Nationality Debate

Discussion in 'General Rugby Union' started by gingergenius, Nov 6, 2008.

?

What Should Be The Rules Regarding Nationality?

  1. Players should be able to play for any country they like

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. The current rules of 3 year residency are enough for a non-native

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. The current rules are good but the residency period should be extended

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Representing a country at junior level commits you to them for life.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. You should only be allowed to play in your country of origin, in which for example you've been born/

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. gingergenius

    gingergenius Guest

    Basically, there's quite a lot of debate in Rugby over the flexibility of nationality, sparked again with Ricki Flutey's selection for England.

    Here's my 2p:

    I read somewhere in the RL world cup that a New Zealand international was eligible to play for Tonga. This to me is wrong. Once you've represented someone at senior level, I think your colours are tied to the mast.

    I've heard people say you commit your future at representative level; however Martin Johnson played for New Zealand at U21 level because he lived over there for a few years. Does that mean he shouldn't have been able to play for England when he returned to Leicester? IMO, no it doesn't.

    Maurie Fa'asavalu played Union for Samoa, and RL for Great Britain. Vainikolo played RL for NZ and Union for England. As far as I'm concerned, these are separate sports so commitments in one don't count towards each other.

    Some wag on 606 said you had to play for the country of your birth. This leaves Simon Shaw as a Kenyan (fair enough they're good at 7s), and Delon Armitage playing for Trinidad. I think I rest my case.

    There's then the question of the Islanders playing for Australia and New Zealand. As far as I see it, 'poaching' is unfair, but if these guys are going over in their teens and benefitting from the academy system in their new nations then it's ok. If they're being plucked out of a Fiji 7s/ U21 team (like Frace may do with Nalaga), then it's wrong.

    ------------------------------

    I'd propose some rules of nationality:

    1) You are only allowed to play for countries you have citizenship for. I understand that Shane Williams shares the same citizenship as Chris Paterson, Andrew Trimble and James Haskell. So for UK citizens they must choose their home nation on the basis of birth/ where they've grown up/ attended school/ or where their parents are from.

    2) If you're picking someone like Flutey, I think there has to be some commitment from the player that they aren't just playing in order to make International level. For example, he'd have to show that he plans to live in the UK for the forseeable future; and that he isn't a mere mercenary.

    3) There should never be question whether the likes of Armitage, Hartley, Ouedraogo etc. should play for their adopted countries. They're like any other immigrants, they've moved to a country permanently even if they were born elsewhere. They've made their commitment to the country.
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. Sir Speedy

    Sir Speedy Guest

    I think that players should have at least 5 caps for a certain country before being forced to commit to that country.
    For example, Regan King is one of the best running centres in GB, and the most consistent centre in Wales these past 2 years, yet he can't play for us because of a dodgy cap he had for NZ in '03 (?).
     
  4. cyRil

    cyRil Guest

    2002 Speedy, get it right!
     
  5. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir. Speedy @ Nov 6 2008, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I don't. In theory you could have every half decent player whoring himself out to whichever country he felt like turnung out for that week. In theory a player could play 4 tests for half the countries in the world if he was that way inclined and kept getting called up by various sides. A few different residencies and several distant relations later and you'll end up with an international player more nomadic than Wasps trying to find somewhere to base themselves.
     
  6. Sir Speedy

    Sir Speedy Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SaintsFan_Schweinsteiger_Webby @ Nov 6 2008, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I don't. In theory you could have every half decent player whoring himself out to whichever country he felt like turnung out for that week. In theory a player could play 4 tests for half the countries in the world if he was that way inclined and kept getting called up by various sides. A few different residencies and several distant relations later and you'll end up with an international player more nomadic than Wasps trying to find somewhere to base themselves.
    [/b][/quote]
    Yeh, maybe I should have thought my point through.
    What I mean is, using Regan King's example, a single cap has prevented him for playing for Wales despite having played here for, what, 3 - 4 years?
    Maybe a better way would be to use the 5 test rule I conveyed above, including needing to have spent at least 4 years in that country to be eligible to play for said country.
    I don't see many, if any, people wanting to waste four years of their life just to play one test.
     
  7. Cymro

    Cymro Guest

    The ruling as it is should stand but with a change!

    Taking Regan King for example again ...

    He plays for the All Blacks why? Because he was close to gaining French Residency through marriage and the All Blacks did not want that so they capped him, King who has now married a Welsh girl and even considers himself to be partly Welsh (I know this because I have spoken to him very recently!)

    What im saying is that if a player has had a one cap he should have the right to appeal whether that cap should stand or not because he clearly aint going to play for the All Blacks but would deffo play for Wales!
     
  8. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    I believe the existing system is perfectly fine. As soon as you're capped, thats yer lot I'm afraid.

    This is a clash between different cultures and systems. On the one hand you have those who have greater ties to where you are born and with blood than with fanciful notions of "adopted homes" and so on. On the other, you have those who may well believe later on in their life that the nation they have moved to which may have been initially done on the basis of selfish reasons such as cash or a better way of life but have now realised that they have found a second calling and would nail the flag of their new nation to their chest if it didn't hurt so much.

    The United States and Canada are examples of that latter idea. We patronise and treat nations like the United States with kid gloves and use them as an exception to the rule of using what is effectively immigrant labour as they are a so called "minnow" nation. However, to look at it like that would be to deal a massive insult to the very foundations upon which modern America was built upon which has enabled it to reinvent itself time and time again in the past and possibly in the future.

    From the first settlers from East Anglia all the way to the latest flood of eager beavers from the Asian Subcontinent, America is immigration and there is no quibble about where a person is from or from whence they have been conceived because the ideal is that anyone, anyone (even Matt from Cardiff) can come to the United States of America and make their life and be exactly who that they want to be. When American winger Takudzwa Ngwenya pwned, owned and generally made a mockery of Bryan Habana in RWC 2007, there were some sneers and pretty obnoxious snickers that America had "nicked" or had "stolen" him from his "native" Zimbabwe. This is utterly wrong. The man is an American, proud to wear his nations jersey because he has seen a nation give him so much in terms of education and the privilege to play for them in an international competition. He has made that transition from using America as a mere "means to an end" to seeing America as the end in itself. In the future, we will see America emerge as a major cricketing power (in Twenty20) as the Asian population there start to spread the game across the land, will we deny them the same recognition because they were not born inside American borders? The whole concept of the argument is absurd.

    The ramifications of this reverberate at home, here, within the United Kingdom. A set of sceptered isles which have encountered so many waves of immigration in its long and noble history that we have lost count. We currently have those in the UK who have emigrated to the UK from the West Indies, West Africa, South America and even other parts of Europe. They are proud to wear the jersey of their adopted nation and have nothing but gratitude for what we have given them that they are determined to give it back and yet we quibble over the simple matter of national birth without even examining these things.

    Ladies and Gents, it is very easy to tell when someone is a carpet bagger or a gold digger or just a total fraud. Carlos Spencer for example. And yet, we can just as easily tell when someone arrives and is so touched and chastened by their initial experiences of their arrival here in the UK or when they arrive at their club that they virtually pledge their allegiance forever. Bruce Reihana for example.

    Gentlemen, the system we have is fine. What we should be arguing about is how to separate the Reihanas from the Spencers...
     
  9. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Nov 6 2008, 12:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I agree and I agree.

    Prestwick, you sir, understand something that modern America would like to ignore: "America is immigration." Look at our new President Elect. Look at our Govenator of California. The reason I'm proud to be an Irish-American is because of what my immigrant ancestors did and built. Is Britain no different? Sure, you didn't start like we did, but by Victorian times your nation began to change like my nation.
    Going back to Rugby, I think an immigrant has two choices: 1. the country of his birth, 2. his adopted home. However, once he makes his choice, he's made his choice.
     
  10. MunsterMan

    MunsterMan Guest

    I agree that once your capped that is your country and that's it, but what do you guys think about players like Phillip Danaher who was given one Saxons cap which meant he couldn't play for Ireland, or Shane Geraghty who played underage for Ireland but then decided to play for England, do you think he should have been allowed? Another example is Lifemi Mafi, has a few NZ 7's caps and can't play for Tonga (or Ireland if he chose to).

    The question I am asking is should a 7's/ "A International" cap prevent you from playing for another nation or just full caps?
     
  11. Well Geraghty was born in Coventry (I think it was Coventry anyway) so is as much - if not more so - English than he is Irish. You can't judge anything by a surname these days.
     
  12. MunsterMan

    MunsterMan Guest

    Irish Parents and played all the way up to U19 for Ireland beleive. I have no problem with it if he wants to play for England but I was asking the question where should you draw the line. Underage, 7's, A International or full International Cap?
     
  13. gingergenius

    gingergenius Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Nov 6 2008, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I agree and I agree.

    Prestwick, you sir, understand something that modern America would like to ignore: "America is immigration." Look at our new President Elect. Look at our Govenator of California. The reason I'm proud to be an Irish-American is because of what my immigrant ancestors did and built. Is Britain no different? Sure, you didn't start like we did, but by Victorian times your nation began to change like my nation.
    Going back to Rugby, I think an immigrant has two choices: 1. the country of his birth, 2. his adopted home. However, once he makes his choice, he's made his choice.
    [/b][/quote]

    Without getting into a debate about whether america sucks or not, i'd hope you're not proud of all your immigrant ancestors did to build america...

    Back on topic, I think Prestwick's got it spot on; I personally have no issue with Flutey/ Vainikolo etc. but I would like it if they remain in England to grow old here and bring their children up as proper Englishmen rather than swan off when they retire...
     
  14. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Nov 6 2008, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I agree and I agree.

    Prestwick, you sir, understand something that modern America would like to ignore: "America is immigration." Look at our new President Elect. Look at our Govenator of California. The reason I'm proud to be an Irish-American is because of what my immigrant ancestors did and built. Is Britain no different? Sure, you didn't start like we did, but by Victorian times your nation began to change like my nation.
    Going back to Rugby, I think an immigrant has two choices: 1. the country of his birth, 2. his adopted home. However, once he makes his choice, he's made his choice.
    [/b][/quote]

    Without getting into a debate about whether america sucks or not, i'd hope you're not proud of all your immigrant ancestors did to build america...

    Back on topic, I think Prestwick's got it spot on; I personally have no issue with Flutey/ Vainikolo etc. but I would like it if they remain in England to grow old here and bring their children up as proper Englishmen rather than swan off when they retire...
    [/b][/quote]
    My family were from Ireland and didn't come till the end of the 19th Century. I don't hold them nor myself responsible for what happended to the Indians, nor the Africans in the past. I do hold myself responsible for how we handle things now. Thanks for digging all that crap up.

    Anyway, if you are agreeing with Prest, then I agree with you.
     
  15. Javen

    Javen Guest

    I think if you play underage for one coutnry than you have to stick with it.
     
  16. RC

    RC Guest

    I'd just like Regan King in our squad.
    So change the rules accordingly for him please.
    I don't care about any other countries, really. :p
     
  17. gingergenius

    gingergenius Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Nov 6 2008, 09:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    I agree and I agree.

    Prestwick, you sir, understand something that modern America would like to ignore: "America is immigration." Look at our new President Elect. Look at our Govenator of California. The reason I'm proud to be an Irish-American is because of what my immigrant ancestors did and built. Is Britain no different? Sure, you didn't start like we did, but by Victorian times your nation began to change like my nation.
    Going back to Rugby, I think an immigrant has two choices: 1. the country of his birth, 2. his adopted home. However, once he makes his choice, he's made his choice.
    [/b][/quote]

    Without getting into a debate about whether america sucks or not, i'd hope you're not proud of all your immigrant ancestors did to build america...

    Back on topic, I think Prestwick's got it spot on; I personally have no issue with Flutey/ Vainikolo etc. but I would like it if they remain in England to grow old here and bring their children up as proper Englishmen rather than swan off when they retire...
    [/b][/quote]
    My family were from Ireland and didn't come till the end of the 19th Century. I don't hold them nor myself responsible for what happended to the Indians, nor the Africans in the past. I do hold myself responsible for how we handle things now. Thanks for digging all that crap up.

    Anyway, if you are agreeing with Prest, then I agree with you.
    [/b][/quote]

    I didn't mean to hold you responsible, but the phrase 'digging all that crap up' kind of sums up where I'm coming from. It ****** me off that Americans in general push all of that under the carpet. It's different with slavery because there's 40 million blacks there as evidence. I just get irritated by the attitude that America was 'discovered' and was the promised land and all of that crap, as if the history of the place only started in the 17th century... anyway, rant over.
     
  18. Cymro

    Cymro Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RC @ Nov 6 2008, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Regan King's 1 cap came because NZ did not want him playing against them!
     
  19. The Current Rules ARE PERFECT!

    Why mess with them????
     
  20. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Nov 6 2008, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    WRONG! The history of America started in the 16th century. duh! :rolleyes:
     
  21. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Nov 6 2008, 06:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    WRONG! The history of America started in the 16th century. duh! :rolleyes:
    [/b][/quote]
    High 5!
    ha ha ha

    It's not like we don't know about the Native Americans. It's not like that hasn't been dealt with over and over again here.
    But, Civilization, as we understand it, only came with the Europeans. Now, if I was a Native or you were then we'd have a different perspective.
    Plus, there's not really history before Europeans as they didn't pass on much in the form of accounts (written stories). We only have archeology before the Euro-invasion. If we are to get technical.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page