Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Posts: 3698
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 13 Aug 2020, 08:34

South America President slams World Rugby delaying residency change

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2020/0 ... bZYaxCAs7I
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.

Online
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby Armchair Fan » Thu, 13 Aug 2020, 08:39

To be honest Sudamérica Rugby right now would criticise Bill Beaumont even for the way he likes to drink his five o'clock tea.

Posts: 2822
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby amz » Thu, 13 Aug 2020, 08:52

Armchair Fan wrote:To be honest Sudamérica Rugby right now would criticise Bill Beaumont even for the way he likes to drink his five o'clock tea.


:lol: or even because he have this Anglo habit to drink tea at 5 o'clock

User avatar
Posts: 6508
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby Canalina » Thu, 13 Aug 2020, 09:05

Image

Posts: 3698
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 13 Aug 2020, 09:36

Okay, it is not in the interest of anyone in South America that this eligibility law gets extended for another year. So off course they criticize it. if they wouldn't say a word, they wouldn't do their job right.

Have we all gone now to Trump-like childish political discussions?

So much said, I think they did the right thing to extend it - especially as at least myself wasn't aware that the eligibility had a limit until December 31st., which actually does run out. I always assumed, that it wouldn't matter when you play for the national team once you fullfilled those three years.

So a correct decision by World Rugby and also a correct thing of SA to make sure, that the next step isn't to totally scrap the 5-years-rule in silence.
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: 8840
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby victorsra » Thu, 13 Aug 2020, 14:09

Armchair Fan wrote:To be honest Sudamérica Rugby right now would criticise Bill Beaumont even for the way he likes to drink his five o'clock tea.

Yes, it is annoying.

For Brazil the delay is good, there are two Argentines here that will benefit.

I'm not sure if one year is the right thing, but six months probably would be.

Posts: 165
Joined: Thu, 19 Oct 2017, 21:52
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby Immenso » Fri, 14 Aug 2020, 03:35

RugbyLiebe wrote:Big news:

Eligibility rule set back for another year. I wasn't aware that you actually needed to represent a Union until the end of 2020 to make the switch (if you had finished the three years of residency in 2020). Now it is 2021, which means that German Anton Segner, would now qualify for New Zealand in 2021 instead of 2023.

https://www.ultimaterugby.com/news/resi ... yed/629005

Don't think it would make any difference for Segner. He was still at school in 2019 and not not living at his family home, his qualifying period wouldn't start until end of 2019.

Posts: 3698
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 14 Aug 2020, 07:16

Immenso wrote:Don't think it would make any difference for Segner. He was still at school in 2019 and not not living at his family home, his qualifying period wouldn't start until end of 2019.


He permanently moved to NZ in January 2018. At least that's what he's saying and what probably the All Blacks think. Otherwise I doubt he would be part of their U20 practice squad, if he would only be eligible in 2024. But yeah, the family home is indeed another interesting eligibility (confusion) point.
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: 320
Joined: Sat, 03 May 2014, 00:22
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby Scoob » Sat, 23 Jan 2021, 23:25

I find mildly amusing that Scotland and Ireland employ someone specifically to hunt out elgible potential players for there national team. Redpath playing for Scotland. But when a player from,particularly a tier 2 country is dual eligible for both say Ireland and U.S.A the union says they lose there Irish club contract if they choose to represent U.S.A.
I guess the Irish and Scottish unions are saying that there looking after the best interests of there rugby union. But hey each to there own i suppose.Everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks there right.

Posts: 659
Joined: Sun, 06 Dec 2015, 06:42
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby snapper37 » Tue, 02 Feb 2021, 19:27

Scoob wrote:I find mildly amusing that Scotland and Ireland employ someone specifically to hunt out elgible potential players for there national team. Redpath playing for Scotland. But when a player from,particularly a tier 2 country is dual eligible for both say Ireland and U.S.A the union says they lose there Irish club contract if they choose to represent U.S.A.
I guess the Irish and Scottish unions are saying that there looking after the best interests of there rugby union. But hey each to there own i suppose.Everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks there right.



*Your comments are pretty rich as NZ has multiple people who search for talent in the Pacific isle to attend schools and then hopefully move up their age grade system.

*There shouldn't be a stand down period. Pick a team, and then accept the out come of that decision. World Rugby doesn't want to see is a repeat of the Japanese All Blacks of the early 2000's. Strong tier 1 nations will buy up young talent leaving the tier 2 nations that cant afford to play the "buy a player game" will fall father behind.

*Redpath is Scottish and should be playing for Scotland, and only played in the England age grade system because the Scottish is poor.

Posts: 2178
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby TheStroBro » Wed, 03 Feb 2021, 16:03

snapper37 wrote:
Scoob wrote:I find mildly amusing that Scotland and Ireland employ someone specifically to hunt out elgible potential players for there national team. Redpath playing for Scotland. But when a player from,particularly a tier 2 country is dual eligible for both say Ireland and U.S.A the union says they lose there Irish club contract if they choose to represent U.S.A.
I guess the Irish and Scottish unions are saying that there looking after the best interests of there rugby union. But hey each to there own i suppose.Everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks there right.



*Your comments are pretty rich as NZ has multiple people who search for talent in the Pacific isle to attend schools and then hopefully move up their age grade system.

*There shouldn't be a stand down period. Pick a team, and then accept the out come of that decision. World Rugby doesn't want to see is a repeat of the Japanese All Blacks of the early 2000's. Strong tier 1 nations will buy up young talent leaving the tier 2 nations that cant afford to play the "buy a player game" will fall father behind.

*Redpath is Scottish and should be playing for Scotland, and only played in the England age grade system because the Scottish is poor.


NZ hasn't imported players in years. Samoa and Tonga have been selecting Kiwis on heritage grounds who've been cast off of the All Blacks pipeline or even never were in the All Blacks Pipeline for YEARS.

I would correct his statement though, the Scottish Union doesn't forbid players for playing for their Union of choice. Glasgow has signed foreign players very often because they don't have the budget to compete with the Premiership clubs. So they've had more than a fair few Canadian and US Internationals in the past.

Posts: 729
Joined: Fri, 15 Aug 2014, 13:57

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby Raven » Wed, 03 Feb 2021, 17:30

snapper37 wrote: *Your comments are pretty rich as NZ has multiple people who search for talent in the Pacific isle to attend schools and then hopefully move up their age grade system.

:thumbup: Well said. Although one can argue the number is decreasing, but we still get the odd Seevu Reece... Australia can also be pointed out.

snapper37 wrote:*Redpath is Scottish and should be playing for Scotland, and only played in the England age grade system because the Scottish is poor.

Redpath is an anomaly, as he is French born but moved to England with 1 or 2 years of age, because of his fathers' job in professional rugby. A product of the "English Rugby" system whether we want it / like it / understand it or not. As he grew older the boy went to a very rugby orientated school in England and excelled, undoubtedly he had some good genes as his father was none other than a Scottish Rugby legend & captain, but credit to the boy. Cameron played for the English age grade side because he's a product of their pathway, Scotland may have not found a way to lure him into their schooling system to ensure he could then be eligible with nobody making a fuss about it.

I'm glad he wasn't captured by England, cause Redpath for me is a Scottish Rugby last name! but he had a right to pick his allegiance the way he wanted.

Talking about "legendary" last names, let's not forget we have Jacob Umaga in contention for an ENGLAND team! We envision a Samoan / NZ jersey. But born in England, played in England almost all his life... what are you gonna do!? Tell him he's gotta play for NZ or Samoa cause his dad or uncle did?

snapper37 wrote:*There shouldn't be a stand down period. Pick a team, and then accept the out come of that decision. World Rugby doesn't want to see is a repeat of the Japanese All Blacks of the early 2000's. Strong tier 1 nations will buy up young talent leaving the tier 2 nations that cant afford to play the "buy a player game" will fall father behind.


Personally, I cannot come up with the best conclusion regarding this issue. As almost every member of this forum I also find it annoying that the Elite have so many opportunities to boost their sides through project players as Scoob wrote above (New Zealand and Australia included) And of course I want rugby to close the gap between T1 & T2 in my lifetime, so players with ancestry or residency are sometimes a necessary evil.
What I do think is that, although a step forward, changing the residency from 3 to 5 years won't have any impact. Perhaps an idea is to draw a line in the amount of foreign born players allowed in a squad once the National Team reaches a Tier 1 status (some will say, "yeah, good luck with that!") i.e: Japan is now a Tier 1, and at the same time their league is becoming fully Pro. Undoubtedly we'll see more Polynesian, South African, Australian players in these squads and eventually some will become eligible with the current rule. And almost certainly they will get picked. What's the point of having a "Japanese" side full of foreigners? Or half an Irish / Scottish team talking Afrikaans for that matter?
USA may be the next best example, we see more and more "US eligible" Brits and Irish going to the MLR, but the national team is still a step below, once they reach T1 status, the flow should stop somehow. I know there's more and more local players too as there are also more teams, don't get me wrong! And by all means, let the foreign quality enhance the MLR level!, but so that homegrown talent get better opposition week in week out, not with the goal of boosting a National side.
Once a team becomes a Tier 1 side it should be clear that they have big enough depth to provide a strong pathway for their homegrown talent without poaching nor luring foreigners to step into the International arena. And if something hasn't been done right (i.e: Scotland U20s being relegated) then they need to pull their pants up and work from below not to fall regularly against T2 sides.

And just to return to the original Post Subject, a stand down period may sound tempting from a blind T2 perspective, those famous "How would a Samoa XV would look like...", "If Fiji had all their talent...", it could be quite deceiving... Toby Flood playing for Germany cause of a grandmother he has... Raphael Ibanez coming out of retirement to play for his mothers country... Serge Betsen finally strapping in Cameroon colours :roll: But now imagine it the other way around, a Fijian or Spanish young international getting a contract in NZ / England / France (or Japan!), with the obligation of standing down with enough time to become eligible for their employing country....

Hence why stating that "Every T1 national team can have an X number of foreign born players" (say maximum of 8 in a 33-men squad, with 4 taking the field at the same time) Every T2 NT can have 15 in a 33-men squad, being able to field 7/8 at the same time? I don't know, it could be perhaps an idea to stop the uncountable flow, and still work for T2s to help develop their local talent.

I understand There will always be cases to be analysed individually...

But these are my 2 cents.

Posts: 320
Joined: Sat, 03 May 2014, 00:22
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby Scoob » Wed, 03 Feb 2021, 19:18

I guess when i look at Tennis,Golf Basketball and Football,Athletics to a certain extent,elite players leave there country of birth to further there sporting careers in U.S.A and Europe at a young age and still represent there birth country when competing. Reason for this is mainly there pay packet does not change enormously if they Represent there birth country,and many of these athletes have said they feel a connection to there birth country. Now you compare this to rugby,and you get players coming out and saying it would be an honour to represent etc NZL,Australia,England,Scotland even though they have only lived there 3 years,or a grandparent lived there at one stage. When unions,player managers dangle the almighty $$$ sign in the eyes of players everything changes.
The problem with rugby is there is to much control by the elite committee of 8 nations.

Posts: 8840
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby victorsra » Wed, 03 Feb 2021, 19:37

There is also an important difference between T1s and T2s, and also between T2s. Many T2s have T1 expats playing for them, but most times those guys arrived because of jobs, studies, marriages, whatever (not counting those that arrived as kids, because it is pretty obvious they are products of local rugby). And then they engage in local club rugby. It is pretty ok when the country has just a couple of expats eligible by residence, specialy when those are guys that realy work for rugby. The problem is when the whole national team is foreigner, because this means rugby has no local roots, therefore the development isn't happening.

Posts: 659
Joined: Sun, 06 Dec 2015, 06:42
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby snapper37 » Wed, 03 Feb 2021, 23:50

Scoob wrote:I guess when i look at Tennis,Golf Basketball and Football,Athletics to a certain extent,elite players leave there country of birth to further there sporting careers in U.S.A and Europe at a young age and still represent there birth country when competing. Reason for this is mainly there pay packet does not change enormously if they Represent there birth country,and many of these athletes have said they feel a connection to there birth country. Now you compare this to rugby,and you get players coming out and saying it would be an honour to represent etc NZL,Australia,England,Scotland even though they have only lived there 3 years,or a grandparent lived there at one stage. When unions,player managers dangle the almighty $$$ sign in the eyes of players everything changes.
The problem with rugby is there is to much control by the elite committee of 8 nations.



Soccer doesn't allow nation swapping, pick one and stay with it

Online
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby Armchair Fan » Wed, 03 Feb 2021, 23:55

Not really. They allow as long as the team that originally blocked you is OK with it. Which is rarely the case.

Posts: 659
Joined: Sun, 06 Dec 2015, 06:42
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby snapper37 » Thu, 04 Feb 2021, 01:11

Armchair Fan wrote:Not really. They allow as long as the team that originally blocked you is OK with it. Which is rarely the case.



Not sure why this is really still being debated? its seems to me that this will only help the major tier 1 teams in that PI will declare for these nations when their young and able to make their most money and then flip back to their nation of heritage when their worth from the chosen nation is no longer interested in the ability. These players are looking for a back up plan and thats it. Educate yourself before you chose and then stick with it.

Posts: 735
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby carbonero » Thu, 04 Feb 2021, 02:04

I like FIFA’s amendment in the Munir case. He was tied with Spain at age 19 for playing only 13 minutes in a qualification game. He then wanted to represent Morocco but couldn’t because of those 13 minutes.

Players can now switch teams provided they were eligible to represent the second country at the time they played for the first country. This applies as long as they played no more than three matches, this fixtures all happened before the player turned 21 and none of the them were during an important competition like World Cups, Euros, Copa América, etc. There is also a three year stand down period.

Rugby could do something along those lines:
. Three year stand down period.
. Only T2 nations can use this rule
. Players can switch teams provided they were eligible to represent the second country at the time they played for the first country. This means no project players.
. Maximum of 10 test matches with their first nation. A season in the 7s circuit could count as one test match.
. Can’t switch if the played in the RWC or the Olympics

Armchair Fan wrote:Not really. They allow as long as the team that originally blocked you is OK with it. Which is rarely the case.

FIFA has to approve the switch. The other team has no say in the matter.

Posts: 8840
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby victorsra » Thu, 04 Feb 2021, 03:52

I think it is not good to use "only T2s" rules, it makes official a caste system in rugby. T1/T2 must be only an analytical tool, for exemple, to help strategical decisions. It shoudn't be used as a legal status.

Maybe an easy way to do is basicaly an age rule. Young players regret from decisions, because they lost space in the team they've chosen and this is usualy the origin of the problem.

Players can switch teams provided they were eligible to represent the second country at the time they played for the first country. This means no project players.

IMO the rule above (that is very good) + a small number of tests while under 21 or maybe under 23 + stand down period should be enough as a rule. More than this, the player shouldn't be able to change. Easier.

Online
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby Armchair Fan » Thu, 04 Feb 2021, 09:47

carbonero wrote:FIFA has to approve the switch. The other team has no say in the matter.

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of much older cases and wasn't aware of last developments from Munir's case.

Posts: 6089
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 04 Feb 2021, 10:22

There has to be some type of standard more than just you play one game. Perhaps some type of rule that states if you have played fewer than 5 games for a nation over a 3 year period you can be eligible for another nation. There's plenty of people who have played for T1 nations and only ever gotten one or two test matches their entire career.

Posts: 729
Joined: Fri, 15 Aug 2014, 13:57

Re: Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

Postby Raven » Thu, 04 Feb 2021, 12:56

As I mentioned above, I can't make up my mind to as to what would the "best" or "least worse" rule could be, I do feel like there has to be some sort of a difference between T1 and T2 mainly because the former have professional leagues (bar Argentina) that help with the 'available' player recruitment, while some of the latter are only in infant stages with less attractive contracts.

If a player played 1, 2 or 3 test matches and was then dropped then it shouldn't be seen as "unfair" that he cannot play for a smaller / less competitive nation. This is where we seem to be losing focus. It was his honour and privilege to play for the nation he qualified for and chose to. If he could have made a longer career playing elsewhere it was his loss!

We can debate about whether being "captured" by the second National team for a single meaningless game has the same value... But a Test Match is a Test Match.

What I find ridiculous (? - maybe not the best word to describe it) is how the project players are something normal in the International stage. One cannot fight or be against heritage, it is part of the modern world, but when an option appears because you haven't been picked for a number of years for a Top 4 side, and want to play for a Top 7 for whatever reason (an "all of a sudden love for your parents home", you like the other national anthem better, or, money and the chance to play a World Cup) is like swapping professional clubs. This is where it doesn't make real sense to me. Now, if your chance comes to play for a T2 / T3 team, then not only you are helping THAT nation, you are contributing to the growth of the game too.
Having said this, I don't think I'm quite backing a "i.e: 'South Africa C' side playing with the German jersey" because they can field a XV with all grandchildren of German descent. Or French Polish, French Swiss, Kiwi Tongans for that matter... etc. There has to be a limit for everyone, applied in different numbers of course...

Previous

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armchair Fan, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Stefan Petrescu and 23 guests