World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules
-
By the way, I've seen reactions from both (former) players and fans from countries like Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Georgia, who are very disappointed about the change, because those countries have made a big effort of developing their own players and have rosters of players that are 100% home grown and this rule change favours countries that have not.
You could indeed argue that this rule change may have some consequences for player development and pathways.
A homegrown/developed Samoan player may miss out on a spot in the Samoan squad, because Samoa can now select players like Luatua, Vito, J Savea and Nonu.
Tonga is already heavily dependent on NZ developed players for its national squad. This rule change makes it even less necessary for countries like Tonga to invest in player development at home, like Fiji has done. Just pick the Fekitoa's and Piutau's.
Not sure how valid these arguments are, but I've also seen people's comments that this rule change encourages "rugby mercenaries" among future/current ABs and Wallabies as being an AB/Wallabie increases their market value in Europe/Japan, they can go for the big coin contracts there after being NZ/Oz capped and after three years, switch allegiance.
@stargazer said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
Not sure how valid these arguments are, but I've also seen people's comments that this rule change encourages "rugby mercenaries" among future/current ABs and Wallabies as being an AB/Wallabie increases their market value in Europe/Japan, they can go for the big coin contracts there after being NZ/Oz capped and after three years, switch allegiance.
Not convinced they wouldn't just go for the money regardless. I mean, they already have.
ABs losing games will diminish the allure and available cash more than anything.
-
@stargazer i think on the surface they're probably pretty valid
but i also think the reality is Tonga and Samoa just can't/weren't going to invest much more, those counties you list all have mch biggest populations and so more scope for growth so i dont think its quite apples and apples
@kiwiwomble said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@stargazer i think on the surface they're probably pretty valid
but i also think the reality is Tonga and Samoa just can't/weren't going to invest much more, those counties you list all have mch biggest populations and so more scope for growth so i dont think its quite apples and apples
Agree. It will make it a little harder - more competitive - for the Uruguays and Georgias, but it's not hindering them at all, just means that their opponents might be a little stronger.
The other arguments against seem logical, but I just don't think they're realistically going to happen much, if at all. Any Pasifika player weighing up whether to pursue a career with the ABs/Wallabies or Samoa/Tonga is going to have pretty much the same choice before as after. The opportunity to take a 3 year break so they can play for both wouldn't change that decision.
-
By the way, I've seen reactions from both (former) players and fans from countries like Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Georgia, who are very disappointed about the change, because those countries have made a big effort of developing their own players and have rosters of players that are 100% home grown and this rule change favours countries that have not.
You could indeed argue that this rule change may have some consequences for player development and pathways.
A homegrown/developed Samoan player may miss out on a spot in the Samoan squad, because Samoa can now select players like Luatua, Vito, J Savea and Nonu.
Tonga is already heavily dependent on NZ developed players for its national squad. This rule change makes it even less necessary for countries like Tonga to invest in player development at home, like Fiji has done. Just pick the Fekitoa's and Piutau's.
Not sure how valid these arguments are, but I've also seen people's comments that this rule change encourages "rugby mercenaries" among future/current ABs and Wallabies as being an AB/Wallabie increases their market value in Europe/Japan, they can go for the big coin contracts there after being NZ/Oz capped and after three years, switch allegiance.
@stargazer said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
By the way, I've seen reactions from both (former) players and fans from countries like Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Georgia, who are very disappointed about the change, because those countries have made a big effort of developing their own players and have rosters of players that are 100% home grown and this rule change favours countries that have not.
You could indeed argue that this rule change may have some consequences for player development and pathways.
A homegrown/developed Samoan player may miss out on a spot in the Samoan squad, because Samoa can now select players like Luatua, Vito, J Savea and Nonu.
Tonga is already heavily dependent on NZ developed players for its national squad. This rule change makes it even less necessary for countries like Tonga to invest in player development at home, like Fiji has done. Just pick the Fekitoa's and Piutau's.
Not sure how valid these arguments are, but I've also seen people's comments that this rule change encourages "rugby mercenaries" among future/current ABs and Wallabies as being an AB/Wallabie increases their market value in Europe/Japan, they can go for the big coin contracts there after being NZ/Oz capped and after three years, switch allegiance.
You make valid points though the thing is that any set of rules will be open to abuse and manipulation. I think the most important thing is whether or not the new rules are better overall than the previous. There will always be winners and losers in such changes and maybe it is being viewed that the winners are probably more deserving. My worries are that she these new rules might benefit the PIs in the short term, will it be detrimental in the longer term.
-
@stargazer said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
By the way, I've seen reactions from both (former) players and fans from countries like Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Georgia, who are very disappointed about the change, because those countries have made a big effort of developing their own players and have rosters of players that are 100% home grown and this rule change favours countries that have not.
You could indeed argue that this rule change may have some consequences for player development and pathways.
A homegrown/developed Samoan player may miss out on a spot in the Samoan squad, because Samoa can now select players like Luatua, Vito, J Savea and Nonu.
Tonga is already heavily dependent on NZ developed players for its national squad. This rule change makes it even less necessary for countries like Tonga to invest in player development at home, like Fiji has done. Just pick the Fekitoa's and Piutau's.
Not sure how valid these arguments are, but I've also seen people's comments that this rule change encourages "rugby mercenaries" among future/current ABs and Wallabies as being an AB/Wallabie increases their market value in Europe/Japan, they can go for the big coin contracts there after being NZ/Oz capped and after three years, switch allegiance.
You make valid points though the thing is that any set of rules will be open to abuse and manipulation. I think the most important thing is whether or not the new rules are better overall than the previous. There will always be winners and losers in such changes and maybe it is being viewed that the winners are probably more deserving. My worries are that she these new rules might benefit the PIs in the short term, will it be detrimental in the longer term.
@catogrande why do you think they'll be harmful longer term?
-
@stargazer said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
By the way, I've seen reactions from both (former) players and fans from countries like Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Georgia, who are very disappointed about the change, because those countries have made a big effort of developing their own players and have rosters of players that are 100% home grown and this rule change favours countries that have not.
You could indeed argue that this rule change may have some consequences for player development and pathways.
A homegrown/developed Samoan player may miss out on a spot in the Samoan squad, because Samoa can now select players like Luatua, Vito, J Savea and Nonu.
Tonga is already heavily dependent on NZ developed players for its national squad. This rule change makes it even less necessary for countries like Tonga to invest in player development at home, like Fiji has done. Just pick the Fekitoa's and Piutau's.
Not sure how valid these arguments are, but I've also seen people's comments that this rule change encourages "rugby mercenaries" among future/current ABs and Wallabies as being an AB/Wallabie increases their market value in Europe/Japan, they can go for the big coin contracts there after being NZ/Oz capped and after three years, switch allegiance.
You make valid points though the thing is that any set of rules will be open to abuse and manipulation. I think the most important thing is whether or not the new rules are better overall than the previous. There will always be winners and losers in such changes and maybe it is being viewed that the winners are probably more deserving. My worries are that she these new rules might benefit the PIs in the short term, will it be detrimental in the longer term.
@catogrande can it be worse than it currently is?
-
@catogrande why do you think they'll be harmful longer term?
@gibbon-rib said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@catogrande why do you think they'll be harmful longer term?
Because I think it opens the door for more to chance their arm with a Tier 1 nation knowing that there is always a way back. This will likely be where there is already a dual eligibility as 2 stand down periods might be a bit too long.
The law of unforeseen circumstances.
-
@catogrande can it be worse than it currently is?
@kiwiwomble said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@catogrande can it be worse than it currently is?
That’s the big question
-
@gibbon-rib said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@catogrande why do you think they'll be harmful longer term?
Because I think it opens the door for more to chance their arm with a Tier 1 nation knowing that there is always a way back. This will likely be where there is already a dual eligibility as 2 stand down periods might be a bit too long.
The law of unforeseen circumstances.
@catogrande said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@gibbon-rib said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@catogrande why do you think they'll be harmful longer term?
Because I think it opens the door for more to chance their arm with a Tier 1 nation knowing that there is always a way back. This will likely be where there is already a dual eligibility as 2 stand down periods might be a bit too long.
The law of unforeseen circumstances.
They already do though, especially in the case of NZ PIs. Not that many leave without giving it a good shot at the ABs first.
-
so, an interesting situation for Josh Ioane, hasn't played for NZ in 2.5 years...but starting to look good formwise again...if you were him do you push for the 3rd 10 spot with the AB's or refocus on Samoa?
-
so, an interesting situation for Josh Ioane, hasn't played for NZ in 2.5 years...but starting to look good formwise again...if you were him do you push for the 3rd 10 spot with the AB's or refocus on Samoa?
-
@crazy-horse said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
I think stretching it out to a grandparent is too far.
I agree, although it depends on migration trends how long the PI nations (and other nations) will be able to benefit from this new rule. If fewer and fewer people migrate from the Islands to NZ (and Oz or other countries), in three generations, fewer and fewer players will have a PI born grandparent.
For example, a son of Caleb Clarke could still make use of this new rule, because Eroni Clarke was born in Samoa, but a grandson of Caleb cannot.
@stargazer said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@crazy-horse said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
I think stretching it out to a grandparent is too far.
I agree, although it depends on migration trends how long the PI nations (and other nations) will be able to benefit from this new rule. If fewer and fewer people migrate from the Islands to NZ (and Oz or other countries), in three generations, fewer and fewer players will have a PI born grandparent.
For example, a son of Caleb Clarke could still make use of this new rule, because Eroni Clarke was born in Samoa, but a grandson of Caleb cannot.
It's something the PI unions will have to get used to sooner or later. I find the grandparent rule ridiculous.
-
@taniwharugby this could be very good for him, having options and something to really aim for...we might see him really break out for chiefs next year
-
So how’s it going to work in the real world?
All the stars mentioned going to be happy playing for completely amateur unions against their clubs wishes?
If it forces the PI top brass to get their shit together can only be good. But pissing off your 7 figure payers to play for the PI unions in their current state simply won’t work.
Dan Leo’s doc was mostly eye opening in the shambolic, corrupt way the countries unions were run. I don’t see how that’s changed here.
-
@bones said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
Yeah one glaring thing I noticed is there's no residency rule, so can't change to your new country of residence?
Doesn't appear so, the idea is you can represent your heritage. Ex ABs value to NH clubs, after the first 3 year contract, have gone down!
@machpants probably not. All those clubs lean on players not to represent tier 2 countries regardless of eligibility (also see Japan and the Kerevi saga).
-
so, an interesting situation for Josh Ioane, hasn't played for NZ in 2.5 years...but starting to look good formwise again...if you were him do you push for the 3rd 10 spot with the AB's or refocus on Samoa?
@kiwiwomble said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
so, an interesting situation for Josh Ioane, hasn't played for NZ in 2.5 years...but starting to look good formwise again...if you were him do you push for the 3rd 10 spot with the AB's or refocus on Samoa?
First you play well for the Chiefs and become the first choice 10 there. If you can't beat out Bryn Gatland you have no show of being an AB.
-
@kiwiwomble said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
so, an interesting situation for Josh Ioane, hasn't played for NZ in 2.5 years...but starting to look good formwise again...if you were him do you push for the 3rd 10 spot with the AB's or refocus on Samoa?
First you play well for the Chiefs and become the first choice 10 there. If you can't beat out Bryn Gatland you have no show of being an AB.
@crucial oh course, jost based on when at the landers and on form josh was clearly better...at least one reason for Bryn moving to the chiefs, and JOsh has been looking much more like what we saw in 2019 during this NPC
-
So how’s it going to work in the real world?
All the stars mentioned going to be happy playing for completely amateur unions against their clubs wishes?
If it forces the PI top brass to get their shit together can only be good. But pissing off your 7 figure payers to play for the PI unions in their current state simply won’t work.
Dan Leo’s doc was mostly eye opening in the shambolic, corrupt way the countries unions were run. I don’t see how that’s changed here.
@majorrage said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
So how’s it going to work in the real world?
All the stars mentioned going to be happy playing for completely amateur unions against their clubs wishes?
If it forces the PI top brass to get their shit together can only be good. But pissing off your 7 figure payers to play for the PI unions in their current state simply won’t work.
Dan Leo’s doc was mostly eye opening in the shambolic, corrupt way the countries unions were run. I don’t see how that’s changed here.
clubs cant really stop them for the world cup can they, so we might at least see some upsets then?
-
So how’s it going to work in the real world?
All the stars mentioned going to be happy playing for completely amateur unions against their clubs wishes?
If it forces the PI top brass to get their shit together can only be good. But pissing off your 7 figure payers to play for the PI unions in their current state simply won’t work.
Dan Leo’s doc was mostly eye opening in the shambolic, corrupt way the countries unions were run. I don’t see how that’s changed here.
@majorrage said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
So how’s it going to work in the real world?
All the stars mentioned going to be happy playing for completely amateur unions against their clubs wishes?
If it forces the PI top brass to get their shit together can only be good. But pissing off your 7 figure payers to play for the PI unions in their current state simply won’t work.
Dan Leo’s doc was mostly eye opening in the shambolic, corrupt way the countries unions were run. I don’t see how that’s changed here.
spot on, I came in to say something similar. Good players not dependent on the union will force administrators to lift their game. It's really good - World Rugby are rightly cautious about sending money into some unions because of the way the money gets spent. Having quality players interacting, lifting standard and advocating will be good I reckon.
Some of the support/admin decisions are just horrific, the scenes that daylight at RWC of (I think) Samoa not having balls to train with, but board members on the lash every day with union funds are just unacceptable.
-
@taniwharugby this could be very good for him, having options and something to really aim for...we might see him really break out for chiefs next year
@kiwiwomble said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@taniwharugby this could be very good for him, having options and something to really aim for...we might see him really break out for chiefs next year
If he declares for Samoa, he should have to move to Moana Pasifika the following year. He does have that option available to him but I think I'd stick around until the last minute, as he could declare for Samoa two days before the WC and they'd select him.
