Nation Eligibilty Catch-All Thread

[Reiser99]

Just as another point to note, generally when you go for a tactic of recruiting from other countries you are likely to only get players who aren't going to play for that side. Obviously it's not as simple as that, but if you're relying on players who wouldn't make the national team elsewhere then you are unlikely to win anything major.

 

[Scotty]

I wonder

It's a really tough issue. Look at Exeter and Tshiunza. The lad is 18/19 and is already being capped by Wales and will probably have to make a couple of crazy decisions in the next few years about where to live/move etc and his next club when Welsh RFU come calling.

I'm not sure how you protect youngsters against this but it is something that needs to be thought about in a little more depth i suppose.

He was picked after a couple of average performances for Chiefs...its insane.

So now Tshiunza has to leave Chiefs for Wales or he cant play for Wales if he signs a new contract? Its rediculous...

 

[BPM]

Just as another point to note, generally when you go for a tactic of recruiting from other countries you are likely to only get players who aren't going to play for that side. Obviously it's not as simple as that, but if you're relying on players who wouldn't make the national team elsewhere then you are unlikely to win anything major.

Yes, that's absolutely true with the Byron McGuigans of this world, but I think the current trend is more for the 'race to the bottom' scenario.

Is Cam Redpath good enough to play for England? I think so, yes and I think he has the potential to be a top player. Did he demand a place in the England squad after a handful of games starting in the Premiership, IMO no, he probably didn't. However, the fact that Scotland were able to promise a starting jersey if he made an immediate switch meant he was happy to throw his lot in with them after being left out of 1 squad. Granted it was more complicated given his family history, but I just don't think making an instant switch after playing for England through the age grades and senior call-ups (without being capped) should have been possible.

If the rules don't change, we'll see more and more examples of fighting for players before they've even proven themselves at senior level.

As Scotty said, Christ Tshuinza is in no way deserving of a Wales call-up right now. They've only done it because he is a high potential player and has eligibility for a couple of other countries. I have less of an argument with his specific case given his entire rugby education (prior to Chiefs) was in the Welsh system, but the behaviour of 'capturing' a player with dual qualification at such a young age is wrong.

 

[Reiser99]

Yes, that's absolutely true with the Byron McGuigans of this world, but I think the current trend is more for the 'race to the bottom' scenario.

Is Cam Redpath good enough to play for England? I think so, yes and I think he has the potential to be a top player. Did he demand a place in the England squad after a handful of games starting in the Premiership, IMO no, he probably didn't. However, the fact that Scotland were able to promise a starting jersey if he made an immediate switch meant he was happy to throw his lot in with them after being left out of 1 squad. Granted it was more complicated given his family history, but I just don't think making an instant switch after playing for England through the age grades and senior call-ups (without being capped) should have been possible.

If the rules don't change, we'll see more and more examples of fighting for players before they've even proven themselves at senior level.

As Scotty said, Christ Tshuinza is in no way deserving of a Wales call-up right now. They've only done it because he is a high potential player and has eligibility for a couple of other countries. I have less of an argument with his specific case given his entire rugby education (prior to Chiefs) was in the Welsh system, but the behaviour of 'capturing' a player with dual qualification at such a young age is wrong.

I agree. It's why I say that if you play for a country at u20s level you can't be capped by another country for at least 3 years.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Yes, that's absolutely true with the Byron McGuigans of this world, but I think the current trend is more for the 'race to the bottom' scenario.

Is Cam Redpath good enough to play for England? I think so, yes and I think he has the potential to be a top player. Did he demand a place in the England squad after a handful of games starting in the Premiership, IMO no, he probably didn't. However, the fact that Scotland were able to promise a starting jersey if he made an immediate switch meant he was happy to throw his lot in with them after being left out of 1 squad. Granted it was more complicated given his family history, but I just don't think making an instant switch after playing for England through the age grades and senior call-ups (without being capped) should have been possible.

If the rules don't change, we'll see more and more examples of fighting for players before they've even proven themselves at senior level.

As Scotty said, Christ Tshuinza is in no way deserving of a Wales call-up right now. They've only done it because he is a high potential player and has eligibility for a couple of other countries. I have less of an argument with his specific case given his entire rugby education (prior to Chiefs) was in the Welsh system, but the behaviour of 'capturing' a player with dual qualification at such a young age is wrong.

I'm struggling to see how you find both of these cases wrong?

Redpath shouldn't be able to move to Scotland because he played for England as a 19 year old. Wales shouldn't be able to trap Tshuniza at 19. I may have misinterpreted but I think it's one or the other.

The new rules definitely favour Tshuniza though, he'll still be a young lock by the time he's eligible for other countries if he decides not to move to Wales.

 

[Reiser99]

I'm struggling to see how you find both of these cases wrong?

Redpath shouldn't be able to move to Scotland because he played for England as a 19 year old. Wales shouldn't be able to trap Tshuniza at 19. I may have misinterpreted but I think it's one or the other.

The new rules definitely favour Tshuniza though, he'll still be a young lock by the time he's eligible for other countries if he decides not to move to Wales.

It's less that Redpath should be able to move and more that Scotland promise him a place where as England it could be argued wanted to see how he develops. Scotland are actively trying to increase their playing pool by capturing players rather than developing their own. This is the issue.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

It's less that Redpath should be able to move and more that Scotland promise him a place where as England it could be argued wanted to see how he develops. Scotland are actively trying to increase their playing pool by capturing players rather than developing their own. This is the issue.

I'm really struggling to see the issue. I guess you're saying that if 20s had binded him this wouldn't have been an option but had 20s binded him we have no idea who he'd have played for. Scotland rated him higher and swayed him with a better offer, not too much wrong with it in my view.

I didn't see an issue with England doing the same with Dan Kelly. (I see an issue with him wearing the shamrock and then the rose but only insofar as he personally totally lacks character and is sub-human)

If Nations were throwing increased match fees or benefits to dual qualified players over those who can only play for one nation I'd think it stinks but I don't think anyone is at that.

 

[will311293]

He was picked after a couple of average performances for Chiefs...its insane.

So now Tshiunza has to leave Chiefs for Wales or he cant play for Wales if he signs a new contract? Its rediculous...

Its hugely unfair and Jenkins will be in the same boat. I think there should be a ruling around under 23/25 maybe that if club/nation agree then they can remain or if its their orgin club like Rowlands (came through Oxford) or Sheedy/Lloyd at Bristol....

So if Exeter and WRFU can agree Tshiunza's playing time/availability for WRFU training/selection then why not let him stay? Doesn't block the path ways for Welsh team youngsters and still gets Tshiunza happy and playing.

 

[BPM]

I'm really struggling to see the issue. I guess you're saying that if 20s had binded him this wouldn't have been an option but had 20s binded him we have no idea who he'd have played for. Scotland rated him higher and swayed him with a better offer, not too much wrong with it in my view.

I didn't see an issue with England doing the same with Dan Kelly. (I see an issue with him wearing the shamrock and then the rose but only insofar as he personally totally lacks character and is sub-human)

If Nations were throwing increased match fees or benefits to dual qualified players over those who can only play for one nation I'd think it stinks but I don't think anyone is at that.

The issue is that it's putting pressure on young players to make potentially career-defining decisions well before they should have to.

Redpath's development came from England, Sale and more recently Bath. I simply feel that England should benefit from that, or at least there should be a 'cooling off period' as @Reiser99 has suggested. As I said in an earlier post, I feel quite differently about players like Skinner or Rowlands.

Kelly is a bit different and more complex given his development was split between Sale, Leicester and the Ireland age grades. However, having been born and lived all of his life in England, I don't really think there's too much controversy around his 'switch'. Particularly given that maintaining his allegiance to Ireland would have eventually necessitated a move to one of the provinces. I also think he genuinely deserved to be in the summer squad, so unlike the Tshiunza situation where it is solely and unashamedly a 'capture' exercise.

I should stress this isn't to do with me wanting England to be protected. I would feel exactly the same discomfort had Redpath chosen England after being developed by Glasgow and Scotland. That extends to any nation in this scenario.

Going back to Tshiunza, I think he should play for Wales having been developed by them. I just disagree with the 'cap him quick' mentality.

 

[Goodey]

I feel like the more rules you construct the more you are going to run into players that get hung out to dry by them.

Like even if you had to base it on where a player was 'developed' you have to come up with a consistent definition of that and it isn't going to work very well for a good chunk of players.

Dan Kelly has been brought up as someone who has both development and identity links to two nations, but also take for example Mako Vunipola. He was born in NZ because his Tongan dad was playing rugby league there, moved to Wales aged 8 and started playing properly himself there. Moved to England as a teenager and was pretty much immediately playing age grade for England. I have seen him cited in lists of 'foreign born' or whatever players playing for England, but who exactly he *should* play for, if not England, feels fairly randomly assigned.

I also think there's an assumption that when a player qualifies on residency or somewhere they didn't grow up it's always a cash grab or dishonest in some way when it obviously is for some people and isn't for people who genuinely do have an adopted nation. How are you meant to split them up? Lie detectors?

You're setting yourself up to fail every time you try to simplify this.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The issue is that it's putting pressure on young players to make potentially career-defining decisions well before they should have to.

Redpath's development came from England, Sale and more recently Bath. I simply feel that England should benefit from that, or at least there should be a 'cooling off period' as @Reiser99 has suggested. As I said in an earlier post, I feel quite differently about players like Skinner or Rowlands.

Kelly is a bit different and more complex given his development was split between Sale, Leicester and the Ireland age grades. However, having been born and lived all of his life in England, I don't really think there's too much controversy around his 'switch'. Particularly given that maintaining his allegiance to Ireland would have eventually necessitated a move to one of the provinces. I also think he genuinely deserved to be in the summer squad, so unlike the Tshiunza situation where it is solely and unashamedly a 'capture' exercise.

I should stress this isn't to do with me wanting England to be protected. I would feel exactly the same discomfort had Redpath chosen England after being developed by Glasgow and Scotland. That extends to any nation in this scenario.

Going back to Tshiunza, I think he should play for Wales having been developed by them. I just disagree with the 'cap him quick' mentality.

Ok, so you're not suggesting any rule changes just acting in good faith?

Otherwise I really can't see where you're coming from.

I also can't get behind development as a factor whatsoever, it totally dismisses the individuals national identity and motivation.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What's the point in international rugby, then?
Like what differentiates it from the club game if being motivated to play for a certain side means you should be able to

Senior residency (i.e. pro players moving to a different country and then qualifying/playing for them) cheapens international rugby massively, and I can't see a credible argument as to why it doesn't

Granny-gate isn't ideal, but I wouldn't call for an all out ban on it as there are plenty of players who do feel a legitimate connection to countries of their forebears (I think Tigs idea of a sliding scale of residency is good)

Residency as a kid/up to pro-level is fine as this is out of their control

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

If you play for an under 20 side it should capture you. Nothing more to say.

Any other system is BS.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

What's the point in international rugby, then?
Like what differentiates it from the club game if being motivated to play for a certain side means you should be able to

Senior residency (i.e. pro players moving to a different country and then qualifying/playing for them) cheapens international rugby massively, and I can't see a credible argument as to why it doesn't

Granny-gate isn't ideal, but I wouldn't call for an all out ban on it as there are plenty of players who do feel a legitimate connection to countries of their forebears (I think Tigs idea of a sliding scale of residency is good)

Residency as a kid/up to pro-level is fine as this is out of their control

I'm talking about players with ties to other countries. I think I'd rather guys who come to play with no intention of playing international rugby and it just happens because they like a place and stick around than the "project" player types.

Like I want u20 lock in and only nation switching if they're different tiers so I'm not exactly fast and loose with this. I'd suggest a bit more realistic and beneficial to the players than some here.

I think James Lowe is an interesting guy to read on this, he thought it was ridiculous when he first played for us and rightly so. He's said it's grown and grown on him though, that 3-5 year difference is big. It's also a big period for Development, Lowe is a changed player since joining Leinster.

Guys like Moriarty, Kelly and Redpath simply shouldn't have played for the 20s sides that they did play for. Whether it's out of convenience or using a system to their benefit I don't think any of them would choose their 20s nations over the one they represent now and they made their decisions as adults knowing rightly who they'd prefer to play for.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I also can't get behind development as a factor whatsoever, it totally dismisses the individuals national identity and motivation.

Do you not take satisfaction in the Irish union increasingly developing sufficient domestic talent and depth domestically so that a squad of almost entirely born and bred Irishmen can beat the All Blacks and make grown Welshmen clamour for an intervention in the URC because the Irish are too damn good? I'd be loving my union if it was overseeing that sort of long term, well planned progress.

Would you really have no less satisfaction if more than half your side was developed in other countries, player numbers were declining domestically, your union effectively wilfully ignored player development in one or two of your provinces and to make up for inadequacies in developing talent instead increasingly incorporated younger and younger players from elsewhere in the British Isles into your age group sides (including an age group side based in another, hundreds of miles from your border). Because that is the Scottish experience.

I'm not baiting you as I know of other non-Scots, including some whose main focus is youth development, are also relaxed about Scotsmen becoming an ethnic minority in the Scottish rugby side (likely true with this squad if we could see their census returns, compared to 92% of Scottish residents who identify as White: Scottish). It's rare for me to even be able to comprehend the other side of a debate, but I'm failing on this one. Unless your position is that domestically produced players is more satisfying but you would just oppose any restrictions on selecting players produced in other territories?

 

[Goodey]

If the Scottish team represented the Scottish population then 14 of the starting 15 would not give a **** about rugby

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Seriously? This is a matter of degree and not principle?
It certainly looks like the pot calling the bloody kettle black.

Calling Scotland embarrassing when all do the same (lesser degree, sure...)?
And how does this whole pride/embarrassment thing work, exactly? When Scotland does this, it's frowned upon. Gotcha.
But then we see Tuilagi say "heart and home is still Samoa" while representing England that's just astute from the RFU?
Mental stuff.

Bottom line is he's playing for England for the money, just as those in the list that play for Scotland. You wanna talk about pride and embarrassment? Start there.

Either it is right or wrong. Whether it's 1 or the entire squad is anecdotal at best.

Second you the issue of player development. Should this matter? Personally yes, because

This is a relevant and interesting question. We need to consider that the rules, whatever they might end up being, will have to be applied equally to ALL unions.
You get too strict with that and Samoa might have to field 14-year-olds because their best were developed elsewhere.

My take: it shouldn't, both for (my) moral and practical reasons. I'll skip you the moral shenanigans and address the practical stuff: if development is a criteria then rich countries have an even bigger pick of the lot at the expense of poorer nations/unions. That widens the already gargantuan gap between tier 1 and the rest.
Is that what you want? Try a veil of ignorance for a second and think about it.

First, you don't actually need to have citizenship of the country you are in.

I've mentioned it before but am still surprised when reminded. Ludicrous stuff.

 

[Reiser99]

This is a relevant and interesting question. We need to consider that the rules, whatever they might end up being, will have to be applied equally to ALL unions.
You get too strict with that and Samoa might have to field 14-year-olds because their best were developed elsewhere.

My take: it shouldn't, both for (my) moral and practical reasons. I'll skip you the moral shenanigans and address the practical stuff: if development is a criteria then rich countries have an even bigger pick of the lot at the expense of poorer nations/unions. That widens the already gargantuan gap between tier 1 and the rest.
Is that what you want? Try a veil of ignorance for a second and think about it.

Personally I've never England don't do it and there certainly have been embarrassing examples in England's past, Brad Shields being the most recent example. I accept your point that actually smaller nations might suffer. However, my issue with Scotland is that they seem to almost have completely abandoned trying to improve their domestic support and development in favour of attracting players from other unions. It's a legitimate tactic within the rules, but when you stop spending money on your own domestic game to instead scout players in other countries, then I think you've got your priorities wrong. Do they think if they import enough players to win a 6Ns or hell even a world cup it will suddenly ignite a huge increase in rugby players in Scotland? Would it matter if they've neglected the domestic pathways for young Scottish players?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Manu Tuilagi moving to England had nothing to do with the RFU though.

Moved to Cardiff when he was 13, when his brother signed for Tigers he followed at 15.

By the time he got his first cap he had been in the country for 5 years, Played for Tigers academy, England U18, England U20, England Saxons.

I struggle to find anyone on here questioning players who came in though that system so it's a really odd comparison.

 

[Scotty]

See all i want is a player to show commitment before they can play, so say
7 years residency, so grow up there/come over young then you can play for that country in your prime but you cant just go at 25 actually screw it ill move to England and play for them a few years later because your country hasnt worked out.

2 years if you have 1 grandparent of that nation. Just show commitment to that nation

Free to play if you have 2 granparents/1 parent of that nation. You have a real link to that nation.

I have zero issue with players who want to play for a different nation, say Nathan Hughes who chose to turn down Fiji and wait until he could play but my way means that decision needs to be made early.