Pacific rugby gets a yellow card from IRB
Roar Rookie By Lion Red, 1 Dec 2010 Lion Red is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Fiji, fiji rugby, International Rugby Board, IRB, Pacific Islands, rugby, Rugby Union, Samoa
177 Have your say
2,663 readsRelated coverage
So we’ve reached the completion of yet another Northern Hemisphere Spring Tour, with the Southern Hemisphere Tri Nation teams having the measure of their Northern Hemisphere counterparts.
The two teams from the South Pacific, Fiji and Samoa who also toured the Northern Hemisphere, did admirably well against their European Six Nation opponents.
Fiji drew with Wales 16-16 and had a narrow defeat against Italy 24-16.
Samoa did not record a win on their tour. However, they did push Ireland 20-10, England 26-13 very hard with narrow defeats and were very unlucky to lose against Scotland 19-16, who only had beaten the Springboks in the previous week.
Both teams did remarkably well as they are not well resourced as the Tri Nation and the Six Nation teams.
The rugby from the South Sea nations seems to be improving and bodes well for the future in terms of competitiveness against the top tier rugby nations.
However, in the last week, Pacific rugby got dealt a severe blow from the IRB Council Meeting in Cardiff when the New Zealand Rugby Union proposal to offer players with “close and meaningful ties” to another country the chance to represent that nation at Test level after a stand-down period was dismissed.
The NZRU proposed regulation would allow players such as Joe Rokocoko or Sitiveni Siviatu the opportunity to play for the country of birth (Fiji) at the twilight of their careers if not selected by the All Blacks and fulfill a stand down period.
Many of the home nations were against the idea because they feared that Pacific Island sides Samoa, Fiji and Tonga would strengthen themselves before the next rugby World Cup.
NZRU bid was only supported by Australia and England. NZRU chief executive Steve Tew said that England were keen to help Pacific Island rugby.
“They saw the benefits of the Pacific Islands becoming more competitive” Tew said. England played their role around the council table. I couldn’t see half the table, but we got nowhere near the two-thirds majority we needed when there was a show of hands.
“Unfortunately that was resoundingly defeated. Almost everybody voted against. We didn’t get as much support as we did last time and I’m not sure if Fiji drawing with Wales last weekend helped the cause.
“That’s probably the end of that for a few years I’d say which is disappointing. We proposed a few variations to try and smooth it through, but there was not the support,” he said.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
- Explore:
- Fiji, fiji rugby, International Rugby Board, IRB, Pacific Islands, rugby, Rugby Union, Samoa
December 1st 2010 @ 7:18am
Viscount Crouchback said | December 1st 2010 @ 7:18am | Report comment
It’s a bit much for Steve Tew to be pontificating on this issue. When did the All Blacks last play a test match away on one of the islands? I believe Ireland, of all teams, was the last major nation to play there. And why don’t the ABs set up a second string tournament each year along the lines of the Churchill Cup, which England use to help along American and Canadian rugby?
December 1st 2010 @ 8:19am
Jason said | December 1st 2010 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Two things: The Island unions prefer to play games in countries which have attendances. Providing larger gate revenues, for example; like England did for Samoa and New Zealand has done for Fiji, is the way to help the Pacific Island Unions.
Perhaps the existence of the IRB Pacific Nations Cup hasn’t made the news where you are?
December 1st 2010 @ 8:48am
Lindommer said | December 1st 2010 @ 8:48am | Report comment
New Zealand has competed in the Pacific Nations Cup the last few years as either the New Zealand Maori or the Junior All Blacks. They didn’t compete in 2010 for financial reasons but have indicated they will return in 2011.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:42am
Darwin Stubbie said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:42am | Report comment
VC – have you actually been to the islands and checked out the facilities ? … they’re recognised as not being up to scratch for international fixtures …
December 1st 2010 @ 3:58pm
Ai Rui Sheng said | December 1st 2010 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
“Sometimes it is best to keep one’s mouth closed and appear ignorant, rather than open it and confirm it”.
Are you suggesting the instigation of the IRB Pacific Nations Cup? Incidentally the Kiwis have been sending team to the Churchill Cup also. I think it is great that Canada, USA and NZ are trying to lift the standard of third world rugby nations like England.
NZ does more for the Islanders than the rest of the world put together. More Kiwi teams play in the Islands than the rest of the world combined and many of their players are indeed NZ citizens.In every RWC, since 1987 more Kiwis have represented other countries than have represented NZ.
Finger pointing might be a little more purposeful if pointed directly at the heart of the matter; the IRB. The IRB is a racially based Gerrymander that denies basic human rights to people with brown eyes. The Islanders get a third of a vote each yet consistently have teams rated in the top fifteen. If they got a fair go from referees and the IRB, they would be in the top ten.
Japan will have a RWC because of money and corporate contacts, the Islanders who consistently outrank Japan, get SFA! They can’t even get their players together to prepare for tours because European clubs will not release them in time, and the IRB condones this, because we can’t have brown eyed teams beating the Germans, Celts or Gauls.
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:50am
Ben S said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:50am | Report comment
http://www.rugby365.co.za/all_news/2636644.htm
December 2nd 2010 @ 8:46pm
GavinH said | December 2nd 2010 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
i think its good thing this report is out in the press. there was talk that it was an internal WIP document that was deliberately leaked so hopefully it puts a bit of pressure on the high performance centre guys.
i would love it if the romantic ideal of amateur naturally talented sportsmen could win big matches for samoa, but unfortunately in modern pro sports i think some ruthless germanic efficiency and systems will be needed.
As the saying goes ‘we’re not playing One-touch on Beachcomber here’
December 1st 2010 @ 8:06am
kingplaymaker said | December 1st 2010 @ 8:06am | Report comment
An absolute disgrace, a vote by the the weaker established nations to keep the poor Pacific Islands even weaker.
December 9th 2010 @ 2:46am
Sharminator said | December 9th 2010 @ 2:46am | Report comment
Its not about keeping the island nations weaker.
The islands are getting stronger thanks to the 2 IRB funded Pacific Competitions and the fact that the majority of their players
now play professionally.
Using a Pacific Islander who grew up in New Zealand as an example, the current rules actually strengthen the island nations, because players have to make a choice .. should I play for my native country now .. or hold out a few years in the hope of becoming an AB?
At the moment once you play for one country, in 7´s or XV´s and once you have done so you are attched to that country for life in terms of selection.
If players could play for the AB´s …. then play for an island a few years later .. island players would hesitate from ever playing for their own country when they were young, knowing that if they spent 5 years trying, but never got into the AB´s … or just played a few tests, they could always return to play for their island anyway.
I think the current rules benefit the islands more … rather than having Lote Tuquiri or Rockocko joining them for a year or two when they are past their prime.
December 1st 2010 @ 8:30am
Heat Lop said | December 1st 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
I didn’t know that South Africa was a weaker established nation, KPM.
The NH unions play the Pacific Nations an awful lot more than SA, Aus and NZ manage to.
The constant positioning of the THREE successful SH teams against the SIX Nations reinforces this. Six SH sides take part in the Autumn Internationals – the biggest jamboree of top-tier rugby tests in the year outside of a World Cup. The three southern ‘also rans’ get very little media support and attention in SH rugby media.
As VC points out, England, Ireland, Wales participate in the Churchill Cup to develop US and Canadian rugby.
How about the players play for the ‘close ties’ country at the start of their careers and help develop them that way, instead of offering their burned out services at the end of their careers?
And the notion that Tew went into the meeting without knowing his level of support was so low is laughable, and that he “proposed a few variations to try and smooth it through” smacks of tokenism – ‘ah well we did our best, but just couldn’t get the numbers. That’s that for another few years.’
December 1st 2010 @ 8:57am
Jason said | December 1st 2010 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Yes that would be the likely scenario: The NZRU, with support from the RFU and the ARU, pushed a token effort safe in the knowledge that it wouldn’t get through. It’s their fault, not that of the unions who voted against the concept.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:34am
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Hear dof the Pacific Nations Cup?
Are you aware that the majority of Fijian, samoan and Tongan national team players learn to play rugby and are developed into pros in NZ, thru their development pathways. That a huge percentage of them are in fact NZ citizens? That many of them were born in NZ?
Are you aware that Island nations don’t want to have tour of their home countries at the expense of away matches in NZ and Aus because the revenu is so much greater, which helps them develop their rugby?
And you’re blaming the Nz’ers for proposing this initiative, instead of the countires that refused to vote for it?
December 1st 2010 @ 9:58am
Heat Lop said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Jon – yes I have heard of the Pacific Nations Cup. Great stuff – keep at it.
SANZAR should get more involved in developing the Pacific Island nations – I think it’s a great idea and to give them more regular away matches each year to boost their revenues. It would be great to see Tonga, Samoa and Fiji playing NZ, SA and Aus every year.
I’m not blaming the NZ union for proposing this initiative. I said the notion that he went into the meeting not knowing he had the required support is laughable, including the attempt to blame it on the recent draw between Wales v fiji. He knew the response long before that is what I’m saying.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:42am
Bayboy said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Can you suggest a time when we should be doing that?
Maybe we can get rid of the June internationals and play the Islanders instead, but we couldn’t do that now could we as the home unions would no longer get much needed matches to maintain their own games
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:35am
Heat Lop said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:35am | Report comment
That’s a great idea Bayboy.
Get Steve Tew to abandon his proposal to have three match series in SA, NZ and AUS, and instead make one or two of the matches in each series available to FIJI, Tonga and Samoa.
The June Internationals are a waste of time for the NH unions cos they’re at the fag end of the season. so use them as an opportunity for the weaker nations instead.
December 2nd 2010 @ 8:53pm
GavinH said | December 2nd 2010 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
Eat Pohl,
I’m going to have to disagree. I see the 3match tours as the best thing the IRB has done in years. It is bringing back some of the tradition that posters here so often bemoan the death of.
Most importantly it finally gives the NH teams a chance to prove themselves against Sth Hemisphere nations. And I’m not sure if that fag end of the season comment is tongue in cheek or serious? What do you call the 12 matches just played by the 3N in the NH by players who’s season started in early Feb – a complete waste of time?
December 1st 2010 @ 10:45am
Working Class Rugger said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:45am | Report comment
I’d like to see the PI nations playing Aus,NZ and SA more regularly but only if they have their best possible squads. This will need a lot of negotiation to bring their respective clubs onside and willing to release players but if it were to be achieved it would provide the opportunity particularly from an Australian sense to take those Tests to the smaller stadia in Western Sydney etc.
December 1st 2010 @ 11:01am
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Makes sense
December 1st 2010 @ 8:34am
josh said | December 1st 2010 @ 8:34am | Report comment
What a joke poor little Ireland scotland and wales still holding onto the few years that they were any good . None of the forementioned teams will ever win the world cup , what other sport holds other developing countries back ?
December 1st 2010 @ 8:46am
kingplaymaker said | December 1st 2010 @ 8:46am | Report comment
I don’t know which name to call you as it has begun to change so much.
You know perfectly well Wales, Scotland or your own side would have a far harder time beating Samoa with Jerry Collins and Rodney So’aiolo in the back row. The crucial point is that by keeping access to retired players like these from these teams, it takes the critical strength away that would allow them to defeat teams outside the top five.
I have little sympathy for Irish rugby as it could easily expand if they didn’t reject rugby as originating in England and insist instead on Hurling and Gaelic football because they are more Irish. With a population of 6 million to draw on and the ability to sell out an 80,000 national stadium, the perverse refusal to take to the game and prevent their team growing in strength as a result justifies the current morass.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:44am
Heat Lop said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Complete nonsense, KPM – from start to finish.
You ignored the point that South Africa chose to vote against as well as did France. These are not weaker established nations.
The crucial point is that teams like NZ could release these players any time they want to allow them play for their countries – or start by not selecting them at all.
Wales, Scottish and Irish teams play Jerry Collins on a regular basis each week – he’s not that much of a surprise or threat.
I do love your caveat they’d be enabled to defeat teams outside the top 5 such as England, France, Argentina, Ireland and Wales, but not of course, your beloved SANZAR who look after them so well.
Your sympathy for Irish rugby is misplaced. Who is this “they” rejecting rugby? Rugby has been the fastest growing sport in Ireland over the last decade. And if GAA wants to fight to keep its players, well that’s no different from any other code looking after its own interests. And if those are national sports – so what?
Rejecting rugby because it originated in England is dead as a notion, particularly in Leinster. It was partly around in schools when I was growing up, but no longe in a population that is close to 5 million. It may be true in the UK part of the island but there’s a lot more history and sectarianism on both sides behind that that I’m not going to go into here.
I suppose you didn’t notice the half-empty Lansdowne during the AIs. These are tougher economic times for Ireland. But it doesn’t stop the game’s continued growth in popularity, and why interprovincial games still generate great sporting occasions.
Go pick another target that you know something about. This smacks of more “ZERO Motivation” rhetoric that doesn’t stand up to reality.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:00am
Jason said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:00am | Report comment
The crucial point is that teams like NZ could release these players any time they want to allow them play for their countries – or start by not selecting them at all.
Once again: Pacific Island players playing in New Zealand can and do play for Pacific Island Unions. In fact, eligible New Zealanders playing in New Zealand can and do play for Pacific Island Unions.
Wales, Scottish and Irish teams play Jerry Collins on a regular basis each week – he’s not that much of a surprise or threat.
His Test career is over and he was certainly a threat when playing for the All Blacks.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:09am
Heat Lop said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:09am | Report comment
“Once again: Pacific Island players playing in New Zealand can and do play for Pacific Island Unions. In fact, eligible New Zealanders playing in New Zealand can and do play for Pacific Island Unions”
Good.
“His Test career is over and he was certainly a threat when playing for the All Blacks.”
Precisely the point. He was a threat. In fairness, he still is at times. But they are familiar with him.
How come no one is taking issue with South Africa, Italy or France on this?
December 1st 2010 @ 10:21am
Jason said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:21am | Report comment
I think you’ll find only a minority of posters are laying the blame at the “weaker established nations”. I’m simply taking issue with the incorrect New Zealand bashing.
There are valid concerns surrounding the proposition tabled by Steve Tew, but I don’t see any discussion of those. Namely what would the “stand down” period be? What would they do if the Pacific Island nations were all in the top tier of rugby in a decade? Certainly it wouldn’t take much for Fiji and Samoa to be placed higher than Wales at the moment.
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:36am
Heat Lop said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:36am | Report comment
Good questions, Jason.
December 9th 2010 @ 3:00am
Sharminator said | December 9th 2010 @ 3:00am | Report comment
exactly, and this is why you cant have different rules for countries if they are tier 1 or tier 2.
If you implement this rule and an Island nation makes the semi finals of the world cup … and effctively becomes a tier 1 country, do we say that they are no longer allowed to have ex tier 1 countries?
If Scotland slide down the international rankings .. do we allow them to field Scotland qualified ex-english players.
International Rugby needs to be transperent to be credible, with one elegibility rule applyiing at every level of the game.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:07am
kingplaymaker said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:07am | Report comment
France voted against doubtless because they fear Fiji may do what another underrated nation, Argentina, did to them at the last world cup. They have obviously developed a deat-seated and rational fear of supposedly lesser nations. South Africa is unexplained, but it doesn’t alter the point that the stronger nations in the top ten voted for and the weaker ones against.
You know that with ex-all blacks and wallabeis those nations would be more powerful.
I don’t think SANZAR look after them well at all by the way, but at least they don’t vote against them using their left-overs.
Again I repeat, you know these teams would be stronger and more dangerous with ex-all blacks and wallabies, don’t seriously argue that they wouldn’t.
You may claim the Irish don’t reject rugby because it’s English, but several of your compatriots have told me they would never play or watch it for this reason.
Doubtless there is incompetence in the management too: building a 50,000 capacity stadium when they were selling out an 80,000 one.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:27am
Heat Lop said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:27am | Report comment
“South Africa is unexplained, but it doesn’t alter the point that the stronger nations in the top ten voted for and the weaker ones against.”
“I don’t think SANZAR look after them well at all by the way, but at least they don’t vote against them using their left-overs.”
Except that South Africa (it’s the SA bit in SANZAR) and France are regarded as strong nations in rugby and both voted against. Thus in the Top 6 IRB nations currently – 3 voted for and 3 voted against.
I can introduce you to several of my compatriots who do watch and play rugby. What’s your point? You talked to three people and suddenly that’s what the whole of Ireland thinks? I think I’d know and understand my country and the sports it plays better than yourself, don’t you?
And yes not being able to sell out a new 80,000 stadium instead of a 50,000 one would be incompetent for the two sports involved. Croke Park remains available to use as a venue for non-test rugby, if there’s a big occasion to fill it e.g. Heineken Cup match. Which do you think is more popular in Ireland, and in a lot of other countries? How many 80,000 seater stadia are there in New Zealand where rugby is the number one sport?
You keep tossing them up; I’ll keep batting them out of the park. All day long.
I thought you were from England, KPM – your understanding and knowledge of Ireland is very peculiar and/or out of date.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:54am
kingplaymaker said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:54am | Report comment
I gave you the reason why France don’t want to empower weaker nations: you haven’t addressed it.
Maybe the whole of Ireland thinks that rugby is great and not too English at all, but it’s odd in that case that I’ve met anyone who thinks the opposite. Sad for you too, as with any expansion of the game and playing numbers Ireland could become a global powerhouse at a global sport. But maybe it’s better to press on with the Hurling?
My point about the stadium is that they COULD sell out an 80,000 stadium but in the most astounding act of lunacy built a 50,000 stadium.
Two questions for you:
1) Do you think Pacific Islands nations should have access to ex-all blacks and wallabies?
2) And if not, why not?
3) Do you think it’s fair for stronger and financially far more powerful nations to prevent these desperately poor countries from playing at full-strength?
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:00am
Ben S said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:00am | Report comment
‘Maybe the whole of Ireland thinks that rugby is great and not too English at all, but it’s odd in that case that I’ve met anyone who thinks the opposite.’
?
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:04am
Heat Lop said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:04am | Report comment
“I gave you the reason why France don’t want to empower weaker nations: you haven’t addressed it.”
You didn’t ask me to address it, nor do I need to. I was refuting your original ill-informed and inaccurate statement :”a vote by the the weaker established nations to keep the poor Pacific Islands even weaker.”
As you seem to have now accepted, it was also a vote by more powerful established nations as well – that is three of the Top 6 nations – South Africa, Ireland and France.
The attempt by some posters to characterise this as solely a home nations response or NH rugby response is wrong.
“Maybe the whole of Ireland thinks that rugby is great and not too English at all, but it’s odd in that case that I’ve met anyone who thinks the opposite. Sad for you too, as with any expansion of the game and playing numbers Ireland could become a global powerhouse at a global sport. But maybe it’s better to press on with the Hurling?”
No it’s not odd at all that you’ve met people. Those with a particular myopic and bitter point of view will inevitably seek out and find comfort in those who confirm their prejudices. Your comment about Hurling is simply laughable. It’s a national sport with a lot of history and tied up strongly with Irish culture. If you want to look down your nose at it, that’s your problem, not mine. It’s got nothing to do with the growth or otherwise of another sport.
And you missed the point about the reduced stadium size. If they can’t fill a 50,000 size one in current economic conditions (which are likely to last for another decade), then why the hell would they build an 80,000 one? Croke Park is available for matches outside of internationals, if it’s needed.
Your two questions:
1) I think all nations should have access to ex-all blacks, wallabies, south africans, english, Irish, welsh, scots, Italians, Romanians,
2) See above
3) You said you had two questions for me. Your time’s up. But your third loaded question has only one logical answer. Given that so many countries did not support the proposal, you wonder why they didn’t. Would it matter to a country like Italy, that a country such as Fiji would be able to get NZ trained, All Black playing stocks into their teams without having to put in the same level of effort or investment of time and money to produce similar quality players? Possibly – and I’d have sympathy for their position. I don’t know the specific reasons as to why countries voted the way they did.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:22am
Bayboy said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment
It’s absurd that the home unions can veto such a move that can only enhance world rugby.
I wonder if they would be open to the move if players such as Ali Williams once retired from NZ duty choose to take up a spot in one of the home unions?
Of course not Pothale and his countrymen need to grasp on to the lost hopes that they ever have of winning a world cup or at least making the semis by refusing to allow the game to grow in the Islands. Pothale and others now from the celtic unions that the Islands if they had the services of retired players from the bigger nations Australia, New Zealand, England (Vainakolo) that they would be in serious trouble.
Of course by his argument the south has never done anything to help PI rugby which in itself is far from the truth.
Not sure if Pothale and co do much homework but 17 of the Samoan Squad at the 2007 world cup were NZ born and raised. Most if not all learnt their rugby playing in NZ and Australia.
In regards to the Pacific Nations cup VC it may also pay for you to do some homework because NZ has participated in this tournament more often than not and taken it out every time they have entered.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:53am
Heat Lop said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Bayboy – the home unions did not veto such a move. England supported it – the largest of the home unions.
And why would the home unions want to use a retired All Black such as Ali Williams, when they want to develop their own players?
“Pothale and others now from the celtic unions that the Islands if they had the services of retired players from the bigger nations Australia, New Zealand, England (Vainakolo) that they would be in serious trouble.”
Could I have that in grammatical English please, cos I honestly couldn’t make sense of it?
And if Samoa are doing so well as a result of all this New Zealand education, then what’s the issue? And if the Pacific Nations Cup is doing such wonders, why the kerfuffle?
December 1st 2010 @ 3:19pm
soapit said | December 1st 2010 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
its the same argument hat everyone including steve tew has been making which should be clear enough by now. if the PI’s get a few wallabies/all blacks players in it would make them better because of not only their talent but also their knowledge from having been around the tier one nations for many years. is there any doubt in your mind that this would happen?
i don’t know why the nations who voted against it did so. the only reason i can think of is the one everyone is thinking of, they don’t want the PI’s to get stronger (as that seems to me to be the only potential outcome of the vote passing). i agree this doesnt make sense for all the countries eg france and SA but the fact is they did vote against it and i have been forced to jump to an assumption (right or wrong) as i have no other info from them to explain this strange negative vote from them.
you seem to be avoiding addressing the basic fact of the issue and are instead focusing on small innacuracies in peoples posts. lets get back to the point. if there is another, less negative, reason for voting against making the PI’s stronger, lets hear it either from those who voted against it as fact or from you as a theory.
December 1st 2010 @ 3:36pm
Working Class Rugger said | December 1st 2010 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
I’d still prefer either or both the ARU and NZRU begin to take a far more active role in the development of PI Rugby. This should be done through intergrating more PI players/teams into competitions as well as working with the Islands to develop their pathways.
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:27am
Heat Lop said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:27am | Report comment
soapit
As I understand it, the reason being put forward as why nations voted against the proposal, is that to vote it in, would allow the Pacific Islands to become bigger and stronger through use of re-imported, high quality, foreign trained playing stocks.
In other words, it’s a variation of turkeys being asked to vote for Christmas. As some would have it here, it’s the smaller weaker nations who people snidely deride as would never be able to win the World Cup i.e. Ireland, Scotland and Wales are now holding other nations with more potential back, purposely.
So those who don’t believe they would be threatened by such a development – NZ, Aus, and Eng – are proposing it, and those that believe they would be, are opposing it.
Let’s look a bit more closely at the voting structure in the IRB. It consists of eight Unions with two seats each: Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and France. Four unions have one seat each: Argentina, Canada, Italy and Japan. Six regional associations representing Europe, North America and the West Indies, South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania also have one seat each. With the Chairman and Vice Chairman, this adds up to a total of 28 members.
So Ireland, Wales and Scotland opposed it and are deemed by some to be the reason it wasn’t passed.
Together the Celtic Unions represent 6 votes. These were cancelled out by the proposers combined 6 votes.
That left 16 other members from South Africa, France, Argentina, Canada, Italy, Japan, Europe, North America, Africa, Asia and Oceania to cast their vote and make the decision.
Maybe they had their reasons for not voting – they saw countries in the Top Ten being given a leg-up with imported, foreign trained stocks, at their expense. Who knows?
December 2nd 2010 @ 6:27am
soapit said | December 2nd 2010 @ 6:27am | Report comment
those are some detailed stats mate. at the end of it we’ll have to agree that those who voted against it had not wanting the leg up for PI’s as the most likely reason.
i only scanned the stats but it seems the point was that we shouldnt blame the celtic nations alone which seems fair. they’re among a larger group.
and well done to england for supporting it.
btw you lost me with the turkey variation thing. explain it to me and i’ll try and break it out at my christmas dinner.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:31am
Pot Hale said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Turkeys voting for Christmas = voting for their own extinction.
Why would they?
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:27am
soapit said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:27am | Report comment
now to just wait for the right point in the conversation……
December 2nd 2010 @ 8:26pm
Ben S said | December 2nd 2010 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
soapit: “Say everybody, how’s that turkey? Incidentally, talking of turkeys (laughs to self), did anybody hear of the recent IRB proposal put forward by New Zealand…”
December 2nd 2010 @ 8:38pm
Pot Hale said | December 2nd 2010 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
Very good Ben. Nicely done.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:23am
Lee said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:23am | Report comment
If the NZRU is so concerned with the plight of the PI nations, why don’t they do one of the following:
1) Amend the Super 14 contracts so that a player of PI birth, can choose whether to represent his homeland or NZ if selected for international duty,
2) Play the PI nations more home and away.
3) Push for a new SUper 15 team, made up of PI players – this could be based in Manakau?
Instead of requesting special circumstances for the already successful players, why not provide opportunities to the guys who will never be good enough to play for the ABs but currently make up the numbers in NZ Super 14/ITM cup teams?
December 1st 2010 @ 9:36am
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Once again, are you aware that most Fijian, Tongan and Samoan national team players are from NZ? That they elarnt heir rugby there? That many are citizens of NZ and were born there?
Without NZ rugby the Islands would be screwed.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:40am
Lee said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
I am not denying that at all, however why not allow the players that are not born in NZ the right to play for their birth country even if they sign a S14 contract?
December 1st 2010 @ 9:58am
Jerry said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Why not indeed. That’s such a good idea, I think the NZRU will implement it immediately. In fact, that’s not good enough, they need to go back in a time machine and implement it in 1996.
There, job done.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:02am
Jason said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:02am | Report comment
One more time so it sinks in: They do.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:33am
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:33am | Report comment
S14 sides are allowed a small num,ber of foreign players. Sometimes these are Islanders.
The reason more openings are not made for Islanders in S14 is to protect the integrity of NZ (the same thing applies to Aus or SA rugby) rugby. Without these tight controls NZ rugby would be gutted by rich Eruopean clubs. It would spell the death of Nz domestic rugby in many ways.
However, you are ignoring the ITM Cup, which contains dozens of Islanders, maybe hundreds. This is where th amjority of Islanders develop, before the best usually move on to European or Japanese clubs.
They move to Europe or Japan because the money is better than anything else on offer, including S14 and it doesn’t affect their chances of national team call up.
Why would they battle for a much harder to get starting spot in a S14 club when you can go to Europe or Japan, face less challenege of gaining a starting spot, earn more money and still represent their nations (if the Euro clubs release them, which they often don’t, to the detriment of international rugby).
December 2nd 2010 @ 1:06am
GavinH said | December 2nd 2010 @ 1:06am | Report comment
I thought this is still slightly incorrect. PI players are NOT counted as foreign players and S15 teams may now also contract small numbers of other foreigners eg irish. However once a PI player is not eligible for NZ his pay scale is less than an eligible NZ player.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:40am
True Tah said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Jon
Im fairly certain most Fijian players are actually from Fiji.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:24am
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Fair enough, my statement was fairly sweeping. The fact remains that without proffesional development thru Nz pathways, the Fijians, along with Samoa and Tonga would far, far weaker teams, due to a much smaller pool of proffesional players.
Without NZ Fijian rugby would be no where near as strong as it is now. NZ provides more to Island rugby than any other rugby nation.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:19pm
kovana said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Im still awaiting a time when the Guys next door … you know.. NZ, Aus and SA play a test match in the islands.. JUST ONE.. Thats all..
NO.. because they dont care.
Simple as that.
CASE CLOSED.
December 1st 2010 @ 2:22pm
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
The island unions would actually rather we play them in Aus/NZ/SA, becasue it makes them more money. Like Aus playing Fiji in Canberra this June.
December 9th 2010 @ 3:16am
Sharminator said | December 9th 2010 @ 3:16am | Report comment
Exactly, in the last World Cup 14 of the Samoan team were born in New Zealand.
and players now can choose to select to represent NZ or an Pacific Island. No one is stopping them from doing so!
Perhaps one thing that could be done, is allowing a quota of foreign qualified players into each Super team … Australian teams are now allowed to do this, I think 1 foreign qualified player, but maybe the rule could be changed to encourage a few pacific Island or argie players in each team as a developement tool
As regards to PI super team, I think the idea has merit.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:41am
Jason said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:41am | Report comment
If the NZRU is so concerned with the plight of the PI nations, why don’t they do one of the following:
1) Amend the Super 14 contracts so that a player of PI birth, can choose whether to represent his homeland or NZ if selected for international duty,
2) Play the PI nations more home and away.
3) Push for a new SUper 15 team, made up of PI players – this could be based in Manakau?
Super Rugby contracts in New Zealand provide for players from the Pacific Islands who are not eligible to play for New Zealand may be contracted to play for New Zealand Franchises if no equivalent New Zealand eligible player is available. Further, despite the introduction of the “foreign player” contracting element, where franchises may sign up to two foreign players in their squads Pacific Island players are not treated as foreign players under this policy. Further, New Zealand is a net exporter in terms of International Rugby talent. Samoa and Tonga particularly have benefited from players born in New Zealand playing for those countries. The 2003 World Cup player lists destroyed the myth of the talent raping NZRU.
The IRB schedule the games and New Zealand does more than most when it comes to supporting Pacific Island rugby.
Point #3 is a suggestion that has no merit and has been debated and exposed as lacking foundation previously.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:47am
SamSport said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:47am | Report comment
1) They can. The only country that doesn’t allow this is Australia (unless they are the marquee player).
2) Why only NZ? Why not have the 6N teams play them in the pacific as well?
3) This is no more valid than asking the NH unions to revenue share when they play tests.
I don’t get your last point. Pacific players are exempt from rules against NZ Super rugby teams picking foreign players – anyone who is eligible for both a pacific country and NZ can choose to play for Tonga, Samoa etc and not lose their contract. Provincial rugby doesn’t have rules stopping foreign players from playing.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:01am
Lee said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:01am | Report comment
I was under the impression that if you signed a Super 14 contract for a NZ franchise then the NZRU had, for lack of a better term, first refusal option i.e. they had to pass you up for the ABs/give you a release before you could play for your home nation/other country that you qualified to play for. You didn’t get to make the choice.
Is this not the case?
December 1st 2010 @ 10:03am
Jason said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:03am | Report comment
No, that is not the case. The ARU forces all players, except marquee, to Wallaby selection if they play for an Australian Super rugby franchise.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:12am
SamSport said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:12am | Report comment
I don’t think so. It doesn’t really make sense if you think about it, it’s like the NZRU are deciding who you want to play Test rugby for. If Tonga selects a NZ born Super 14 player than its the player who decides whether to make themselves available – not anyone else. The NZRU cant exactly say “there is a chance in the future that the All Blacks coaches may want to select you, therefore we are going to block your request to play rugby for Tonga.”
December 1st 2010 @ 11:08am
allblackfan said | December 1st 2010 @ 11:08am | Report comment
this is why the likes of Vunibaka and Caucau could play for NZZ teams even though they were already estbalished Fiji reps
December 1st 2010 @ 11:09am
Lee said | December 1st 2010 @ 11:09am | Report comment
SamSport, Jason
Apologies then if that is the case. I was mistaken.
December 1st 2010 @ 11:29am
Matt said | December 1st 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
You’re not fully mistaken there Lee. Super 14 players who were not eligible for the All Blacks couldn’t earn as much as those who were. You could still play Super Rugby and also play for an Island nation (as Vunibaka and Caucau did) but you couldn’t earn as much money and NZ eligible players. This is why so many island players ended up in Europe (mainly France) because they could earn significantly more.
But, this has changed now with the new Super 15. NZ franchises are allowed to contract players directly (instead of the NZRU doing it) so Pacific Island players can now earn as much as the Franchise wants to pay them.
So this problem is now gone in NZ. What is needed though is a similar change in Australia (who are still poaching NZ players with the aim of making them Wallaby eligible, after 3 year residency) who have plenty of money and locations to have Super Rugby teams but who don’t have the playing talent to fill those teams. If they allowed PI players to come on more then they’d kill to birds with one stone.
December 1st 2010 @ 11:55am
SamSport said | December 1st 2010 @ 11:55am | Report comment
The reason they weren’t getting paid as well is because NZ eligible players were also getting compensated for the fact they may play test matches. In theory, the difference between what they receieve and say Vunibaka could be made up by match fees and alike that the FRU would pay Vunibaka, but of course, the FRU don’t have the revenue to pay their players as much. As for getting more in Europe, the same thing applies to nearly all NZ Super rugby players.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:28pm
Jason said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
No problems Lee, it’s a common misconception.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:51am
Working Class Rugger said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Lee
I like to see the IRB support a move for a combined Islander team entering Super Rugby. It would need to be NZ based with perhaps taking a game to each of the Islands. Some exemption could also be made for PI player’s in the current Super Rugby setups as would I like to see each franchise takes in 3-5 Argentine development players.
December 1st 2010 @ 11:02am
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Nice idea, but it won’t happen.
Dioesn’t make economic sense, and if it can’t be supported financially, it simply won’t happen no matter how good it would be for rugby.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:30am
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Set up soemthing like the Churchill Cup huh, Crouchback?
You mean like the Pacific nations cup? Which NZ participates in every single year along with Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and Japan.
The Kiwis do more for Pacific Islands rugby than anyone else, including the IRB.
WIthout NZ development the Islands wouldn’t have conmpetetive teams at all. Most of the Islander players learn their rugby in NZ under NZ rugby development programs, in fact many of them, probably a majority are NZ citizens.
NZ also provides alot technical develolment for the Islands particularly inr egards to their top management.
The Nh perception of the relationship the kiwis have with the islands is so far off the mark it’s ridiculous, and displays an appalling ingorance of the deep ties the Island nations have to New Zealand and to a lesser extent Australia.
It goes far beyond rugby.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:42am
True Tah said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:42am | Report comment
I would say that professional rugby clubs in Europe and Japan do more for the performance of the Islands than anyone else. There would be over 100 Islanders plying their trade professionally in European rugby clubs.
December 1st 2010 @ 9:51am
SamSport said | December 1st 2010 @ 9:51am | Report comment
I would disagree because of the fact that many of those players use NZ as a stepping stone to the European contracts. There are plenty of pacific players in both Super rugby and provincial rugby in NZ. The other way many of those players get recruited is through recognition in the IRB Sevens tournaments and test match rugby – such as the Pacific Nations Cup. So maybe the IRB deserve some recognition as well.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:27am
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Most of those players learnt their rugby in NZ. They didn’t jsut go from the islands to a pro set up in Japan or Europe, obviosuly.
The vast majority learnt to play in NZ high schools, thru NZ regional development programs and then usually for a NZ ITM Cup team, sometime for a S14 side.
Then when they have developed into good por players and have learnt their rugby in NZ, they are poached by welathier European and Japanese clubs, where they often further their development and are able to earn a good living from rugby.
But to suggest that Japan or Europe is developing these players is compeltely ridiculous, and baseless.
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:09am
rugbyfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:09am | Report comment
I was born in NZ but grew up in samoa….
what happened back then as a matter of fact is still happening now ( ’90s to today) , especially highschool level…nzru through nz 1st XV rugby school coaches – gave the kids school scholarships to come here in nz for schooling and rugby of course…the common theory that PI players learned their rugby in NZ is not true for all PIs as the reason they end up here is because they’re already good at it growing up in the Islands using coconuts as rugby balls. Players like Ieremia, rokokoko, sivivatu, lauaki, loki chrighton, vunipaka, cacau, radikie samo, willie o, muliaina, jerry collins, vanikolo, vaikona just to named a few.
Funny that every1 go on and on about nz developed the skills of PIs – true but what about the contribution of the PI rugby players to rugby in general? because I think the ABs would be a totally diff outfit without PI players in it….
Rugby should be the winner at the end of the day…so please IRB let the tier 1 ex-players have a chance to help out the smaller unions otherwise their is no point of having world cups as at the moment it looks more likely only 4 teams can win it….if not I like to call any future RWC as the world’s TOP 4 tournament
December 2nd 2010 @ 9:40am
Bayboy said | December 2nd 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
I’d implore you to go back and do some homework on how old some of those players were when they came to NZ.
Mils Muliaina in particular came to NZ as a 2 year old I believe
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:18am
rugbyfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:18am | Report comment
bayboy…
the main point of my argument ….mils case it’s true but without naming names it also true in the way most PIs end up here.
By the way…I’m not samoan just incase some think I am (My Dad was working in Samoa in the immigration dept) but I feel that we in nz alway/only think of what we contributes to PI rugby but what about the other way around?
Back to the RWC, my view is still stands….only 4 teams can win it – NZ, Aus, SA & Eng and a may be France – so to me is pointless and a waste of time. Call it World’s TOP 4 Tournament or Cup, whatever along those lines. Unless eligibility rules change a bit…
Cheers
December 2nd 2010 @ 12:03pm
Bayboy said | December 2nd 2010 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
I would say you made a comment without really doing the homework on the players you were talking about.
You do realise that Auckland is the biggest Polynesian city in the world and not sure if you have noticed many if not most of the pacific Islanders coming through the ranks were born in New Zealand, a lot have never even been to the likes of Samoa / Tonga / Cooks etc.
Have you taken a look at the team sheet for Samoa at the last world cup nearly half the squad were New Zealand born.
I am not against players turning out for Samoa after a stand down period but it would need to be set in stone.
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:56am
Jon said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Certianly NZ and all other unions could do much more.
The truth is that most immgrants from the Islands who end up playing rugby in NZ come as children, and their families are economic immigrants.
There is the occaisonal example of guys going over specifically for school scholarships, but again, they want to go. They get a good education, usually their family can come with them. If they don’t want to go, they don;t have to, but it improvies their lives.
It also produces better rugby players, many of whom go on to represent the Islands, or NZ (whicever they choose – it’s their choice, no one elses).
But the majority of All Blacks with Samona, Tongan or Fijian heritage were born in NZ or moved their at a very young age for reasons completely unconnected to rugby.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:41am
Dopey said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Jon,
I don’t know where you are getting your information from or if you are making it up (I suspect the latter) but without discounting the NZRU contribution to Pacific Island Rugby, you are way off the mark.
Fact:
The bulk of the PI Squads for the Northern Hemisphere tour are based in Europe. There were more locally (Pacific Island)based players in the PI Squads than New Zealand-based players for the last NH Tour.
The NZRU Pulled out of the Pacific Nations Cup last year and have no intention of returning according to NZRU Media Releases (check out their website)
The IRB invests something like GBP9million each year into Pacific Island Rugby – the financial contirbution of the NZRU to Pacific Island development, according to their last annual report: NZD0.
Yes there are a lot of Kiwi coaches helping out of the Pacific Island teams (as there are Australians) however these are paid for by the IRB – not the ARU or NZRU.
It’s great to be passionate about something Jon but get the facts!
The best thing SANZAR could do to develop PI Rugby is relax eligibility criteria for Super Rugby teams to allow more players from the Pacific Islands to play in Super Rugby rather than heading to Europe where most of them play.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:19pm
Matt said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
I think the point Jon was making is that there is more to the system than just direct funding and the signing of pro players. The NZRU system (from age 5 through to Super Rugby) helps develop Island rugby immeasurably.
If NZ didn’t exist then the Island teams wouldn’t be worth funding from the IRB and their players wouldn’t be worth signing by European teams. Effectively what Jon is saying is that New Zealand adds the most value to the process of creating competitve Pacific Island teams.
I think I agree with that theory personally.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:21pm
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Where do you think those Islanders that play in Europe and Japan come from?
You think nthe fact they start playing rugby in Nz as children, develop thur hgih school and regional tournamnets and development programs, then graduate into ITM cup sides and soemtimes S14 sides, before European clubs take notice of them means nothing?
Where do you think the Euro clubs are getting the players from?
Seriously mate, wtf? You think they are jsut going to the Islands and picking guys out of teams there? If you do you know nothing about Island rugby.
Notice that most Ilsand players go to Europe already good players? Where do you think they get developed?
Without NZ development programs Island rugby would be much, much weaker.
In terms of the PNC, the kiwis and Aussies are currently crying poor, and the truth is they are. They too can’t compete with European wages and funding, particularly Nz who have been much more badly affected by the GFC than Australia.
I am not discrediting European clubs for recruiting Islanders by the way, they too help Island rugby by providing a fully proffesional environment for those players to move to, so they can continue the development they start in NZ and Aus and make a good living from playing rugby.
But if you want to know where most of them come from before they get to Europe take a look at the ITM Cup.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:33pm
Dopey said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Jon,
Mate you have no idea – most of the European-based Pacific Island Players are coming our of the Academies that have been established in the Pacific Islands – not out of New Zealand. Most of the PI Unions have agreements in place with porfessional clubs in Europe and it is through those agreements that the players are going to Europe.
You name me one PI player that has gone from NZ to Europe and I will name you six that have gon\e directly from the Pacific Islands to Europe. Most of the PI Players that go to NZ for ITM Cup and Super Rugby Stay in New Zealand.
As for your sweeping statement that NZ Rugby contribnutes more to the PIs than the IRB or anyone else – please provide facts – or did you flush those down with your morning constitutional this morning along with the rest of your arguments.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:42pm
Matt said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
I’ll take you up on that one Dopey, let’s start with the current Samoan team:
Mahonri Schwalger
Census Johnson
Joe Tekori
Josh Tatapu
Paul Williams
Gavin Williams
Tasesa Lavea
Filipo Levi
Junior Polu
Seilala Mapusua
Ti’i Paulo
George Stowers
Brando Va’alu
Sakaria Taulafo
Daniel Leo
Chad Slade
In fact, apart from the Tuilagi’s there is basically NO players based in Europe who aren’t from NZ?
And I think given that most of the Samoan team ARE New Zealanders is all the facts you need to prove the contribution that NZ rugby has given to Samoan rugby.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:54pm
kovana said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Matt are any of those players Samoan?
December 1st 2010 @ 12:58pm
Dopey said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Touche Matt andwell done – at last some (half) facts – even though some of the players you have mentioned, starting with Schwalger, aren’t playing Rugby in Europe there is no doubt that NZ Rugby contributes to the PI teams. However this is by accident rather than design and any inference that the NZRU contributes more to the Pacific Islands than the IRB or anyone else for that matter is rubbish (you could apply the same argument to Japan where 8 of the current Tongan National team are playing).
But we digress. Relaxing IRB eligibility Regulations is not the answer to more competitive Pacific Island teams. More test matches would help but the best help would be to relax the Super Rugby Eligibility criteria so more players could play here rather than Europe.
December 1st 2010 @ 1:00pm
kovana said | December 1st 2010 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
@ Dopey..
Yes.. I would rather have more test matches rather then the eligibility rules.
December 1st 2010 @ 1:11pm
Matt said | December 1st 2010 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Sorry, I forgot that Schwalger is back in NZ now from Europe.
Apart from his are there any others though? I know Tatapu is listed as Otago, but I believe Clermont has recently signed him (know doubt to develop him, of couse!).
I don’t think it really matters if it’s by design, accidedent of act of almight god. The fact is that the contribution to Island rugby from NZ is massive. If you were to put a dollar value on the amount of expertise just the above mentioned players have got from the NZ Rugby system it would run well into the millions of dollars. In fact it’d be virtually priceless.
And the above list is just those players in the current Samoan squad based Europe who are from NZ, not those who STILL play in NZ but represent Samoa.
Sinoti Sinoti
Kahn Fotuali’i
George Pisi
Kane Thompson
Jamie Helleur
Steve Fualau
Anthony Perenise
Seriously, that’s the majority of the team in those two lists.
Compare the training (over years and years) of the above players and the thousands more in NZ who have learnt to play the game to a lesser successful level and it DWARFS the IRB contribution. The IRB chips in a couple of million a year (some for High Performance Development and some for tournament fees). But if it wasn’t for NZ then the IRB could dump 10 times that amount and still not have the same level of talent available to the Islands.
You are right that Japan is contributing to the Tongan team too, but only on a fraction of the scale of NZ and Samoa. The IRB is helping Tonga more than Japan is, but it is not helping Samoa more than New Zealand. No on is.
But that’s not to say NZ can’t do more, because as you say Dopey the current help is more by accident than design. So it’s time for some design, and relaxing the eligibility laws ain’t it (so you’re right again!).
December 1st 2010 @ 1:12pm
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
Matt appears to have done my job for me, but seriously, did you honestly believe that the majority of Islanders palying in Europe came from academies in the Islands. That says it all right there – compeltely not factual.
Agian, you mention Japan, they don’t develop Islanders from a young age. Neither do european clubs.
Without NZ, Samoa would be gutted as a team. A massive number of their players have only been to Samoa on holidays. They were born and raised in NZ, and are NZ citizens.
I can’t believe you can’t see how important tha tis for Islander rugby.
Without NZ, as matt said, there wouldn’t be many players going to Europe or Japan. Without Nz, they wouldn’t e exposed tow rold class rugby development.
December 1st 2010 @ 1:32pm
Dopey said | December 1st 2010 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Gents let’s agree to disagree.
Matt has done his homework and demonstrated the importance of the New Zealand structure to samoa in particular. Indeed Tonga and Fiji (and Cook Islands for that matter) derive enormous benefit from the NZ Rugby Structure. I’ve never argued this but I do disagree that this outperforms the IRB investment – however there is a valid argument that competition is the best form of development. So in that regard, if the NZRU and the ARU want to contribute more meaningfully they could agree to Annual tests against the PI Unions. It’s a bit rich to harpoon the NH Unions for rejecting the Eligibility changes when they are the only Unions that play the PI Unions annually in a competition – if it wasn’t for them the only competition the PI Unions would have is the PNC.
That said I think the PI Unions are progressing nicely thank you very much and Wales in particular are in for a torrid World Cup. If the alarm bells aren’t ringing for them by now, they should be
December 1st 2010 @ 10:55am
Working Class Rugger said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:55am | Report comment
The IRB needs to look at the scheduling of the PNC. Possibly expand it with the likes of the USA and Canada coming on board but only if the Islands (with IRB assistance) can get their best back to compete. Would be good if the Aus A program re-entered as well. That way you would have a 8 team competition and a really good development tool.
December 1st 2010 @ 11:48am
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 11:48am | Report comment
I agree with that in principle.
December 1st 2010 @ 10:20am
Geoff Brisbane said | December 1st 2010 @ 10:20am | Report comment
When are NZ Maori scheduled to tour???
December 1st 2010 @ 11:10am
Matt said | December 1st 2010 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Woah back there boys!! I think Ireland is doing just fine King. They’ve taken pretty darn well to the game really, considering they’ve got far more established and popular domestic competitions to play instead of Rugby. Just look at Irish Soccer as an indication of how little impact a major sport (and by far the most popular in neighbouring England and Scotland) has had on the Gaelic sports.
It was on a couple of years ago that Ireland won the grand slam and even less so that they were playing in Croke Park for the first EVER time. And their domestic teams are among the very best in the world, bar none. The union has also financed the redevelopment of Landsdowne Road into a world class stadium at a time when the nations economy has hit rock bottom. Irish Rugby has done nothing to reject the game, but the large majority of Irish people have no need to take to the game when they’ve got plenty of history and cultural affinity to their native sports. But the game there is growing, attendances are improving, the quality of players coming through is becoming more consistent and the provincial stadiums are all being upgraded to meet increased demand. Ireland will continue to be a big player on the global Rugby stage for some time to come, and long may that continue.
As a Kiwi I think it’s perfectly natural for nations to veto this decision. It’s natural for Austalia and New Zealand (with the largest contingent of Pacific Island immigrants) to push for this change as it’d help their own causes. What barriers would be left for Island kids to throw in their lot with the AB’s instead of Samoa if they knew they could always go back.
What should instead be happening is more Island kids should be given equal opportunity to play Super Rugby in NZ and Australia so they can build some depth to their teams. As a NZer I don’t think it is right for anyone to represent more than one nation as it throws up far too much grey. Should Nick Evans be allowed to represent England once he’s lived there for 3 years etc?
Allowing ex ABs and Wallabies to represent the island is just a band-aid solution. It just papers over the fact that not enough is being done to support these nations full stop. Samoa (11) and Fiji (10) are very highly ranked rugby nations. Their top side should be playing regular matches every season again Touring NH sides in June and then be touring Europe in November (with the Pacific Nations cup being reserved for their domestic and Australasian based players). But this just doesn’t happen. The IRB never forces any kind of full touring schedule and the European clubs threaten players not to request release for test matches.
Hopefully the new Super Rugby competition can lead to more players earning a decent professional rugby living within Australasian sides and then remaining free to play for their home nations. All that is needed is for a provision that requires all NZ and Aus Super teams to have 2 Pacific Island players on their roster (and all South African sides to have 2 players from an African nation that is not RSA). This would create plenty of roster space for Tier 2/3 nations to allow thier players to develop the skills to compete with the best. Once the Island nations start to win more matches then increased sponsorship will help cover the costs for their touring. June test matches can be held in Australia and New Zealand pitting Samoa (etc) againt a European team in a “home” game. With only the Wallabies and All Blacks playing at this stage of the season there is plenty of space in the TV schedule for a second game to be played, with the proceeds going to the Islanders (with a fee being paid to the stadium of course).
Targetted stadiums would be Mt Smart stadium in Auckland, Parramatta Stadium in Sydney and Skilled Park in the Gold Coast.
Each city has a large Pacific Island following and next to no international test rugby in June. Imagine this example over the course of the weekend:
Friday 7.35pm (AET): Fiji vs Scotland – Skilled Park, Robina
Saturday 2.35pm (AET): Tonga vs USA – Parramatta Stadium, Parramatta
Saturday 5.35pm (AET): New Zealand vs France – AMI Stadium, Christchurch (7.35pm local time)
Saturday 7.35pm (AET): Australia vs England – ANZ Stadium, Homebush Bay, Sydney
Sunday 1.30am (AET): South Africa vs Wales – Kings Park, Durban
Sunday 9.35am (AET): Argentina vs Italy – Estadio José Amalfitani, Buenos Aires
Sunday 12.35pm (AET): Samoa vs Ireland – Mt Smart Stadium, Auckland
A Friday night on the Gold Coast, Saturday arvo in Parramatta, after church on a Sunday at Mt Smart. All great locations and timing for home matches for our pacific neighbours to increase their experience levels and to make some money. And when is the ARU even going to play a test match out in west Sydney passed Homebush, or on the Gold Coast. When is the NZRU even going to play a match at Mt Smart. Yet these are areas chock full of Pacific Island migrants who LOVE their rugby and would love to turn up and pack out a smaller stadium to watch it live. And instead of diminishing the support of the Wallaby and All Black fans it’d add more interest for Rugby in June through increased exposure and back to back coverage.
So flag the eligibility change ideas. If we really want to help the islands then lets act like responsible big brothers and give them access to our money and fans. Help them to help themselves instead of giving them our has been players.
December 1st 2010 @ 11:25am
Jason said | December 1st 2010 @ 11:25am | Report comment
As a Kiwi I think it’s perfectly natural for nations to veto this decision. It’s natural for Austalia and New Zealand (with the largest contingent of Pacific Island immigrants) to push for this change as it’d help their own causes. What barriers would be left for Island kids to throw in their lot with the AB’s instead of Samoa if they knew they could always go back.
Precisely. Without a defined stand down period that would mean ex Wallabies/ All Blacks would only play for a PI country in the event of a clear gap in the squad’s capability, it can look patently self serving for the countries that have large PI populations to ensure such a proposition was adopted.
But the reality is most players who live in an adopted country (let alone were born there) only choose to play for another country using eligibility criteria once it is clear to them they probably won’t make it in to the other squad.
December 1st 2010 @ 11:59am
Matt said | December 1st 2010 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Exactly Jason. In the end it’s not really fair for guys like Ma’a Nonu and Mils Muliaina etc to start playing for Samoa and beating Ireland and Wales (as some have rightly suggested could happen) as these guys are 99% Kiwi. They’re born here, raised here, learned to play Rugby here and were honed and craften in the NZ rugby system. Why should Samoa then be able to beat up on Italy because these guys thought they’d like to move to Europe but continue playing test rugby?
If playing for Samoa is SO important to these guys then they’d have done it instead of playing for NZ. If we’re going to be really honest, Samoa is the second choice country for most of these players. The guys who play for them do so because they can’t make the AB’s. Test rugby is about representing your nation, not about a back up plan.
What would happen if this was passed is clear to me at least. In 2012 there will be a wave of All Blacks moving to Europe to earn big money in France and the UK. These players will no longer be able to play test match rugby, as NZRU rules dictate, but they’d be able to play for Tonga and Samoa instead. So they’d be picked to play and immediately these nations would be stronger. The guys the replace will be those locally based players from the Islands who just aren’t as good of an athlete. Everyone will feel cool about how much more competitive Rugby is these days with the 3 island nations now being genuine contenders, but everyone will pretend that it isn’t just a All Blacks 2nd XV full of NZers.
At the end of the day, a guy born in NZ, with a NZ passport who plays for the All Blacks with a Samoan mother, father, grandfather is first and foremost a NZer. Otherwise, why shouldn’t Ali Williams finish up with the AB’s in 2012 and start playing for England, as I believe his family are from there. McCaw also sounds awfully Scottish to me and Carter is bound to have an Irish or Welsh grandparent in there somewhere.
This idea opens up a can of worms and I think it is the wrong way to acknowledge and galvanise the contribution that Pacific Island rugby has made to the history of the game.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:14pm
kovana said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Mils was born in SAMOA. Please get your info right.
Maa Nonu was born in NZ, and so Was I.
But i consider myself samoan and so does Maa nonu and every other samoan born in Kiwi land.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:58pm
Bayboy said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Actually that is where I will disagree with you I have many Island friends and all bar one of them call themselves New Zealand Samoans and are proud of both their Heritage but also recognize the reality that they are Kiwis in every sense of the word. The only friend who doesn’t and rightfully so is because he was born and raised in Samoa until he was 19 when he immigrated to NZ
December 1st 2010 @ 2:17pm
kovana said | December 1st 2010 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Well thats funny Bay.. All the NZ samoans i meet in NZ call themselves Samoan Kiwis. I ask their young kids if they are samoan and they say YES.
I recognise i was born in NZ, Im a kiwi. However im not blind to the fact that im SAMOAN.
December 1st 2010 @ 2:36pm
Wiremu said | December 1st 2010 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
I’d say your a New Zealander of Samoan heritage Kovana
December 1st 2010 @ 1:44pm
Lee said | December 1st 2010 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Well said Matt.
December 1st 2010 @ 7:55pm
Sylvester said | December 1st 2010 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
@Kovana
Matt’s point remains. If they were that committed to their Island nations, they’d do so before representing another team.
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:24am
rugbyfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:24am | Report comment
hey matt
facts…Mils play for samoa 7s before nz picked him… why? they just realised what a big mistake made, same as Frank Bunce and many more….
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:30am
Jason said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:30am | Report comment
What?
New Zealand Representative Teams
New Zealand Schools in 1998
New Zealand Under 19 in 1999
New Zealand Rugby Academy in 1999
New Zealand Under 21 in 2000, 2001
New Zealand A in 2000
New Zealand Sevens in 1999–2002
All Blacks in 2003–
December 2nd 2010 @ 10:57am
rugbyfan said | December 2nd 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Jase…
if u are really into facts….why not google hong kong sevens players who paly for samoa…
I think Mils play for 1999 or 2000 events not really sure which one ….but definitely after I played for NZ in Hong Kong
Cheers MATE
Go the ABS for RWC20111
December 2nd 2010 @ 11:17am
Jason said | December 2nd 2010 @ 11:17am | Report comment
How about you provide us with verifiable proof? I’ve already pointed out to you who Mils has played for and when from a New Zealand perspective. He played for New Zealand Sevens from 1999 to 2002, so he can’t have played for Samoa’s Sevens team during that time. Especially after 1st January 2000 considering the IRBs One Union rule.
December 9th 2010 @ 3:27am
Sharminator said | December 9th 2010 @ 3:27am | Report comment
I agree completely with your points Matt ….
The islands are much off better playing more games, and developing their own talent, than relying on AB or Wallaby players with an islander heritage to get dropped, sit out rugby international rugby few years and join them in the twilight of their career.
One country for life is a good rule, and when players are selected at a young age by the islands, the rule works in their favour. This is happening more so now that island players are getting exposure in 7´s, the Pacific Cup etc
December 1st 2010 @ 11:55am
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Good points.
I would lvoe tos ee the Islanders invovled mroe in June.
The truth is that it is not considered economically viable at the moment, but perhaps that’s an incorrect perception.
It’s definatly something to be considered.
Inr egards to the Wallabies playing in West Sydney, Homebush is West Sydney. And beyond that, the largest stadium out West is a 20,000 seater. Just not big enough for any meanignful international.
And Ia gree with you by the way about this proposal. Personally I don’t like the idea, I think it would evalue international rugby too much.
I just get annoyed when people say NZ doesn;t help the islands, and I’m not even a kiwi.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:11pm
Matt said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
It’s definitely not economically viable for a Tier 1 nation to Tour the islands, but if they play in a larger weathier nation and share the gate then I believe it would be economically viable.
The All Blacks are just one team who can only play one game each night/week, as are the Wallabies.
And considering there is usually no other rugby being played when the Wallabies and All Blacks are assembled means that there is just one game of Pro rugby on for that entire week in a nation as big as Australia. Crazy!
SURELY there is the scope, the money and the audience available to watch a second (or third) match that weekend at a smaller venue, with most of the proceeds going to the Island nation? These guys play increadibly entertaining rugby and would be an awesome sight to watch if they had the opportunity and funds to play 6-7 games a year (instead of 3).
20,000 at Parra stadium would be perfect for Tonga or Samoa. Big hits, big steps, big hearts and empty pockets.
And it’d provide competitive viewing for the ARU in the battle of the codes out in West Sydney and on the Gold Coast. Areas where no pro rugby is played, but where the foundations could be laid for future Franchise sides. And what would it cost the ARU? Nothing, because it’s not going head to head on TV with the Wallabies and it’s not competing for bums on seats at the Wallabies game as the markets are different and the dates are different.
Get the IRB to help fund the promotion of the game (and to get the best players available for release from European clubs) and you’d be doing FAR more for these nations than the Pacific Nations cup does.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:16pm
kovana said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
If the ABs played SAMOA at eden park.. It would be a definite sell out.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:35pm
Jon said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
There’s something to this. It would have to well marketed though, and I don’t know if you could do it year after year.
Inr egards to West Sydney, which I know best, since it’s where I live, there are loads of Islanders, so there is a potential market there.
However, they are not, by and large, amongst the demographically richest in the community, and so couldn’t probabyl afford to take the family along to a game unless the tickets were reasonably priced. I don’t want that to sound bad, but western sydney is the poorer part of sydney.
Also theres alot of ilsanders but a real mix, not that many from one place. So they might struggle to fill even parra stadium.
But I think it’s definatly worth a shot, the only way you’d know is if you tried. It might just be a massive success.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:36pm
p.Tah said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Excellent post Matt. I agree with everything you say. Love the idea of having the PI countries play in Aust and NZ. I’d certainly head out to parra stadium to watch the islands play.
December 1st 2010 @ 12:49pm
Matt said | December 1st 2010 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
I reckon it’d work but I don’t know which would be the better option, have the teams moving around hosting games each season at different venues (so maybe play a game at AAMI Park in Melbourne, Rotorua Stadium in Rotorua and NIB Park in Perth too) or to have each team create a second home in Aus/NZ.
So every year have Tonga host a couple of games at Parramatta, so the locals come to claim them as their own and build up a history/link between the locals and the team.
Another option is always the double header? So one week have Samoa vs Ireland and Tonga vs the USA at Parra back to back (so Islanders of both nations can watch their team) and then next week switch opponents and have a double header at Skilled Park etc.
The trick would be not to saturate the market and to make it cheap enough for the expat islander to go to, but to also make it financially profitable for the teams, to help fund their development. And heck, it might also convince some West Sydney kids of Tongan heritage to play Union and represent their motherland?!
December 1st 2010 @ 1:13pm
p.Tah said | December 1st 2010 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
I presume they’d still play games in their own countries? They’d have to maintain that connection.
I like the double headed option. They tried it in this years 4 nations. Would have had better success if the weather had been better. I think RU would be well attended.
December 1st 2010 @ 1:32pm
Matt said | December 1st 2010 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Yeah I think you’d have the June matches hosted in Aus/NZ (with the European players released) and the November matches in Europe with the best possible team.
Then you’d play the Pacific Nations Cup using local players (and Aus/NZ based players) in the Islands to maintain the connection. With maybe the odd test in the Islands in June, if money allowed. But that would be few and far between, as money just wouldn’t allow it IMO.
Maybe you’d start with double headers to build support, but I’d like to see the events become stand alone, as I believe each individual team would have the profile, athletes and market opportunity to host single events.
You could even have a cultural celebration day leading up to the game. So have a Pacific Islands festival around the stadium in Parra with an all day Touch or Sevens tournament, with the final being the curtain raiser to the Rugby Game. Participants in the festival tournament get a free ticket.
That’d pack the place out with passionate supporters and their parents could come watch them play, check out the festival and then buy a ticket to the Rugby while they’re there. And of course, plenty of non Pacific Islanders from the West could come along too, to celebrate the diversity of the people of Western Sydney and to check out some top class Rugby, which is a MASSIVE part of Pacific Island culture as well as Australian culture.
December 1st 2010 @ 3:50pm
p.Tah said | December 1st 2010 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
Wow Matt! Keep going, that’s brilliant! You’re not a marketer by any chance? If not, you should be.