New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread

[thatrugbyguy Profile]

Well, i hate to say it but football is wiser in few things, at least in eligibility&qualification process. And i think all this is because WR is trying to control things for "the good of the sport". So every time they make a shit like giving Pacific countries another spot or making eligibility laws specific for some cases it only complicates everything on a long run.

Rugby's problem has always been the struggle between preservation and progress. FIFA went crazy in terms of progress which has lead to corruption within the sport, and Cricket has gone the other way which has made it virtually impossible for the game to grow beyond its old British Empire borders. Rugby sits somewhere in the middle trying to figure out how to do both.

[FLIDTA RISXVA Profile Website]

ENJOY

[RugbyLiebe Profile]

I understand they were senior only in a senior competition or in a friendly with a senior team. A friendly between Wales U20 and France U20 could count as well. But inside a junior competition, it misses the point. How could it be a senior match if it is a junior competition?

Nobody thought that in 2008, I am pretty sure.

I reckon my basic point is: everybody with half a brain playing for the French U20 KNEW that this would lock him. It was the next representive national team. Yes, you can hire a lawyer and find ways to avoid or overturn it afterwards, but they went into the game being proud of representing France and with the goal to play as many games as possible for France/Wales/Whoeverland.
So this didn't work out. And now from the bottom of their soul every player knows, that he shouldn't have played for another national team.
But I can see were you are coming from. This is a conflict I always have with law. It often turns out the way, it really shouldn't be.

The guys in charge at World Rugby will find a way and maybe even a just way under the laws, but that doesn't change, that everybody knows, that if a U20 is called the next representive team and you play for it in any match, you should be locked for other national teams. No matter against who and why they played. (and this has nothing to do with Spain, Belgium or Civil-War-Rugby-Germany, just my 2 cents).

[amz Profile]

What about this guy? He played a test for Spain in 2015 after was capped by France Sevens:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabien_Gr ... _%C3%A0_XV)

[TheStroBro Profile]

Some thoughts I've had

1 - U20's has to be removed as an option as a senior team
2 - All unions have to name their second XV as an 'A' team, no more Emerging Springboks or England Saxons or Maori All Blacks, it's South Africa A, England A and New Zealand A
3 - I think an option needs to be considered that a minimum number of games have to be played to be tied to a nation without the Olympic loophole.

I have no issues with England Saxons or Irish Wolfhounds as names, but they need to be the official designation of the Union.

What about this guy? He played a test for Spain in 2015 after was capped by France Sevens:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabien_Gr ... _%C3%A0_XV)

Whoa now...one eligibility issue at a time. I'm going to guess this one would be a fine, since he appeared in one test...if they ever get to him...

[amz Profile]

Whoa now...one eligibility issue at a time. I'm going to guess this one would be a fine, since he appeared in one test...if they ever get to him...

How come is fine? France Sevens than Spain XV? True, he played only one match which wouldn't change much REC 2015 but still, this is repetitive.

[Thomas Profile Website]

None of us let alone Mr Jones is any wiser as to the wisdom of World Rugby or Rugby Europe. we have a better chance in reading the Tea leaves or look into a crystal ball and see what they are thinking.


We know what the Laws say but what is the outcome is a different story..

[BLASICO Profile]

Whoa now...one eligibility issue at a time. I'm going to guess this one would be a fine, since he appeared in one test...if they ever get to him...

How come is fine? France Sevens than Spain XV? True, he played only one match which wouldn't change much REC 2015 but still, this is repetitive.

Please, stop intoxicating this forum from your "dear home nation".
Grammatico issue was Garmmatico issue; and it's ended.

And precisely from this case, FER was very very careful with the eligibility of his players.

Much better that your efforts of purity and cleaning go to the FRR direction.
Cheers

[victorsra Profile Website]

I reckon my basic point is: everybody with half a brain playing for the French U20 KNEW that this would lock him. It was the next representive national team. Yes, you can hire a lawyer and find ways to avoid or overturn it afterwards, but they went into the game being proud of representing France and with the goal to play as many games as possible for France/Wales/Whoeverland.

Sorry, it is not simple to me. "Next senior teams" in junior competitions? It is dubious. Like it or not. It makes sense in a France U20 vs Argentina XV or Wales U20 vs Emerging Ireland. But INSIDE a junior tournament? I understand what you are saying, that France used it to lock players probably and it is clear: the next senior team is France U20. But again, I don't see why not consider that this would only be true for senior matches. Because it is also clear: next SENIOR team. I think they have a pretty strong case here to show at least that the situation was NOT clear.

True, he played only one match which wouldn't change much REC 2015 but still, this is repetitive.

REC 2015 is not part of the RWC 2019 Qualy....

[Sick Profile]

Whoa now...one eligibility issue at a time. I'm going to guess this one would be a fine, since he appeared in one test...if they ever get to him...

How come is fine? France Sevens than Spain XV? True, he played only one match which wouldn't change much REC 2015 but still, this is repetitive.

Please, stop intoxicating this forum from your "dear home nation".
Grammatico issue was Garmmatico issue; and it's ended.

And precisely from this case, FER was very very careful with the eligibility of his players.

Much better that your efforts of purity and cleaning go to the FRR direction.
Cheers

Nobody intoxicated anything. He asked a normal question. Be more respectfull. Asking someone a question regarding eligibility isn't disrespectfull. Getting triggered by a question is childish.

[Immenso Profile]

Some thoughts I've had

1 - U20's has to be removed as an option as a senior team
2 - All unions have to name their second XV as an 'A' team, no more Emerging Springboks or England Saxons or Maori All Blacks, it's South Africa A, England A and New Zealand A
3 - I think an option needs to be considered that a minimum number of games have to be played to be tied to a nation without the Olympic loophole.

The bolded part has already been changed. (at the same time they increased residency requirement from 3 to 5 years)

With effect from January 1, 2018, Unions may not designate their Under 20s National Representative Team as their next senior National Representative Team.

https://www.worldrugby.org/news/155038?lang=en

[Madridista Profile]

What about this guy? He played a test for Spain in 2015 after was capped by France Sevens:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabien_Gr ... _%C3%A0_XV)

Nobody cares

[amz Profile]

What about this guy? He played a test for Spain in 2015 after was capped by France Sevens:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabien_Gr ... _%C3%A0_XV)

Nobody cares

After you count and see the final result (at least 3 players ineligible so far), this may look different

[suofficer Profile]

any idea when we get closure on this?

this is exhausting. the trolling that has come with it has really brought out a nasty element to it all.

[RugbyLiebe Profile]

I reckon my basic point is: everybody with half a brain playing for the French U20 KNEW that this would lock him. It was the next representive national team. Yes, you can hire a lawyer and find ways to avoid or overturn it afterwards, but they went into the game being proud of representing France and with the goal to play as many games as possible for France/Wales/Whoeverland.

Sorry, it is not simple to me. "Next senior teams" in junior competitions? It is dubious. Like it or not. It makes sense in a France U20 vs Argentina XV or Wales U20 vs Emerging Ireland. But INSIDE a junior tournament? I understand what you are saying, that France used it to lock players probably and it is clear: the next senior team is France U20. But again, I don't see why not consider that this would only be true for senior matches. Because it is also clear: next SENIOR team. I think they have a pretty strong case here to show at least that the situation was NOT clear.

One could argue, that only adults played in the U20 World Cup, as I reckon that everybody was over 18 and eligible for senior rugby.
But that's a different thing and I don't want to go down that road.
The rules were, that you can call the U20 the next representive national team. This was possible. And it simply doesn't make sense that ANY games from this next representive teams won't count, I mean common U20 World Cup games don't count? Is it just that in the same competition one game counts and one game doesn't? Exactly this leads to absolute chaos we have now.

It makes no sense whatsoever to first give the national unions the power to decide which team they chose and than take the power away by lamenting, that only games against a team, with a coach who wears a black hat and his wife who has long blonde hair and wears stockings to the game, should count. Why give them the power to chose their team at first?

World Rugby could solve this easily by stating, that no U20 game in the past is binding whatsoever. Imho World Rugby in this case has once again lost the battle of conservation and modernism and created absolute chaos. I would go that far to say that All next representive teams should be scraped altogether in this rule. And to avoid poaching, playing in any Junior World Cup or Trophy leads to 5 years of being blocked for other nations. All the other competitions don't count and World Rugby already has all the data required.

[BobFish Profile]

What about this guy? He played a test for Spain in 2015 after was capped by France Sevens:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabien_Gr ... _%C3%A0_XV)

Nobody cares

After you count and see the final result (at least 3 players ineligible so far), this may look different

FFS, Grammatico issue is something done and dusted. Spain fucked it up playing him. They realised and were fined for it. Looking into an issue that happened 3 years ago and that has been already resolved is just looking for shit in the sewers.

[BobFish Profile]

I reckon my basic point is: everybody with half a brain playing for the French U20 KNEW that this would lock him. It was the next representive national team. Yes, you can hire a lawyer and find ways to avoid or overturn it afterwards, but they went into the game being proud of representing France and with the goal to play as many games as possible for France/Wales/Whoeverland.

Sorry, it is not simple to me. "Next senior teams" in junior competitions? It is dubious. Like it or not. It makes sense in a France U20 vs Argentina XV or Wales U20 vs Emerging Ireland. But INSIDE a junior tournament? I understand what you are saying, that France used it to lock players probably and it is clear: the next senior team is France U20. But again, I don't see why not consider that this would only be true for senior matches. Because it is also clear: next SENIOR team. I think they have a pretty strong case here to show at least that the situation was NOT clear.

True, he played only one match which wouldn't change much REC 2015 but still, this is repetitive.

REC 2015 is not part of the RWC 2019 Qualy....

I do not know if this is the right interpretation. But I believe this might be the route that the FER took to clear Belie with WR before calling him up. It is obvious that his situation was not clear and that's why they took over a year and a half to get him selected

[mmoae Profile]

What about this guy? He played a test for Spain in 2015 after was capped by France Sevens:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabien_Gr ... _%C3%A0_XV)

Nobody cares

After you count and see the final result (at least 3 players ineligible so far), this may look different

FFS, Grammatico issue is something done and dusted. Spain fucked it up playing him. They realised and were fined for it. Looking into an issue that happened 3 years ago and that has been already resolved is just looking for shit in the sewers.

They got fined for it? Interesting.. do you have some confirmation of that? Because that would make me think that Romania should also just get a fine at most for what was most likely an honest mistake (if it is indeed confirmed as a mistake) in our own eligibility issue.

[BobFish Profile]

What about this guy? He played a test for Spain in 2015 after was capped by France Sevens:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabien_Gr ... _%C3%A0_XV)

Nobody cares

After you count and see the final result (at least 3 players ineligible so far), this may look different

FFS, Grammatico issue is something done and dusted. Spain fucked it up playing him. They realised and were fined for it. Looking into an issue that happened 3 years ago and that has been already resolved is just looking for shit in the sewers.

They got fined for it? Interesting.. do you have some confirmation of that? Because that would make me think that Romania should also just get a fine at most for what was most likely an honest mistake (if it is indeed confirmed as a mistake) in our own eligibility issue.

That is my recollection, but I cannot find it online.

[Sick Profile]

Guys understand that we're not looking for other ineligibility cases to blame you guys or anything similar. It's just gaining of knowledge. I've looked around and a lot of federations have problems, wich means it's not only incompetence but the rules are kind of unclear or complicated or arbitrary and that's a WR problem.

[RugbyLiebe Profile]

FFS, Grammatico issue is something done and dusted. Spain fucked it up playing him. They realised and were fined for it. Looking into an issue that happened 3 years ago and that has been already resolved is just looking for shit in the sewers.

They got fined for it? Interesting.. do you have some confirmation of that? Because that would make me think that Romania should also just get a fine at most for what was most likely an honest mistake (if it is indeed confirmed as a mistake) in our own eligibility issue.

That is my recollection, but I cannot find it online.

Germany never complained in 2016, as the draw was enough for us to secure staying in the REC (a loss would have been as well). So this is a different case. Altough I have my doubt that this case was ever under some kind of jurisdiction, but don't know it.

As Sick just wrote, this is about bringing now all cases on the table for good so this won't happen again in the future. If Grammatico's case, at a time where it honestly didn't matter at all if he was eligible or not, would have been handled more open and direct, maybe this mess could have been avoided.

Edit: I always thought he played in 2016 against us. Apparently it was 2015. Loss for us, we still stayed in.

[Bogdan_DC Profile]

Oh ...now we have Grannygate, Grammatico &Tahiti case. All with different solutions. Damn...i just want everything to be over.

[Gorbeh Profile]

@Bogdan or someone else with good federation connections: Is there any sign, message or information from WR when the issue is going to be solved and hopefully clarified?

[Bogdan_DC Profile]

@Bogdan or someone else with good federation connections: Is there any sign, message or information from WR when the issue is going to be solved and hopefully clarified?

My guess is the end of this week we have a first solution from WR. But like Zhenya_Zima said we will have second part where Unions will challenge each other. If WR will give a solution like a big fine or something, i guess second part will not exist anymore.

[YamahaKiwi Profile]

WR attitude is pi**ing me off. On their site, social media etc absolutely nothing about this. You would not know there is a big crisis in RWC qualifying going on. Everything in WR lala-land is just perfect! The sky is blue and the sun is shining. They should be being open, acknowledging there is an issue and they are investigating. They don't have to give all the details, just some acknowledgment of the situation. Instead they just closed the iron gates to fortress Dublin...and for those wondering what is going on, nothing.

There has been a real lack of leadership on tbis issue from them. After the SPA-BEL game, they should've taken control instead of passing the ball back to RE. It's called "stepping up" and they didn't.