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.
@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....
-
@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....
-
@taniwharugby I think you need to give an example, because I don't see how NZR allowing NZ players playing SR in Oz to play for the ABs, can lead to ... to what exactly. Australia selecting who for the Wallabies?
@Stargazer FFS....Yes Callum could potentially be a Wallaby, however, when he signed, I expect he knew he was all but giving away his dreams of an AB jersey, may even had his eyes on a Wallaby jersey, whereas in the future, that may not be the case...
I dont expect it wil be a problem at present with the way Aussie rugby is, but if strong, then maybe we might lose one or 2.
-
@Stargazer FFS....Yes Callum could potentially be a Wallaby, however, when he signed, I expect he knew he was all but giving away his dreams of an AB jersey, may even had his eyes on a Wallaby jersey, whereas in the future, that may not be the case...
I dont expect it wil be a problem at present with the way Aussie rugby is, but if strong, then maybe we might lose one or 2.
-
@taniwharugby Would still need to meet the WR residency rule though.
@Stargazer I think that's the point. Players would be less reluctant to head to Aus as they would still have the AB door open. And then would become eligible for Aus as another option...so in essence almost more inviting than staying in NZ.
-
New Zealand Rugby pays its top players a lot of money. Why would we pay them money to go and play in another country most of the time? Having five teams gives us combinations and we get to see the best go head to head in derbies. If any player wants to go then they would have to take a massive pay cut and also be open to the same restrictions - for instance all All Blacks were rested for two Super Rugby games in the 2015.
-
New Zealand Rugby pays its top players a lot of money. Why would we pay them money to go and play in another country most of the time? Having five teams gives us combinations and we get to see the best go head to head in derbies. If any player wants to go then they would have to take a massive pay cut and also be open to the same restrictions - for instance all All Blacks were rested for two Super Rugby games in the 2015.
@hydro11 said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
New Zealand Rugby pays its top players a lot of money. Why would we pay them money to go and play in another country most of the time? Having five teams gives us combinations and we get to see the best go head to head in derbies. If any player wants to go then they would have to take a massive pay cut and also be open to the same restrictions - for instance all All Blacks were rested for two Super Rugby games in the 2015.
I see it the other way, the ARU pay a substantial amount of the money ABs get - the Super rugby part.
-
@hydro11 said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
New Zealand Rugby pays its top players a lot of money. Why would we pay them money to go and play in another country most of the time? Having five teams gives us combinations and we get to see the best go head to head in derbies. If any player wants to go then they would have to take a massive pay cut and also be open to the same restrictions - for instance all All Blacks were rested for two Super Rugby games in the 2015.
I see it the other way, the ARU pay a substantial amount of the money ABs get - the Super rugby part.
@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@hydro11 said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
New Zealand Rugby pays its top players a lot of money. Why would we pay them money to go and play in another country most of the time? Having five teams gives us combinations and we get to see the best go head to head in derbies. If any player wants to go then they would have to take a massive pay cut and also be open to the same restrictions - for instance all All Blacks were rested for two Super Rugby games in the 2015.
I see it the other way, the ARU pay a substantial amount of the money ABs get - the Super rugby part.
I suppose but then other players will probably get that money.
-
I think this would make a lot of sense for both NZ and Oz rugby.
Oz rugby is going rapidly down the pan. They need to boost their SR teams with skilled players - and where better source than across the Ta$man. For NZ, having their younger players playing in the same comp across the water is far better than having them hump off to Europe. It's a five-year window before they can declare. Sufficient time to assess project players and either bring them back or cap them in Oz in fifth year. The lure of the black geansai is strong.
-
No fucking way.
The part where NZ would benefit from this ie. a quade (if he was good) type situation rarely occurs.
I don't see any benefit to NZ rugby in established guys playing in Australia other than their Super rugby salaries being paid by Amtge ARU. However the negatives are numerous. As already mentioned it could add to the already long list of NZ guys of the lower tier in Australia potentially becoming eligible for the Wallabies. It removes the control the NZRU have over player workloads,training and game time. It dillutes combinations between players it could also weaken NZ super rugby teams.
The strength of NZ rugby is largely due to it's systems of development, including at Super rugby level, it's not worth risking that by opening up the country to poaching of our top level by Australia. It's bad enough we have to compete with the NH clubs. -
No fucking way.
The part where NZ would benefit from this ie. a quade (if he was good) type situation rarely occurs.
I don't see any benefit to NZ rugby in established guys playing in Australia other than their Super rugby salaries being paid by Amtge ARU. However the negatives are numerous. As already mentioned it could add to the already long list of NZ guys of the lower tier in Australia potentially becoming eligible for the Wallabies. It removes the control the NZRU have over player workloads,training and game time. It dillutes combinations between players it could also weaken NZ super rugby teams.
The strength of NZ rugby is largely due to it's systems of development, including at Super rugby level, it's not worth risking that by opening up the country to poaching of our top level by Australia. It's bad enough we have to compete with the NH clubs.@pukunui said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
The strength of NZ rugby is largely due to it's systems of development
This element seems to be overlooked. Right now, is there a single coach in charge of an Australian Super Rugby franchise you'd be happy to see in charge of the development of a potential All Black?
