Eligibility back on the agenda
-
Interesting about the 7s clause for those under 20.
No murmurs or rumours about that.
Also interesting that nations now not allowed to designate their u20s as their second team. I think SAF and Wales were the unions with that set up.
Looks like their not keen on teenagers being locked in.
-
@Rapido As a result of the decisions made today, James Lowe will be foreign eligible in 3 years as his residency period starts in 2017 and 3 years will have passed before 31 December, 2020.
@Stargazer said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido As a result of the decisions made today, James Lowe will be foreign eligible in 3 years as his residency period starts in 2017 and 3 years will have passed before 31 December, 2020.
That's if his body hasn't given up on him by then.
@Billy-Tell said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
On a practical level
-
NZ will still have as many "South Sea Islanders" in the team as before...cos they're born in NZ, duh.
-
Players like Brad Shields could be hard to keep hold of: if he misses Lions selection (likely)...he has to decide whether to keep trying...or get himself into a Scottish/Irish/Welsh club before 31.12.2017...
His handling skills would have him fit in.
-
-
Interesting about the 7s clause for those under 20.
No murmurs or rumours about that.
Also interesting that nations now not allowed to designate their u20s as their second team. I think SAF and Wales were the unions with that set up.
Looks like their not keen on teenagers being locked in.
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Interesting about the 7s clause for those under 20.
No murmurs or rumours about that.
Also interesting that nations now not allowed to designate their u20s as their second team. I think SAF and Wales were the unions with that set up.
Looks like their not keen on teenagers being locked in.
Surely that was South Africa's chance to lock in their youth?
-
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
-
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
Ah no, in this scenario the kid would have qualified under 5 year residency anyway.
It's for people who have lived in a country for 10 years but never in a streak of 5 unbroken years. Only likely scenario I could see it having an effect is allowing Fijians in British Army to play for England, like their new guy 18 year old Coganosiva who is an Army son who moved there age 3, but has been living in England > Germany > Brunei. Quite conceivable someone like him might have never spent > 5 years consecutive in England (3 years no worries) but lived there 10 years in total ( or soon will do).
-
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
So they are actually extending eligibility to players that may have grown up in a country despite being citizens elsewhere and having moved away?
The obvious ones that fall into this category are army brats from Fiji whose dad served time in the UK then shifted back to the islands.
can't see how this clause can help smaller nations at all. Quite the reverse. -
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
Ah no, in this scenario the kid would have qualified under 5 year residency anyway.
It's for people who have lived in a country for 10 years but never in a streak of 5 unbroken years. Only likely scenario I could see it having an effect is allowing Fijians in British Army to play for England, like their new guy 18 year old Coganosiva who is an Army son who moved there age 3, but has been living in England > Germany > Brunei. Quite conceivable someone like him might have never spent > 5 years consecutive in England (3 years no worries) but lived there 10 years in total ( or soon will do).
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
Ah no, in this scenario the kid would have qualified under 5 year residency anyway.
It's for people who have lived in a country for 10 years but never in a streak of 5 unbroken years. Only likely scenario I could see it having an effect is allowing Fijians in British Army to play for England, like their new guy 18 year old Coganosiva who is an Army son who moved there age 3, but has been living in England > Germany > Brunei. Quite conceivable someone like him might have never spent > 5 years consecutive in England (3 years no worries) but lived there 10 years in total ( or soon will do).
The 5-year rule has to be consecutive AND immediately prior to playing.
But yeah - your scenario, and Crucial's, do seem the more likely "intention" of the rule. -
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
So they are actually extending eligibility to players that may have grown up in a country despite being citizens elsewhere and having moved away?
The obvious ones that fall into this category are army brats from Fiji whose dad served time in the UK then shifted back to the islands.
can't see how this clause can help smaller nations at all. Quite the reverse.@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
So they are actually extending eligibility to players that may have grown up in a country despite being citizens elsewhere and having moved away?
I think that sums it up fairly well.
It maybe also removes the requirement for "interpretation of individual circumstances" for people who go overseas for university/etc. Maybe?
It would be interesting to find out who proposed it. -
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
Ah no, in this scenario the kid would have qualified under 5 year residency anyway.
It's for people who have lived in a country for 10 years but never in a streak of 5 unbroken years. Only likely scenario I could see it having an effect is allowing Fijians in British Army to play for England, like their new guy 18 year old Coganosiva who is an Army son who moved there age 3, but has been living in England > Germany > Brunei. Quite conceivable someone like him might have never spent > 5 years consecutive in England (3 years no worries) but lived there 10 years in total ( or soon will do).
The 5-year rule has to be consecutive AND immediately prior to playing.
But yeah - your scenario, and Crucial's, do seem the more likely "intention" of the rule.@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
Ah no, in this scenario the kid would have qualified under 5 year residency anyway.
It's for people who have lived in a country for 10 years but never in a streak of 5 unbroken years. Only likely scenario I could see it having an effect is allowing Fijians in British Army to play for England, like their new guy 18 year old Coganosiva who is an Army son who moved there age 3, but has been living in England > Germany > Brunei. Quite conceivable someone like him might have never spent > 5 years consecutive in England (3 years no worries) but lived there 10 years in total ( or soon will do).
The 5-year rule has to be consecutive AND immediately prior to playing.
But yeah - your scenario, and Crucial's, do seem the more likely "intention" of the rule.Ok, yes, Booboos scenario then would make sense then as well.
Weird that it has to be 'served' immediately prior. And this clause would cover that gap. Eg in an alterative universe - say Nadolo, who moved to Aus aged 2 or 3, if he had left Aus aged 18 or 20 (and never took up his Fiji playing option) wouldn't be available to play for Aus without the clause. Could say the same for a Jerry Collins or Jerome Kaino etc. But reality is no debutants get picked if they move overseas in places like NZ and Aus.
-
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
Ah no, in this scenario the kid would have qualified under 5 year residency anyway.
It's for people who have lived in a country for 10 years but never in a streak of 5 unbroken years. Only likely scenario I could see it having an effect is allowing Fijians in British Army to play for England, like their new guy 18 year old Coganosiva who is an Army son who moved there age 3, but has been living in England > Germany > Brunei. Quite conceivable someone like him might have never spent > 5 years consecutive in England (3 years no worries) but lived there 10 years in total ( or soon will do).
The 5-year rule has to be consecutive AND immediately prior to playing.
But yeah - your scenario, and Crucial's, do seem the more likely "intention" of the rule.Ok, yes, Booboos scenario then would make sense then as well.
Weird that it has to be 'served' immediately prior. And this clause would cover that gap. Eg in an alterative universe - say Nadolo, who moved to Aus aged 2 or 3, if he had left Aus aged 18 or 20 (and never took up his Fiji playing option) wouldn't be available to play for Aus without the clause. Could say the same for a Jerry Collins or Jerome Kaino etc. But reality is no debutants get picked if they move overseas in places like NZ and Aus.
-
Ireland seeing the writing on the wall instead turns its focus from New Zealand to making tacit agreements with poms, taffs and porridge wogs .
http://www.the42.ie/irfu-irish-qualified-maggs-lydon-nucifora-3380846-May2017/?utm_source=shortlink
-
Ireland seeing the writing on the wall instead turns its focus from New Zealand to making tacit agreements with poms, taffs and porridge wogs .
http://www.the42.ie/irfu-irish-qualified-maggs-lydon-nucifora-3380846-May2017/?utm_source=shortlink
-
@jegga Not really:
With Lydon leading the new IQ programme, work is already underway in the UK and there are future plans to tap into the Irish-qualified populations in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the US and elsewhere.@Stargazer said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@jegga Not really:
With Lydon leading the new IQ programme, work is already underway in the UK and there are future plans to tap into the Irish-qualified populations in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the US and elsewhere.FFS
-
@jegga Not really:
With Lydon leading the new IQ programme, work is already underway in the UK and there are future plans to tap into the Irish-qualified populations in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the US and elsewhere.@Stargazer said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@jegga Not really:
With Lydon leading the new IQ programme, work is already underway in the UK and there are future plans to tap into the Irish-qualified populations in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, **the US** and elsewhere.The US... imagine if the eligibility was "self-identify as oirish"... there'd be a pool of millions to tap into.
-
@Stargazer said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@jegga Not really:
With Lydon leading the new IQ programme, work is already underway in the UK and there are future plans to tap into the Irish-qualified populations in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, **the US** and elsewhere.The US... imagine if the eligibility was "self-identify as oirish"... there'd be a pool of millions to tap into.
@Kruse Until they find out that getting drunk on Paddy's Day doesn't make you Irish.
-
@Kruse Until they find out that getting drunk on Paddy's Day doesn't make you Irish.
@antipodean said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kruse Until they find out that getting drunk on Paddy's Day doesn't make you Irish.
Also they can't play rugby for shit.
-
@Kruse Until they find out that getting drunk on Paddy's Day doesn't make you Irish.
@antipodean said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kruse Until they find out that getting drunk on Paddy's Day doesn't make you Irish.
What? Wait.
-
@antipodean said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kruse Until they find out that getting drunk on Paddy's Day doesn't make you Irish.
What? Wait.
Great idea.
One minor point.
The proof is not in the pudding, David as in how many additional players you bring into the talent pool.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating as project players already readily demonstrate.
-
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
Ah no, in this scenario the kid would have qualified under 5 year residency anyway.
It's for people who have lived in a country for 10 years but never in a streak of 5 unbroken years. Only likely scenario I could see it having an effect is allowing Fijians in British Army to play for England, like their new guy 18 year old Coganosiva who is an Army son who moved there age 3, but has been living in England > Germany > Brunei. Quite conceivable someone like him might have never spent > 5 years consecutive in England (3 years no worries) but lived there 10 years in total ( or soon will do).
The 5-year rule has to be consecutive AND immediately prior to playing.
But yeah - your scenario, and Crucial's, do seem the more likely "intention" of the rule.Ok, yes, Booboos scenario then would make sense then as well.
Weird that it has to be 'served' immediately prior. And this clause would cover that gap. Eg in an alterative universe - say Nadolo, who moved to Aus aged 2 or 3, if he had left Aus aged 18 or 20 (and never took up his Fiji playing option) wouldn't be available to play for Aus without the clause. Could say the same for a Jerry Collins or Jerome Kaino etc. But reality is no debutants get picked if they move overseas in places like NZ and Aus.
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
Ah no, in this scenario the kid would have qualified under 5 year residency anyway.
It's for people who have lived in a country for 10 years but never in a streak of 5 unbroken years. Only likely scenario I could see it having an effect is allowing Fijians in British Army to play for England, like their new guy 18 year old Coganosiva who is an Army son who moved there age 3, but has been living in England > Germany > Brunei. Quite conceivable someone like him might have never spent > 5 years consecutive in England (3 years no worries) but lived there 10 years in total ( or soon will do).
The 5-year rule has to be consecutive AND immediately prior to playing.
But yeah - your scenario, and Crucial's, do seem the more likely "intention" of the rule.Ok, yes, Booboos scenario then would make sense then as well.
Weird that it has to be 'served' immediately prior. And this clause would cover that gap. Eg in an alterative universe - say Nadolo, who moved to Aus aged 2 or 3, if he had left Aus aged 18 or 20 (and never took up his Fiji playing option) wouldn't be available to play for Aus without the clause. Could say the same for a Jerry Collins or Jerome Kaino etc. But reality is no debutants get picked if they move overseas in places like NZ and Aus.
My scenario? May have the wrong guy?
