RugbyRebels

According to Bernard Laporte. Major change in direction for them and full marks for taking a principled stand.

Puja

Puja wrote:According to Bernard Laporte. Major change in direction for them and full marks for taking a principled stand.

Puja

It's a very interesting move. Quite where it leaves the converts, I'm not sure but I can't say I have a huge amount of sympathy for them. I do hope that's it's not a prelude to arguing that passport should be the ONLY criterion.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Puja wrote:According to Bernard Laporte. Major change in direction for them and full marks for taking a principled stand.

Puja

It's a very interesting move. Quite where it leaves the converts, I'm not sure but I can't say I have a huge amount of sympathy for them. I do hope that's it's not a prelude to arguing that passport should be the ONLY criterion.

Apparently anyone who's already been capped is exempt (although Vakatawa, Atonio and Nakataci have already got passports or are just about to).

Puja

I applaud him for taking a stand; and wouldn't object if England did something similar (or all the tier 1 nations TBH); but passports would ve the wrong line in the sand to draw for the IRB - they really do need to push it out beyond 1 RWC cycle, or standard contract though. 5 years is still my favoured option.

Basing it on passports is daft, and of course this mayn't survive beyond Laporte.

As said before, it is not retroactive. All players who have played for France in the past will still be able to play for France.

This measure is to add to the previous measure which insured that a certain number of French Qualified players should be on every French professional Club's team sheet. This will ensure that young developing French players get game time.

Still doesn't feel like French players getting game time is the issue. Week to week there must be more French players picking up club caps than in just about any other nation

Digby wrote:Basing it on passports is daft, and of course this mayn't survive beyond Laporte.

French passports is a good idea in my opinion. In order to get one, you need to have lived in the country 5 years, speak and understand the language, and pass a test showing knowledge of French culture and customs. That sounds like a reasonable test of whether someone has made a country their home or not.

Wouldn't work internationally, of course, as the criteria for acquiring a passport varies so drastically, but for France I think it works just fine.

Puja

Or at least made a country their home for now. And I'd still think they should stay with IRB rules, partly to avoid a cross head coach, partly to avoid restraint of trade issues, though I'd support a change in IRB rules.

Puja wrote:French passports is a good idea in my opinion. In order to get one, you need to have lived in the country 5 years, speak and understand the language, and pass a test showing knowledge of French culture and customs. That sounds like a reasonable test of whether someone has made a country their home or not.

Wouldn't work internationally, of course, as the criteria for acquiring a passport varies so drastically, but for France I think it works just fine.

Alternatively, to get a French passport (IIRC) you just have to come from a country speaking French as a first language, and have lived there for 6 months...

Either way, the IRB need to increase the residency; and need to keep it at a set number of years, otherwise it's different rules for different nations.

Digby wrote:Or at least made a country their home for now. And I'd still think they should stay with IRB rules, partly to avoid a cross head coach, partly to avoid restraint of trade issues, though I'd support a change in IRB rules.

I don't think there'll be any restraint of trade issues - it's up to the union who they want to pick for a national team. It's just like England, Argentina and NZ having rules on not selecting players playing outside their leagues - Arg could have Imhoff, but they choose not to. It's not restraint of trade; it's a selection policy.

Puja

Well done, Bernard.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Or at least made a country their home for now. And I'd still think they should stay with IRB rules, partly to avoid a cross head coach, partly to avoid restraint of trade issues, though I'd support a change in IRB rules.

I don't think there'll be any restraint of trade issues - it's up to the union who they want to pick for a national team. It's just like England, Argentina and NZ having rules on not selecting players playing outside their leagues - Arg could have Imhoff, but they choose not to. It's not restraint of trade; it's a selection policy.

Puja

Sounds like restraint of trade. And if you're 24 months into a 36 month qualification having left maybe NZ or Australia you mayn't have much to lose asking the question

Digby wrote:Still doesn't feel like French players getting game time is the issue. Week to week there must be more French players picking up club caps than in just about any other nation

England and South Africa probably are better off. The main problem is game time for young players in order to improve their development.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Or at least made a country their home for now. And I'd still think they should stay with IRB rules, partly to avoid a cross head coach, partly to avoid restraint of trade issues, though I'd support a change in IRB rules.

I don't think there'll be any restraint of trade issues - it's up to the union who they want to pick for a national team. It's just like England, Argentina and NZ having rules on not selecting players playing outside their leagues - Arg could have Imhoff, but they choose not to. It's not restraint of trade; it's a selection policy.

Puja

Sounds like restraint of trade. And if you're 24 months into a 36 month qualification having left maybe NZ or Australia you mayn't have much to lose asking the question

Doesn't sound much like a restraint of trade to me. Certainly not more than a requirement to play in the country or even a 3 year qualification period.

Puja wrote:According to Bernard Laporte. Major change in direction for them and full marks for taking a principled stand.

Puja

Good plan. It shouldn't be the only criterion of course, but it's a useful indicator of nationality.