Jean Kleyn

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Is that going to hurt tier 2 rugby though? I'd say it'd be more valuable to, using your example, Dutch rugby if they had a superstar who played a few games for the Netherlands, was way above the level and got his break for the Books playing in world cup semi finals and finals.

I believe it does, yes. You can get a short term bump in talent, sure but it
a) Hurts development at local level
b) destroys the incentives of the teams they are competing against. Again, i implore you, talk to people from Georgia, Romania, Chile or Uruguay and ask them. Take it from the horse's mouth. What do they think of what is going on with Pac islanders and player selection. They are all, unequivocally furious. They've spent blood, sweat, and tears to get where they are and now.

Italy and Georgia have invested in underage structures that will eventually pay dividends, the signs are there.

That's the thing. Whether that pays dividends or not depends to a not-so-small degree on how they do against the competition and these measures benefit the competition and not them. Their incentives to invest in underage structures go down, not up. I dont have the numbers but if i were a betting man i'd be willing to wager it's considerably cheaper to poach players than to invest at grassroots and local RU to achieve the same result. Basically you'd be piggybagging on some other RU's development system and getting the scraps from the big boys table. Is that what we want tho? Not me.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

South Africans and Irish aside for hopefully obvious reasons, are the rest of you ok with this? Please don't throw the rulebook at me. I am well aware he is allowed to do that. My question is more along the lines of what would you prefer? What would you like to see?

In case anyone missed it



I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like it, not one bit. But on the other hand I see glimpses of gargantuan sincerity in his speech which help expose the monumental hypocrisy in how the system works. It all boils down to a very, very simple question: when it comes down to national teams do you want players to be able to pick teams or teams to pick players? I know those two arent necessarily mutually exclusive but for every practical purpose they are.
I know where I stand.

Definitely players pick teams, until the system can be changed to a point where there is no financial advantage to be had by playing for, or making oneself available for, one of the top teams. Or players making themselves unavailable for their nation of origin.

Why would I want to prevent players from supporting entire villages in poor pacific countries? That would be an inhumane stance.

If you want to change something change incentives not rules

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

SAn born and bred. I have more of an issue with the likes of Kleyn, Stander, Herring DvdM, Willemse et al playing for teams other than the Bokke. But at the same time I don't begrudge my fellow Boere finding coin where they can and wanting to play at the highest level. I don't have an issue with Kleyn getting back in specifically - Not that we need him I feel - but for me it depends on the individual circumstances. I'd have an issue if it was Stander though. At some point there needs to be a past the point of no return type clause. Say, 10 caps max just as a suggestion to what I feel is reasonable.

There are players though where nationality is a bit murkier. But with both Kleyn and Stander they are SAn through and through apart from in a rugby sense where even if Stander were available and in the prime of his game I would say no, his Irish now (ITO the game).

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Definitely players pick teams, until the system can be changed to a point where there is no financial advantage to be had by playing for, or making oneself available for, one of the top teams. Or players making themselves unavailable for their nation of origin.

I guess here is where we disagree, which is fine. I don't care if there is a financial advantage or not. I'd like the system to prevent them from doing so regardless of whether the players can get financial adv from it or not. And for the sake of clarity, we are not talking about refugees who arrived with the clothes they were wearing and nothing else. By income (not wealth, again, INCOME), any tier 1 player is in the top 5% of the country he resides in.
And let's look at what happens in other sports. Although this does happen in football it is % wise way, way more rare. I can guarantee you Messi would have made more money playing for Spain. Arsenio Erico could have made fortunes playing for other national teams.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

At some point there needs to be a past the point of no return type clause. Say, 10 caps max just as a suggestion to what I feel is reasonable.

This would be a step in the right direction if they insist on maintaining this farce

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I have more of an issue with the likes of Kleyn, Stander, Herring DvdM, Willemse et al playing for teams other than the Bokke.

You are forcing my hand so i have to ask: did you have an issue with, dunno, Brian Mujati playing for the Springboks? Cuz otherwise, that looks like a rather convenient stance.

There are players though where nationality is a bit murkier.

This is can understand and work with. But in cases like Klein and Stander, it is crystal clear to me that both wanted to play for a team and only picked another because they thought they couldn't make it to the Springboks, at least not in the terms they liked. That is precisely the kind of situation I'd like the system to prevent from happening. Going back to your quote.

John is born in A, his mother is from B, his father is from C and he is raised in D. I get the problem and i'd like the system to offer him a practical solution: let him choose. Fine.
But, and this is key, once he chooses, there should be no going back. Again, this should be a grant-your-wish to play a world cup foundation.

At some point there needs to be a past the point of no return type clause. Say, 10 caps max just as a suggestion to what I feel is reasonable.

Why not 1? We are talking about men all of whom are over 18. They can drink, drive, vote and go to way, but they cant decise reasonably and honestly about which nation they would like to represent?

 

[BPM]

I mostly agree with you, but one of the biggest problems in rugby right now is the aggressive poaching of young players. They may be over 18 but in a lot of cases, not by much.

Did Wales cap Christ Tshiunza at 19 and about 3 senior appearances under his belt because he was truly deserving of selection or did they do it because he'd signed for Exeter and was also eligible for England? In his specific case, I'm happy he's playing for Wales because he's spent his formative years and rugby education there. My point is that there are more and more examples like this where dual qualified players have a tug of war for their commitment when they've barely played a senior game. That feels very wrong to me and I don't like the idea of a player getting 'captured' and then ignored when they could be playing for another country, particularly if that's a smaller country.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I guess here is where we disagree, which is fine. I don't care if there is a financial advantage or not. I'd like the system to prevent them from doing so regardless of whether the players can get financial adv from it or not. And for the sake of clarity, we are not talking about refugees who arrived with the clothes they were wearing and nothing else. By income (not wealth, again, INCOME), any tier 1 player is in the top 5% of the country he resides in.
And let's look at what happens in other sports. Although this does happen in football it is % wise way, way more rare. I can guarantee you Messi would have made more money playing for Spain. Arsenio Erico could have made fortunes playing for other national teams.

I was answering your simple question, should the team or the player get to choose. Not with respect to Klein, or other tier 1, just in general. In other sports they get enough money from the club games not to care what country they play for

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

You are forcing my hand so i have to ask: did you have an issue with, dunno, Brian Mujati playing for the Springboks? Cuz otherwise, that looks like a rather convenient stance.

I actually would prefer Mujati (and Mtawarira as well remember) play for a competitive Zimbabwe if that were an option. Throw in David Pocock and you have a few superstars and though they wouldn't have been mixing it up with the big boys perhaps it could lay a foundation? Some pace on the wings with Chavanga and Ngwenya. Could've been a Zim golden age. Without Mujati we could've seen WP Nel at 3. Beast was a star but we could've done without.

This is can understand and work with. But in cases like Klein and Stander, it is crystal clear to me that both wanted to play for a team and only picked another because they thought they couldn't make it to the Springboks, at least not in the terms they liked. That is precisely the kind of situation I'd like the system to prevent from happening. Going back to your quote.

John is born in A, his mother is from B, his father is from C and he is raised in D. I get the problem and i'd like the system to offer him a practical solution: let him choose. Fine.
But, and this is key, once he chooses, there should be no going back. Again, this should be a grant-your-wish to play a world cup foundation.

I'm with you here. Hence my saying I have a bigger issue with clear cut "poaching" though that is a loaded word in the rugby sense it applies to guys who are "pap-en-wors-SAns". The example you give is a totally different scenario IMO.

Why not 1? We are talking about men all of whom are over 18. They can drink, drive, vote and go to way, but they cant decise reasonably and honestly about which nation they would like to represent?

For me that would be ideal. My point is more along the lines of if we are to accept this there at least needs to be some brakes on it. Another point for me is I would ideally only prefer it if it went the way of a player going back to his actual nationality if such is clear-cut IE correcting what in my mind is a wrong though for the Springbokke I'm more of a mind of "you made your bed so sleep in it". We don't need Kleyn. We don't need anybody who decided not to stick around. My suggestion is more of a mitigation.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I actually would prefer Mujati (and Mtawarira as well remember) play for a competitive Zimbabwe if that were an option.

I used Mujati as, if i recall correctly, he wasnt even a south african citizen at the time! Rules allow players who are not citizens of country X to represent country X in competitive tests. I understand the rules, i just find them, well, let's just say i dont like them. Mujati isnt an isolated case. Imagine a player from Arg (born, raised, passport, the lot) playing for the Netherlands without even being able to ask for directions in dutch, let alone sing the anthem. Well, that happens.
But most appear to be ok with this, so i guess i'm the odd one.

 

[Which Tyler]

TBH, the closer to the extreme anyone gets on any subject, the fewer people who agree with them there will be.
On this subject, you are towards (but I don't think at) one extreme.
On this subject, and within the subset of regular TRF contributors on this topic, I'm towards the opposite extreme, in wanting the current rules tightened up a little, but not particularly exercises about it.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Is there any chance the Boks picked O'Kleyn as a way to deny group rivals Ireland depth if they have an injury crisis? Otherwise I'm saddened they would throw away the moral highground like this.

 

[munstermuffin]

Is there any chance the Boks picked O'Kleyn as a way to deny group rivals Ireland depth if they have an injury crisis? Otherwise I'm saddened they would throw away the moral highground like this.

This is what it looks like

 

[Which Tyler]

Wait - picking a player purely to deny his availability to another country is claiming a moral high ground?
When did that happen?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Is there any chance the Boks picked O'Kleyn as a way to deny group rivals Ireland depth if they have an injury crisis? Otherwise I'm saddened they would throw away the moral highground like this.

I hope that's the case, if they feel the need to waste their own minutes to deny us a 7th choice lock, we're grand.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

TBH, the closer to the extreme anyone gets on any subject, the fewer people who agree with them there will be.

The thing is, and this is what I find particularly interesting, most of the people I listen to/talk to outside of a Tier 1 rugby environment (so changing the countries OR the sport) appear to agree with me, in quite overwhelming numbers and sentiment if I might add. Can you imagine, playing for Italy's national footie team without even being an Italian citizen? Pretty sure it would stir quite a few pots. Or Germany. Or Brazil. Try playing for a top 30 team in footie and not singing their anthem, see how that goes.

So, i guess calling my view 'closer to the extreme' sounds very, very biased. Maybe the problem lies in the sample you are using.

And i am not talking about some obscure case of a third-tier Tongan playing for Sierra Leone at the sevens world series. This is quite generalized, known, and accepted. Just to name one of the biggest elephants in the room, Quade Cooper has been representing Australia (in one way or another; jrs, sevens, etc) since 2005 and he only got Australian citizenship in 2022. Let me say it in the clearest terms i can think of: he was representing a country while not being a citizen of that country. What you call 'towards the extreme', I call the norm. And not because that is my position. I call it the norm because that is what the evidence (much of it anecdotal, granted) i see strongly suggests! He was in Australia's rooster for 2 world cups and he couldn't fly on an Aus passport because he didn't have one; he wasn't even allowed to have one. Yet according to WR it was all good and dandy. Now THAT i call extreme.

If we could measure it I'd get a second and a third mortgage and bet it all on that most people would agree with me and not you on this. We can disagree, all good.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I don't think soccer is a worthwhile comparison (especially not Italy who racially abuse born and bred Italians playing for them...), they don't need to grow the game or make it more competitive, and even then no one in England cares that their holding midfielder has played for Ireland twice from what I can tell.

If we want the absolute purest international game possible, that's fine but we might as well ditch the world cup and go all out on this world trophy thing that's starting up, because no one outside that, and plenty inside it, won't be able to get within 30 points of good NZ, France, SA or England teams (refraining to put Ireland here for now but we're in pretty good shape without "project" players for the most part). If World Rugby came out and said this was the goal, I wouldn't complain if you had to be a citizen before 18 or eligible to be one through a parent to qualify, but they haven't.

I'd prefer good quality rugby, international rugby is by far the pinnacle of the sport and diluting the talent doesn't serve players and spectators in my opinion. Easy to say as a tier 1 fan and I accept there are certain injustices. However, if the likes of Georgia, Uruguay, Portugal, Chile etc... Ever want to beat a proper tier 1 side and not just the dregs they need far more money than they can ever hope to generate from the current tier 1 centric system. They need a global game, they need the Pacific Islands, Georgia and Japan to rock the boat a little bit and they need more people across the world outside the Tier 1 nations to watch the game. It's not going to happen if we make eligibility laws stricter and hand the advantages to the 4/5 nations where most of the talent is developed the vast majority of the time.

 

[die_mole]

I can't imagine someone playing for Italy without citizenship because Italy hands out passports like cotton candy. They do have a few players from South America though that got those cotton candy passports though.

I'd rather a sport not have a citizenship requirement as it's not equal from country to country. For the United States and Italy it is possible to be a citizen yet not eligible to play rugby for them.

Quade played as a non-citizen be cause 1. he had no reason to become a citizen and 2. he didn't learn how to read until 2022 so the test was too hard. There was no point for him to get citizenship as a young man cause of the relationship between the two countries

My preference would be that you have to live in a country for 4 years before your 18th birthday to be eligible. 6 Years of residency afterwards.

 

[Which Tyler]

So, i guess calling my view 'closer to the extreme' sounds very, very biased. Maybe the problem lies in the sample you are using.

Wait, are you claiming to be dead centre on a range from "born and bred only" through to "anyone can play for any country and change on a whim"?
Because, categorically, you are closer to the extreme.
In the subset of rugby fans talking about rugby, you are absolutely closer to the extreme.
On this board alone, I'd hazard that you are the closest to the extreme of any regular poster.

Further, how is calling both of us "closer to the extreme" making me biased?
Now, if I'd claimed that my position was the obvious, and right, and neutral position, and dismissed your arguments as extremism; you could rightly accuse me of bias - but I never claimed that for myself (quite the opposite), and I never dismissed your arguments. I answered your comment of "I guess I'm the odd one" with an agreement, that on this subject, on this board, yes, you are the odd one out (as am I at the other end).

Citizenship is, and always has been an absolutely terrible requirement for sporting eligibility - apart from anything else, it fails at the very first hurdle of being the same criteria for everyone.
Some countries don't even require you to have ever set foot in the country (depending on your existing citizenship), others pretty much only grant citizenship to those born in the country. That is not an even playing field.
If citizenship is your desired requirement, then you are far FAR more in favour of players switching nations than I am, or than any of your posts have ever shown you to be.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Wait, are you claiming to be dead centre on a range from "born and bred only" through to "anyone can play for any country and change on a whim"?

No.
I am against teams implicitly or explicitly purchasing players and for players to be allowed to compete for those teams. I am against player X calling, on the record, country Y home and representing country Z only because of the money he makes out of it. I am not sure how i would regulate it thou, or whether that is possible at all. I'd like to try tho.
And the flow... in the overwhelming majority o cases it is about the money, which means richer countries/teams benefit from poorer ones. So no, i don't like it.
And sure, the well-known counterargument is that many nzers play for tonga/samoa/fiji.... what they generally forget to mention is they tend to do so after they realize they cant make it to the all blacks.

Further, how is calling both of us "closer to the extreme" making me biased?

Not what I said. I understood you said i was closer to the extreme and I when i take the entire group sample (all sports, all countries) the evidence i see/hear strongly suggests to me i am closer to the centre than pretty much anyone on this board. The tolerance to people moving/switching teams at national level is quite exclusively a rugby tier 1 thing. It does happen (rarely) in other sports but it is overwhelmingly frowned upon.

Citizenship is, and always has been an absolutely terrible requirement for sporting eligibility - apart from anything else, it fails at the very first hurdle of being the same criteria for everyone.

Disagree, 100%.

Some countries don't even require you to have ever set foot in the country

Irrelevant to my point. I am not asking for people to be born and raised. I am just asking the players to be part of a group of people they are supposed to be representing. How being part of that group comes to place is that group's own bloody problem. Not yours, not mine. Ius solis, sanguinis, both, mixed, their own decision to make.
Whether we like it or not, citizenship is a rather objective, practical, and standard procedure for these things. Pretty sure it's even a requirement for the Olympic Games.

I got to the point where i m ok with any player playing for any nation he wants. Just as long as
a) He is a citizen before and during that game
b) He doesn't get to play for another nation after that (exceptions like the country as it was ceasing to exist, etc. apply. Think Yugoslavia).