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 $$$ in Europe
- But, having lived 10 years in NZ - we can still pick him, when we're desperate
Ah no, in this scenario the kid would have qualified under 5 year residency anyway.
It's for people who have lived in a country for 10 years but never in a streak of 5 unbroken years. Only likely scenario I could see it having an effect is allowing Fijians in British Army to play for England, like their new guy 18 year old Coganosiva who is an Army son who moved there age 3, but has been living in England > Germany > Brunei. Quite conceivable someone like him might have never spent > 5 years consecutive in England (3 years no worries) but lived there 10 years in total ( or soon will do).
The 5-year rule has to be consecutive AND immediately prior to playing.
But yeah - your scenario, and Crucial's, do seem the more likely "intention" of the rule.@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Rapido said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kruse said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Crucial said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Anyone understand the 10 year clause?
It the intention there that you can add up time spent resident if you split your play between two places? If so I can't see who this is targeted at or what it achieves.
Maybe I have read it wrong?Yeah - I was curious about that too... and I think your interpretation of it is correct.
I think it's the dastardly All Blacks....- Player born in Pacific Islands
- Poached by NZ, as a kid - goddamn baby-stealing kiwis
- Becomes a superstar, playing school/Super Rugby
- Goes to make the $$$ 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?
-
This seems to be the best thread to post this:
Steve Hansen: NZ players in Aus should be eligible for All Blacks
Now, the question is. Does Hansen have someone in mind, or is this more looking forward to the future? And is this really necessary?
-
This seems to be the best thread to post this:
Steve Hansen: NZ players in Aus should be eligible for All Blacks
Now, the question is. Does Hansen have someone in mind, or is this more looking forward to the future? And is this really necessary?
@Stargazer best example I can think of was when Daniel Braid played for Reds, was in outstanding form, but ineligible.
For me, it is ok for our guys to play there and be eligible here, but would open the door for aussie poaching
for anyone not yet capped. -
This seems to be the best thread to post this:
Steve Hansen: NZ players in Aus should be eligible for All Blacks
Now, the question is. Does Hansen have someone in mind, or is this more looking forward to the future? And is this really necessary?
@Stargazer @taniwharugby I haven't read the article, but going a step further, is it perhaps more aimed at NZ eligible players rather than just capped NZ players? E.g. guys like kwayde before they get selected for Aus.
-
@Stargazer @taniwharugby I haven't read the article, but going a step further, is it perhaps more aimed at NZ eligible players rather than just capped NZ players? E.g. guys like kwayde before they get selected for Aus.
-
@Stargazer @taniwharugby I haven't read the article, but going a step further, is it perhaps more aimed at NZ eligible players rather than just capped NZ players? E.g. guys like kwayde before they get selected for Aus.
-
@Bones oh I am sure that is part of it, but would open the door for players going the other way IMO.
-
@taniwharugby I'm not sure how? There aren't that many Aussie players in NZ Super Rugby, are there? Mike Alaalatoa, and ...? Or in Mitre 10 Cup?
@Stargazer I mean players who might go there, intending to play for ABs, but end up missing out and being able to play for Aus....not Aussies here.
-
@Stargazer I mean players who might go there, intending to play for ABs, but end up missing out and being able to play for Aus....not Aussies here.
-
@taniwharugby You mean players like C. Retallick?
@Stargazer well no, cos right now, he is ineligible for the ABs.
I guess Aussie would always limit numbers anyway, but if they are not tied to NZ already, but have aspirations they wanna be an AB, but could play for Aus....
