Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
deluded pom?

Lewis Blocked by Kiwis and Australia?

122 posts in this topic

surely if its a select side they could select who ever they please doesnt matter where they are from...

but they arent all eligible for oz thats the issue surely

Its a select side of Australian eligible players usually.

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/spo...ns/1933993.aspx

There is the link

He moved to Oz aged 15 and has represented Oz schools.

The quicker they bring in hard and fast laws the better. Australia will not even blink, the poor underdeveloped Pacific Island nations will be lost from the World Cup Format.

Adrian Lam resigned from Coaching PNG today to concentrate on Saints and get beyond the Kumul politics and in fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its a select side of Australian eligible players usually.

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/spo...ns/1933993.aspx

There is the link

He moved to Oz aged 15 and has represented Oz schools.

The quicker they bring in hard and fast laws the better. Australia will not even blink, the poor underdeveloped Pacific Island nations will be lost from the World Cup Format.

Adrian Lam resigned from Coaching PNG today to concentrate on Saints and get beyond the Kumul politics and in fighting.

ok we're starting to get somewhere.. the fact you said usually would suggest that it doesnt HAVE to be..

honestly i am asking a genuine question with no hidden agenda i dont know much about this team and i am interested at what it is..

can it be anyone no matter who they qualify for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Williams and Uate wont play more than a few games for Australia, if that, they'll then want to play for Tonga and Fiji again.

at the next IRFL meeting these laws should be put to the vote. with all nations having a say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its a select side of Australian eligible players usually.

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/spo...ns/1933993.aspx

There is the link

He moved to Oz aged 15 and has represented Oz schools.

The quicker they bring in hard and fast laws the better. Australia will not even blink, the poor underdeveloped Pacific Island nations will be lost from the World Cup Format.

Adrian Lam resigned from Coaching PNG today to concentrate on Saints and get beyond the Kumul politics and in fighting.

trying to split the topic of my posts up just to try and get an anwer to my general interest question whulst also continuing on with the discussion

he isnt eligable though if he played for tonga in the pacific nations... that is what they would need a special clearence for somethign they dont yet have and until they do he isnt eligable.

on the subject of hte lesser ationa needing the players.. there wil be a critical point though when players will realise that they cannot get in the aus and NZ sides.. say the age of 25 and there are 18 year olds better than them.. there will be plenty in the comp now.. who then put their hands back up for their island and so making that critical mass.. and the cycle begins in earnest.. just that at the moment they can still hold on to the fact that they put their hands up for their island and still get called away.

At least with the above though it may take a little time, when it does happen (and not that much time i dont believe) the smaller nations can build their core base around those players... for example scotland could have built their base around danny brough for the last 2 years (arguably he wouldnt have put his hand up in the first place i agree)... there are players in the islands and in the smaller nations here that are playing and that those nations are trying to build something around who in a year or so could suddenly find the ARL knocking asking if they fancy a game and the whole plan for the island team is screwed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 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.

Edited by TheObserver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but your rule goes against "nationality".. you are stopping people playing for their nation due to a quirk of fate that they started playing the game somewhere else..

having a succesful nation can help grow the domestic game.

but thinking you have a brilliant player who can lift your national team such as Uate who then jumps ship can destroy the national interest in the game. Kids signing up for amateur sides when unde 15 sorts the problem out at least where they are concerned which in the main will be most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but thinking you have a brilliant player who can lift your national team such as Uate who then jumps ship can destroy the national interest in the game. Kids signing up for amateur sides when unde 15 sorts the problem out at least where they are concerned which in the main will be most cases.

i agree but then there will be islanders who play their first match in new zealand who then want to and do represent their island becuase they were not good enough to play for new zealand.. so you are depriving the country of these players also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017