British moving aal round the world,and making new lives for themselves and families.Some while have children already ,some will have children in their adopted country,while others will stay for 3-5 yrs then return to their homeland .Its a very complicated situation imo,and a fair balance has to be struck in regards to nationality in representing countries.Also lets remember that their is no country called Wales .or Scotland or for that matter England ,all are part of the United Kiongdom,In therory any player in those countries could play for any other quite easily under EU law if they really wanted or those born in N.Ireland
Posted 22:08 20th September 2012