Pichot's message

[Cruz_del_Sur]

In case you haven't read about it yet, here's Pichot's (WR vice president) message
----------------------------------

Jugadores No nacidos en sus paises/ Foreign-born players en Noviembre

46.3%

37.1%

29.7%

29.4%

27.7%

26.1%

24.3%

12.9%

12.5%

&

0%
------------------------------------------------------

Xenophobic is probably the nicest compliment he received after posting this. All coming, of course, from people with countries where the % is above 20%. Not only that, but a LOT of the people from countries that usually complain/ed about NZ poaching players from Tonga/Fiji/Samoa are screaming xenophobia when the same argument is used against them.

I don't think Pichot is against people like George North (born in England) playing for Wales. That is not his point. His point is that we're at a stage where if a player is good he gets to play for a set of nations, while if he's not that good, he gets to play for another. There also appears to be a very clear correlation about how rich the nations importing the good players are in comparison to the one exporting them.

The problem is the ability to decide nationality (for rugby purposes, not in gral in mean), because that implies money will play a role too. One of the beauties of national tournaments is, precisely, that every country gets to play with the cards they're dealt with regardless of money, location, religion, race, etc. This kinda ruins it imo.

Again, i am not against specific cases like (again) Geroge North. As an example, i am against someoen who played u18 for one team, and then after he doesnt make it to the senior goes to another country and plays for them there. I am 100% against that. I am also against a case where player A gets to play for country X if he is really good and country Y if he is just good. I can put names for both cases.

For the record, Argentina's is 0% by a weird coincidence. Cancelliere was born in the US while his parent's where on some sort of work secondment.

Thoughts?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The numbers are wrong, for a start. He took them from a youtube video that cant count.

If he has nothing against certain cases why include them in the figures? Easy enough to produce percentages of project/residence only players or players who gained residence after already moving to the country as a pro player (drops England down to 3/36, or 8%)

It's inflammatory, at best.

 

[ncurd]

What Olly said, there's a real conversation to be had but it isn't helped by rubbish stats with zero context at the start of the conversation.

Migration is a simple fact of life we shouldn't be punishing players based on decision their parents made for them.

Players like Shield sure screw them but the vast majority of players covered in these numbers are not.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

It's a deliberately provocative message from somebody with an agenda.

Looking at those counted amongst Ireland's figures:
Jordi Murphy: Irish parents, born in Spain, moved here at a young age.
Joey Carbery: Irish mother, moved here when he was 11.
Kieran Marmion: Irish parents.
Will Addison: Irish mother.
Sam Arnold: Irish mother.
Finlay Bealham: Irish heritage.
Rob Herring: Irish heritage.

Where Pichot has a gripe is with project players. I can see his argument if he's not happy that three years residency saw Quinn Roux, Bundee Aki and CJ Stander get capped but the image he presents makes him look foolish.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

It's a deliberately provocative message from somebody with an agenda.

Looking at those counted amongst Ireland's figures:
Jordi Murphy: Irish parents, born in Spain, moved here at a young age.
Joey Carbery: Irish mother, moved here when he was 11.
Kieran Marmion: Irish parents.
Will Addison: Irish mother.
Sam Arnold: Irish mother.
Finlay Bealham: Irish heritage.
Rob Herring: Irish heritage.

Where Pichot has a gripe is with project players. I can see his argument if he's not happy that three years residency saw Quinn Roux, Bundee Aki and CJ Stander get capped but the image he presents makes him look foolish.

Luke McGrath too.

Pichot is a joke imo, he very clearly cares so little for what the majority of rugby fans want and uses certain campaigns such as Georgia for the 6n as a guise for only being out for Argentina's best interest. He continually calls test matches friendlies, this tweet is after he, rightfully, got eligibility to extend to five years, he has this nations league idea that fans don't want etc... I think World Rugby need to cut ties with him as soon as they get the chance but it won't be an easy thing to do.

As for this tweet, I've said what I think of it on the country of birth thread, it shows very little awareness of how nationality works and points out a few Argentinian flaws as much as any other nation's.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

The numbers are wrong, for a start. He took them from a youtube video that cant count.

I saw them first from Three Red Kings (largest Munster fan twitter as far as i know).

They didn't like it one bit either but when they tried to debunk Ireland's figure (26.1%) this is what they said

"When you label someone like Jordi Murphy or Luke McGrath as "foreign-born" you imply some level of illegitimacy."
"Even with those spurious additions, the percentage is 25.5%."

"Spurious additions" apparently means calling a foreign-born person foreign-born.
And 25,5% vs 26,1%..... are you kidding me?

If he has nothing against certain cases why include them in the figures?

Because it's the only objective figure he could think off. To be completely honest, i can't think of another one to illustrate his point.
It's something easy to check for anyone with an internet connection, it's factual, objective and verifiable.

Again, i don't think Pichot has a problem with people like Murphy or North.
But the statistic is crystal clear.
Or turn it upside down: how many English/Irish/Italian/Scottish/Japanese are playing for Fiji/Tong/Samoa?
If you don't see the trend i have to assume you just refuse to.

And again, the ones complaining about the statistic are the ones, the exact same ones that have been complaining about NZ in the past. Where were those "exceptions" and heritages when those criticisms were raised against other teams?

It's a deliberately provocative message from somebody with an agenda.

Of course he has an agenda. He sees rich countries getting players from poor countries to play for them when he believes money shouldn't play a role in that. He believes given his role he has the responsibility to do something about it. That's his agenda.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

They didn't like it one bit either but when they tried to debunk Ireland's figure (26.1%) this is what they said

"When you label someone like Jordi Murphy or Luke McGrath as "foreign-born" you imply some level of illegitimacy."
"Even with those spurious additions, the percentage is 25.5%."

"Spurious additions" apparently means calling a foreign-born person foreign-born.
And 25,5% vs 26,1%..... are you kidding me?

I don't usually like three red kings but they're dead right here. Including McGrath, Murphy or even Marmion in figures like these illigitimises any point he's trying to make, the number becomes meaningless and if his numbers are wrong even by a small amount he deserves to be called out, he's the vice-chairman of world rugby, go tell an intern to spend a few days getting water tight results rather than grabbing it off of one guy's youtube video.

Because it's the only objective figure he could think off. To be completely honest, i can't think of another one to illustrate his point.
It's something easy to check for anyone with an internet connection, it's factual, objective and verifiable.

"% of players who qualified through three year eligibility", "% of players who qualified through a parent or grandparent", "% of players who played for a country having never lived there before the age of 18". These, or a combination of the three are all pretty objective, are a better indicator of whoever is abusing whatever "bad rule" he doesn't like and apart from the last one they're all verifiable.

Again, i don't think Pichot has a problem with people like Murphy or North.
But the statistic is crystal clear.
Or turn it upside down: how many English/Irish/Italian/Scottish/Japanese are playing for Fiji/Tong/Samoa?
If you don't see the trend i have to assume you just refuse to.

How many English/Irish/Italian/Scottish/Japanese emigrate to Fiji/Tong/Samoa? You can't use that point before you say this:

And again, the ones complaining about the statistic are the ones, the exact same ones that have been complaining about NZ in the past. Where were those "exceptions" and heritages when those criticisms were raised against other teams?

That's also a reference that only morons use anymore, to be honest its brought up by Kiwis more than anyone else.

Of course he has an agenda. He sees rich countries getting players from poor countries to play for them when he believes money shouldn't play a role in that. He believes given his role he has the responsibility to do something about it. That's his agenda.

So extend the eligibility period? Wait, he's already done that. Abandon the granny rule? Then you'd have players who have the right to be citizens of certain countries not being allowed to play rugby for them, that's a legal case WR won't win. Allow Tier 1 players to switch to tier 2 nations? The NZRU are pushing that one. Introduce a World League that will stop the world's top 10 nations (Could be 8, I don't know) from playing Tier 2 nations in the Autumn? Yeah do that one Agustin...

Yeah... His agenda is "Make Argentina look good in any way possible", not much more to it, he chases the impossible like getting Georgia into a 6n to disguise it but it's a thin veil. I'm all for progressive high ups in WR but lets not pretend the one from a T1 nation with a chip on his shoulder is what Tonga, Samoa and Fiji need.

 

[ncurd]

I saw them first from Three Red Kings (largest Munster fan twitter as far as i know).

They didn't like it one bit either but when they tried to debunk Ireland's figure (26.1%) this is what they said

"When you label someone like Jordi Murphy or Luke McGrath as "foreign-born" you imply some level of illegitimacy."
"Even with those spurious additions, the percentage is 25.5%."

"Spurious additions" apparently means calling a foreign-born person foreign-born.
And 25,5% vs 26,1%..... are you kidding me?

Posting a photo of a picture doesn't make figures better....there's zero sourcing. The guy retorting is also a muppet who can't do basic maths. In a 35 player squad each players accounts for to be precise 2.857142857142857% of the squad. If Muphy and McGrath are wrong the figure should state (rounding to 1dp) 20.4%

Because it's the only objective figure he could think off. To be completely honest, i can't think of another one to illustrate his point.
It's something easy to check for anyone with an internet connection, it's factual, objective and verifiable.

Again, i don't think Pichot has a problem with people like Murphy or North.
But the statistic is crystal clear.

If he'd not targeting players like Murphy or North the statistic is not clear because he has targeted them with it. Otherwise you are deliberately inflating the number to illustrate a point. This is pretty basic understanding of how use statistic to illustrate a point. You select your qualifying case and generate the numbers based on that case. If you use numbers outside of the case you wish to present you deliberately skewing the numbers and presenting false data.

Or turn it upside down: how many English/Irish/Italian/Scottish/Japanese are playing for Fiji/Tong/Samoa?
If you don't see the trend i have to assume you just refuse to.

Doesn't matter if people are not emigrating to those countries outside of intent to play Rugby there, theres nothing World Rugby should and can be doing about it.

And again, the ones complaining about the statistic are the ones, the exact same ones that have been complaining about NZ in the past. Where were those "exceptions" and heritages when those criticisms were raised against other teams?

You rarely see that said on this forum and a good kiwi poster will squash you in seconds if you try.

Of course he has an agenda. He sees rich countries getting players from poor countries to play for them when he believes money shouldn't play a role in that. He believes given his role he has the responsibility to do something about it. That's his agenda.

Project players are a problem but he's presented a case against anyone who the audacity to move when they are two. I don't care what his agenda is I happen to agree that project players should be heavily discourages against. You present the case for the argument you are making not a different one.

So it's one of two things
1) He thinks anyone should only play for country they happened to be born in regardless of the time they actually lived there (and were talking for some players people who have no memory of living in those countries). In which case he's wrong and can shove it.
2) He has used factually wrong numbers to inflate his argument in which case he should also shove it because people being **** with stats and how they work is what gives them a bad name.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

They're objectively wrong.

England have 9/36 foreign born players. That's 25%.

If you're going on used players this November then it's 5/30, or 16%

Neither is the number quoted in the tweet.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Let's face it the only reason why Argentina don't pick foreign born players is because none of the surrounding countries play it really and they don't have the money to draw them into the Jagures.

 

[ncurd]

Let's face it the only reason why Argentina don't pick foreign born players is because none of the surrounding countries play it really and they don't have the money to draw them into the Jagures.

It should be also noted as we are one nation that plays as 3.15 (how many Ulsterman play fore Ireland?) separate ones we get a lot of oddities as migrating to Scotland or Wales is just something I'd do if I got a job there. Nobody really makes the decision as concious decision to emigrate.

On the flip side Canada is an option open to me currently but that will require actual planning.

 

[bushytop]

It should be also noted as we are one nation that plays as 3.15 (how many Ulsterman play fore Ireland)...

Not every player who played for Wales and Scotland are English you know, British maybe but Welsh and Scottish first (for the most part).

 

[ncurd]

Not every player who played for Wales and Scotland are English you know, British maybe but Welsh and Scottish first (for the most part).

Despite how we think of it the UN considers the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" as one country. The fact we sometimes behave otherwise is a quirk of how our nation exists. A bit like states in the USA.

 

[bushytop]

Despite how we think of it the UN considers the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" as one country. The fact we sometimes behave otherwise is a quirk of how our nation exists. A bit like states in the USA.

So you're agreeing with me... not English.

 

[ncurd]

So you're agreeing with me... not English.

I didn't say that in the first place the 'we' was referring to Britain.

 

[bushytop]

I didn't say that in the first place the 'we' was referring to Britain.

Ahh right, sorry dude but I think you must be the first person to ever mean 'we' in that way on this forum... makes me feel all warm inside.

 

[ncurd]

Ahh right, sorry dude but I think you must be the first person to ever mean 'we' in that way on this forum... makes me feel all warm inside.

Human>European>British>English>West Country>Somerset

We can be a bit odd in a few contexts.

 

[bushytop]

Human>European>British>English>West Country>Somerset

We can be a bit odd in a few contexts.

Multiverse>Universe>Milky Way>Orion's Spur>Helios Solar System... I get it, Wales (& Scotland... & even England) are a country as far as Rugby is concerned and this is a rugby forum. Just making sure for any commenters outside of Britain that you didn't confuse them into thinking we are basically just a county or something.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Unfortunately i've opened myself to too many sides for debate and i don't have the time to tackle all so i'll have to cherry pick with intentions and not convenience in mind, but cherry pick nonetheless. Apologies for that Oly ncurd and Alpha.

"% of players who qualified through three year eligibility", "% of players who qualified through a parent or grandparent", "% of players who played for a country having never lived there before the age of 18".

Those are all subjective. Every single one has a pretty big judgement call in it.
Foreign born is cut and dry. I do agree with you that is far from perfect and some people who should be shown there are.

How many English/Irish/Italian/Scottish/Japanese emigrate to Fiji/Tong/Samoa?

Very few. But that doesn't refrain the point that rich nations benefit at the expense of poorer nations.

That's also a reference that only morons use anymore, to be honest its brought up by Kiwis more than anyone else.

Well, i'm sorry but the problem is that the timing is incredibly convenient. When you (Ire/Eng/etc) had nearly all their players born in Eng/Ire/Etc the ABs were poachers, but now that your foreign born numbers are more than NZ ones it's just morons who bring it up?
No. You can't have it both ways.
I am really curious what nzers have to say about this because i recall a few of them defending themselves about this not that long ago.

Then you'd have players who have the right to be citizens of certain countries not being allowed to play rugby for them, that's a legal case WR won't win.

Not sure where you are getting your legal advice but that is just not true. FIFA has won it for them and set the precedent. Other sports have done so too.

I can name at least 20 footie players without googling that have more than one nationality (very common in Argentina) that couldn't, cannot and wont be able to play for a team they have a nationality from.

I thought it was common knowledge, but i guess it's worth remembering. Messi (Arg and Spanish national at the time). AFA (Arg footie Fed) organized two games against Paraguay when messi was 17 yo for the sole purpose of blocking him from playing for Spain. It's well documented.
Carlos Navarro Montoya, considered at the time the best goalie in Argentina could never play for our national team because he had played a game for Colombia's youth squad.

Tons of examples. Over the last 20 years, cases where a footie player represents more than one national team, are incredibly rare. Probably a handful for extremely special circumstances but they are incredibly exceptional.

If he'd not targeting players like Murphy or North the statistic is not clear because he has targeted them with it.

That is a fair point and i agree with it, 100%.

Doesn't matter if people are not emigrating to those countries outside of intent to play Rugby there, there's nothing World Rugby should and can be doing about it.

I think it does. If the migration of talent for national teams follows one and almost exclusively one direction. I consider that to be a problem that should be addressed. You clearly dont think so.

You rarely see that said on this forum anda good kiwi poster will squash you in seconds if you try.

I dont think that is fair. They do bring it up, quite regularly actually. Ask @smartcooky the amount of times he had to explain why that is BS. Patience of a saint that man.
And whether the argument is silly or not is irrelevant. It's people from one country using an argument when it suits them and disregarding it when it doesn't. That's well, hypocritical.

So it's one of two things
1) He thinks anyone should only play for country they happened to be born in regardless of the time they actually lived there (and were talking for some players people who have no memory of living in those countries). In which case he's wrong and can shove it.
2) He has used factually wrong numbers to inflate his argument in which case he should also shove it because people being **** with stats and how they work is what gives them a bad name.

I see where you are coming from and it's a fair point, again. However, you point 1), the part "he's wrong" is a judgment call and a strong one. There are precedents in other sports, and not exceptions but a pretty general rule. Messi is again the best example. after he played those two games for Argentina, even if he had Spanish Nationality (which he had), even if he lived in spain (which he did), and even if he spent most of his life there (which he probably now has) he would have never, ever, been allowed to play for Spain.

I'm speculating (we all are a bit i guess) but I sincerely don't think that's what Pichot was trying to say. I admit he did manage it poorly tho. I think his idea is very similar to what happens in football in this aspect.

He basically sees, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil's best football players coming back to play for their national teams despite playing abroad. In Rugby that does not happen. If a Samoan is lured by an english club when he's young (say 17, he's played for Samoa U18 already), if he ends up being really good, chances are he will end up playing for England.
Some of you think there is nothing wrong with that. Pichot does and so do i.

This was, imo, his clumsy, politically incorrect and even stupid way of opening the conversation about it.

I think the way he is handling it is poor at best, but i like very much where he's aiming at.

Hope i had more time, got to go.

 

[bushytop]

Unfortunately i've opened myself to too many sides for debate and i don't have the time to tackle all so i'll have to cherry pick with intentions and not convenience in mind, but cherry pick nonetheless. Apologies for that Oly ncurd and Alpha.



Those are all subjective. Every single one has a pretty big judgement call in it.
Foreign born is cut and dry. I do agree with you that is far from perfect and some people who should be shown there are.


Very few. But that doesn't refrain the point that rich nations benefit at the expense of poorer nations.


Well, i'm sorry but the problem is that the timing is incredibly convenient. When you (Ire/Eng/etc) had nearly all their players born in Eng/Ire/Etc the ABs were poachers, but now that your foreign born numbers are more than NZ ones it's just morons who bring it up?
No. You can't have it both ways.
I am really curious what nzers have to say about this because i recall a few of them defending themselves about this not that long ago.


Not sure where you are getting your legal advice but that is just not true. FIFA has won it for them and set the precedent. Other sports have done so too.

I can name at least 20 footie players without googling that have more than one nationality (very common in Argentina) that couldn't, cannot and wont be able to play for a team they have a nationality from.

I thought it was common knowledge, but i guess it's worth remembering. Messi (Arg and Spanish national at the time). AFA (Arg footie Fed) organized two games against Paraguay when messi was 17 yo for the sole purpose of blocking him from playing for Spain. It's well documented.
Carlos Navarro Montoya, considered at the time the best goalie in Argentina could never play for our national team because he had played a game for Colombia's youth squad.

Tons of examples. Over the last 20 years, cases where a footie player represents more than one national team, are incredibly rare. Probably a handful for extremely special circumstances but they are incredibly exceptional.


That is a fair point and i agree with it, 100%.


I think it does. If the migration of talent for national teams follows one and almost exclusively one direction. I consider that to be a problem that should be addressed. You clearly dont think so.


I dont think that is fair. They do bring it up, quite regularly actually. Ask @smartcooky the amount of times he had to explain why that is BS. Patience of a saint that man.
And whether the argument is silly or not is irrelevant. It's people from one country using an argument when it suits them and disregarding it when it doesn't. That's well, hypocritical.


I see where you are coming from and it's a fair point, again. However, you point 1), the part "he's wrong" is a judgment call and a strong one. There are precedents in other sports, and not exceptions but a pretty general rule. Messi is again the best example. after he played those two games for Argentina, even if he had Spanish Nationality (which he had), even if he lived in spain (which he did), and even if he spent most of his life there (which he probably now has) he would have never, ever, been allowed to play for Spain.

I'm speculating (we all are a bit i guess) but I sincerely don't think that's what Pichot was trying to say. I admit he did manage it poorly tho. I think his idea is very similar to what happens in football in this aspect.

He basically sees, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil's best football players coming back to play for their national teams despite playing abroad. In Rugby that does not happen. If a Samoan is lured by an english club when he's young (say 17, he's played for Samoa U18 already), if he ends up being really good, chances are he will end up playing for England.
Some of you think there is nothing wrong with that. Pichot does and so do i.

This was, imo, his clumsy, politically incorrect and even stupid way of opening the conversation about it.

I think the way he is handling it is poor at best, but i like very much where he's aiming at.

Hope i had more time, got to go.

One of the biggest issues when ONLY judging nationality on country of birth is, what if my child was born while the misses and I were on vacation in... oh I dunno Hong Kong (for arguments sake). After the vacation ends and the misses, our newborn and myself return to Cardiff... where said newborn spends the rest of his upbringing, he is far more Welsh than a Hong Konger (or Hong Kongese).

Therefore, nationality can NEVER be as simple as merely place of birth.