Pichot's message

[Leonormous Boozer]

Ok, good. I do not understand your point then.
Reconcile that with this

It doesn't apply to players who've played for another country already. That would be a common exception to the general rule.

 

[FNS]

For me it´s simple. You are born in X then you can only play for X. If you emigrate and get Y nationality you cant play for Y because you were born in X. If not some good countries will have their talent + power ups. Shitty countries cant compete with that.

Or put a strick couta. No more than 2 spots of converted players.

 

[bushytop]

For me it´s simple. You are born in X then you can only play for X. If you emigrate and get Y nationality you cant play for Y because you were born in X. If not some good countries will have their talent + power ups. Shitty countries cant compete with that.

Or put a strick couta. No more than 2 spots of converted players.

... but X or Y don't play rugby.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

It doesn't apply to players who've played for another country already.

But that would constitute discrimination, as per your previous posts.
You can't have it both ways.

... but X or Y don't play rugby.

Liberia wasn't really into footie when George Weah was around. Tough luck, deal with it. Tons of players had to. Magico Gonzalez (Salvador), Gareth Bale, Litmanen (Finland), George Best... the list is endless.

I mean, seriously, the idea is not for players to pick countries to play for. It is not. That's what club competition is for.

This is the key issue: some of us want a random, unpredictable component. It makes the sport fairer as it is something that, by design, money cannot buy.

Having said that, i disagree with FNS. I think that is way too strict in this day and age. Maybe not in South America/Africa/Asia but elsewhere people move a lot and i'd think that punishing people like Cancelliere, North or Jordi Murphy is fair.

 

[bushytop]

But that would constitute discrimination, as per your previous posts.
You can't have it both ways.


Liberia wasn't really into footie when George Weah was around. Tough luck, deal with it. Tons of players had to. Magico Gonzalez (Salvador), Gareth Bale, Litmanen (Finland), George Best... the list is endless.

I mean, seriously, the idea is not for players to pick countries to play for. It is not. That's what club competition is for.

This is the key issue: some of us want a random, unpredictable component. It makes the sport fairer as it is something that, by design, money cannot buy.

Having said that, i disagree with FNS. I think that is way too strict in this day and age. Maybe not in South America/Africa/Asia but elsewhere people move a lot and i'd think that punishing people like Cancelliere, North or Jordi Murphy is fair.

I'll have you know Gareth Bale got to a European Championship semi final so I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to suggest with that...

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

But that would constitute discrimination, as per your previous posts.
You can't have it both ways.

I don't know what else to tell you Cruz, this is how the law works. You're looking for a blanket rule to be applied the same way in every different scenario and they very rarely, if ever, exist.

 

[bushytop]

Just to add, it happens in all sports... I remember a top Kenyan distance runner representing Denmark, Greg Rucjezdsky (?) representing GB in tennis. The list goes on and on.

Laws defining citizenship will always have a MAJOR impact on residency rulings within sports.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I don't know what else to tell you Cruz, this is how the law works.

If that how the law works then an inevitable consequence would be for people to be able to change teams as if they weren't allowed, they could claim discrimination.
Since that is not what happens, then the premise (that's how the law works) must be wrong.

Laws defining citizenship will always have a MAJOR impact on residency rulings within sports.

Course it does. It's a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one, that's the entire point.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

If that how the law works then an inevitable consequence would be for people to be able to change teams as if they weren't allowed, they could claim discrimination.
Since that is not what happens, then the premise (that's how the law works) must be wrong.

Alright... I'll throw my degree in the trash...

 

[Leinster Fan]

For me it´s simple. You are born in X then you can only play for X. If you emigrate and get Y nationality you cant play for Y because you were born in X. If not some good countries will have their talent + power ups. Shitty countries cant compete with that.

Or put a strick couta. No more than 2 spots of converted players.

That's a bit ridiculous. What if your parents are on holiday in X and you spend every day of your life except for the first week in country Y? Really?

Appropriate that Jamie Heaslip just came up on screen. Won't repost it here but have a look at my post on him on the country of birth thread if you want to see another example of how ridiculous what you're saying is.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Alright... I'll throw my degree in the trash...

This ain't about just law. It's about the logic behind it, that's the point. Congruence and consistency.

But anyway, it seems we're getting nowhere so i'll drop it. At least for now!

 

[OneBlackEye]

Wow times have changed.

As a kiwi that lived in the UK for 8 years I can't count the amount of times I had to endure moaning about the All Blacks poaching from PI countries. I imagine if I ever tried to say it would be illegal or a human rights violation to not let our foreign born ABs play I would have got laughed out of the pub!

There's some interesting ideas in this thread, I'm not sure how I feel but I'm enjoying the debate.

If it is true that every union has to make every citizen available to play for the national team or face a discrimination lawsuit then there's not much left to debate though is there? WRs hands are tied.

It's odd to think that using that logic if I had the skills and a good enough lawyer I could have played for the All Blacks, Scotland and Canada by now.

Ultimately for those of us not directly involved it's just a product to consume and each individual has to decide at what point they are no longer interested in test rugby because they feel national teams aren't national enough for them. Wouldn't it feel a bit hollow to celebrate Ireland winning the world Cup with an entire team of Akis or England with an entire team of Shields? Everyone will have a different answer to that.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

If it is true that every union has to make every citizen available to play for the national team or face a discrimination lawsuit then there's not much left to debate though is there? WRs hands are tied.

It's odd to think that using that logic if I had the skills and a good enough lawyer I could have played for the All Blacks, Scotland and Canada by now.

That's not correct though. I'd suggest everyone stop trying to use strict logic while applying the law, it is inherently quite an illogical thing to a lay person reading it.

Cruz' argument is that "if it is discriminatory to not let a player play for a country he/she is a citizen of that must apply to every single scenario where this happens regardless of intervening factors (having played for another country) lest it be inconsistent".

I'll make a similar statement using a different area of the law "if it is murder to intentionally kill someone that must apply to every single scenario where this happens regardless of intervening factors (war, self defence, euthanasia) lest it be inconsistent". It doesn't hold up, right?

In reality, and as I have said on numerous occasions on this thread, there are rules set out but almost all of them have exceptions which arise because of intervening circumstances. Playing for another country would be an intervening circumstance that would provide an exception to the rule that a person with a birth right of citizenship should be allowed to play for that country.

 

[OneBlackEye]

That's not correct though. I'd suggest everyone stop trying to use strict logic while applying the law, it is inherently quite an illogical thing to a lay person reading it.

Cruz' argument is that "if it is discriminatory to not let a player play for a country he/she is a citizen of that must apply to every single scenario where this happens regardless of intervening factors (having played for another country) lest it be inconsistent".

I'll make a similar statement using a different area of the law "if it is murder to intentionally kill someone that must apply to every single scenario where this happens regardless of intervening factors (war, self defence, euthanasia) lest it be inconsistent". It doesn't hold up, right?

In reality, and as I have said on numerous occasions on this thread, there are rules set out but almost all of them have exceptions which arise because of intervening circumstances. Playing for another country would be an intervening circumstance that would provide an exception to the rule that a person with a birth right of citizenship should be allowed to play for that country.

I think I see your point. It's confusing to think though that in this hypothetical situation where this discrimination case has gone to court playing a game of rugby in the past would mean anything at all though.

"Yes you are being discriminated against, but you did play a game of rugby 8 years ago so actually you aren't" seems different to "yes you murdered that guy, but he was trying to kill you first so actually you didn't" to me. Maybe that's why you're a lawyer and I'm not.

 

[TRF_heineken]

This ain't about just law. It's about the logic behind it, that's the point. Congruence and consistency.

But anyway, it seems we're getting nowhere so i'll drop it. At least for now!

Logic and Law are always battling one another, but on this matter I have to agree with Alpha. The point being that this wouldn't be a discussion at all if the laws weren't there. But they are, and by using the laws, nations are implementing it to their advantage while others are abusing it.

Let's use a different topic for the sake of argument. Let's use the recent change in law in South Africa with regards to Marijuana. For decades it was an illegal drug, and whoever was found in possession of it, was arrested and criminally charged. But recently the courts have ruled that it has benefits. And the law has now changed that Marijuana can be used in by people for personal use. They are yet to indicate the amount you are allowed to have in possession, but that's now not applicable to this discussion.

The point is that While many countries still outlaw it, it isn't outlawed in other countries. And those countries can modify their behaviour surrounding the topic to their advantage, while also adhering to international treaties and laws.

South Africa has now made their U20 team their 2nd national team, to prevent cases such as Dell and Stander from representing other nations. Some countries have followed suit while others haven't.

I guess the issue is that one country can apply their own laws but will still need to comply to the international norms and treaties to which they submitted to.

Sometimes it's illogical, other times it is.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

delete pls

 

[User1245]

Not sure if the talk about discrimination of not being able to represent a country is a sound one. Like other people have mentioned, absolutely no issues with moving countries for club rugby. The sovereignty of the individual to make lifestyle changes at their own wish is important. I have no issues with professional athletes going to greener pastures regardless of how long they've been in a rugby union's system.

However when did representing a country in a sport become a right? It's like trying to force yourself into a women's only gym and then crying foul if they don't let you in. Is it's technically discrimination in the eyes of the law for not to let a man into a gym because of their gender? Yes. Does the gym have the right to make rules for their establishment? Yes. Should they discard all rules that go against the law? Probably not because they can at least argue that they have a reasonable requirement.

Well I think the same method should be applied to the WR's rules for eligibility when playing for a country as the case for discrimination in this context is weaker than the above mentioned example.

WR has product (international Test matches) to keep this product strong it needs to uphold certain standards, one of the which is that player needs to display a commitment to their new country. I think most self respecting consumers of international rugby want this. 4 or 5 years of residence in that country AND citizenship.
If they don't have robust standards then their product will go the way of other sporting codes like international rugby league.

It takes out the harsh place of birth requirement off the table and closes the ancestry loop hole.

 

[User1245]

Same with a guy like CJ Stander, he is the most attritional player in rugby right now and he may not even have carved out a pro career longer than 5 years had he stayed in SA. He experienced massive improvement in his three years in Munster going from just about cutting it at pro12 level and not making European squads to a top class international. Ok, three years was too short a time period and that has since been changed but rugby is better for this guy playing internationally.

LOL how convenient.

Gotta love the narrative of how that the Irish saved Stander from rugby wilderness because one coach from one union wanted him to convert to another position. The poor guy would be stacking shelves if it wasn't for them! Certainly has nothing to do with the fact that he saw the writing on the wall of how every year he was going to be more and more discriminated against on a provincial and national level as the ANC government's racial quota is steadily increased.
And then fans like yourself are willing to stand up for his right to play for the country otherwise it would be discrimination.

The whole too small story is joke and very convenient to avoid the real issue. We've had smaller flanks than him play for the Boks. There's bigger discrimination fish to fry.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Not sure if the talk about discrimination of not being able to represent a country is a sound one.

In the context of the grandparent rule it is sound. It would not be lawful in Ireland (and one country is all that is needed for this to stand) for a rugby team to have a higher standard for nationality in order to work for them than the president of the country and a plethora of public service positions.

It's why Olympians represent Ireland through the grandparent rule, soccer players, rugby league players, hockey players etc... too. Challenging me on this is unwise without a hell of a lot of research into Irish constitutional law, employment law and nationality law. If world rugby want to abolish the grandparent rule they are going to have to wait until there are no players born before July 2005 still playing the game because anyone born after that date without Irish grandparents is no longer entitled to citizenship, before than it won't stick here.

However when did representing a country in a sport become a right? It's like trying to force yourself into a women's only gym and then crying foul if they don't let you in. Is it's technically discrimination in the eyes of the law for not to let a man into a gym because of their gender? Yes. Does the gym have the right to make rules for their establishment? Yes. Should they discard all rules that go against the law? Probably not because they can at least argue that they have a reasonable requirement.

Well I think the same method should be applied to the WR's rules for eligibility when playing for a country as the case for discrimination in this context is weaker than the above mentioned example.

Membership and employment are very different things. You can refuse a customer for literally any reason you want, it was recently upheld that there was no legal discrimination when a bakery in NI refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. There are a list of basis that you can't refuse to employ someone over, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc... nationality is also one of them apart from certain positions, and those positions are then subject to Irish nationality law which I had mentioned previously in context of the grandparent rule. Exceptions also exist, I haven't got examples for Ireland but I know that you can't join certain militaries if you were a member of another regardless of citizenship, exceptions to the rule is what stop players from switching international rugby teams.

I don't think I can explain this more clearly without scanning through textbooks and statutes and I'm doing enough of that in my life right now. If anyone still doesn't think I'm legit I can tell you that I'm 99% sure you're wrong, that 1% is the possibility of an Irish and subsequently European court which is notoriously employee friendly ruling that the IRFU doesn't have to adhere to the same employment laws as every other employer in Ireland.

LOL how convenient.

Gotta love the narrative of how that the Irish saved Stander from rugby wilderness because one coach from one union wanted him to convert to another position. The poor guy would be stacking shelves if it wasn't for them! Certainly has nothing to do with the fact that he saw the writing on the wall of how every year he was going to be more and more discriminated against on a provincial and national level as the ANC government's racial quota is steadily increased.
And then fans like yourself are willing to stand up for his right to play for the country otherwise it would be discrimination.

The whole too small story is joke and very convenient to avoid the real issue. We've had smaller flanks than him play for the Boks. There's bigger discrimination fish to fry.

A narrative that hasn't been mentioned in this thread? The guy was going to have to move club in SA, move abroad, or go back to the farm, he's said that himself and I've said nothing more...

As for the bolded I just haven't done that. He's been here 5 years so I would argue that now but we got two years out of him that we shouldn't have.

 

[User1245]

In the context of the grandparent rule it is sound. It would not be lawful in Ireland (and one country is all that is needed for this to stand) for a rugby team to have a higher standard for nationality in order to work for them than the president of the country and a plethora of public service positions.

It's why Olympians represent Ireland through the grandparent rule, soccer players, rugby league players, hockey players etc... too. Challenging me on this is unwise without a hell of a lot of research into Irish constitutional law, employment law and nationality law. If world rugby want to abolish the grandparent rule they are going to have to wait until there are no players born before July 2005 still playing the game because anyone born after that date without Irish grandparents is no longer entitled to citizenship, before than it won't stick here.

Membership and employment are very different things. You can refuse a customer for literally any reason you want, it was recently upheld that there was no legal discrimination when a bakery in NI refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. There are a list of basis that you can't refuse to employ someone over, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc... nationality is also one of them apart from certain positions, and those positions are then subject to Irish nationality law which I had mentioned previously in context of the grandparent rule. Exceptions also exist, I haven't got examples for Ireland but I know that you can't join certain militaries if you were a member of another regardless of citizenship, exceptions to the rule is what stop players from switching international rugby teams.

I don't think I can explain this more clearly without scanning through textbooks and statutes and I'm doing enough of that in my life right now. If anyone still doesn't think I'm legit I can tell you that I'm 99% sure you're wrong, that 1% is the possibility of an Irish and subsequently European court which is notoriously employee friendly ruling that the IRFU doesn't have to adhere to the same employment laws as every other employer in Ireland.

I don't get it. On the one hand you're basing your point on the insistence that Irish/EU law supercedes World Rugby regulations but on the other hand it appears you're saying that players wouldn't challenge the the WR regulation on not being able to play for another international union (regardless of citizenship status) because they would recognise it would be a hard nut to crack?

Why would they challenge a regulation about playing in the country for a period of time but not one about not being able to play for another country even if they only had citizenship of their new country?

The latter has been challenged before by Nacewa (who sort legal advice) and was hit back by the then IRB. I mean if there was ever a case for someone to be able to play for another country Nacewa's case is the best case scenario. Now what's important here is this is a real life example where a IRB regulation trumped employment laws with regards to "discrimination".

I think you're getting hung up on a possible technicality and saying it can only be so, however WR have a history of enforcing their regulations over and above that of employment laws.

A narrative that hasn't been mentioned in this thread? The guy was going to have to move club in SA, move abroad, or go back to the farm, he's said that himself and I've said nothing more...

As for the bolded I just haven't done that. He's been here 5 years so I would argue that now but we got two years out of him that we shouldn't have.

Okay so what did you mean when you said:

...he may not even have carved out a pro career longer than 5 years had he stayed in SA

And

...rugby is better for this guy playing internationally.

?

To me it sounds like:

• He had some sort of barrier that was likely to force him out of the game by the age of 28
• He didn't stand a chance of playing international rugby if he had stayed in South Africa

What is the reasoning used to base those statements on?