 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Havak
|
 |
Swing Low, Sweet Chariots.
Aug 1999
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
It would be too difficult (and very wrong in our eyes) to draw the line as to who can play for us and who can’t. |
It’s an artificial difficulty. What could be easier than saying “you personally were not born here therefore you do not qualify”. You could then add caveats to cover such things as parents relocating for work when you were a minor BUT importantly have a panel composed of members from different Unions (i.e an IRB committee) vote on each case to stop abuse of the system.
Or we could just do what the IRB seems to prefer and do nothing. 
The All Blacks may sweep all before them – but New Zealand never will. The country name has been wiped from the branding right? 
quote:
you’d only be excluding those who haven’t lived here long enough, and that is not an acceptable reason to needlessly exclude segments of our population |
Um, yes it is. If you are not born in New Zealand and currently have not lived there three years you cannot pull on a black shirt by the current regulations. So where exactly is your point here?
We are talking sport here, not human rights. And please don’t bring hints of racism into it – I’m talking about where people are born not their colour or ethnic ancestry. And specifically talking about the way Unions abuse eligibility to their own ends. That’s not an attack specifically on the ABs – but you can’t absolve them simply by saying in effect ‘we are multicultural with a transient population from Australasia therefore anyone in the borders on x date should qualify’ – that’s ludicrous and would end up with tourists playing.
Let me clarify – I don’t give a monkey if Joe A, born in Auckland, whose parents are German-French plays for the ABs. That’s quite legitimate. But say there’s a Joe B, born in Fiji to Fijian parents, whose talent is spotted young and his family relocated to NZ whilst he is still a minor, and he ends up playing for the ABs – it’s wrong pure and simple. There’s simply no moral argument for it. And it can be stopped. Luckily for you the IRB won’t do so for a while – they seem to live in fear of upsetting the ABs. 
In the final analysis, regardless of what you or I think, eligibility will be tightened. Because our sport likes to think it is Professional these days – and Professional sports regulate such things. I live for the day I see an all NZ born AB side take the field.
Try to take a step back and consider this – if English scouts were visiting NZ and whisking away every talented 15 year old and their families to England – and three years later they were back out there touring in an England shirt – how would you feel?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
I've also grilled Finbar about Vickerman and Rathbone - but I don't think he has a problem with either. |
Sorry. As I said at the time, Vickerman came here with his parents as a late teenager. They migrated here as a family. They weren't lured here. His parents chose to leave South Africa. Their choice. Under your rules, because Vickerman wasn't born here, and even though he's a naturalised Australian, he would have to return to South Africa to play Test rugby. Unfortunately, the situation - or the solution, anyway - isn't as simple as you seek to imply.
I'm not privy to Rathbone's personal life, but I suspect he has come here for purely rugby reasons. As I said at the time, given that he'd already represented South Africa, I had a problem with that. Yet his grandmother is Australian. You don't seem to have a problem with mothers. How about grandmothers?
And what of Steve Devine? His talents were totally ignored in this state. It's his perfect right to want to play rugby at the highest level. He migrated. He is now a New Zealander. And he is playing rugby at the highest level. Under your rules, he would still be playing club rugby in Sydney.
Sorry, old son, and I know you won't take this the wrong way, but your rules have a Tory scent about them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andydog
|
 |
London
Jan 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
It’s an artificial difficulty. What could be easier than saying “you personally were not born here therefore you do not qualify”. |
It may be easy for the English to say it, but it ain’t for us. I would consider such a rule in our country to be totally pathetic. There is such variation in our population with people coming and going all the time, who gives a monkeys anus where they happened to be born? I really don’t know how else to explain it to you so you’ll understand.
quote:
And specifically talking about the way Unions abuse eligibility to their own ends. |
That is a separate issue, and without going too far into it, I actually agree that this is wrong, especially when it causes other rugby nations to struggle. However there are much much better ways to deal with the problem than introduce nonsensical ‘you weren’t born here so bugger off’ type rules.
quote:
Let me clarify – I don’t give a monkey if Joe A, born in Auckland, whose parents are German-French plays for the ABs. That’s quite legitimate. But say there’s a Joe B, born in Fiji to Fijian parents, whose talent is spotted young and his family relocated to NZ whilst he is still a minor, and he ends up playing for the ABs – it’s wrong pure and simple. |
Luring him away may be wrong, but if Joe B came on his own accord to pursue a rugby career I don’t see any wrong in it at all. I couldn’t imagine anything worse than playing rugby with Joe B, who may love his rugby, and considers NZ as his home having spent a few years here, making friends, etc, and knowing that this poor old Joe B could never play for the ABs. I’d be ashamed.
quote:
Try to take a step back and consider this – if English scouts were visiting NZ and whisking away every talented 15 year old and their families to England – and three years later they were back out there touring in an England shirt – how would you feel? |
If they liked living in England and now consider themselves English, I can honestly say I wouldn’t have a problem with it. And that’s the truth.
Clearly we have different attitudes to those born outside our countries (and I’m not suggesting anyone here is xenophobic!). I guess my attitude has arisen out of being brought up in mixed cultures with all sorts of different people, and also from the fact that I have done a fair bit of travelling recently. I’ve seen how much some countries miss out by not welcoming immigrants and embracing their particular culture. And I’m going to stop there before this turns into a debate on the merits of immigration. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Havak
|
|
Swing Low, Sweet Chariots.
Aug 1999
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
A bit like the English plundering the colonies |
Bit of a stretch isn’t it? 
Lets stick to rugby – Two South African born and Twenty Eight English born players in the England RWC squad. Colony plundering belongs in the past – and Cape Colony is best left there?
quote:
And to contradict everything I have just said, the Little brothers were fantastic ambasadors for rugby by returning to play for Fiji once their NZ spells were over. |
The Little’s returning to source after losing their NZ contracts is just the kind of farce the new regs stamped on – almost as ridiculous the two Bachop brothers and the three countries they represented between them.
quote:
Unfortunately, the situation - or the solution, anyway - isn't as simple as you seek to imply. |
But it’s easier than you would have us believe too Nicely avoiding any reference to my point there should be caveats. Vickerman could have pleaded his case and any rational panel would have approved it. Rathbone would have been sent packing – and should be from what you say.
Steve Devine – should have gone via a panel too. I’d have turned him down personally as he clearly moved only for the rugby. Why should he have some divine right to change nationality when he proved not good enough for one country – too mnay kilted Kiwis fresh in my mind to think this a good thing!
Grandparents is a stretch too far. Parents are grounds for dual nationality in law. Grandparents are not.
quote:
Sorry, old son, and I know you won't take this the wrong way, but your rules have a Tory scent about them. |
Take it the wrong way - would I?
Actually they are thoroughly ‘New’ Labour if you too can see my angle in saying that.
So some very robust defences there of a wriggle that really only suits poor Celtic sides and two of the less populace SH ‘big’ rugger countries. So let’s have a robust defence of the following please
Matt Cockbain is playing for Australia at the World Cup. His younger brother, Brent, plays for Wales, making his debut earlier this year. Both brothers have now played at the World Cup, but for different countries. How does that work?
The So'oialo brothers are doing something similar. Rodney is at the World Cup, playing No.8 for New Zealand. His brother Steven is playing scrumhalf for Samoa. It seems clear this is a classic example of AB talent pillaging?
Then there are the Brive-born Yachvilis. Dimitri is playing for France as a back-up scrumhalf for Fabien Galthié (but is not in the same league!). His older brother Grégoire plays flank for Georgia, qualifying only through Grandparents.
Are we having fun yet guys?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
Vickerman could have pleaded his case and any rational panel would have approved it. |
Plead his case? Why? What if he'd had a brother? Born in South Africa, came here at two years of age with the family? He would have to plead a case too?
quote:
Steve Devine – Why should he have some divine right to change nationality when he proved not good enough for one country – |
Because he has a human right to change nationality. And he wasn't "proved not good enough" for one country. He wasn't given an opportunity. Typical of the d*ckhead NSW regime at the time who constantly overlooked obvious talent, explaining, for example, why so many of the players who made up the Brumbies team at its peak were players overlooked by NSW who went elsewhere.
quote:
Actually they are thoroughly ‘New’ Labour if you too can see my angle in saying that. |
Enough said. And a good note on which to end. I can't recall whether this is the third or fourth episode of ether-wasting on this topic and we're as much in agreement as we ever were.
Anyway, having just had to endure our Prime Minister's sickening fawning over George Witless Bush in his 20-second hit and run visit here - in which the Democracy both Howard and Bush apparently champion went out the window for reasons of "security", thus guaranteeing dissenting voices weren't heard - I'm too depressed to bother continuing the debate.
On a lighter and brighter note, Olivier Magne has raised the prospect of this new-fangled designer steroid THG turning up inside players at the RWC. I'm not sure about turning up at the RWC, but I reckon it's a sure-fire explanation for Mr  's extraordinary capacity to post without sleep.
Edit. Oh, on another even lighter and brighter note, last night's Fiji -v- Japan match provided one of the more unusual pre-match announcements. The Fijian #3, the biggest man in world rugby, started on the bench. But he's so big, his jerseys are tailor-made. Thus he couldn't fit into the #17 jersey the reserve prop would normally wear. So he sat on the bench wearing his tailor-made #3, while the starting tighthead wore #17.
Last edited by finbar on 24-10-2003 at 05:29
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
The Australian s***** team faces the same problem having its players released from their foreign club duties. At least the international s***** body - whatever it's called - has some rules in place about player release for internationals. |
FIFA does have rules in place but its still largely up to the individual players to argue such rights at the time of contract signing. Many Australian players probably just don't have the clout. Soccer Australia faced the added complication of the domestic league playing in the European off-season - although they've now changed over to playing during the summer. 
To the extent of WC qualification though most of the quality Australian players on club duty in Europe aren't needed for official matches within Oceania - there just isn't much quality competition which is why it doesn't automatically qualify.
quote:
Let me clarify – I don’t give a monkey if Joe A, born in Auckland, whose parents are German-French plays for the ABs. That’s quite legitimate. But say there’s a Joe B, born in Fiji to Fijian parents, whose talent is spotted young and his family relocated to NZ whilst he is still a minor, and he ends up playing for the ABs – it’s wrong pure and simple. |
Rather familiar territory this.
The problem is that it isn't a level playing field. Large numbers of NZers are of Island descent and can pretty much come and go as they like. That sort of a rule effectively discriminates based on birthright.
IIRC you had a rather contrary opinion not so long ago when somebody brought up the House-of-Lords and 'birthrights'?
England and old Europe have far more established populations whereas we 'down here in the colonies' have a much larger proportion of immigrants.
Semi-standard citizenship requirements require 2 years of residency. Let that be the deciding factor if necessary. 7 years is far too many.
quote:
Matt Cockbain is playing for Australia at the World Cup. His younger brother, Brent, plays for Wales, making his debut earlier this year. Both brothers have now played at the World Cup, but for different countries. How does that work?
The So'oialo brothers are doing something similar. Rodney is at the World Cup, playing No.8 for New Zealand. His brother Steven is playing scrumhalf for Samoa. It seems clear this is a classic example of AB talent pillaging?
Then there are the Brive-born Yachvilis. Dimitri is playing for France as a back-up scrumhalf for Fabien Galthié (but is not in the same league!). His older brother Grégoire plays flank for Georgia, qualifying only through Grandparents.
|
I'm a little shocked here. Are you now implying that individual family mambers are now bound by whatever choice the eldest (and presumably the first to play for a particular nation) makes?
Does Wilco have an older brother who's ever played for Scotland?
If he had would you be willing to dismiss him from the English side?
Somehow I rather suspect old chap that you'd find a way around it if he had.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-10-2003 16:23
|