Pick a country, any country!
This week we will mostly be concerning ourselves with the three-year rule, the need for a single global disciplinary body and the coming around of the gone around...
We are not entirely sure what has suddenly brought the issue to prominence as it's been a bugbear for some for yonks, but the issue of the three-year residency rule now needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency.
England's call-up of Mako Vunipola appears to have finally cracked the ring-pull on the can of worms, but there have been disgruntled utterings for donkey's years about New Zealand's tribal gathering, as well as Australia's.
The English would appear to have been the most brazen about it all, should the accusations levelled at them by Fiji coach Inoke Mali prove to be founded. The French are supposedly not far behind.
Most disturbing is the accusation that the unions and clubs are luring teenagers across the globe to their academies accusations levelled at them by Fiji coach Inoke Mali; and with the networks among the ranks of the pros, not to mention the money available, growing by the day, the whole process is not going to stop unless better regulated.
But the question always to be asked is not if the three-year rule could be altered to protect the interests of tier two - we know the answer to that one and always have - but how.
Well, we certainly think you could change the rule to only permit people allowed passports of their adopted country to play for that country. That way you stop people heading over in their early twenties - such as Mouritz Botha - and using up the spots in a national squad to which they simply have no right to, spots for which born citizens would give their eye teeth to be filling.
However, it would also allow the flexibility for someone like Toby Faletau, who has been in Wales since the age of seven and is now naturalised, to play for the country he has grown up in. Obviously there's a conflict of interest for people born in a country but who have never lived there, but maybe here you could invoke a three-year residency clause?
That's one suggestion. We are sure there are others. But one thing's for sure, when you have - as Male claims - people born to parents of country A, in country A, and growing up in country A all with realisable ambitions of playing for country B, you have a system which is doing nothing whatsoever to protect the interests of the smaller nations who work hard to.
You also have national identities for sale, naive teenagers being whisked across the world to a future far from certain and places in a national squad at the very highest level up for sale rather than for privilege. We don't think that is what international rugby should be all about...
Both Andy Hazell and Sisa Koyamaibole are going to be weighing up their actions this week after copping 14 and 12-week bans respectively for their transgressions in the Amlin Challenge Cup.
But it's barely imaginable that biting is given a lesser punishment than Hazell's furious assault on a Mont-de-Marsan player. Hazell lost control for sure, but biting someone is just savagery - surely given the dangers involved in a human bite, that's is almost as serious as gouging?
The disciplinary inconsistency problem is not going to go away until someone wakes up and realises that there needs to be some form of single independent body examining these cases globally. Admittedly, there would be logistical problems in getting players to hearings, but these are also the days of Skype and a myriad of other media creating conference calls.
In one fell swoop you rid the disciplinary verdicts of the obvious manoeuvres which frequently contrive to allow miscreants to be available for all their important games, you also let players know a precise and consistent precedent, something currently glaringly absent from the system...
It was amusing listening to the wailing from Premier Rugby Chief Mark McCafferty this week as he twigged that there had been a meeting of the nations and clubs involved in the ERC restructuring wrangle without his presence.
"It was a flawed attempt to divide and rule and it failed," said McCafferty.
And your television deal for a tournament not sanctioned by anyone present at this offensive secret meeting you are so upset about was what, precisely?
Loose pass compiled by Richard Anderson
Comments
JayStarr says...
@ TV Addict: You're right that not all countries have the same criteria for naturalising as citizens... but if you look at the major rugby playing countries, they are not actually that dissimilar. I also think that if the country in question accepts the player as a citizen according to their laws - the same as with everyone else (as opposed to a sped-up process because they want you to play for their national team) - then the IRB should also accept the player as a citizen of that country...
As for the UK - why would you need to make a UK team? Why not just stick the the same criteria which has allowed four teams to exist within the UK and not allowed players (with the same passports) playing for other teams? You don't see Adam Jones being picked for the England squad do you..? There are already criteria in place there - so whichever team you end up playing for, that is your team.
@ DrPain: The IRB can't over-rule countries' laws on who they consider to be citizens. Even though different countries have different criteria, they do not differ by THAT much. And besides, if a country says "yes, this person is a citizen of ours", who are we to say they are not? What we don't want to see is players getting preferential treatment just because the administrators of that country wants them to play for the national team. But if the player has gone through the same process as everyone else to become a citizen, then they should be allowed to play for that country...
Also, I lived in SA until I was 20, and then moved to the UK, where I lived until I was 30... I have been back in SA studying now for 2 years. Trust me, I feel as British as I do South African. I miss "home" a lot - crap weather and all. The age of 0 to 10 really does not count for much... And leaving your parents' home and becoming an independent adult counts for a lot. So it's not that simple.
Posted 11:34 30th October 2012
isthatrightref says...
The problem with the various formulae put forward by APV1, DrPain etc (which I tend to agree with) is the potential destruction of Samoan & Tongan rugby to the benefit of the already strong (NZ, Australia, the Euro unions) & the "other" rugby.
Mass migration from the Islands to NZ & Oz began roughly 40 years ago: the expat children of that "1st wave" are now approaching or already at grandparent age & the flow of new migrants isn't as large as it was 25 - 40 years ago.
Unless 2nd & subsequent generation expats start returning to the Islands to live (which seems unlikely for economic reasons) or at least to have their children born there, both Samoa & Tonga are headed for a major player shortage as they become more & more reliant on their resident players & the children & grandchildren of the more recent migrants.
The days of Samoa having 15 NZ-born players in a 30-man squad are numbered & believe me, the other code will have no hesitation in using international footy as bait to make further inroads into the PI community (apparently 40% of players in the NRL's U20 comp are of polynesian descent & the last Warriors U20 match I saw there were, I think, 15 noticably polynesian surnames in the match-day 17).
Equally obviously, NZ & Australia & to a lesser degree the Euro unions will continue to cherry-pick the available talent which is sustainable when the pool is fairly large but less so as it gets smaller.
I don't know how the IRB can get around this one other than to have one rule for Tier 1 & another for Tier 2 (in which case what happens if Samoa and/ or Tonga come to be regarded as Tier 1, which should surely be one of the IRB's objectives in terms of "growing the game globally"), which seems unsatisfactory... thoughts anyone, esp those most affected i.e. the PI community ?
Posted 11:22 30th October 2012
philipjfry says...
I agree with most of the hard-liners: Citizenship = possible selection, regardless of level playing field. But I would make an exception for a marquee player of some kind, like Mike Harris, who clearly had the ability all along but not the good fortune to get selected for the country of his birth. A similar argument can be made for Tim Visser, but not for Riki Flutey or Shontayne Hape.
Posted 10:32 30th October 2012
lawynd says...
@Sasquatch - Barritt is a South African-born UK passport holder, with Zimbabwean parents.
Posted 10:21 30th October 2012
new_j4a says...
@scum sincero, who says with sarcasm that he feels he needs to identify "literacy and logic are clearly your forte." Don't you find it just a little bit ironic that you leap with glee on minor errors made by others while making substantial errors yourself in the exact same snide remarks you are making? I suggest that you check your use of the infinitive form of the verb "bleat" and that you try to remember that, when a quote is closed at the end of a sentence, the period ending the sentence goes inside the quote. Feel free to send a letter to Dublin City University and ask for a refund....they failed to turn a knacker into a man of letters.
Posted 09:08 30th October 2012
new_j4a says...
In addition to all of the other good points against using passports (differing criteria, UK, RoI, etc), here's another: many people hold multiple passports. Even JayStarr would be eligible for SA and at least one "country" in the U.K., or maybe even several of the pseudo nations England, Ireland, Scotland, or Wales.
@DrPain, your "half life" proposal works better than any other I have seen IF you want to keep the playing field tilted in favor of the SH talent factories (I don't) and IF you are only considering the case of 2 countries of potential eligibility (my son has 3 passports and is eligible for a 4th based on ethnic heritage/parents) and has lived roughly a third of his life in each country of citizenship but not yet half in any. How would you deal with this case?
@scum sincero, could you please check my spelling and come back with one of your witty criticisms. (I wish I had gone to Dublin City University.) By the way, in discussions like this, does it feel a bit hypocritical that our Irish "national" team includes such a big chunk of the U.K?
Posted 08:27 30th October 2012
curlymac says...
Just make it that you need to live in a country for 10 years to play for them. nice and simple.
Posted 04:54 30th October 2012
Sincero says...
Well done, Mr. Anderson, on your honest criticism of the dirty tactics employed by Mc.Cafferty, and the idiotic position the English clubs find themselves in.
APV1, you are quite correct- you have of course misunderstood both the nature of this column, and the basic concept of journalism. This is an editorial piece, and is of course opinion, which is not at odds with journalism! Ha.
And furore has just the two Rs in it. How refreshing to hear the usual apologists for 'Premier Rugby' to bleat out the same miserable lines about anyone who mocks their idiocy or their underhandedness being 'anti-English'.
So many complexes!! 'Your almost as bad as the trolls! :-'( ' [sic], he whines! A stunningly well reasoned argument, APV1... literacy and logic are clearly your forte. How are you on obvious sarcasm?
Posted 04:05 30th October 2012
chocol8thunda says...
bokbokbok, couldn't agree more. would be interesting though, to see test sides made up completely of born players. Australia definitely wouldn't be top 3, SA and NZ would still be top 3. Also, isn't it time that the NZ Maori be abolished? Any team based on racial grounds is fucked up. To think NZ has had this team for ever, says something about them. That would be like Canada having a hockey team made up solely of Natives or SA having a team of only white....er..right, they abolished that. lol
Test rugby needs an overhaul.
Posted 23:50 29th October 2012
Sasquatch says...
@lawynd:
Just checking here because I'm not sure, but do you realise that Mtawarira and Mujati are both Zimbabwean? How does Brad Barritt fit into your analogy?
Posted 22:09 29th October 2012
irishinlondon says...
So, on the Eligibility situation I think every one is in agreement that change is needed, Richart Strauss has recently been selected for Ireland which saddened me, I have long been proud that Ireland had not used this clause, Paul Warwick would be an example, Aussie playing in Ire 5 years and married to a Mallow woman was prob playing better than O'Gara for Munster in the days before Sexton really hit the scene yet was not chosen, A year or two later up steps Sexton. But hey its a professional game so you cant blame the nations only beg the IRB to review and reform the situation.
With regards to the ERC and the meeting, loved the comment. To those of you reaction, that is what the author was looking for, however it is a good point, okay PRL had served notice but how do you set up a new comp when one nation has already agreed rights, and therefore fees in a day when TV rights supply the bulk of income. After all the broadcasters in England tend to serve Scotland, Wales and NI, in some cases ROI.
Lastly as stupid as Higginbothem's knee and subsequent head but was and it was, it was petulant and was never going to cause harm. Hazell on the other hand, that was a viscous relenting attack, a flurry of punches followed up with a knee! A reaction is a smack or two, and I stand to be corrected but in his sentencing i quote "Taking into account aggravating factors, he added a further two weeks given Hazell's disciplinary record and his failure to uphold the image of the game" so he obviously has previous. So I don't think these two offences should ever be compared lads.
Christ most i've written since I left School!
Posted 21:19 29th October 2012
DrPain says...
I like the citizenship/passport idea, but as melkdave pointed out different countries have different citizenship criteria meaning an uneven playing field.
To keep it simple how about saying that in order to be eligible for a country for which you are not a citizen/do not hold a passport you have to have lived there for over half of your life. That way you are "more English" (in this case) than anything else. If you look at examples of how this might work out I think it looks pretty reasonable:
Moved over as a baby - eligible whenever (no arguments, obviously)
Moved aged 9 years - eligible aged 18 (seems fair)
Moved aged 20 years - not going to be eligible until you're 40 (again, this seems right... if you've lived somewhere until you're 20 e.g. South Africa you are clearly South African, and shouldn't be eligible to play for anyone else)
I agree with APV1's comments regarding playing age group / other sports etc.
What do people think? I'd love some feedback: it just might work...
Posted 18:51 29th October 2012
swiwi says...
@bokbok. That's right - if you have a Polynesian skin you can't possibly be a Kiwi...
Posted 18:50 29th October 2012
StunTheMullet says...
Restricting to passport holders would certainly mean a lot of players no longer eligible for Tonga, Samoa, Oztralia, Pomgolia etc.
Posted 18:50 29th October 2012
crunchfit says...
@craigsman
The deal apparently included Premiership sides' HCup games (just in England I think, can't remember exactly), as well as their Premiership games. He doesn't seem to have mixed up facts on that issue at least.
Posted 18:35 29th October 2012
JayStarr says...
@ APV1: With "passport" I mean full citizenship. You can only get a passport if you have full citizenship, so whether they have applied for a passport or not is irrelevant - I meant as being a full citizen.
Posted 18:31 29th October 2012
Isograford says...
There's a grand total of two foreign born players in the new All Blacks squad and their run on XV has none, unlike most other countries. People who talk about NZ poaching have zero clue about Auckland being the largest polynesian city in the world...absolutely zero.
Posted 18:25 29th October 2012
jmanngod says...
The "disgruntled utterings for donkey's years about New Zealand's tribal gathering" have TIME AND TIME again be shown to be wrong though! No case to answer. Why must you add to that particular LIE by bringing it up. As has actually be shown to be the case NZ LOSES more players to foreign teams than is the other way around. DO NOT hide the poaching of players from countries by pointing the finger at NZ's Citizens of Island descent to help with your excuse making.
Posted 18:11 29th October 2012
olepete says...
Lots of lawyer fodder in some of these ideas. I like 3 years for pre-18 arrival and 5 for post-18 along with disqualification for representing another country at full international level. No passports, great uncles or other foibles.
Posted 17:24 29th October 2012
TVaddict says...
@lawynd, @APV1
Well I read this earlier and was going to write all the reasons this article is a waste of the internet space it's stored on, but you guys have already done a good job so I'll leave it at that. Completely agree with you guys.
@JayStarr
Originally I thought the passport idea sounded good, but when you really think about it it wouldn't work. As other people have pointed out different countries have different processes to attain a passport, with different residency time, different criteria, etc... That would make it an unfair system to begin with. Then we have the fact that Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England all have UK passports. So in effect we'd have to make a UK team and a Republic of Ireland team. Would work.
@bokbokbok
Yeah, I thought that was a bit racist to.
And as pointed out the TV deal was as legal as ERCs so whats your point?
All in all, some shoddy journalism. An apology would be nice, but I've been waiting for The Daily Mail to do the same so I guess just another example of the terrible media in this country.
Posted 17:22 29th October 2012