Jump to content
Man of Kent

International eligibility tweaks

Recommended Posts

Updated IRL rules:

  • Eligibility to represent a nation is based upon the birthplace of the player, the birthplace of any parent or grandparent, or residency over a five-year period.
  • A player can only elect to represent one nation in any calendar year
  • ‘Electing’ to represent a country has changed from playing for that country to being named in a 19-man squad (or final tournament squad in a sanctioned 9s competition) for that country.
  • A player eligible for any nations other than Australia, England, New Zealand can only make one switch between those nations in a four-year period. Players qualified for Australia, England and New Zealand plus any other nation can make multiple switches however they can only elect to represent one nation in any calendar year.
  • Players can only represent one of Australia, England or New Zealand in a career, even if eligible for more than one of those nations. If eligible they can play for nations outside of those three.
  • Players cannot represent Australia or New Zealand if they have elected to represent Great Britain and vice versa.
  • No player can play for more than one country in any recognised global event.

Looks like the main tweaks are only being allowed to represent one nation in any one year, and GB effectively being Tier One (so now Jackson Hastings, Lachlan Coote and Blake Austin could never represent Australia - as if!).

Tonga remain as non-Tier One, which is probably a good thing.

http://rlif.com/article/8877/irl-announces-updated-eligibility-rules

Full rules here: http://rlif.com/ignite_docs/IRL Eligibility Rules 2020 to publishpdf.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know if these changes are applied retrospectively, i.e. the recognition of GB as a tier 1 equivalent, or is it from this point forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I guess the 'who has' past tense means it is to be enforced retrospectively. 

I agree with it, I just wanted the clarification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

I think the residency has been increased to 5 years now? Wasn’t it 3 previously?

I looked at this recently and posted the below on the 3rd of February so it was 5 years then.

.................

The criteria states:

3.2 A Player is eligible to play an International Match for:-
(a) the Nation in which he/she was born;
(b) the Nation in which either of his/her parents was born;
( c) the Nation in which either of his/her grandparents was born;
(d) the Nation which is his/her principal place of Residence ;

In the case of residency, the player has to prove that the chosen team has been his primary place of residence for the 60 months prior to the international match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Britain is not a Test playing nation and so playing for GB itself wouldn't stop say Jackson Hastings for then playing for Australia. The rules apply to England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nkpom said:

Great Britain is not a Test playing nation and so playing for GB itself wouldn't stop say Jackson Hastings for then playing for Australia. The rules apply to England.

Not any more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, nkpom said:

Great Britain is not a Test playing nation and so playing for GB itself wouldn't stop say Jackson Hastings for then playing for Australia. The rules apply to England.

Did you read the opening post? The rules have changed, GB are a test playing nation now.

Hastings is no longer be eligible for Australia as he has represented GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Click said:

Did you read the opening post? The rules have changed, GB are a test playing nation now.

Hastings is no longer be eligible for Australia as he has represented GB

I'm not being petty (promise) but just on this point.

Yes, Great Britain have been named as a tier 1 'nation' for eligibility purposes but does this actually mean they are a test playing nation now.

I really don't know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I'm not being petty (promise) but just on this point.

Yes, Great Britain have been named as a tier 1 'nation' for eligibility purposes but does this actually mean they are a test playing nation now.

I really don't know.

Its not absolutely clear either (from the first post) about whether the GB rule is to be applied from now on, or retrospectively. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Its not absolutely clear either (from the first post) about whether the GB rule is to be applied from now on, or retrospectively. 

I am assuming that as the tense changes on that point to past tense (i.e. "if they have elected to represent Great Britain" not "if they elect...") then it is to be applied retrospectively.

Although a little subjective to go off the tense of the wording ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll find out in due course I expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve read the full document. Good improvement there, but I would tighten it up more - like no switching between countries between Tier Two and Tier Three (only between/from one of Australia, New Zealand, England and Tier Two/Three).

There’s also some shabby wording - mentions ‘Great Britain’ in one paragraph but ‘England’ in the next. There’s also no specific mention of not switching between Australia and New Zealand: http://rlif.com/article/8877/irl-announces-updated-eligibility-rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bluebags1973 said:

I’ve read the full document. Good improvement there, but I would tighten it up more - like no switching between countries between Tier Two and Tier Three (only between/from one of Australia, New Zealand, England and Tier Two/Three).

There’s also some shabby wording - mentions ‘Great Britain’ in one paragraph but ‘England’ in the next. There’s also no specific mention of not switching between Australia and New Zealand: http://rlif.com/article/8877/irl-announces-updated-eligibility-rules

"Players can only represent one of Australia, England or New Zealand in a career, even if eligible for more than one of those nations. If eligible they can play for nations outside of those three."

Sounds pretty clear to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These rules are a step in the right direction, not being able represent two countries in one calendar year is very important for the integrity of the game. If you make the 19 person squad of an international side counting as representing a nation is good rule as well. I would like to see players only able to switch nations once in a career and 5 year residency is good but player should also have to be a current legal permanent resident of the country they are seeking to represent on residency.

Edited by kiwis 13 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does "No player can play for more than one country in any recognised global event." mean? 

Does it mean once you've played in a World Cup for a country, you cant play in later edition for a different team, even if eligible to switch? 

That's a pretty big change if so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume that RLWC2017 is a different event from RLWC2021.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Farmduck said:

I would assume that RLWC2017 is a different event from RLWC2021.

Thinking about it, I suppose it stops you playing in qualifying for one nation and then switching to another for the final tournament, which seems entirely reasonable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kiwis 13 6 said:

These rules are a step in the right direction, not being able represent two countries in one calendar year is very important for the integrity of the game. If you make the 19 person squad of an international side counting as representing a nation is good rule as well. I would like to see players only able to switch nations once in a career and 5 year residency is good but player should also have to be a current legal permanent resident of the country they are seeking to represent on residency.

Residency rules are different for every country though - could be 10 years in one place and 3 in another. Some places even hand it out as an honour. Makes sense to have a standard timeframe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LR23 said:

Residency rules are different for every country though - could be 10 years in one place and 3 in another. Some places even hand it out as an honour. Makes sense to have a standard timeframe.

Rugby League should not have people representing countries on residency grounds when they are not a legal permanent resident of that country. For example It could be possible both Rangi Chase & Semi Radradra were only on work visas not Permanent Residents Visas. Both later had legal issues and could have lead to work visa being cancelled leading to the potentially very embarrassing situation of not being able to enter the country they are representing. I believe a player should be a legal permanent resident of the country to prevent Mercenary players representing country's they have no legal on going connection to, to prevent nations with professional competitions recruiting players for there national side and also to avoid potentially embarrassing situation for the game where a player is not able to enter the country they have been selected to represent.

One example of this that come to mind is KIwis and Ozzies Citizens can live in either country but what a lot of people dont know is since 2001 Kiwis who live in Australia are not permanent residents of Australia they are on a Special category visa making them residents for tax purposes. This Visa can be cancelled at any time by the Australian government and every time a Kiwi living in Australia leaves Australia that Visa is technically cancelled and reissued again on entry. Where im going with this is many NZ citizens who live in Australia have represented Australia including recently Kalyn Ponga and not be allowed back into Australia while being an selected in the Australian test side unless they qualify, have applied for and been accepted as Australia Permanent residents or Citizens. Neither of which is Automatically granted and can often be difficult to attain. Even South Sydney owner and NZ citizen Russel Crowe has this problem despite having appeared on an Australian Stamp lol. 

 

Edited by kiwis 13 6
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...