ARU say no to increased residency rule

[Peat]

Sorry, i do not understand. Could you elaborate? Is it a money issue?
If they are very good, like the people i think you and i have in mind, why can't they make money playing for a club, but still play for their country (and make no extra money out of that)?

To be crystal clear, i wouldn't mind, at all, if a player picked club over country. His choice and i am fine with that. What i do have a problem with is players getting to cherry pick which country they can play for.

First off, there's the extra money.

Then as the Mole notes, being eligible for whichever country it is tends to be good for your club, which tends to be good for your career.

Finally - a guy picks England (or Aus, or NZ) over Fiji, he plays at the highest level of rugby. He has a shot at winning the World Cup. He'll play other Tier 1 countries a lot more. Any guy that goes into rugby thinking "I want to be the best", he wants to play for a Tier 1 country.

There's a lot of incentives for a player from a Tier 2 nation to play for a Tier nation.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Ok, got your point.
I disagree then. If you are telling me this would make the difference between him making minimum wage and being exploited in borderline ilegal working conditions vs a USD 100K a year contract, fair enough, i see your point. But here we are talking about a player being well off vs being really well off.
The decision to play for a country should never be based on money. Called me naive, romantic, but that's the way i see it.
Chips fall one way and you need to deal with it. Otherwise the entire concept of playing for a national team lacks sense. They can make as much money as they want playing for a club, win the SR and get sponsors. He does not need to play for another country.

There's a lot of incentives for a player from a Tier 2 nation to play for a Tier nation.

Same goes the other way around. Tier one guy cannot make it in his national team, but his grandfather has passport from tier 2/3, so he can get to play a world cup. Argentina has players in Uruguay and Italy.
@Immenso

Check what has happened in other sports in Argentina, some with a LOT more money involved. You have a plethora of argentine soccer players that have played for other teams (Italy, Uruguay, Spain, France, etc.) some of them even becoming world champions with their "adopted" countries. However, we have, throughout our history, only a handful of players playing for our national team that were not born and raised on Argentina.
We do not see it as a choice. We export players, we do not, and we pride ourselves of that, import players to our national teams.

What if there is a young Uruguayan abdolutely tearing it up in Arg amateur club rugby, if he wants to play pro rugby would his chances be better if he doesn't declare for Uruguay? Wil that open up a chance to play pro with the Jaguares?

He can play for Jaguares (or any pro team he chooses) and play for the Teros, not for the Pumas. I wouldn't want him to play for the Pumas. He is not Argentine.
Maybe the problem lies on the eligibility rules (meaning you need to play for a local team to play for the national team).

 

[die_mole]

Ok, got your point.
I disagree then. If you are telling me this would make the difference between him making minimum wage and being exploited in borderline ilegal working conditions vs a USD 100K a year contract, fair enough, i see your point. But here we are talking about a player being well off vs being really well off.
The decision to play for a country should never be based on money. Called me naive, romantic, but that's the way i see it.
Chips fall one way and you need to deal with it. Otherwise the entire concept of playing for a national team lacks sense. They can make as much money as they want playing for a club, win the SR and get sponsors. He does not need to play for another country.


Same goes the other way around. Tier one guy cannot make it in his national team, but his grandfather has passport from tier 2/3, so he can get to play a world cup. Argentina has players in Uruguay and Italy.
@Immenso

Check what has happened in other sports in Argentina, some with a LOT more money involved. You have a plethora of argentine soccer players that have played for other teams (Italy, Uruguay, Spain, France, etc.) some of them even becoming world champions with their "adopted" countries. However, we have, throughout our history, only a handful of players playing for our national team that were not born and raised on Argentina.
We do not see it as a choice. We export players, we do not, and we pride ourselves of that, import players to our national teams.


He can play for Jaguares (or any pro team he chooses) and play for the Teros, not for the Pumas. I wouldn't want him to play for the Pumas. He is not Argentine.
Maybe the problem lies on the eligibility rules (meaning you need to play for a local team to play for the national team).

Except in soccer which club team you play for has little to do with wether or not you are eligible to play for their nation.

If a tier one player switches to eligibility to tier two nation clubs in the tier one nation may be less likely to sign you since they are expected to have a certain amount of domestic players.

Would the jaguares waste a spot on the team with a non-argentine player? Sure they CAN play for them but the UAR owns the jaguares so pumas come first.

And we are not only talking about top level players, we are talking about possibly borderline players who their nationality means the difference between them playing professionally or not.

Rugby treats the club game so much differently than other sports so you really can't make any comparisons.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Except in soccer which club team you play for has little to do with wether or not you are eligible to play for their nation.

Until a year ago, actually less, any Argentine could play in the Pumas regardless of which club he played for.
There are quite a few Unions that still allow it.

Would the jaguares waste a spot on the team with a non-argentine player?

Brumbies have an Argentine.
So did the Sunwolves.
Why not?

And we are not only talking about top level players, we are talking about possibly borderline players who their nationality means the difference between them playing professionally or not.

Give me an example to make it more tangible please.

Rugby treats the club game so much differently than other sports so you really can't make any comparisons.

Comparisons are inevitable.
Just as there are many aspects i love about Rugby, being able to pick nationalities is not something i like.
I understand why it happens and i accept it, just dont ask me to be happy about it!

 

[profitius]

Looking at their team now, its no wonder they don't want any changes.

 

[Zootalaws]

You don't see many SR players in NZ coming from other countries, except for the normal economic migration from a dependency to their protecting nation. You also don't see many players wearing black that weren't, if not born, then at least raised there, so 'poaching' rules are going to hit them disproportionately.

Spending a few hundred thousand bucks getting a kid to the top of SR level only to have that investment purloined by another country must be galling, but the other side of that coin is that if the kid isn't going to get a run in a black shirt and he's able to live in another country via nationality eligibility, then have at it.

The issue comes when someone is offered wads of cash to switch allegiances. For some, especially Island kids, it's a no-brainer. Get $50k a year playing in a div1 or SR team in NZ or Australia, or £150K+ playing in France or Japan or the U.K.

Like it or not, it's a professional sport and restricting where a player plays and how much he gets paid would go down well in my profession, I don't see why it should in rugby. Most other sports have an eligibility rule to allow players no longer in their prime to continue to be useful and to continue to do what they are good at, why is rugby so entrenched? I suspect it's the result of politicking by the RFU, FFR, SRFU and WRU, and by very few others. Maybe the ockers, but they like to moan about every flipping thing and to play with the rules until it tilts the playing field in their direction.

My only gripe is those Eastern Europeans and Africans and islander boys given one run-out with England or France or NZ or Oz, say, who are then forever prevented from playing for the country of their birth. It's just wrong. Set a suitable period of time since their last game and then they become eligible to play for their home nation - not another country that they might be nationality-eligible for, but the land of their national identity.

There will always be issues, but a sensible committee from the IRB could adjudicate. The problem with inviolate rules is they are often most unfair to the very people they are set up to protect.

- - - Updated - - -

Except in soccer which club team you play for has little to do with wether or not you are eligible to play for their nation.

If a tier one player switches to eligibility to tier two nation clubs in the tier one nation may be less likely to sign you since they are expected to have a certain amount of domestic players.

Would the jaguares waste a spot on the team with a non-argentine player? Sure they CAN play for them but the UAR owns the jaguares so pumas come first.

And we are not only talking about top level players, we are talking about possibly borderline players who their nationality means the difference between them playing professionally or not.


Rugby treats the club game so much differently than other sports so you really can't make any comparisons.

Club/country eligibility rules are decided by the respective unions.

NZRFU categorically stated that if you went overseas, you weren't going to get picked. Until Carter wanted to do it, then they relented, but called it a sabbatical, even though he did it for multiple years.

NZRFU, like the Argentine union (my apologies, I can't recall their name) have a conveyor-belt of players filling teams all over the globe, they can afford to be picky. Scotland, England, France, Italy, not so much.

 

[ratsapprentice]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...ws-for-new-fiveyear-test-rugby-residency-rule

 

[ALJ]

We Argentines pride ourselves of that, and one of the very few exceptions i can think of is Higuain in our soccer team, which is kinda tricky.
He was born in France while his father, also a pro soccer player, was playing there. Still, under Argentine law you are Argentine is either parent is too.

Supporting by this article - make interesting reading on the last RWC:
http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2015/09/13/foreign-born-players-rwc-2015/

 

[Car]

I came across this article today, some nice stats and maps there:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...4/england-revealed-as-the-home-of-the-poacher

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I came across this article today, some nice stats and maps there:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...4/england-revealed-as-the-home-of-the-poacher

Interesting and shows how farcical recent years have been for international rugby. Also reminds me of one of the reasons why Scotland aren't my team. Although with more than four out of ten of their players consistently being born outside Scotland I'm not sure it is technically possible to follow a "Scottish" side in the international game. And yes, in their defence they use the parental rule a fair bit, which I don't have a problem with (the grandparent rule is a nonsense though).

And yes, Italy are just as bad - but I don't have an issue with it for countries that are struggling to attain comfortable Tier 1 status (which is argue Italy are).

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What a load of horse ****.
I only made it a few paragraphs in but that they think 14yr old dylan Hartley convinced his parents to move to England so he could fulfil his dreams of getting spotted by the Worcester Warriors academy (or maybe they think wuss sent scouts down under?) is just ridiculous


Edit: they're also claiming that English players born in Germany while their parents were stationed there in the armed forces are poached from Germany!

 

[Maverick1987]

What a load of horse ****.
I only made it a few paragraphs in but that they think 14yr old dylan Hartley convinced his parents to move to England so he could fulfil his dreams of getting spotted by the Worcester Warriors academy (or maybe they think wuss sent scouts down under?) is just ridiculous


Edit: they're also claiming that English players born in Germany while their parents were stationed there in the armed forces are poached from Germany!

Haha this is so true . They also claim since 2005 England is the "land of the poachers" despite putting up stats that prove that Scotland and Australia have played more foreign born players in the same time frame . I knew the NZ media was terrible but this may as well have been scribed in human excrement on a wall in a cave somewhere near the lord of the rings filming set so it can be even more fantasy like ....

 

[smartcooky]

Edit: they're also claiming that English players born in Germany while their parents were stationed there in the armed forces are poached from Germany!

Same sh¡te different target

I used to hear accusations that England poached Simon Shaw from Kenya (Shaw was born in Nairobi). The fact that Shaw's Dad was an expat Englishman who returned England (via a few years in Spain) shortly after Shaw was born doesn't seem to deflect from this stupidity.

Personally, I think the writer (Ben Strang) is just having some fun on a slow news day.

For years we have had to put up with the outright lies perpetrated by British sports jocks such as Jones, Gallagher, Butler and John Reason about NZRU poaching Pacific Island talent. Its good to get some revenge for that, and if it means stretching the truth a bit to make copy, that just goes to show that NZ jocks have learned well from the Masters!!

 

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, new day, same ****.
In the same way I wouldn't want British sports fans to be judged by opinion pieces in the Daily Heil; I'm not going to judge Kiwi fans by the opinions of random journalist #6

If someone comes along and uses this article as "proof" of English poaching; then I'll deconstruct it - until then, it's just so many words.

 

[Immenso]

What a load of horse ****.
they're also claiming that English players born in Germany while their parents were stationed there in the armed forces are poached from Germany!

Huh?

I've just read the article, it says;

"England have four players born in Germany, two from Trinidad and Tobago, one from the United States, and several more over that time period, none of which moved for rugby. Those were family moves."

- - - Updated - - -

What a load of horse ****.
I only made it a few paragraphs in but that they think 14yr old dylan Hartley convinced his parents to move to England so he could fulfil his dreams of getting spotted by the Worcester Warriors academy (or maybe they think wuss sent scouts down under?) is just ridiculous

I think both you, and the author, are wrong on Hartley.

I believe he left NZ after school, and travelled to england basically as a backpacker , played some rugby and one thing lead to another.

He was 18, 19. Not a A 14 year old with his parents. But neither did he move for the intendion of playing for England as the author states. Whether he even moved with any pro rugby intentions is not clear to me.

 

[Da Grappla]

This is what international rugby looks like nowadays

France

New Zealand

 

[Maverick1987]

Huh?

I've just read the article, it says;

"England have four players born in Germany, two from Trinidad and Tobago, one from the United States, and several more over that time period, none of which moved for rugby. Those were family moves."

- - - Updated - - -


I think both you, and the author, are wrong on Hartley.

I believe he left NZ after school, and travelled to england basically as a backpacker , played some rugby and one thing lead to another.

He was 18, 19. Not a A 14 year old with his parents. But neither did he move for the intendion of playing for England as the author states. Whether he even moved with any pro rugby intentions is not clear to me.

Irrespective to when he moved there (it was at the age of 16 btw) he was able to play for England immediately because his mother is English . So even if he was born in New Zealand he's half English . Why people go on about Hartley's eligibility is beyond me .... usually pretty uneducated people looking for a row tbh

Don't get me wrong if people had a whinge about Nathan Hughes I could understand although without looking at the stats I'd say every team in world rugby has one player qualified through residency don't they ?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Same sh¡te different target

I used to hear accusations that England poached Simon Shaw from Kenya (Shaw was born in Nairobi). The fact that Shaw's Dad was an expat Englishman who returned England (via a few years in Spain) shortly after Shaw was born doesn't seem to deflect from this stupidity.

Personally, I think the writer (Ben Strang) is just having some fun on a slow news day.

For years we have had to put up with the outright lies perpetrated by British sports jocks such as Jones, Gallagher, Butler and John Reason about NZRU poaching Pacific Island talent. Its good to get some revenge for that, and if it means stretching the truth a bit to make copy, that just goes to show that NZ jocks have learned well from the Masters!!

I'd point out that not all those names are English people and yet the Kiwis always target England in retaliation, even if it's a Welshman making the comments...

Also whilst searching John reason I came across this old article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/8024515/Eight-reasons-to-loathe-the-Poms-in-rugby

Seriously NZ, you wouldn't find this **** written in English media... We don't do "8 reasons to hate the Kiwis".

 

[ncurd]

Seriously NZ, you wouldn't find this **** written in English media... We don't do "8 reasons to hate the Kiwis".

Yup I don't think even The Scum resorts to that level of jingoistic nonsense during a football world cup.....they get pretty close.

 

[Unol Daleithiau]

Now that there is a professional team in Argentina, what are the rules used to grant contracts? As there is only a single team are the UAR reluctant to waste space by giving contracts to non-Pumas qualified players?

What if there is a young Uruguayan abdolutely tearing it up in Arg amateur club rugby, if he wants to play pro rugby would his chances be better if he doesn't declare for Uruguay? Wil that open up a chance to play pro with the Jaguares?

There is already a young Uruguayan with Los Jaguares. His name is Nicolás Freitas.