Cutter
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Rugby has a real issue on its hands with eligibility. Cricket, which has broadly similar eligibility rules, is in the situation where England has a test team where a third were born and raised outside of England. Although the same hasnt occurred in rugby yet, the loose eligibility rules should be reconsidered.
As I understand it, currently a player may play for the country in which he was born, the countries in respect of which his parents or grandparents hold passports and any country in which he has lived for 3 or more years. Once a player plays 7s, national A or internationally for a country he may not play for any other country (except Steve Devine). The absurdity of this system is best displayed by the likes of Henry Paul and Lesley Vainikolo who, despite having played league for another country, qualified for England simply because they played league there for 3 years before switching to rugby. The same situation applies to various South Africans, Kiwis and Australians plying their trade in France. Another example is Japan. How many Kiwis have qualified for Japan despite playing through the age groups for New Zealand and not knowing what wasabi is until their first overseas contract in Japan?
Generally it is the pacific countries who are most effected by these rules but they don't discriminate.
With the introduction of the 5th Australian S14 team, the prospect of Argentinians playing for it and also being based in South Africa and the reality of global professionalism, now is the time to change the eligibility rules.
I understand that in football, the restrictions are much tighter. After the age of 21, a player cannot qualify for any other nation. I also understand that the grand parent qualification principle doesnt apply (though I might be wrong on that point). This leads to the situation where, up until he turns 21, a player can play for the country of his birth or any other country in which he has lived for 3 years prior to being selected or for the country in which either of his parents are passport holders. I believe the same rules should apply to rugby but that the age should be dropped to 18 rather than 21.
I know there are those who will argue that, for example, in the case of Japan there should be a discretion or exemption to allow players to qualify by residency. For emerging nations, I can see that argument has some merit. However, a player shouldn't qualify for a country ranked in the top 12 unless he is committed to it and, to me, that means, in the absence of meeting the relevant criteria at age 21, gaining citizenship.
I'm not sure what others think but this is something which rugby (and cricket) should look at as a matter of priority.
(Mods - I used a whistle as, although its not a refereeing point, it is regulatory.)
As I understand it, currently a player may play for the country in which he was born, the countries in respect of which his parents or grandparents hold passports and any country in which he has lived for 3 or more years. Once a player plays 7s, national A or internationally for a country he may not play for any other country (except Steve Devine). The absurdity of this system is best displayed by the likes of Henry Paul and Lesley Vainikolo who, despite having played league for another country, qualified for England simply because they played league there for 3 years before switching to rugby. The same situation applies to various South Africans, Kiwis and Australians plying their trade in France. Another example is Japan. How many Kiwis have qualified for Japan despite playing through the age groups for New Zealand and not knowing what wasabi is until their first overseas contract in Japan?
Generally it is the pacific countries who are most effected by these rules but they don't discriminate.
With the introduction of the 5th Australian S14 team, the prospect of Argentinians playing for it and also being based in South Africa and the reality of global professionalism, now is the time to change the eligibility rules.
I understand that in football, the restrictions are much tighter. After the age of 21, a player cannot qualify for any other nation. I also understand that the grand parent qualification principle doesnt apply (though I might be wrong on that point). This leads to the situation where, up until he turns 21, a player can play for the country of his birth or any other country in which he has lived for 3 years prior to being selected or for the country in which either of his parents are passport holders. I believe the same rules should apply to rugby but that the age should be dropped to 18 rather than 21.
I know there are those who will argue that, for example, in the case of Japan there should be a discretion or exemption to allow players to qualify by residency. For emerging nations, I can see that argument has some merit. However, a player shouldn't qualify for a country ranked in the top 12 unless he is committed to it and, to me, that means, in the absence of meeting the relevant criteria at age 21, gaining citizenship.
I'm not sure what others think but this is something which rugby (and cricket) should look at as a matter of priority.
(Mods - I used a whistle as, although its not a refereeing point, it is regulatory.)
