Jump to content
Man of Kent

International eligibility tweaks

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, kiwis 13 6 said:

My point the sport should not have people representing countries on residency grounds when they are not a legal permanent resident of that country. For example I think Rangi Chase may not have been on a UK permanent residents when he played for  England, only a UK work Visa but qualified for England under RLIF residency rules. I also think it may alos be the case that Semi Radradra may not have been an Australia Permanent resident only on a work visa when he played for Australia. The reasons 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. 

 

I understand all that (I work in migration) but my point still stands about consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, LR23 said:

I understand all that (I work in migration) but my point still stands about consistency.

fair enough should be consistency of fulfilling IRL's 5 year eligibility term as well as qualifying as a current permanent resident of the country your representing on residency grounds. I am just thinking of the field day media could have with the sport if someone illegally in a country was selected to represent that country. The Nathan Fien grannygate saga for NZ was a black eye for the sport X that by 100 if an illegal resident was selected to play for country!

Edited by kiwis 13 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/02/2020 at 09:20, Farmduck said:

"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.

 

Yes that but is very clear. I was referring to the next paragraph why the need?

  • Players cannot represent Australia or New Zealand if they have elected to represent Great Britain and vice versa.

Maybe it’s to differentiate between ‘England’ and ‘Great Britain’?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/02/2020 at 12:31, Man of Kent said:

The rules state 'a player who has elected to represent Great Britain cannot ever then elect to represent Australia or New Zealand'. 

What if they had switched allegiance before the rule change?

Share this post


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

What if they had switched allegiance before the rule change?

I take ‘has elected’ (past tense) as meaning anyone who has played for GB cannot at any point in future play for Australia or New Zealand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I got that, but if Hastings had declared in December to go back to Australia with the RLIF he would probably have got it approved. Just theorising but everyone will try to push the rules whatever they are.

What it does mean is that if the likes of Milford, Papali, Kafusi etc. play in the mid-season test then they are out of Ashes contention. 

Edited by Scubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Yes I got that, but if Hastings had declared in December to go back to Australia with the RLIF he would probably have got it approved. Just theorising but everyone will try to push the rules whatever they are.

What it does mean is that if the likes of Milford, Papali, Kafusi etc. play in the mid-season test then they are out of Ashes contention. 

They can switch to Samoa etc but they can only play for one nation per calendar year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/02/2020 at 10:22, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Why has Tonga not been made tier 1?

Simple, look at most of the player's who represent Tonga, they are either born Kiwis or Aussies and a good number of them only qualify on the grandparent ruling, for the lineage of the Tongan team to continue wives and girlfriends will have to go over to Tonga to give birth, making them tier 1 would just put more obstructions in the selection criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Simple, look at most of the player's who represent Tonga, they are either born Kiwis or Aussies and a good number of them only qualify on the grandparent ruling, for the lineage of the Tongan team to continue wives and girlfriends will have to go over to Tonga to give birth, making them tier 1 would just put more obstructions in the selection criteria.

Eligibility criteria wouldn't change if they were tier 1. What would change is the possibility of a player to represent NZ or Australia and then subsequently represent Tonga but the grandparent lineage remains the same whether they are tier 1 or tier 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Simple, look at most of the player's who represent Tonga, they are either born Kiwis or Aussies and a good number of them only qualify on the grandparent ruling, for the lineage of the Tongan team to continue wives and girlfriends will have to go over to Tonga to give birth, making them tier 1 would just put more obstructions in the selection criteria.

Fair enough

Whatever has made them get to where they are I think we want to contunue as they have been great

Share this post


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

Eligibility criteria wouldn't change if they were tier 1. What would change is the possibility of a player to represent NZ or Australia and then subsequently represent Tonga but the grandparent lineage remains the same whether they are tier 1 or tier 2.

Yep, don't disagree, do you agree with me on the wives and girlfriends issue I highlight?

Share this post


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

Yep, don't disagree, do you agree with me on the wives and girlfriends issue I highlight?

Not really. 

In 2011, 30% of all contracted NRL players had cultural backgrounds from Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and the Cook Islands. By 2018 the figure had risen to 48% (for context, in 1986 just 0.7% of Australian first grade players were of pacific Pacific Island decent).

The number of eligible players for these nations coming through the NRL is growing year on year without wives and girlfriends having to travel to give birth.

Edited by Dunbar

Share this post


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

Not really. 

In 2011, 30% of all contracted NRL players had cultural backgrounds from Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and the Cook Islands. By 2018 the figure had risen to 48% (for context, in 1986 just 0.7% of Australian first grade players were of pacific Pacific Island decent).

The number of eligible players for these nations coming through the NRL is growing year on year without wives and girlfriends having to travel to give birth.

But what you are quoting has nothing to do with how many Islanders have settled in Australia and NZ, what it does show is from the Island communities more of them play in the NRL, I would suggest that is because they have been born and raised in Australia and NZ and taken on the cultures in these countries which include the game of Rugby League Football both played in their schools and community social clubs.

So if lets say a number of the present Tongan (or any other Island team fro that matter) player's are elegible on the Grandparent ruling, to keep their own particular lineage bobbing along, their spouses will have to take to traveling. I have no doubt that there are new bodies waiting in the background, but it will only keep going as long as new generations emigrate to both Aus and NZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

But what you are quoting has nothing to do with how many Islanders have settled in Australia and NZ, what it does show is from the Island communities more of them play in the NRL, I would suggest that is because they have been born and raised in Australia and NZ and taken on the cultures in these countries which include the game of Rugby League Football both played in their schools and community social clubs.

So if lets say a number of the present Tongan (or any other Island team fro that matter) player's are elegible on the Grandparent ruling, to keep their own particular lineage bobbing along, their spouses will have to take to traveling. I have no doubt that there are new bodies waiting in the background, but it will only keep going as long as new generations emigrate to both Aus and NZ.

The 2016 Australian national census showed that the number of people in Australia claiming Pacific Islands ancestry (excluding Maori) grew in both absolute and proportional terms. Those claiming PI ancestry rose from 112,133 in 2006 to 206,673 in 2016.

Similarly, in New Zealand in 2013 295,941 were of PI ethnicity compared with 265,974 in 2006.

The proportion of NRL players of PI heritage is growing faster than the underlying population but the absolute number of Australians and New Zealanders of PI decent is also growing.

So there is no evidence to back up your claim that wives and girlfriends will need to give birth in Tonga to keep the Tongan national team stocks high.

Edited by Dunbar

Share this post


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

The 2016 Australian national census showed that the number of people in Australia claiming Pacific Islands ancestry (excluding Maori) grew in noth absolute and proportional terms. Those claim PI ancestry rosenfrom 112,133 in 2006 to 206,673 in 2016.

Similarly, in New Zealand in 2013 295,941 were of PI ethnicity compared with 265,974 in 2006.

The proportion of NRL players of PI heritage is growing faster than the underlying population but the absolute number of Australians and New Zealanders of PI decent is also growing.

So there is no evidence to back up your claim that wives and girlfriends will need to give birth in Tonga to keep the Tongan national team stocks high.

OK I have not delved into any figures as in depth as you have done, we - the two of us - have broached this elegibillity subject before especially when the GB touring party was selected, I think you know my take on it and I see no point in resurrecting it again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Not really. 

In 2011, 30% of all contracted NRL players had cultural backgrounds from Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and the Cook Islands. By 2018 the figure had risen to 48% (for context, in 1986 just 0.7% of Australian first grade players were of pacific Pacific Island decent).

The number of eligible players for these nations coming through the NRL is growing year on year without wives and girlfriends having to travel to give birth.

2018 NZ census figure is 381,000 people or 8.1% of NZ population have pacific Island ancestry. In 2016 Australian census there where 206,000 people with Pacific Island Polynesian ancestry or just under 1% of the Australian population. For Australia 48% of NRL players having pacific ancestry when this ethnicity is 1% of the Australian population, is really quite a bizarre statistic. For NZ I would estimate 48% of NRL players is fairly consistent with the number of Pacific Islanders registered players in NZ, Id estimate around 30 - 40% of all people who play Rugby League in NZ have pacific Island ancestry. What all this means ill leave that up to you lol. 

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...