Nation Eligibilty Catch-All Thread

[Quel Carreleur]

For Tier1, the fact they generally only recruit foreign developed players with a view to capturing them on residency (excluding perhaps Glasgow and Edinburgh) may save their bacon from something similar.

Errr... What now?

IIRC Similar has happened with England, except that the player, club, and union all knew what the rules were. Way back, when Shontayne Hape transferred from league to Union, he'd already spent long enough in the UK to qualify on residency, but he had picked up an injury, and returned to NZ for a couple of months to see family whilst he was doing his rehab.
It was well known that that reset his qualification period.

In England at least, no-one signs foreign developed players with a view to capturing them on residency. Nor do France, and obviously not Arg, SA, NZ or Aus, whilst Italian club rugby doesn't have the pull, and look to ancestry. Pretty sure Wales haven't for over a decade, whilst Ireland and Scotland do (or did, I think Ireland ditched it when the qualification period was extended. Scotland probably did too) have that specific policy.

Your "generally only" seems to only apply to 1/5 of tier 1 - and you then exempt both clubs from one of the only 2 nations to ever have that policy.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Errr... What now?

IIRC Similar has happened with England, except that the player, club, and union all knew what the rules were. Way back, when Shontayne Hape transferred from league to Union, he'd already spent long enough in the UK to qualify on residency, but he had picked up an injury, and returned to NZ for a couple of months to see family whilst he was doing his rehab.
It was well known that that reset his qualification period.

In England at least, no-one signs foreign developed players with a view to capturing them on residency. Nor do France, and obviously not Arg, SA, NZ or Aus, whilst Italian club rugby doesn't have the pull, and look to ancestry. Pretty sure Wales haven't for over a decade, whilst Ireland and Scotland do (or did, I think Ireland ditched it when the qualification period was extended. Scotland probably did too) have that specific policy.

Your "generally only" seems to only apply to 1/5 of tier 1 - and you then exempt both clubs from one of the only 2 nations to ever have that policy.

Apologies. I meant Tier 1 unions considering residency as an option for a player will generally explore that on day 1 of the player arriving in their country (i.e. forward planning to ensure compliance with regulation 8). So any player who wasn't originally going to be captured in 2021 or 2022 for a Tier 1 union (under the original implementation date of the new 5 year rules) stands a good chance of having been following regulation 8 since 2018 anyway (to be captured in 2023 for the RWC).

I was very much wearing a URC cap though given that it is the URC nations (excluding SA and to some extent Ireland) that boot the arse out of capturing players from other unions. So yes, France and England may have exceptions, but they are far less likely to be selecting any new players based on residency in 2021 or 2022 (did either have any new residency captures last year for example?). For SANZAAR capturing players on residency is even less of an issue.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/arid-40885124.html
I think Lowe's quote kind of speaks for itself. If we're gonna go delving into whether a player feels like a new country is home I don't see how Lowe passes the test.

Edit: I should add to say it won't make a difference anyway. World Rugby is the one that writes the decisions so they will just explain away why Lowe's comments are okay but referring to yourself as a Saffa on instagram means you are ineligible for a new country.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/arid-40885124.html
I think Lowe's quote kind of speaks for itself. If we're gonna go delving into whether a player feels like a new country is home I don't see how Lowe passes the test.

Edit: I should add to say it won't make a difference anyway. World Rugby is the one that writes the decisions so they will just explain away why Lowe's comments are okay but referring to yourself as a Saffa on instagram means you are ineligible for a new country.

Absolutely. But those guys won't have left their new 'home' for more than 60 days in a qualifying year. Whereas the Spanish Saffa did.

I want to see the lawyers out singing the anthems at the RWC. Rugby values!

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

from what I can tell Spain just wants that part of the decision overturned. They are fighting the entire thing but from that article World Rugby's language about subjectiveness really bothered them.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Feeling at home =/= feeling X nationality

Pretty easy defence.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Feeling at home =/= feeling X nationality

Pretty easy defence.

did you read World Rugby's decision on the Spanish player? cause that's literally the language they used

edit: and I think it's dumb as well but those are the words World Rugby used

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

did you read World Rugby's decision on the Spanish player? cause that's literally the language they used

edit: and I think it's dumb as well but those are the words World Rugby used

Just took a skim at the relevant sections there. It uses "treated as home / permanent home". Slightly more carefully used words but really should be a line of wording that they avoid considering the scrutiny the whole eligibility process comes under for sure.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Just took a skim at the relevant sections there. It uses "treated as home / permanent home". Slightly more carefully used words but really should be a line of wording that they avoid considering the scrutiny the whole eligibility process comes under for sure.

x1000

they also didn't need to touch it. the player violated a bright line rule that would have made him ineligible no matter what. they decided to muddy the water for fun.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Drama over.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Just when you thought rugby was the only sport with eligibility criteria along comes the Ecuador football union.

https://football-italia.net/ecuador-to-be-excluded-from-2022-world-cup-chile-or-italy-promoted/
Forza Italia! I might have reason to tune into the world cup after all (I know it'll go to Chile).

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

So World Rugby saying only 4 PI players announced in squads for next months tests used the new 'switch allegiance' rule. I'm pleasantly surprised.

https://www.world.rugby/news/721973/fijian-drua-and-moana-pasifikas-success-benefits-national-teams

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

If this report is accurate then Italy should receive a significant fine. Unfortunate that he never played at RWC2019 or Italy would have to be excluded for the RWC2023. They can't exclude Italy from 2023 due to an infraction in 2015 if there is no evidence that thet ballsed it up in 2019.

If I was World Rugby I'd be insisting on an independent review of all players selected by Italy in RWC2019 as they are a repeat offender for fielding ineligible players (including last year or 2020).

https://www.americasrugbynews.com/2...italy-player-eligibility-at-rugby-world-cups/

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Mad that they just....never checked
It's like the Colin Charvis situation where they just took his word for it

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

errrrr Castrogiovanni is an Italian sort of name and looks italian so there for should get a pass IMO

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Owns an Italian restaurant as well,

Open and shut case

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Would he not be qualified on residency earlyish on in his Italy career (too late ik), but he was living in Italy from the back end of '99/early '00 as far as I can work out, so would have qualified just before he moved to Tigers (coincidence?)

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Think it's a Colin Charvis situation where he wasn't eligible initially but became eligible later on

 

[Reiser99]

Article also highlights how Wales and Scotland back then weren't punished consistently for the same offence. Makes you wonder how rigorously they check these heritage players.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

If this report is accurate then Italy should receive a significant fine. Unfortunate that he never played at RWC2019 or Italy would have to be excluded for the RWC2023. They can't exclude Italy from 2023 due to an infraction in 2015 if there is no evidence that thet ballsed it up in 2019.

See, that's part of the problem. I'd like to see them banned from the next 2 WC's, at least. They knew.

I would like a journo to get an interview with any top 3 WR ex and ask, point blank, in what parallel universe is it ok for no one in WR, NO ONE to check this. Lock the room and dont let him till you get an answer and make it live on yt, tt, fb and every platform available to mankind.
This is just not acceptable.

All of this, EVERY SINGLE BIT could be avoided so ******* easily. How hard, how ******* hard could it be for an independent entity to check someone's eligibility? It is literally ticking a few boxes based on documents that anyone at that level should have readily available. Again, a competent 15-year-old with internet access and the adequate software could check a team in a day. It is not rocket science.
- Clear rules for eligibility
- presented docs by RAs
- crossref both
- if in doubt, he cannot play, period.

THAT IS IT. I'm fuming. it is mind-boggling.

Spain fields a questionable player in a non-event of a game and they lay the smack on them, rightly so. And Italy fields an ineligible player in consecutive world cups and they get nothing but a slap on the wrist? **** you. **** you.

When tier 2/3 complain they are right 99% of the times. We're a bunch of hypocrites who claim to follow a global sport when it's nothing more than a big old boys club.
Then they show us a live feed of Bill Beaumont attending Bahamas vs Nicaragua while having Owens officiate it and we all clap in unison as if it meant something.
**** them, **** us.

This is bloody serious and it won't change until we address it accordingly.

/rant

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Not sure how true it is, as I saw it on Twitter, but apparently WR didn't start double checking eligibility until 2018 (i.e. for qualification for the 2019 RWC), before that they just took the Union's word for it, even after "Grannygate"

 

[Geordie]

Guys your all forgetting the "non eligible Grandparent" rule is an agreed Eligibility clause created for Italy and Wales.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Apparently the residency rules were more lax back then, so he would only have been an ineligible player in RWC 2003 and not 2007 onwards (which in fairness the article suggests). So it is even less relevant to the present day.

 

[Reiser99]

Definitely feels like a case of they got away with it. I reckon you would find a lot more cases across the sport from back then if you looked closely enough. Question though, would it really benefit rugby now to retrospectively punish teams now, especially when it involves players who retired years ago.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Question though, would it really benefit rugby now to retrospectively punish teams now, especially when it involves players who retired years ago.

Absolutely, 100%, yes.
I don't think you guys fully grasp the disdain and lack of credibility these sorts of things create in tier 2+. Again, look at what Spain did and the punishment they received. You can sugarcoat it the way you want and try to rationalize why it's not worth making a big fuss over such things now but if players, teams and unions get away with it it is only because the authorities let them.

And Italy is not the only one who's done something like this as far as i understand.

The scrutiny and leniency with which these issues appear to be treated doesn't seem to be the same across the board. That is a tragedy, a serious one, and should addressed as such.

I sincerely think, not all, but a LOT of you underestimate gigantically the effort some people make to put their nation's team in the world cup. Theirs, their teams and their federations' dream is just to hear their national anthem in a world cup.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Spain had a $50,000 suspended fine for the first offense that was activated upon their second infraction.
I feel like that would be a worthy punishment for Italy.

Not sure how true it is, as I saw it on Twitter, but apparently WR didn't start double checking eligibility until 2018 (i.e. for qualification for the 2019 RWC), before that they just took the Union's word for it, even after "Grannygate"

Think about how much in our world we just rely on people being truthful on. I'm sure it's a fair amount of work to doublecheck all this stuff.

 

[Quel Carreleur]

Spain had a $50,000 suspended fine for the first offense that was activated upon their second infraction.
I feel like that would be a worthy punishment for Italy.

Think about how much in our world we just rely on people being truthful on. I'm sure it's a fair amount of work to doublecheck all this stuff.

That's the precedent, and seems fair.
Though I'd suggest that there ought to be a statue of limitations as well - given that this offence (if true) was 20 years ago (wasn't Spain 2018 uncovered inside a month?), and utterly irrelevant to anything happening currently (even without ancestry, he's have qualified for Italy by September 2004 on residency). Matches after he qualified would use the precedent set by Brett Sinkinson, who was only barred from playing for Wales until he'd completed his residency.

I'd suggest that this particular case is dumped in the bin of "things were different, and we've tightened things up since then"

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Spain had a $50,000 suspended fine for the first offense that was activated upon their second infraction.

They were kicked out of the WC!

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

They were kicked out of the WC!

the games in which he participated in were made null and void. That resulted in them failing to qualify for the World Cup.

What do you do in this case? You have to decide at what point he was eligible to play for Italy which looks like after RWC 2003. Since Italy was AQ the only games he would be ineligible for is 2003. So that means they shouldn't have qualified for RWC 2007 and that is it. As Bruce said this has nothing to do with their qualification for 2023.

I mean you can strike them from the record books but that would be a bit like crossing out the names of cyclists or weightlifters; everyone knew what happened.

 

[Quel Carreleur]

They were kicked out of the WC!

Have you got a time machine, so that we can expel Italy from the 2003 RWC?