Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Lewis Blocked by Kiwis and Australia?


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#61 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,547 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 04:47 PM

QUOTE (TheObserver @ Sep 15 2010, 04:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Agreed. I speculated on a thread on LeagueUnlimited called "Richard Lewis' View on International Eligibility", post 54that 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.



And I replied to you in the same thread and RP has touched on it above that not ALL dual qualified players can play for Australia or New Zealand no matter how much they want it. If players want to watch the WC on TV instead of participating for another nation whilst waiting for the Kangaroos/Kiwis coach to ring then that's their prerogative. At least everyone would know where they stood.

Edited by deluded pom?, 15 September 2010 - 04:52 PM.

rldfsignature.jpg


#62 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,547 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 04:51 PM

QUOTE (AndyCapp @ Sep 15 2010, 01:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What level was Uate developed to in Fiji? other than being a fast athlete?
Which Fijian team did he play for?
Was he plucked from the Fijian national League?
rolleyes.gif



Yes you're right about Uate's early RL development but he also developed his game whilst wearing a Fijian shirt in the 2008 WC and the 2009 PC. He wasn't even a regular Newcastle first grader at the time of the WC. He is not eligible for Australia at this moment in time end of.

rldfsignature.jpg


#63 TheObserver

TheObserver
  • Coach
  • 120 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 10:07 PM

QUOTE (RP London @ Sep 16 2010, 02:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
but cricket has two levels of international teams.. and you are allowed to play for two nations but not on the same level.. morgan was ireland and england he coulndt have played for irealnd and scotland (even if he qualified).. the anomolies being when teams become test qualified after being first class nations and the south african re admission and issues now in zimbabwe..


The International Cricket Council Player Eligibility Regulations

On Page 3:
QUOTE (ICC)
C. REPRESENTING MORE THAN ONE NATIONAL CRICKET FEDERATION:
Nothing in the Regulations shall operate to prohibit a Player from representing more than one National Cricket Federation during his/her playing career. However, the following additional requirements shall apply:

7. where a male Player is seeking to qualify to play for a Full Member, he must not have participated in an International Match for any other Full Member during the immediately preceding four years;
8. where a male Player is seeking to qualify to play for an Associate or Affiliate Member, he must not have participated in an International Match for any other National Cricket Federation (irrespective of its membership status) during the immediately preceding four years;
9. where a female Player is seeking to qualify to play for any other National Cricket Federation (irrespective of its membership status), she must not have participated in an International Match for any other National Cricket Federation (irrespective of its membership status) during the immediately preceding two years; and
10. no Player shall be entitled to seek to qualify for a different National Cricket Federation more than once, unless the second qualification sought is for the same National Cricket Federation for whom he/she originally played prior to his/her re-qualification.
NOTE: No restrictions shall apply to any male Player seeking to qualify to play for a Full Member where he has previously participated in an International Match for an Associate or Affiliate Member.


The Full Laws are on PP 8-9 of the document, section 3C. It appears as though a male Full Member rep CAN transfer to another full member, or down to an Associate/Affiliate, as long as they stand down for four years. An Associate/Affiliate moving to another must wait four years, but moving up to test, needs not wait. A women player need only wait two years. So cricket allows players to play for a second national team, either on the same level, to move up/down levels, and to go back to the first national team.

Edited by TheObserver, 15 September 2010 - 10:12 PM.


#64 TheObserver

TheObserver
  • Coach
  • 120 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 10:31 PM

QUOTE (deluded pom? @ Sep 16 2010, 02:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And I replied to you in the same thread and RP has touched on it above that not ALL dual qualified players can play for Australia or New Zealand no matter how much they want it. If players want to watch the WC on TV instead of participating for another nation whilst waiting for the Kangaroos/Kiwis coach to ring then that's their prerogative.


Not all dual-eligible players will become selected for Aus/NZ, but I already acknowledged that point. Fortunately, under the present RLIF rules, those dual-eligible players could potentially play for Aus/NZ or a PI, then stand down and play for the other later if they want to - IF they stand down the required two years. Therefore, that fortunately renders your hypothetical case null and void because that situation does not have to come about. Even under the present rules, some players may hold out for the preferred national team because they have little interest in playing for another national team, some may decide to switch.

What I said was, under a One Nation rule, the majority of dual-eligible elite players will not risk their chance to play for Aus/NZ. Non elite players may declare for lower tier nations earlier.

QUOTE
At least everyone would know where they stood.


Do you mean that those dual eligible players should follow your particular prescribed values for international football i.e. choose one national team permanently?

Over 98% of RL players stick with one national team - that is under the RLIF current rules. As I've said, of an estimated 4,020 players to have played international RL for the RLIF's 13 test nations (Aus, NZ, Eng, Wales, the 5 PIs, France, Russia, South Africa as well as Scotland and Ireland), only 80 have played for another national team - 3,940 have stuck with one nation. A tiny percentage of players, less than two percent of international players may look to play for a second national team, just as some people in the real world acquire dual nationality and a second passport to a second country.

#65 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 11:42 PM

QUOTE (Futtocks @ Sep 15 2010, 04:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
News just in: Tony Williams has been removed from the Kiwi train-on squad. Apparently Stephen Kearney didn't like the fact that he was touting himself about for Tonga and Australia.


I heard it the other way round, Williams' agent said he wasnted to play for Australia but if not then to play for Tonga. Presumably that leaves NZ third on his list, and that's assuming he meets the criteria.
"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#66 nadera78

nadera78
  • Coach
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 11:56 PM

QUOTE (TheObserver @ Sep 15 2010, 11:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not all dual-eligible players will become selected for Aus/NZ, but I already acknowledged that point. Fortunately, under the present RLIF rules, those dual-eligible players could potentially play for Aus/NZ or a PI, then stand down and play for the other later if they want to - IF they stand down the required two years. Therefore, that fortunately renders your hypothetical case null and void because that situation does not have to come about. Even under the present rules, some players may hold out for the preferred national team because they have little interest in playing for another national team, some may decide to switch.


If the RLIF insisted on a stand down period then I could live with it if it was strictly enforced. A player should have to write to the RLIF stating that from the date of his letter he intended to sit out a period of time (perhaps a world cup cycle?) and from that point on represent x country.


On the more general point of the PI nations, I'd suggest people take a look at the actions of the Cook Islands over the past few years. They've worked slowly, deliberately, to build a team from the ground up. They've used a mixture of players born/raised in the Cooks, Australia and New Zealand and developed a group that knows one another well and has played together for some time. In fact many of the team in last years Pacific Cup played together for the Cooks in their U-16's and 18's, such is the system they've put in place (despite their lack of financial clout).

Compare that to the likes of Tonga and Samoa, who wait until Australia and New Zealand have picked their squads before selecting their own from what's left. That means their teams change quite drastically from one year to the next, there is never any consistency in selection or performance, and it is near impossible for them to genuinely develop a team or a national programme.

The results are there for all to see in the 2008 RLWC and the 2009 Pacific Cup. There is only one way to see genuine internatinal development, and it is by looking at the Cook Islands and Fiji.
"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."
Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

#67 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 10:10 AM

QUOTE (TheObserver @ Sep 15 2010, 11:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The International Cricket Council Player Eligibility Regulations

On Page 3:


The Full Laws are on PP 8-9 of the document, section 3C. It appears as though a male Full Member rep CAN transfer to another full member, or down to an Associate/Affiliate, as long as they stand down for four years. An Associate/Affiliate moving to another must wait four years, but moving up to test, needs not wait. A women player need only wait two years. So cricket allows players to play for a second national team, either on the same level, to move up/down levels, and to go back to the first national team.


fair enough didnt know that..

in that case this perhaps proves a slightly different point.

In cricket there is meaningful internationals for all countries bangladesh will play australia regulaly, maybe not as many times or tests but they still get to play them.. as such there is little need to move from country to country within the test arena..

I would have much less of a problem with the system in RL if it had 2 classifications of the international game much clearer and internationals much more often to make sure that players stayed to their levels but it is happeneing far too often..

Part of it also has to be the calender.. if fiji played australia on a constant basis and New Zeland and Eng/GB then would they put their hands up for Nz or Aus?? debateable.

#68 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 10:12 AM

QUOTE (TheObserver @ Sep 15 2010, 11:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not all dual-eligible players will become selected for Aus/NZ, but I already acknowledged that point. Fortunately, under the present RLIF rules, those dual-eligible players could potentially play for Aus/NZ or a PI, then stand down and play for the other later if they want to - IF they stand down the required two years. Therefore, that fortunately renders your hypothetical case null and void because that situation does not have to come about. Even under the present rules, some players may hold out for the preferred national team because they have little interest in playing for another national team, some may decide to switch.

What I said was, under a One Nation rule, the majority of dual-eligible elite players will not risk their chance to play for Aus/NZ. Non elite players may declare for lower tier nations earlier.



Do you mean that those dual eligible players should follow your particular prescribed values for international football i.e. choose one national team permanently?

Over 98% of RL players stick with one national team - that is under the RLIF current rules. As I've said, of an estimated 4,020 players to have played international RL for the RLIF's 13 test nations (Aus, NZ, Eng, Wales, the 5 PIs, France, Russia, South Africa as well as Scotland and Ireland), only 80 have played for another national team - 3,940 have stuck with one nation. A tiny percentage of players, less than two percent of international players may look to play for a second national team, just as some people in the real world acquire dual nationality and a second passport to a second country.


but its who those 2% are.. they tend to be of a higher profile dna quite frankly it does make the game look rediculous.


#69 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,547 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 11:22 AM

As I said earlier, there ARE rules in place. One of which is a two year stand down from when a player last played internationally. The last time I looked Uate and Williams haven't even had a one year stand down and still New Zealand and Australia want to select them. It's pointless arguing about what the rules should and shouldn't be if the rules we currently have are simply being ignored to suit an agenda.

rldfsignature.jpg


#70 hutch

hutch
  • Coach
  • 357 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 12:08 PM

QUOTE (nadera78 @ Sep 15 2010, 11:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If the RLIF insisted on a stand down period then I could live with it if it was strictly enforced. A player should have to write to the RLIF stating that from the date of his letter he intended to sit out a period of time (perhaps a world cup cycle?) and from that point on represent x country.


On the more general point of the PI nations, I'd suggest people take a look at the actions of the Cook Islands over the past few years. They've worked slowly, deliberately, to build a team from the ground up. They've used a mixture of players born/raised in the Cooks, Australia and New Zealand and developed a group that knows one another well and has played together for some time. In fact many of the team in last years Pacific Cup played together for the Cooks in their U-16's and 18's, such is the system they've put in place (despite their lack of financial clout).

Compare that to the likes of Tonga and Samoa, who wait until Australia and New Zealand have picked their squads before selecting their own from what's left. That means their teams change quite drastically from one year to the next, there is never any consistency in selection or performance, and it is near impossible for them to genuinely develop a team or a national programme.

The results are there for all to see in the 2008 RLWC and the 2009 Pacific Cup. There is only one way to see genuine internatinal development, and it is by looking at the Cook Islands and Fiji.


agree on the cooks, but how ridiculous is it that their best players qualify to play for nz despite not being a new zealander. for eg, zeb taia,born in australia to cook islander parents but qualifies and plays for nz because the cook islands is a nz dependency. what is the point of having a cook island team then?


#71 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 12:25 PM

QUOTE (deluded pom? @ Sep 16 2010, 12:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As I said earlier, there ARE rules in place. One of which is a two year stand down from when a player last played internationally. The last time I looked Uate and Williams haven't even had a one year stand down and still New Zealand and Australia want to select them. It's pointless arguing about what the rules should and shouldn't be if the rules we currently have are simply being ignored to suit an agenda.

isnt the rule that you can only play for one nation in any one world cup cycle but you could play for aus in the world cup final then fiji the next day if you wanted to.. but then not again for australia until after the next world cup

which is ok.. becuase at least you cant change over half way thoruh a qualification campaign to someone who has more chance of qualifying (and you may be half the reason the other team didnt!)..

but at the moment they seem to have this "dispensation" ruling floating around which is rediculous.. what dispensation.. "they forced me".. FFS there is a rule stick to it..


#72 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,547 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 05:24 AM

QUOTE (RP London @ Sep 16 2010, 01:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
isnt the rule that you can only play for one nation in any one world cup cycle but you could play for aus in the world cup final then fiji the next day if you wanted to.. but then not again for australia until after the next world cup



Yes but Uate and Williams have both played for Fiji and Tonga respectively since the last WC so in theory should be locked in to either them or be stood down till 2011.

rldfsignature.jpg


#73 EastLondonMike

EastLondonMike
  • Coach
  • 4,143 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 07:48 AM

it really is quite disgusting that the ARL have such a lack of respect for the current laws. neither player is that special you'd consider breaking the laws to include them. Are Uate and Williams better options on the wings than Brett Morris, Darius Boyd or Jarryd Hayne?

Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk


#74 The Future is League

The Future is League
  • Coach
  • 5,927 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:05 AM

We can all talk about this to we are blue in the face. the one deciding factor should be once you have played for a country at senior level there is no switching of countries, tough if the Aussie's or Kiwis don't like it.

#75 Odsal Outlaw

Odsal Outlaw
  • Coach
  • 1,563 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:07 AM

QUOTE (The Future is League @ Sep 17 2010, 09:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We can all talk about this to we are blue in the face. the one deciding factor should be once you have played for a country at senior level there is no switching of countries, tough if the Aussie's or Kiwis don't like it.


Correct. Just need Lewis to keep banging the drum at the Aussie clowns.
Nottingham Outlaws Rugby League
Harry Jepson Winners 2008
RLC Midlands Premier Champions 2006 & 2008
East Midlands Challenge Cup Winners 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008
Rotterdam International 9's Cup Winners 2005
RLC North Midlands Champions 2003 & 2004

#76 jim_57

jim_57
  • Coach
  • 470 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:13 AM

So Uate and Williams can play for Australia after playing for other countries last year yet Costigan can't play for PNG even though he has never played for anyone else, just because he has played Origin.

This is beyond a joke, The ARL is so far up Origin's ass it's not funny. Queensland isn't a country and Costigan is allowed to play for PNG.

Clear double standards and the sooner Love and Carr are out of any sort of International control the better, they are a blight on the game as far as I'm concerned, it's clear bending of the rules to suit their own agenda. dry.gif
https://au.dryjuly.c...e/kabramudcrabs

Support myself & team Mudcrab during our Dry July 2013 challenge. Proceeds going to Cancer Support.

#77 dallymessenger

dallymessenger
  • Coach
  • 20,928 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:15 AM

if it werent for the aussies imagine how much better international RL would be?

#78 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 2,866 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:19 AM

QUOTE (Odsal Outlaw @ Sep 17 2010, 10:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Correct. Just need Lewis to keep banging the drum at the Aussie clowns.


The quicker Australian born players or Citizens are discouraged for playing for the Mickey mouse "Heritage" concept the better.
It will go a long way to stopping the farce of the last World cup where dozens of them represented nations with small or little links to them just so they could get a run in that competition and bolster and Islander or Kiwi teams.

Hopefully if its cleared up the 2013 World Cup will not have the likes of Jarryd Hayne and Ashton Simms representing Fiji and it will be all local products.


#79 dallymessenger

dallymessenger
  • Coach
  • 20,928 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:22 AM

QUOTE (AndyCapp @ Sep 17 2010, 09:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The quicker Australian born players or Citizens are discouraged for playing for the Mickey mouse "Heritage" concept the better.
It will go a long way to stopping the farce of the last World cup where dozens of them represented nations with small or little links to them just so they could get a run in that competition and bolster and Islander or Kiwi teams.

Hopefully if its cleared up the 2013 World Cup will not have the likes of Jarryd Hayne and Ashton Simms representing Fiji and it will be all local products.


exactly, taking out all the aussies having guest stints with minor nations we can go back to World Cups of 4 teams or less.

bring it on.

#80 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 2,866 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:26 AM

QUOTE (dallymessenger @ Sep 17 2010, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
exactly, taking out all the aussies having guest stints with minor nations we can go back to World Cups of 4 teams or less.

bring it on.


Maybe it will revert to a 3 nations tournament and Kangaroo tours again?
Not forgetting the fact France are always chasing ex Aussies to make them not come last in World Cups.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users