Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Nation Eligibilty Catch-All Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Reiser99" data-source="post: 1072874" data-attributes="member: 72977"><p>I had this discussion with my wife and she asked why can't immigrants go and represent a country? What's the difference between choosing to immigrate for a job in any other profession and sport? For me (though I definitely didn't explain this clearly) is that you should be tied to that country in a meaningful way. We wouldn't for example have a French person come over and represent our foreign office. When it comes to international events you should be from that country or have significant meaningful ties. Having said that England has an Australian coach so does it only apply to players or should is apply across the entire setup? Personally I have no issue with players moving countries to place for clubs domestically. However, it you are representing a country then you should commit yourself to that country. People in everyday jobs would have to apply for citizenship to represent a country or take part in voting etc...</p><p></p><p>In terms of rugby it's a bit more complicated because there are different aspects to this.</p><p>First, you don't actually need to have citizenship of the country you are in. I don't believe Duhan van der Merwe has British citizenship, yet is eligible to play for Scotland. However some players with parents or grandparents won't necessarily have British citizenship, though I assume they could apply quicker if they wanted too. How do you quantify a players connections to a country? How can we judge how Scottish some of these players are or feel? Obviously it is different to different players. If one of your parents is Scottish then fine. Completing a three year residency and then ******* off to Worcester is not fine. That for me is nothing more than being a mercenary and if Van der Merwe wasn't so good I reckon more Scottish people would be ****** that he represents them. However, it seems many prefer winning over national pride.</p><p></p><p>Second you the issue of player development. Should this matter? Personally yes, because unions spend a lot of time and money identifying players and developing them as future players. Having another union coming in and taking the results of your hard work is not fair. Having said that, what about when players get to 28 and haven't been capped. Should they just resign themselves to not playing internationally? There needs to be a fair balance.</p><p></p><p>I've said it elsewhere on this forum that I absolutely hate what Scotland are doing. They are creating a race to the bottom, forcing other nations to cap players younger and younger so that they don't risk losing them. It's completely wrong. For starters it puts pressure on these players. If they are picked young just to cap them and then dropped because they actually aren't ready, then it can have serious negative consequence for their development or mental health. It's even more depressing that rather than spend money on developing rugby in Scotland, they will spend it on scouting and attracting big name players.</p><p></p><p>Tbh I don't have a solution to it all, but one solution I do have is that anyone who plays for a country at u21/u18 level is tied to that country until they are 24/25 years of age. That way the country has time to properly see how they will develop and if they want to cap them. If not then they are free to play for any other countries they are eligible for. If they want to play using the residency rule then they have to properly commit themselves early or leave it later in their career. This would cut out a lot of the negative capping just to tie players to a country.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Reiser99, post: 1072874, member: 72977"] I had this discussion with my wife and she asked why can't immigrants go and represent a country? What's the difference between choosing to immigrate for a job in any other profession and sport? For me (though I definitely didn't explain this clearly) is that you should be tied to that country in a meaningful way. We wouldn't for example have a French person come over and represent our foreign office. When it comes to international events you should be from that country or have significant meaningful ties. Having said that England has an Australian coach so does it only apply to players or should is apply across the entire setup? Personally I have no issue with players moving countries to place for clubs domestically. However, it you are representing a country then you should commit yourself to that country. People in everyday jobs would have to apply for citizenship to represent a country or take part in voting etc... In terms of rugby it's a bit more complicated because there are different aspects to this. First, you don't actually need to have citizenship of the country you are in. I don't believe Duhan van der Merwe has British citizenship, yet is eligible to play for Scotland. However some players with parents or grandparents won't necessarily have British citizenship, though I assume they could apply quicker if they wanted too. How do you quantify a players connections to a country? How can we judge how Scottish some of these players are or feel? Obviously it is different to different players. If one of your parents is Scottish then fine. Completing a three year residency and then ******* off to Worcester is not fine. That for me is nothing more than being a mercenary and if Van der Merwe wasn't so good I reckon more Scottish people would be ****** that he represents them. However, it seems many prefer winning over national pride. Second you the issue of player development. Should this matter? Personally yes, because unions spend a lot of time and money identifying players and developing them as future players. Having another union coming in and taking the results of your hard work is not fair. Having said that, what about when players get to 28 and haven't been capped. Should they just resign themselves to not playing internationally? There needs to be a fair balance. I've said it elsewhere on this forum that I absolutely hate what Scotland are doing. They are creating a race to the bottom, forcing other nations to cap players younger and younger so that they don't risk losing them. It's completely wrong. For starters it puts pressure on these players. If they are picked young just to cap them and then dropped because they actually aren't ready, then it can have serious negative consequence for their development or mental health. It's even more depressing that rather than spend money on developing rugby in Scotland, they will spend it on scouting and attracting big name players. Tbh I don't have a solution to it all, but one solution I do have is that anyone who plays for a country at u21/u18 level is tied to that country until they are 24/25 years of age. That way the country has time to properly see how they will develop and if they want to cap them. If not then they are free to play for any other countries they are eligible for. If they want to play using the residency rule then they have to properly commit themselves early or leave it later in their career. This would cut out a lot of the negative capping just to tie players to a country. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Nation Eligibilty Catch-All Thread
Top