Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Posts: 68
Joined: Thu, 29 Mar 2018, 06:57
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Gorbeh » Thu, 17 May 2018, 06:48

In regard of eligibility I think football with all its flaws is a little bit clearer. As long as one did not play for the A-team, thus the national team, one can change nations, even if one played for example at the u21 euopean championship for another nation. The only other restriction the player needs to have the nationality of both countries or the country he is changing to. Add that, to the 5 year residency rule (residency meaning not only playing, but also living most of the year in that country, thus having a legally binding document which shows your stint of residency), and the system is rather easy, if all caps are counted. This would mean only capped players are bound to a nation (being in the squad but not playing does not count).

Posts: 2264
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 17 May 2018, 08:29

frakturfreak wrote:
Masochist wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:Might be a busy year in European Grand Prix Series 2019. How was Toby Flood doing this season? :lol: (Ah wait checked his case, they write he's qualified through his grandfather and helds a German passport. Problem is, that his grandfather was born in a region of Germany, which is now part of Poland, so he is not eligible).


That can't be right. Borders change all the time, if his grandfather was born in "Germany" it shouldn't matter which state controlls the territory now.


Of course it isn’t right (for the legal reason behind this, see Art. 116 GG).


So what on earth has our Grundgesetz to do with World Rugby eligibility laws? We are not talking if he can be a German passport holder. Toby Flood apparently is.
We are talking if he could, in theory, use the 7s loophole, to play for the German rugby national team. This is indeed an interesting question and I am not sure.

Do Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) born grandparents (pre 1945) qualify you to play for Russia or for Germany? That's exactly Toby Flood's case as his grandfather was born in Hohenstein, now Poland. We know that quite well, because his grandfather was a famous actor who actually has a wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Lieven) (Actually 3 of Floods grandparents were actors and all of them were famous enough to have a wikipedia-page, hell one was even Dr. Who).

Or are my children eligible for the Czech Republic or also for Slowakia, as my mother was born during WW2 in the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" a Nazi-Vasall state, created of parts of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
This sounds ridiculous at first, but as "borders change all the time" this Protectorate was actually a predecessor of both countries.

I also shortly thought of it, but don't mention it, because it is a different situation, the British "countries". Because technically no one was ever born in Wales, Scotland, England or Northern Ireland. All of them were born in Great Britain. If a Königsberg born German grandfather qualifies you for Germany, how can a Cardiff born British grandfather not qualify your for any British national team?

I am open for arguments, but my POI was always, that you are tied to the birth place, no matter which country it is in now in rugby.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 181
Joined: Sun, 21 May 2017, 09:02
National Flag:
PolandPoland

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby rey200 » Thu, 17 May 2018, 09:52

well, if he IS a passport holder, he can use the loophole. it's as easy as that!

Posts: 4225
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 17 May 2018, 11:07

ARHS wrote:I used to be involved in eligibility checking for a tier one nation. It is a real minefield. Those demanding and expecting a full WR database of captured players to resolve the issues are perhaps a bit naive on a lot of what has gone on previously. I have seen several players look to play for a higher level nation, on a better (higher value) contract, using a variation of the name they used when they made their international debut. They were likely aware they were ineligible, but the onus of proof was on the country considering selecting them. Sometimes it is a nickname, but sometimes it is an anglicised name v a birth-name. This issue is endemic in the sport I work in now - with lots of Asian players moving to English or French speaking countries. So, I would expect that players capped early for a tier 2 or lower tier nation might be a bit economical in providing full information to a new employer in a new country. A club might me more likely to sign them on if they show a commitment to staying long-term and qualifying for their new home country on residency.

So, I wonder how a clerical assistant can be expected to definitively check all possible name variations in a player database. Dates of birth might help - but not enough I feel.

What was quite apparent is that countries with a budget to do all the checks were able to find loopholes or make enquiries for rulings, prior to selection. The thing that created the mess was the precedents that were set in defining what signified capture for the nominated second team and sevens. It became all about who they took the field against as opposition. There were lots more 'A' selections in those days, so it was tricky for anyone to be certain. There were also precedents based on the player being a minor at first representation. There were 16 and 17 years olds playing sevens. So, the clerical assistant might need legal experience to accurately interpret precedent, and overlay that with the rules in place at the time.

The other issues arose when players were chosen to play a match or tournament that would have captured eligibility, and their naming was published online. Sometimes players withdrew at the last minute - maybe aware of the 'capture'. But, the internet team listings after the match or tournament did not always recognise this. So, if a database is used, it really has to record appearances on the field, and not be a 'squad submission'.

Because of these complications, all a country can do is flag potential issues, and then check a player's passport for evidence of travelling to 'capture' matches and events. You can look at the ESPN Stats Guru database and the World Rugby pdf listings of International Sevens players, but it will never be fully definitive.

Perhaps the use of the 'next best' selection for capture needs to be scrapped, or have mandatory reporting requirements into a database everyone can see. But, I think the most important thing is for WR to set a limitation time for any protests or investigations to be lodged; perhaps just 2 or 3 weeks after play. I have seen many questionable dual national representations, that have likely not been investigated, over the past 20 years. Heaven forbid if some of these are unearthed for an appeal process!


Thank you for the information. So it appears it's far more complicated than anticipated. Then perhaps the simplest solution is this - you're only captured if you've played for the first XV team at test level.

User avatar
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue, 26 Jul 2016, 10:12
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Nikoloz » Thu, 17 May 2018, 11:10

Today, in an interview with rugger.info, Head of Georgian Rugby Union Gocha Svanidze said that GRU is not planning to request REC 2017 title from RE as Romania won it and 1 player is not changing anything. They can request the title, but won`t do it because it`s not the spirit of their politics. Georgia won the title, returned back all the cups and proved that at this moment they are stronger.

Posts: 929
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Bogdan_DC » Thu, 17 May 2018, 11:20

World Rugby think different, in a 85-6 win they take 5 points deduction from us because of 1 player eligibility.

Posts: 578
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Figaro » Thu, 17 May 2018, 11:22

thatrugbyguy wrote:Thank you for the information. So it appears it's far more complicated than anticipated. Then perhaps the simplest solution is this - you're only captured if you've played for the first XV team at test level.


I'd definitely favour that. As it is you can already have a player who was capped for a country at U16, U18, U20 level, and then plays for someone else as long as the "capture" team isn't the U20s. Players have repeatedly turned down appearences in some age-grade sides because they don't want to be captured for later - and it's not just because they want to be able to play for the national sides, but also because remaining native-qualified makes them more attractive for clubs. It's a short career after all and it could be a big deal to lose your eligibility at Pro level for the sake of a U20 or "Irish Wolfhounds" appearance.

Posts: 2264
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 17 May 2018, 11:45

rey200 wrote:well, if he IS a passport holder, he can use the loophole. it's as easy as that!


It is not that easy.
What makes it complicated are different borders during the years. Toby Flood has a German grand-parent who was born within Poland under today's borders.
If only the country counts his grandfather was born in - fair enough, that's clearly Germany.
If not, he is not eligible and can't use the loophole.

What about Polish or Czech or ALL Austrian grandparents? All Austrians born between March 12th 1938 and April 26th 1945 were born German citizens. Are their grandkids all eligible for Germany?
Where do you draw the line? It looks easy at first, but in detail it isn't. Especially if the birthplace changed nationality.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 2264
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 17 May 2018, 14:43

Bogdan_DC wrote:World Rugby think different, in a 85-6 win they take 5 points deduction from us because of 1 player eligibility.

They don't. They said, that the REC of 2017 should stand.

"As the tournament for 2017 had been completed and issues of relegation had been decided in that year, the points deduction should not be applied to the 2017 Rugby Europe tournament." (page 18)
https://www.worldrugby.org/news/334794 (link to the review)
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 368
Joined: Sun, 06 Dec 2015, 06:42
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby snapper37 » Thu, 17 May 2018, 14:56

Bogdan_DC wrote:World Rugby think different, in a 85-6 win they take 5 points deduction from us because of 1 player eligibility.



Did you use an ineligible player???? If the answer is yes, stop complaining...Cheater.

Posts: 929
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Bogdan_DC » Thu, 17 May 2018, 15:07

snapper37 wrote:
Bogdan_DC wrote:World Rugby think different, in a 85-6 win they take 5 points deduction from us because of 1 player eligibility.



Did you use an ineligible player???? If the answer is yes, stop complaining...Cheater.


I know...we cheat last 5 times we met. Last time in 14 and still beat you with 16 points difference on your own turf :).

User avatar
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun, 28 Feb 2016, 22:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby frakturfreak » Thu, 17 May 2018, 15:35

RugbyLiebe wrote:
frakturfreak wrote:
Masochist wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:Might be a busy year in European Grand Prix Series 2019. How was Toby Flood doing this season? :lol: (Ah wait checked his case, they write he's qualified through his grandfather and helds a German passport. Problem is, that his grandfather was born in a region of Germany, which is now part of Poland, so he is not eligible).


That can't be right. Borders change all the time, if his grandfather was born in "Germany" it shouldn't matter which state controlls the territory now.


Of course it isn’t right (for the legal reason behind this, see Art. 116 GG).


Do Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) born grandparents (pre 1945) qualify you to play for Russia or for Germany? That's exactly Toby Flood's case as his grandfather was born in Hohenstein, now Poland. We know that quite well, because his grandfather was a famous actor who actually has a wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Lieven) (Actually 3 of Floods grandparents were actors and all of them were famous enough to have a wikipedia-page, hell one was even Dr. Who).


In my opinion those pre 1945 born grandparents qualify their grandchildren to be eligible for Germany, since they're legally regarded as Germans in the eyes of the Federal Republic of Germany. I don't know how you got the idea, that someone born in those areas pre 1945 give Russian or Polish eligibility. For the case of your children I have no idea how this is seen in Czechia an Slovakia.

Posts: 1819
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby sk 88 » Thu, 17 May 2018, 17:34

Players born in Walvis Bay prior to that becoming part of Namibia are qualified for SA. On that basis I'd say if the person was born within the bounds of the nation, at that time, they qualify for it in the future.

Posts: 181
Joined: Sun, 21 May 2017, 09:02
National Flag:
PolandPoland

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby rey200 » Thu, 17 May 2018, 18:17

frakturfreak wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:
frakturfreak wrote:
Masochist wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:Might be a busy year in European Grand Prix Series 2019. How was Toby Flood doing this season? :lol: (Ah wait checked his case, they write he's qualified through his grandfather and helds a German passport. Problem is, that his grandfather was born in a region of Germany, which is now part of Poland, so he is not eligible).


That can't be right. Borders change all the time, if his grandfather was born in "Germany" it shouldn't matter which state controlls the territory now.


Of course it isn’t right (for the legal reason behind this, see Art. 116 GG).


Do Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) born grandparents (pre 1945) qualify you to play for Russia or for Germany? That's exactly Toby Flood's case as his grandfather was born in Hohenstein, now Poland. We know that quite well, because his grandfather was a famous actor who actually has a wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Lieven) (Actually 3 of Floods grandparents were actors and all of them were famous enough to have a wikipedia-page, hell one was even Dr. Who).


In my opinion those pre 1945 born grandparents qualify their grandchildren to be eligible for Germany, since they're legally regarded as Germans in the eyes of the Federal Republic of Germany. I don't know how you got the idea, that someone born in those areas pre 1945 give Russian or Polish eligibility. For the case of your children I have no idea how this is seen in Czechia an Slovakia.


Pre 1937. Germany occupied and incorporated territories that shouldn't lead to german eligibility. Same for Soviet Union. Those born in Breslau, Königsberg or Allenstein should count until 1945 or even 1949. The topic is complex and with my logic Erika Steinbach would qualify for Poland. lol

Posts: 2264
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 17 May 2018, 18:47

It is indeed very complex. Especially as it was clearly written with the very simple Home Nation situation in mind.

What about Danzig-born-Germans? Germany, than "free-zone" from 1918 until 1939.

@frakturfreak: I am 100% aware about the German laws about it. But World Rugby laws have f... all to do with that. They even follow a total different logic than the Napoleon code civil nearly all continental law systems follow.
And this an interesting variation, worth discussing.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 181
Joined: Sun, 21 May 2017, 09:02
National Flag:
PolandPoland

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby rey200 » Thu, 17 May 2018, 19:06

Danzig was treated like a part of the Deutsches Reich after 1945 by the allies. I guess those born between 1945 and 1949 could or should have double eligibility...

User avatar
Posts: 2154
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby 4N » Thu, 17 May 2018, 21:46


Posts: 77
Joined: Thu, 19 Oct 2017, 21:52
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Immenso » Thu, 17 May 2018, 21:56

ARHS wrote:
What was quite apparent is that countries with a budget to do all the checks were able to find loopholes or make enquiries for rulings, prior to selection. The thing that created the mess was the precedents that were set in defining what signified capture for the nominated second team and sevens. It became all about who they took the field against as opposition. There were lots more 'A' selections in those days, so it was tricky for anyone to be certain. There were also precedents based on the player being a minor at first representation. There were 16 and 17 years olds playing sevens. So, the clerical assistant might need legal experience to accurately interpret precedent, and overlay that with the rules in place at the time.


I find this an interesting point, "There were lots more 'A' selections in those days".

My initial instinct is I don't want the 'second designated team' rule removed, as I prefer as little country-hopping as possible and see it as a away to tie more players to their country of origin (while admittedly also enabling the slighter chance of poaching).

But, thinking about it, how many teams actually put out A teams?

It seems to me only England and Ireland do it self-funded. South Africa have sometimes managed it. The other nations that out out an A team are some of the T2 nations who participate teams in IRB funded tournaments like Pacfic/Americas Rugby Challenge etc. As well as Italy A who particvipate in these IRB funded tournaments.

NZRU and ARU don't do it on cost grounds. Wales changed their designated team to U20s on costs grounds (but this is no longer an option moving forward). I Don't know if Scotland A still exist? I assume there is no longer a 6 Nations tounrament?

So, basically. A Teams are expensive. Those nations who are able to use these are the wealthy or those in IRB funded tournaments. There isn't an even spread, I wouldn't be that fussed if they were removed (disclaimer, the nation I support hasn't fielded one of these teams for a decade).

Posts: 355
Joined: Thu, 04 Jun 2015, 12:34
National Flag:
RussiaRussia

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Zhenya_Zima » Thu, 17 May 2018, 22:06



Trying to be neutral (I'm obviously not, but like to think I have to mental capacity to be) this is pretty much the clearest, most coherent, coldest analytical piece about what has happened. *But there was no mention of Frank Murphy (shh, be quiet Russian Zhenya...) Well done to whoever wrote it. (Presumably Stephen Jones.)

EDIT: In English - AF has done some extremely good stuff en espanol.


T2Rugby wrote:And Belgium with five unnamed players (although at least one is thought to be hooker Victor Paquet)

We're currently at Paquet, Vervoort, Claxton. Any more for any more?

User avatar
Posts: 788
Joined: Sat, 19 Apr 2014, 14:41
National Flag:
NetherlandsNetherlands

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby NedRugby » Thu, 17 May 2018, 23:22

I have to admit to being nervous about some of the foreign players playing for the Netherlands. I'm pretty sure the current Kiwis have been around for 3+ years, but whether they were at the start of their international career I don't know. If someone had been resident for only two years before their first cap would that make them permanently ineligible or would they become eligible after another year? What if they lived here nearly 3 years and then moved on? I'm thinking possibly the Darlington brothers who play in the front row and have returned to England. Heaven knows we don't have much of a pack moving up through the U20s, we need these guys.
Obviously it doesn't affect WC qualification but we could do without a fine of tens of thousands of Euros just after we've got our financial house in order.

Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 18 May 2018, 01:55

Immenso wrote:I find this an interesting point, "There were lots more 'A' selections in those days".

My initial instinct is I don't want the 'second designated team' rule removed, as I prefer as little country-hopping as possible and see it as a away to tie more players to their country of origin (while admittedly also enabling the slighter chance of poaching).

But, thinking about it, how many teams actually put out A teams?

It seems to me only England and Ireland do it self-funded. South Africa have sometimes managed it. The other nations that out out an A team are some of the T2 nations who participate teams in IRB funded tournaments like Pacfic/Americas Rugby Challenge etc. As well as Italy A who particvipate in these IRB funded tournaments.

NZRU and ARU don't do it on cost grounds. Wales changed their designated team to U20s on costs grounds (but this is no longer an option moving forward). I Don't know if Scotland A still exist? I assume there is no longer a 6 Nations tounrament?

So, basically. A Teams are expensive. Those nations who are able to use these are the wealthy or those in IRB funded tournaments. There isn't an even spread, I wouldn't be that fussed if they were removed (disclaimer, the nation I support hasn't fielded one of these teams for a decade).


Uh, the Maori are considered NZ 'A'.

Posts: 1971
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Coloradoan » Fri, 18 May 2018, 04:10

TheStroBro wrote:
Uh, the Maori are considered NZ 'A'.


Uh, no they aren't. You have to have Maori ancestry to play for the NZ Maori. Lots of players are excluded on that basis so it is specifically not an "A" or second national team.

Posts: 77
Joined: Thu, 19 Oct 2017, 21:52
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Immenso » Fri, 18 May 2018, 04:39

Coloradoan wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:
Uh, the Maori are considered NZ 'A'.


Uh, no they aren't. You have to have Maori ancestry to play for the NZ Maori. Lots of players are excluded on that basis so it is specifically not an "A" or second national team.


This is correct.

The Junior All Blacks are NZRU's A Team. They haven't played since 2009.

Posts: 929
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Bogdan_DC » Fri, 18 May 2018, 06:45



Contains a lot of suppositions. Like Romania didn't ask Faka about sevens. They have a signed paper of this. Even if they didn't asked now they can say YES we asked him orally and after that he sign this OFFICIAL ACT. Even if they 've been street wise they now can pretend they didn't.
I personally talk with the player hours after the scandal erupt. He was saying something like 7s is &7s , XVs is XVs...it is clear that he doesn't know the regulation unfortunately.
About Wiki, it is a slip up, FRR tried to show sites that show him without sevens cap (they had a long list but the judges cherry pick Wiki :)). Like i previously said some of the sites show him capped you cannot open if you have an antivir. Also this should be an eligibility condition: to be a good researcher on internet?

Also it looks like WR send before the process a waiver where they asked that everybody sign a paper they don't appeal TAS. I don't think this is having any value, even opposite will be a black stain for WR.

I really think that FRR has a case for TAS. WR had no clear procedure in place and Romania did the reasonable steps. The question is they will have the balls to do it? We are already in a bad condition, no money, if we start a war with WR will be a million times harder. We will go to the end? I doubt it.

Posts: 2264
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 18 May 2018, 06:50

Immenso wrote:
NZRU and ARU don't do it on cost grounds.


The A team of New Zealand are the Maoris, or what would you call them?

Edit: sorry somehow overlooked the posts about it.
Forget about this post.
Last edited by RugbyLiebe on Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:16, edited 1 time in total.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 16 guests