RugbyRebels

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/59139431

I don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand, it'd be a massive boost to the likes of Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji to be able to have back players who went for Tier 1 eligibility, but who are no longer in favour/living abroad (and for Spain et al to pick players who played for France U20s without getting themselves kicked out of the RWC). On the other hand, I remember when this used to be the rules and players would break out playing for Fiji and then refuse to play for 3 years because they wanted to play for the All Blacks. I appreciate that they're looking to put it as a "once per career" switch and also that they're ruling out residency as a qualification for a switch (but leaving in grandparents, which seems weird), but I'd be happier still if you were only allowed to move to a team that was consistently ranked lower in the World Rankings.

What's everyone else's take?

Puja

I think any change needs to be a full RWC cycle as a minimum. What I really don't want to see is a player who was "snubbed" by their favoured team for a RWC, just pitch up at the next one for their new team.
Beyond that, I've always been happy enough with the grandparent rules - Not only is it the typical degree of separation to allow a switch of passports, but I know too many 3rd generation individuals who feel that affinity for their ancestral home not to. But I do feel that there should be a sliding rule, and that a grandparent should not be equal to a parent or birth (I currently favour the "6 years residency" rule, with each grandparent knocking off 1 year, each parent knocking off 2 years, and birth knocking off 4 years - but that's my view for residency requirements, not for actvely switching once capped).

I do agree that it should be easier to allow players to drop a tier - but I'm not sure how to codify it - maybe something like "during your international exile, your new team may not have been within 10 ranking points of your old team" - but that seems too arbitrary, and a genuine move could be scuppered by a lucky result in 1 match.


Overall though, I'm not a fan of anyone switching once capped - but I don't think age-grade rugby should ever have captured anyone (which I think has been disallowed now; but not applied backwards to release those already "trapped")
I'd also be far happier with switches if the intention to switch was announced in advance; so "I wish to retired from English international rugby, as I prefer to represent Samoa" and then wait (3) years; rather than "Well, England have obviously cast me aside, but Samoa are interested"

How about (for switching)...
1 year stand-down if captured by non-senior XVs rugby (so 7s, age-grade or A).
2 year stand-down if fewer than 5 caps.
3 year stand-down if 5-10 caps.
4 year stand down for everyone else.


Added to which, a mechanism for only dropping down the rankings table, not up. An announcement could help here "at the time of announcement, the new team must be at least (5) places further down the ranking table"

Which Tyler wrote:How about (for switching)...
1 year stand-down if captured by non-senior XVs rugby (so 7s, age-grade or A).
2 year stand-down if fewer than 5 caps.
3 year stand-down if 5-10 caps.
4 year stand down for everyone else.


Added to which, a mechanism for only dropping down the rankings table, not up. An announcement could help here "at the time of announcement, the new team must be at least (5) places further down the ranking table"

I like that, although I think it's too lenient. I'd say:

3 year stand down for 1 senior cap or only non-senior caps.
4 year stand down for 2-5 caps.
5 year stand down otherwise.

I'd also allow this change to be done by residency alone, requiring a full 5 year stand down & new residency regardless. (NB I'd also require a change of nationality/passport for this, although I know some disagree with this.....).

Puja wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/59139431

I don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand, it'd be a massive boost to the likes of Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji to be able to have back players who went for Tier 1 eligibility, but who are no longer in favour/living abroad (and for Spain et al to pick players who played for France U20s without getting themselves kicked out of the RWC). On the other hand, I remember when this used to be the rules and players would break out playing for Fiji and then refuse to play for 3 years because they wanted to play for the All Blacks. I appreciate that they're looking to put it as a "once per career" switch and also that they're ruling out residency as a qualification for a switch (but leaving in grandparents, which seems weird), but I'd be happier still if you were only allowed to move to a team that was consistently ranked lower in the World Rankings.

What's everyone else's take?

Puja

All in favour of this. Far too many guys given one cap to tie them and left in the wilderness.

Well, they've changed it. Which means Tonga in particular could field a wildly different team to what they put out earlier this month

whatisthejava wrote:

Puja wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/59139431

I don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand, it'd be a massive boost to the likes of Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji to be able to have back players who went for Tier 1 eligibility, but who are no longer in favour/living abroad (and for Spain et al to pick players who played for France U20s without getting themselves kicked out of the RWC). On the other hand, I remember when this used to be the rules and players would break out playing for Fiji and then refuse to play for 3 years because they wanted to play for the All Blacks. I appreciate that they're looking to put it as a "once per career" switch and also that they're ruling out residency as a qualification for a switch (but leaving in grandparents, which seems weird), but I'd be happier still if you were only allowed to move to a team that was consistently ranked lower in the World Rankings.

What's everyone else's take?

Puja

All in favour of this. Far too many guys given one cap to tie them and left in the wilderness.

The players had a choice.

I think it is good for the Pacific Unions but seeing players celebrating is a bit over the top for me. They could have chosen the team they are eligible for at any point and now only doing so because they weren't good enough for an extended run at their 1st choice.

First players can move across in January, so it's possible we could see players converting for the 6N. I understand Lozowski is Italy-qualified and hasn't played for England since 2018...

Puja

Approved.

In order to transfer, a player must

1. Either be born in, or or have a parent or grandparent from that country
2. Must stand down from international rugby for 36 months
3. Only one change, no backsies, and each case is subject to approval by the World Rugby Regulations Committee

Lowedski to Italy would be a good move. Very handy player and unlikely to get more than 3-5 caps more for England.

I agree with this in principle but it should be 5 years. There needs to be some sense of commitment.

There is the potential for this to backfire as promising Fijian, Tongan and Samoan players will be more willing to play for NZ or Australia, knowing that they're not tied in. So the top tier might be able to poach even more ....

I'm not sure it takes 5 years to be born in a country, or have a familial link.

cashead wrote:I'm not sure it takes 5 years to be born in a country, or have a familial link.

I'm assuming he meant for the standdown period. I'd be in favour of that actually - it does feel like it should be more than a RWC cycle, so players can't flit from one side to another between competitions.

Puja

Puja wrote:

cashead wrote:I'm not sure it takes 5 years to be born in a country, or have a familial link.

I'm assuming he meant for the standdown period. I'd be in favour of that actually - it does feel like it should be more than a RWC cycle, so players can't flit from one side to another between competitions.

Puja

I think 4 years would suffice but I'd in a caveat. 4 years since last cap or if selected in the world cup squad then 4 years from the 1st of January after that world cup.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:There is the potential for this to backfire as promising Fijian, Tongan and Samoan players will be more willing to play for NZ or Australia, knowing that they're not tied in. So the top tier might be able to poach even more ....

What do people think of this point?

I mean, under the old rules an outstanding young Fijian playing in NZ might have a tough choice to make if offered a NZ cap at the price of playing for their country (ever in the future). Presumably (it would be interesting to know the actual numbers here) there would be some who would turn down the offer because burning that bridge would be too high a price to pay.

Under the new rules that same youngster would have far less reason to turn down the offer since they would not be closing down the possibility of playing for Fiji later in their career.

So the new rule is good when we consider the older players who've been captured and discarded, but potentially will make the talent-poaching even worse when we consider younger players.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:There is the potential for this to backfire as promising Fijian, Tongan and Samoan players will be more willing to play for NZ or Australia, knowing that they're not tied in. So the top tier might be able to poach even more ....

What do people think of this point?

I mean, under the old rules an outstanding young Fijian playing in NZ might have a tough choice to make if offered a NZ cap at the price of playing for their country (ever in the future). Presumably (it would be interesting to know the actual numbers here) there would be some who would turn down the offer because burning that bridge would be too high a price to pay.

Under the new rules that same youngster would have far less reason to turn down the offer since they would not be closing down the possibility of playing for Fiji later in their career.

So the new rule is good when we consider the older players who've been captured and discarded, but potentially will make the talent-poaching even worse when we consider younger players.

That does concern me somewhat, but realistically how many of Fiji's side were offered a NZ cap and turned it down? Especially with the Super Rugby eligibility rules the way they are. Tough choice maybe, but money does tend to talk.

My concern is more the other way - whether a player might be a breakout star for Fiji and use that platform to declare for NZ/Aus (or worse, be actively courted by a bigger nation).

Puja

Yes but if born and bred in Fiji and no blood ties to the other nation then they can't change. Residency doesn't count here

Croft_No.5 wrote:Yes but if born and bred in Fiji and no blood ties to the other nation then they can't change. Residency doesn't count here

Or if their great grandparent happened to be visiting Fiji on the day of their grandparent's delivery date.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:There is the potential for this to backfire as promising Fijian, Tongan and Samoan players will be more willing to play for NZ or Australia, knowing that they're not tied in. So the top tier might be able to poach even more ....

What do people think of this point?

I mean, under the old rules an outstanding young Fijian playing in NZ might have a tough choice to make if offered a NZ cap at the price of playing for their country (ever in the future). Presumably (it would be interesting to know the actual numbers here) there would be some who would turn down the offer because burning that bridge would be too high a price to pay.

Under the new rules that same youngster would have far less reason to turn down the offer since they would not be closing down the possibility of playing for Fiji later in their career.

So the new rule is good when we consider the older players who've been captured and discarded, but potentially will make the talent-poaching even worse when we consider younger players.

That does concern me somewhat, but realistically how many of Fiji's side were offered a NZ cap and turned it down? Especially with the Super Rugby eligibility rules the way they are. Tough choice maybe, but money does tend to talk.

My concern is more the other way - whether a player might be a breakout star for Fiji and use that platform to declare for NZ/Aus (or worse, be actively courted by a bigger nation).

Puja

That is indeed the question. I don't know, indeed there's no way to know for sure. How many of the Fiji, Tonga and Samoa teams play at club level for NZ/AUS and how many of those would be good enough to be considered for a NZ/AUS cap? I don't know and don't have the time to research it, but it seems plausible that there would be a few.

Yeah, I can see your point about the other way too.

3 years makes it too easy, it makes it something you would include in your career plan - 1 RWC cycle for NZ then back to Fiji for the next (or vice versa). Whereas a 5 year stand down is a longer break than most would deliberately build into their career plan - but would be great for rescuing those left in the rugby wilderness.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I agree with this in principle but it should be 5 years. There needs to be some sense of commitment.

There is the potential for this to backfire as promising Fijian, Tongan and Samoan players will be more willing to play for NZ or Australia, knowing that they're not tied in. So the top tier might be able to poach even more ....

How's it a poach when the vast majority of those same players were either born or raised in New Zealand or Australia?

It's a shitty chestnut that grows increasingly inaccurate each year.

Why not bitch about the All Blacks poaching Finlay Christie from Scotland, while you're at it?

You support Wales, right? If that's the case, I'm not sure you really have a leg to stand on in this discussion anyway. Bradley Roberts? Christ Tshiunza? Gareth Anscombe? Willis Haloholo? Johnny McNicholl? Taulape Faletau? Hadleigh Parkes?

cashead wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I agree with this in principle but it should be 5 years. There needs to be some sense of commitment.

There is the potential for this to backfire as promising Fijian, Tongan and Samoan players will be more willing to play for NZ or Australia, knowing that they're not tied in. So the top tier might be able to poach even more ....

How's it a poach when the vast majority of those same players were either born or raised in New Zealand or Australia?

It's a shitty chestnut that grows increasingly inaccurate each year.

Why not bitch about the All Blacks poaching Finlay Christie from Scotland, while you're at it?

You support Wales, right? If that's the case, I'm not sure you really have a leg to stand on in this discussion anyway. Bradley Roberts? Christ Tshiunza? Gareth Anscombe? Willis Haloholo? Johnny McNicholl? Taulape Faletau? Hadleigh Parkes?

I don't mean to offend with the informal terminology. If they're born or lived much of their lives in NZ or Australia then it's not poaching. And of course Wales is not blameless, I certainly think that the old 3 year residency rule used for Parkes, McNicholl and Halaholo was way too short (no problem with Tshiunza or Faletau, they grew up in Wales). Bradley Roberts, yeah, I'm not that impressed with a single Welsh grandparent. Anscombe, well I think we can claim anyone called Gareth .

For me the main point of this rule is to rescue players discarded by top tier nations and so strengthen weaker teams, so I'm not particularly thinking about top tier teams taking from each other eg NZ was not interested in McNicholl or Parkes, so Wales wasn't weakening NZ by using them.

It would be interesting to know the number of players affected and in what way. As I've said I'm not clear on those details, so my view on the SH is a little theoretical. My broader view is that no player should be locked into playing for one nation if they stand down for a significant period and they either have blood ties or a significant commitment to the new country.

You have to remember that New Zealand has never been a monocultural society, and for a lot of Pasifika kids growing up here, being a Kiwi and being Tongan or Cook Islander or Fijian or Samoan or Niuean etc., are not mutually exclusive concepts, and this "they must be 5 years because 5 years" comes off more like an obsession with stamping down on mostly fringe cases, at the expense of a net positive that this represents for the Pacific Island teams and players, like denying an opportunity for 9 people because 1 person abused the system.

cashead wrote:You have to remember that New Zealand has never been a monocultural society, and for a lot of Pasifika kids growing up here, being a Kiwi and being Tongan or Cook Islander or Fijian or Samoan or Niuean etc., are not mutually exclusive concepts, and this "they must be 5 years because 5 years" comes off more like an obsession with stamping down on mostly fringe cases, at the expense of a net positive that this represents for the Pacific Island teams and players, like denying an opportunity for 9 people because 1 person abused the system.

You could just as well say 'they must be 3 years because 3 years'. I'm not saying 5 years for no reason. 3 years is very little commitment - crucially less than one RWC cycle. It means that someone is much more likely to take the first offer that comes their way than play for a team that means anything more than a paycheque to them. They'll know that they can return to their real home team later in their careers, which makes selling out a whole lot easier on the conscience.

Bottom line is that I think players should only play for the nation they think of as their own. I'd much prefer not to have the Parkeses, Halaholos and McNicholls if they feel otherwise (as I suspect is the case . . . which one of them would say they were Welsh?). And I feel a mere 3 year stand down will lead to more players playing tests for mercenary reasons.

As for 'denying an opportunity for 9 people because 1 person abused the system', well obviously if those numbers are true then I'd agree with you. But are they? What are the real figures? I suspect this new rule will make it significantly easier to persuade a young player to take that contract, whether it is a choice between England and Wales, Ireland and Scotland, Fiji and New Zealand. For me, 3 years strikes the wrong balance, 5 years seems better.

I don't doubt that this change will be good in the short term, as it frees up the whole backload of players captured and discarded in the last decade. Whether it is good going forward is more debatable.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:You could just as well say 'they must be 3 years because 3 years'. I'm not saying 5 years for no reason. 3 years is very little commitment - crucially less than one RWC cycle. It means that someone is much more likely to take the first offer that comes their way than play for a team that means anything more than a paycheque to them. They'll know that they can return to their real home team later in their careers, which makes selling out a whole lot easier on the conscience.

Yep, I'd agree that it should be more than 1 world cup cycle - just as it always should have been for residency (and now is)

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Bottom line is that I think players should only play for the nation they think of as their own. I'd much prefer not to have the Parkeses, Halaholos and McNicholls if they feel otherwise (as I suspect is the case . . . which one of them would say they were Welsh?). And I feel a mere 3 year stand down will lead to more players playing tests for mercenary reasons.

given the impossibility of quantifying, and get right for every player, we're left with making a random, arbitrary rule, and applying it to everyone. Cas's point here is that plenty of people in NZ (and everywhere else - and we really should be aware of this in Britain as well) think of multiple countries as their own.

Which Tyler wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Bottom line is that I think players should only play for the nation they think of as their own. I'd much prefer not to have the Parkeses, Halaholos and McNicholls if they feel otherwise (as I suspect is the case . . . which one of them would say they were Welsh?). And I feel a mere 3 year stand down will lead to more players playing tests for mercenary reasons.

given the impossibility of quantifying, and get right for every player, we're left with making a random, arbitrary rule, and applying it to everyone. Cas's point here is that plenty of people in NZ (and everywhere else - and we really should be aware of this in Britain as well) think of multiple countries as their own.

It's important to note that residency can result in you considering a country your own as well. Quite apart from the likes of Tshiunza who moved when a baby, living somewhere as an adult for a long time can absolutely lead to you having a strong connection to it. The 3 year projects were clearly nonsense, but I never had a problem with someone like Mouritz Botha who moved here without a rugby contract and lived here for 7 years before being capped. He's gone back to SA now he's retired, but that doesn't mean that England was also his home.

Puja