Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Project Player Rules

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by fitzy73 View Post
    Correct.

    However in a non Irish context I think WR could be backing themselves into a corner here. Citizenship rules vary by country, so I can very much see a challenge in the future where a newly naturalised passport holder challenges their rule.

    If you have a passport then I think you should be allowed to play for the country that has given you said passport.

    (And yes I know there whole other can of worms with our Northern brethren).
    I don't see how this new rule would be any more contenious or open to legal challenge than any of the other arbitrary rules world rugby make for international eligibility. For instance players that are tied to a country after playing under age or seconds rugby, despite being citizens of other countries, such as Daniel Brennan.

    In fact abstracting the rule from citizenship and making it a flat 5 years everywhere makes it more robust than tying it in any way to citizenship which, as you say, can be very messy and different all over the world

    Comment


      #17
      There are countries that grant instant citizenship based on investment.

      We could see tiny independent rich countries building teams based on handed out passports and petro-dollars yet.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Pony View Post
        There are countries that grant instant citizenship based on investment.

        We could see tiny independent rich countries building teams based on handed out passports and petro-dollars yet.
        Bahrain or Qatar would have a tough time taking World Rugby to the ECJ or ECHR. World Rugby have set a clear rule and it is very unlikely to face any challenge let alone be overturned.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by jagawayagain View Post
          That was how I understood the discussion towards the end of last year. Seems quite a step, rather than gradual introduction, but clearly needed some decent grasp of it.
          What would you see as a gradual introduction?

          Originally posted by Thorns View Post
          A far more logical approach would be to leave it at 3 and limit match day squads to one starting +1 on the bench or similar.

          Writing off a guys International career for 5 years benefits nobody.
          You would have no chance of implementing such a policy. You're either qualified or you're not.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by AwayFromHome View Post
            Bahrain or Qatar would have a tough time taking World Rugby to the ECJ or ECHR. World Rugby have set a clear rule and it is very unlikely to face any challenge let alone be overturned.
            I largely agree, but I would see a difficulty in WR refusing to allow a citizen not play for his/her nation. Even if they have been parachuted in. They're bound to that nation then. Our citizenship laws are much more relaxed than others, the granny rule applies in very few countries. Could you imagine the uproar if we were refused a lad togging out who is a citizen.
            B Burns, Haley, Adison, and a good half dozen others at Connacht.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Pony View Post
              I largely agree, but I would see a difficulty in WR refusing to allow a citizen not play for his/her nation. Even if they have been parachuted in. They're bound to that nation then. Our citizenship laws are much more relaxed than others, the granny rule applies in very few countries. Could you imagine the uproar if we were refused a lad togging out who is a citizen.
              B Burns, Haley, Adison, and a good half dozen others at Connacht.
              Dougie Howlett is an Irish citizen but ineligible to play for Ireland.

              Comment


                #22
                Regulation 8.1 states:

                8.1 Subject to Regulation 8.2, a Player may only play for the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team and the senior National Representative Sevens Team of the Union of the country with which the Player has a genuine, close, credible and established national link in which:
                (a) he was born; or
                (b) one parent or grandparent was born; or
                (c) he has completed sixty┬╣ consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing; or
                (d) he has completed ten years of cumulative Residence preceding the time of playing.


                (1) The sixty-month residency requirement comes into effect after the cut-off date of December 31, 2020. The residency requirement up to and including December 31, 2020 is “thirty-six consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing”


                Last edited by Piquet; 23rd-July-2018, 15:56.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Piquet View Post
                  Dougie Howlett is an Irish citizen but ineligible to play for Ireland.
                  My point is that if a nation decides to get into rugby in a serious way and hands out passports to a dozen good uncapped players there is nothing WR can do about it. No rule will prevent it.

                  If Qatar decide they can scour the Pacific Islands, identify a dozen uncapped quality young lads, offer them citizenship and money, and Qatar then have a reasonable team.
                  A few middle east countries have done this for athletics for individuals.

                  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-q...-idUSKCN11015P
                  https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...eva-azerbaijan
                  https://www.nation.co.ke/lifestyle/l...nbz/index.html
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_Saaeed_Shaheen

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Citizenship is mentioned nowhere in Reg 8.1 as quoted above. Therefore whether one is a citizen or not, has no effect on one's eligibility to play for a country.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Piquet View Post
                      Citizenship is mentioned nowhere in Reg 8.1 as quoted above. Therefore whether one is a citizen or not, has no effect on one's eligibility to play for a country.
                      I know, that's my point. I don't believe it would legally stand up to a challenge by Matlock after 14 pints. We'll only know if/when it is tested, but I'd be confident it will be a matter of when.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        In which court would Matlock be slurring after his 14 pints?

                        The WR refs are clear and make no reference to citizenship. The Court for Arbitration in Sport (only place where a challenge would likely to be heard) would never interfere in a sports federations decision making unless that decision making was clearly biased, which this regulation is absolutely not.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by AwayFromHome View Post
                          In which court would Matlock be slurring after his 14 pints?

                          The WR refs are clear and make no reference to citizenship. The Court for Arbitration in Sport (only place where a challenge would likely to be heard) would never interfere in a sports federations decision making unless that decision making was clearly biased, which this regulation is absolutely not.
                          IMO -- the European Court of Human rights could well hear it. Like being denied the right to a living by being barred from representing "your nation" because a sports body discriminated against you based on how long you have resided where. Does it mean Michael Bent could not play for Ireland like he did?

                          Remember there are multiple bars to players getting contracts in all the leagues based on their nationality. NIQ's severely limited in Ireland. France has a list of nationalities allowed dispensation to play in the league, the rest are strictly capped.

                          I'm not arguing the rights/wrongs of it, and I'd say in many countries it might be acceptable. However with European law IMO, I can't see how it would stand up to a challenge.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            IIRC Bent qualified through the granny rule, which was why he was able to play for Ireland straight off the plane.
                            Tis but a scratch.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Pony View Post
                              IMO -- the European Court of Human rights could well hear it. Like being denied the right to a living by being barred from representing "your nation" because a sports body discriminated against you based on how long you have resided where.
                              Similarly then you must believe they would prosecute the RFU for their policy of not selecting players based in England? Or the IRFU. The UN will step in on similar restrictive policies used by NZR, ARU, etc? In what way are these bars on representing your country baced on residence different from the proposed?
                              Does it mean Michael Bent could not play for Ireland like he did?
                              Would make no difference to Bent.

                              Remember there are multiple bars to players getting contracts in all the leagues based on their nationality. NIQ's severely limited in Ireland. France has a list of nationalities allowed dispensation to play in the league, the rest are strictly capped.

                              I'm not arguing the rights/wrongs of it, and I'd say in many countries it might be acceptable. However with European law IMO, I can't see how it would stand up to a challenge.
                              How are you so certain of this?

                              Can you give any examples of precedence that would suggest the EU Court of Human would have any interest in this? Or that the policy would certainly not stand up to a challenge? Is this all purely opinion?

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Are people forgetting Bosman and Kolpak? The ECJ would certainly look at it, if asked.
                                Please support Milford Hospice. Click here to donate.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X