- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,502
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Unsurprisingly for anyone who has read my posts I largely agree with our Argentine and South African posters that the thrust of Pichots apparent point is apparently sound - even if know the unions from those countries would exploit the rule just as much if they could.
The counterpoints on accuracy and the residency measures already implemented to counter this are valid though. Even if obtaining bullet proof figures is near impossible due to complexities of the matter.
For me the issue is always one of "did your union raise a player through its system as a youth player?". If so, then feel good about their inclusion in your side regardless of their heritage. Feel good also if the player relocated in your country for non-rugby reasons.
In all other instances accept that, whilst legally valid, it isn't ideal from any perspective and that it leaves your union open to criticism for their interpretation of the spirit of international competition. Perhaps use it as grounds to ask your union if it is doing enough to nurture talent in the communities it represents and hold it to account.
Despite improvement, I think the Scottish union should be held aloft as a shining example of historic mismanagement and insular culture. I think it is right to point at them and shake your head when only 6 of their 23 against Canada earlier in the year were born in Scotland. BUT you can't do that and then get animated in the defence of your own union's conduct if it is in a similar vein.
Why are so many people so protective of their unions? I can't think of a single union that doesn't do something I strongly disagree with or doesn't actively constrain the spread of the sport either domestically or internationally. Calling most of them incompetent would be a compliment, yet people man the barricades if anyone should question their motivations or decision making.
Finally, Pichot should be scrutinised as much as anyone, especially over his mining ties to Andrew Forrest, but to say he acts only in the interests of Argentina is unfair and an oversimplification. He is pretty obsessed about expanding the sport, yet the Pumas were Tier1 when he took his post. So if he was as obsessed about the Pumas as folk think then surely it'd be in his best interests to focus on the closed shop Tier1 and Argentina's place in it.
I didn't know he called the Autumn and June Tests friendlies. I thought that was just me!
The counterpoints on accuracy and the residency measures already implemented to counter this are valid though. Even if obtaining bullet proof figures is near impossible due to complexities of the matter.
For me the issue is always one of "did your union raise a player through its system as a youth player?". If so, then feel good about their inclusion in your side regardless of their heritage. Feel good also if the player relocated in your country for non-rugby reasons.
In all other instances accept that, whilst legally valid, it isn't ideal from any perspective and that it leaves your union open to criticism for their interpretation of the spirit of international competition. Perhaps use it as grounds to ask your union if it is doing enough to nurture talent in the communities it represents and hold it to account.
Despite improvement, I think the Scottish union should be held aloft as a shining example of historic mismanagement and insular culture. I think it is right to point at them and shake your head when only 6 of their 23 against Canada earlier in the year were born in Scotland. BUT you can't do that and then get animated in the defence of your own union's conduct if it is in a similar vein.
Why are so many people so protective of their unions? I can't think of a single union that doesn't do something I strongly disagree with or doesn't actively constrain the spread of the sport either domestically or internationally. Calling most of them incompetent would be a compliment, yet people man the barricades if anyone should question their motivations or decision making.
Finally, Pichot should be scrutinised as much as anyone, especially over his mining ties to Andrew Forrest, but to say he acts only in the interests of Argentina is unfair and an oversimplification. He is pretty obsessed about expanding the sport, yet the Pumas were Tier1 when he took his post. So if he was as obsessed about the Pumas as folk think then surely it'd be in his best interests to focus on the closed shop Tier1 and Argentina's place in it.
I didn't know he called the Autumn and June Tests friendlies. I thought that was just me!