And there lies the problem. If you enforce a rule that you can only play for one nation (which would be ideal for the code's credibility), too many players would put their hand up for Aus or NZ, as the more likely teams to win trophies and glory. The Pacific Islands would be weakened - left with a loyal core, plus players who don't see themselves ever making the Kangaroo or Kiwi squad.
Agreed. I speculated on a thread on LeagueUnlimited called "Richard Lewis' View on International Eligibility", post 54
that a One Nation for Life rule would have that exact effect. I've cited the example of Rugby Union where the IRB's Eligiblity Regulation 8.2 has seen a whole host of dual eligible players opt for NZ, Australia and England RU national teams over Pacific National teams. Post 56
specifically outlines the decline of Manu Samoa national team. Post 57
describes how the Pacific nations in Union have lobbied the Six Nations (who form the powerful voting bloc at the IRB) yet again for the eligibility rule to be changed.
Cricket's eligibility rules are like the RLIF's - they allows players to represent more than one country if they stand down.
Edited by TheObserver, 15 September 2010 - 03:45 PM.