SPIRO: Steve Hansen is wrong about Harris
By Spiro Zavos, 24 Oct 2012 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- IRU, Mike Harris, rugby, Rugby Union, Steve Hansen
203 Have your say
Wallabies' fullback Mike Harris kicks a penalty against Argentina's Los Pumas AFP PHOTO / Juan Mabromata
Related coverage
A year or so before rugby became an officially professional code, sometime in late 1994, I guess, I chatted with the chairman of the NZRU Rob Fisher about the implications of the change.
He told me that New Zealand and Australia would probably suffer, in terms of losing players to cashed-up England and France.
“But we have to push it forward to ensure the worldwide success of the game,” he said.
The IRB, to its credit, has put in place a smart and essentially fair system of ensuring the rights of players to ply their trade at the international level, without unduly compromising the nationalistic element that makes Test rugby such a fervent and passionate spectacle.
The main elements of this system are:
1. Once a player represents a nation at the Test level, he cannot play Test rugby for another nation.
This once-a-Wallaby-always-a-Wallaby rule (or once any other nation) rule stops the possibility of national sides buying great Test stars from other nations. Test rugby is saved by this rule from becoming like the England Premiership League where hardly any English players represent for the great clubs like Manchester United, Chelsea and so on.
George Gregan, Richie McCaw and the other stars of the professional era have their chance to play over 100 Tests for their country rather than being bought off by the big offers from other rugby nations.
2. A player born in a country is automatically eligible to play for that country, if he wants to, even if he has lived somewhere else for most of his life.
You could call this the Brad Thorn rule. Thorn spent all his adult life inAustralia. But because he was born in Mosgiel, a small town near Dunedin, he was eligible to play for the All Blacks when he left rugby league and the Brisbane Broncos and joined up with the Canterbury Crusaders.
I reckon that 90 percent-plus of Test players represent the nation of their birth. And this is a good thing. Fans need to feel an emotional affinity, particularly through blood ties, with the players of the teams they are supporting.
3. If a player has spent three years playing senior rugby in a country, which is not where he was born, providing he hasn’t played Test rugby, he can represent the nation of his current residence.
This could be called the Taweru Kerr-Barlow dispensation. The Chiefs brilliant halfback was born in Darwin but has lived most of his life in New Zealand. He desperately wanted to be an All Black, so offers to play in Australia and consider a Wallaby jersey were rejected.
The Franks brothers, the stalwart All Black props, were born in Melbourne. They were both ‘warehoused’ by the All Blacks selectorsto stop them from playing for the Wallabies.
Something of the same thing was done by Robbie Deans with Quade Cooper, who was eligible to play for the All Blacks by right of birth. At the RWC 2011 tournament I saw a placard making this very point: “A DINGO STOLE OUR QUADIE.”
And this is where Mike Harris comes into the picture. He was not wanted for Super Rugby any of the five franchises in New Zealand. Ewen McKenzie made him an offer for the Reds which he couldn’t refuse.
He was right to take up the offer, as history now shows.
He got into the Wallabies because of injuries to any number of players and now he has won a Test by kicking a penalty from near touch on the bell against Wales, and helped the Wallabies to a memorable 18-18 draw against the All Blacks by kicking five penalties out of five.
Despite the protestations of the All Blacks coach Steve Hansen, Harris is a genuine Wallaby. He has qualified correctly and his performances in the gold jersey indicate that he respects the team and the system that has given him his chance at international play.
You could argue that this is the players get out of jail card. If they cannot see a way of representing the country of their birth or if they really want to represent another country or if another country wants them and their homeland doesn’t, this is the dispensation that gives the player the chance to change his rugby destiny.
It does work for Australian rugby better than it does for New Zealand rugby, as Hansen suggests. But he is wrong to use this as an argument against the rule. New Zealand rugby could have had Harris, if they had wanted him. They didn’t want him, not even for Super Rugby.
Increasingly, England and France are using this dispensation to beef up their teams. There are several New Zealanders and Islanders playing for England, for example. That is their choice, which is how it should be.
But this initiative by England (after Scotland’s ‘kilted Kiwis’ selections) is indicative of a hypocritical change of attitude by a number of the senior UK rugby writers. For years they have bagged NZ rugby for ‘stealing’ Pacific Island players. Now the England selectors are being begged to pick the eligible New Zealanders, Pacific Islander players, South Africans, anyone in fact who can strengthen the wayward England team.
We don’t hear the argument from these writers much now about the All Blacks being Samoa/Fiji B.
The fact is that not many players born out of New Zealand have represented the All Blacks in the professional era, about 15 or so. And most of these players, like Jerry Collins, came to New Zealand very young and were educated from primary school through in NZ and were New Zealanders in every respect.
On the other hand, there are probably 50 Zealanders playing international rugby right now for countries other than NZ. There were about 60 NZ players representing countries like Japan, Australia, Samoa, and Tonga at the RWC 2011.
The days of players like the great Des Connor representing the Wallabies and the All Blacks are over.
But in the modern era there is something to be said for a system that preserves the singular nature of Test rugby while also preserving the chances of players to play Test rugby, if a country wants them in their team.
Spiro Zavos, a founding writer on The Roar, was long time editorial writer on the Sydney Morning Herald, where he started a rugby column that has run for nearly 30 years. Spiro has written 12 books: fiction, biography, politics and histories of Australian, New Zealand, British and South African rugby. He is regarded as one of the foremost writers on rugby throughout the world.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
![]()
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- IRU, Mike Harris, rugby, Rugby Union, Steve Hansen


October 24th 2012 @ 3:03am
ThelmaWrites said | October 24th 2012 @ 3:03am | Report comment
Good morning, Spiro.
I’ve just been re-reading Fitzie’s “The Rugby War”. By his account, the “War” was conceived and pursued in 1995.
So if you and Rob Fisher were discussing rugby becoming a professional code in 1994, you two had great prescience!
I find the events of the “War” still gripping reading, despite reading the book twice and watching the DVD once.
October 24th 2012 @ 9:58am
Billy Bob said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:58am | Report comment
To be fair, it should be remembered that Hansen was, and still is I imagine dealing with two ‘losses’ this week.
Those calling his comment ‘childish’ etc should remember that he may be dealing with family grief.
He should be given the benefit of the doubt, even if we don’t agree with him.
October 24th 2012 @ 9:43pm
NC said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
Exactly. Well said BB. Out of character. Clearly a tough week for SH. O’Neill typically bars up because he knows he can’t lose. No f***ing class at all. Could have just let it go.
October 24th 2012 @ 11:25am
Jokerman said | October 24th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
The rules were changed though, in my view to weaken some upcoming nations. This has hurt the island teams. The one nation rule. Under the old system someone like Frank Bunce, could play for Samoa, and then get picked for the All Blacks. That was good for everyone…oh, except England etc…As they could get beaten at the RWC, so they changed it. There are so many top players under that rule that are unavailable come RWC time to play. So many ex all Black playing their trade overseas with a Samoan heritage or simple NZ heritage but playing in Japan. Not good enough for the All Blacks but would make the Samoan team or Japan. No the threat to the All blacks…but defiantly the British teams. IRB bestows there control.
Stat of origin is similar in some varied way. It wasn’t until NZ won the World cup in league that Australia stating poaching kiwi players. The simple answer to this is allowing Origin players to play for their chosen country. Ahh SBW playing for Queensland or NSW then representing the Kiwi’s. Won’t happen too much freedom to the players and it weaken Australia, but enhances NZ.
October 24th 2012 @ 1:18pm
Jokerman said | October 24th 2012 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Excuse my grammar in the last post…I was at a net cafe with 10 secs to send!
My point was there is a lack of genuine intent from the IRB. Always favoring their own interests, against the greater good of the game.
And is just me or did it seem strange how certain things unfolded with The All Blacks going for their record? 9-0 on the penalty count against SA around half time. All Blacks first penalty at around the 55 minute mark…and a few at the end when the game was won. I felt he only gave them to smudge his bias referring.
And against Australia recently. Jane chip kicks and is interfered….but not seen by the lines men. A ruck happens, penalty given. McCaw then kneed in the head and throat, then a head butt. It was a dead playing time, whistle had gone, so there is no excuses for the lines man to be looking else where…but he misses it, from 15 meters out. I think he was South African.
October 24th 2012 @ 3:55pm
DeanP said | October 24th 2012 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
Except Oz have not poached any Kiwi league players, since they were all developed in the Oz system, which is the context in which Hansen has claimed that Harris was pinched.
October 24th 2012 @ 3:40am
jus de couchon said | October 24th 2012 @ 3:40am | Report comment
Perhaps the comercialisation of sport is typified by Rugby. The Idea that an International sport can remain unaffected by the realities of market forces is an Illusion.
October 24th 2012 @ 4:17am
peeeko said | October 24th 2012 @ 4:17am | Report comment
i would like the residence rule to be changed from 3 to 5
October 24th 2012 @ 9:05am
Brendon said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Peeko, remember that careers are’nt all that long and 5 years is a massive gap in professional sport. Maybe 4 years? so that way it is at least a world cup time frame in a country?
October 24th 2012 @ 9:47am
soapit said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:47am | Report comment
i agree (maybe even 6). as to it being too long out of someones career this rule only comes in play for those who have no other right to represent the country they’ve moved to. generally it would only be taking time out of peoples international career if they had moved there specifically to play for that country with no other links to it (which is the type of switch we all want to avoid) and if they were good enough they could always play for where they were born. if ur good enough you’ll get a game.
i’d also like them to relax the one country rule to stop the warehousing and glut of one test players. id change it to you could represent two but you’d need to have a 6 year gap between the two (so they’d at least miss one world cup to change) and they’d also need to satisfy the other conditions (born there or heritage or have lived there for the 6 years).
October 24th 2012 @ 9:56am
soapit said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
it would also stop players avoiding representing a small nation because it would exclude them from one day making big bucks playing for the big countries.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:55pm
IronAwe said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
6 years?? That’s an entire career for some players. I don’t understand why people have a problem with this. Let people play for who they want to play for. No one forces them to make these decisions. A better idea would be for the IRB to offer lower tier nations some kind of financial benefit to help keep their players.
October 24th 2012 @ 4:28am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 4:28am | Report comment
“The Franks brothers, the stalwart All Black props, were born in Melbourne. They were both ‘warehoused’ by the All Blacks selectorsto stop them from playing for the Wallabies.”
Only Ben Franks was born in Melbourne, Owen was born in NZ.
Also, the fact that Ben Franks has now played 21 test matches and was a part of the RWC squad suggests he was selected on merit, not merely to prevent him playing for Aus.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:08am
mania said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:08am | Report comment
unlike what deans did with cooper vuna
October 24th 2012 @ 8:50am
formeropenside said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:50am | Report comment
and Timani in 2011 v Samoa
October 24th 2012 @ 9:47am
soapit said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:47am | Report comment
i doubt deans was too worried about the all blacks picking cooper vuna
October 24th 2012 @ 10:16am
Jutsie said | October 24th 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Nah but tonga were interested in him for their 2011 WC squad, same with timani.
October 24th 2012 @ 1:17pm
RebelRanger said | October 24th 2012 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
All Blacks do this also. Manu Samoa were interested in Soseni Anesi (who I don’t rate anyway).
October 24th 2012 @ 3:37pm
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
I don’t think you can accurately make that claim.
Sure, Anesi only played the one test but he’s hardly the only All Black of recent years who’s played only a handful. Kevin Senio, Campbell Johnstone, Angus MacDonald, Greg Rawlinson, Scott Hamilton, John Schwalger, Ross Filipo, Kevin O’Neill, Clarke Dermody, Jamie McIntosh, Scott Waldrom, Alby Mathewson, Bryn Evans, Leila Masaga, George Whitelock, Mike Delaney, Benson Stanley etc.
All those guys were selected by Henry and have played 4 or fewer tests. Some have dual eligibility, some do not.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:22am
Justin2 said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:22am | Report comment
And the same could be said of Cooper…
October 24th 2012 @ 7:35am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Exactly – both Henry and Deans capped loads of players during their tenures. It’s hardly surprising they gave a couple of promising young Super Rugby players a chance at test level.
On the same tour that Franks was first capped, Jamie McIntosh, Hika Elliott, Liam Messam, Scott Waldrom, Cory Jane and Hosea Gear also debuted. Some of them have had successful AB careers, some not so much. Only Waldrom has any dual eligibility that I’m aware of, so the claims of ‘warehousing’ are completely unfounded.
October 26th 2012 @ 2:00pm
Bridge said | October 26th 2012 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
The same can not be said of Copper as he has lived in Australia since high school represented Aus schoolboys (has the most caps ever) He came through the system here in Aus so NZ should not care about him as he left years ago and I know that most NZ doesn’t care that he is a Wallaby. He would never make it into the All Blacks either.
October 24th 2012 @ 12:01pm
atlas said | October 24th 2012 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
The Franks brother went through the NZ schools system, Christchurch Boys High School and school age-group teams.
Ben was born in Melbourne while his NZ parents worked there, Owen back at ‘home’ Motueka, within the Crusaders franchise area so they haven’t moved far; unless NZRU signed them up as 3 year olds, this ‘warehousing suggestion is pure BS.
Ben played NZ Schoolboys 2003, 2005, and NZ U19 in 2003, NZ U21 in 2004, 2005.
A simple resource to avoid incorrect info like this is http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=1084 which lists the details of every overseas-born All Black since the 1880s.
I count 20 from Australia – and just 13 from Samoa. Pillaging the Pacific Islands, anyone?
October 24th 2012 @ 5:05am
SandBox said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:05am | Report comment
“For years they have bagged NZ rugby for ‘stealing’ Pacific Island players”
Can you blame them, when the Abs have been number 1 for so long? If you can’t beat them in the eligibility cheating game, join them. The more islanders in Australia the better. NZ thinks they own Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. We don’t think this, but we do offer them and their families job opportunities they can’t get from a dairy based economy
October 24th 2012 @ 5:28am
James said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:28am | Report comment
You sound like a novice writer for the UK Daily telegraph. A llot of talk with no substance.
In case you didn’t know,Samoa was a territory of NZ before its Independence in 1962. yes that meant Samoans had legal obligations to have a minimum levy on bringing Samoan families into the country. This similar policy was extended to other islands which is why islanders are the 3rd biggest ethnic group in NZ (over 350,000). Samoans make up 50% of this group.
I guess Australia made a mistake opening its immigration polices to Europe in the 1950s while NZ turned to the pacific in the same period and yes polynesians.
October 24th 2012 @ 5:37am
SandBox said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:37am | Report comment
50 years ago perhaps NZ did own Samoa – said with NZ modesty *cough*. How you can boast about owning another nation to boost your own rugby stocks is beyond me…and you have a proud 50 year history of doing it!
Regardless of your ethnic connection, you don’t own them. Neither do we, or countries closer geographically. NZ arrogance towards Islanders is astounding. From my time in Tonga, many felt the same way. Hopefully, this applies to all Island nations. Your time as the self-appointed masters of the Polynesian race may be coming to an end
October 24th 2012 @ 5:50am
Kane said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:50am | Report comment
New Zealand was given governance over Samoa after the second world war up until 1962 as our reward for helping the Allies under the League of Nations.
Boosting our stocks? Well try this one on for size, 13 Samoans have represented New Zealand in tests in over 100 years, yet there were 13 New Zealanders in Samoa’s Rugby World Cup 2011 Squad.
We haven’t self appointed that name to ourselves at all. It’s a name that you have labeled to us to try and back up your flawed argument.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:24am
SandBox said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:24am | Report comment
‘New Zealand was given governance over Samoa after the second world war up until 1962 as our reward for helping the Allies under the League of Nations.’
Lets not delude ourselves here. Oz involvement would not have stopped the Japenese if they came in real force, and NZ was at best 1/3 our involvement. If it wasn’t for pearl harbour, we would have had serious problems in our back yard. I have two relatives that were Anzacs so I say this with no disrespect to their part in WWII. To be rewarded with ownership of a nation when your part was, at best, small – should require great humility
October 24th 2012 @ 6:41am
Kane said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:41am | Report comment
Maybe they thought it could be mutually beneficial to both countries?
October 24th 2012 @ 7:51am
mikeylives said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:51am | Report comment
WTF are you on about? Talk about the sake of arguing.
Kane gave you a sound beating there. Just let it lie.
October 24th 2012 @ 4:41pm
NickF said | October 24th 2012 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
“Oz involvement would not have stopped the Japenese if they came in real force, and NZ was at best 1/3 our involvement.”
What?
I really hope your talking rugby here, Sandbox, because I don’t care how many ANZAC relatives you have, that’s pretty disrespectful and incorrect.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:39am
mania said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:39am | Report comment
kane – how many AB’s though have samoa heritage? thats a more than telling stat on samoa’s contribution to nz.
i agree tho that other than sandBox no one said anyone “owned” samoa. nz occupied samoa but were never invited or wanted there. hence why samoa was the 1st pacific nation to seek independence thru the UN.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:50am
Kane said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Also we were the first country to let a Pacific Island to have their independance.
That would be an incredibly hard stat to figure out, but like I said with there being 13 New Zealand born players in the Samoan team in one RWC squad, how many Samoan players have Kiwi heritage.
That being said, Samoa definantly benefit from NZ born and raised players going through our systems, not being quite good enough to make the All Blacks, transfering and playing for them.
Also is the Samoan team a combination of American Samoa and Samoa or just a product of Samoa?
October 24th 2012 @ 7:55am
mania said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:55am | Report comment
kane – nz didnt “let” samoa have its independence. samoa were given its independence by the uninted Nations when samoa appealed the appalling treatment of the then occupying nz govt.
to name a few
Tana Umaga, Eroni Clarke , Michael Jones , Sonny Bill Williams, josh Kronfeld, christian cullen
October 24th 2012 @ 8:14am
Terry Tavita said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:14am | Report comment
no non-samoan has ever played for the samoan national team..you forget samoa is a country as it is a distinct ethnicity, culture and heritage..we do not make an issue of where our people were born as kiwis do..where you were born is something that is beyond your control..
October 24th 2012 @ 8:21am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Except Frank Bunce…
(joking, I know he’s got some Samoan heritage).
October 24th 2012 @ 8:27am
Terry Tavita said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
“Also we were the first country to let a Pacific Island to have their independance.”
that’s an insult kane, our leaders fought and were killed for our independence from new zealand..but we are very good friends now..
October 24th 2012 @ 9:24am
Kane said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Sorry my mistake I thought that was the case
October 24th 2012 @ 9:33am
mania said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:33am | Report comment
thanx for the apology kane
October 24th 2012 @ 9:34am
Kane said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Terry Tavita you may be able to answer my previous question, is the Samoan national rugby team made up of players from both Samoa and American Samoa? Or are players from American Samoa ineligible?
October 24th 2012 @ 9:43am
Kane said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Not a problem mania I was wrong and owed one
October 24th 2012 @ 10:08am
Terry Tavita said | October 24th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
american samoa was recently granted full membership of the irb, so i don’t know how eligibility will work..but american samoans have played for manu samoa, eg keiki misipeka, a former UH running back, setefano setefano, manaia salave’a and others..families though straddle both sides of the samoas and perhaps under current irb rules, most players can play for both ‘countries’..some manu samoa players could easily play for american samoa..american samoa now has pretty handy sevens team called talavalu who competed in this year’s oceania sevens and beat tonga..
October 24th 2012 @ 10:28am
Tigranes said | October 24th 2012 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Jerry
I thought Bunce’s heritage was from Niue??
October 24th 2012 @ 10:36am
mania said | October 24th 2012 @ 10:36am | Report comment
kane its not a problem, especially if u man enuf to apologise. i appreciate it and i dont blame u for not knowing bout samoan history, but just a warning that to samoans the nz occupation is a sore point.
american samoa is not eligible for manu samoa as its a whole other country. samoa (previously western samoa) is an independent nation, american samoa is a dependent of the US
tigranes – yes bunce was more nuiean than samoan. his great grandmother was samoan but the rest of him was palagi (white) and niue. so i think makes him an 16th samoan which jus happens to be the minimum for eligibility
October 24th 2012 @ 11:06am
Kane said | October 24th 2012 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Thanks, I’m wondering what Kainos eligibility is, considering he was born in American Samoa.
Also wondering what the rules are for the home nations, for example does the Republic of Ireland include Northern Ireland? One being a independent nation and the other being part of Great Britian.
What criteria do they use to seperate Wales from Scotland and England as technically they aren’t countries?
October 24th 2012 @ 11:16am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Tigranes – that was why I was joking. He is primarily NZ/Nuiean, but does have some Samoan ancestry. He has made jokes about his own eligibility in the past.
October 24th 2012 @ 11:30am
Terry Tavita said | October 24th 2012 @ 11:30am | Report comment
kaino’s parents are both from (western) samoa..they worked in the canneries in pago before moving to nz..the malifa twins who play for the US Eagles could’ve played for four national teams..parents were from (western samoa) but twins were born in american samoa, raised in new zealand but now live in the US (as US nationals because of their american samoa status)..
October 24th 2012 @ 5:55am
James said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:55am | Report comment
what planet are you on?
Since when did we boast about ‘owning’or becoming the masters of the pacific islands?. How do you own them when the nz govt has had a long history of open door immigration policies to the pacific.
October 24th 2012 @ 10:25am
JohnB said | October 24th 2012 @ 10:25am | Report comment
NZ troops occupied the then German colony of Samoa in the early days of WW1, just as Australian troops occupied the then German colony of New Guinea at the same time (the southern part of what is now PNG was already a British protectorate). After WWI, Samoa became a NZ protectorate and PNG an Australian one. Whether there would have been rugby in Samoa without that history I have no idea, but it does explain names like Schuster popping up. Totally irrelevant to rugby, various other Pacific islands that had been German went to Japan at the same time, with consequences a couple of decades later.
October 24th 2012 @ 11:19am
Terry Tavita said | October 24th 2012 @ 11:19am | Report comment
schuster, schwalger, schmidt, lobendahn, schaffhauzen, kronfeld, netzler, keil, wendt, wulf, kebauer, westerlund,kruse, retzlaff, schultz, von reiche, etc..they litter samoa’s phone directory and are relics of samoa’s german history..samoa even had a nazi branch during hitler’s reign..
October 24th 2012 @ 2:36pm
richard said | October 24th 2012 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Terry, my mother went to school in W. Samoa in the 1950′s. She regularly mentioned the Schaffhauzens, a family of real of blonde,blue eyed Germans. If memory serves correctly, they had a daughter named Maria ( or Marina?) who really looked like your teutonic goddess.
Could you expand on this?
October 25th 2012 @ 9:37am
Terry Tavita said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
marina shaffhauzen is the matriach of samoan rugby..she and laauli alan grey (of aggie grey’s hotel fame) funded manu samoa from their own pockets when samoa had no money..
October 24th 2012 @ 6:19am
richard said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:19am | Report comment
Of couse, oz is doing it out of the goodness of its heart. They are nzers, and with few exceptions are born, bred and developed in nz. What nz doesn’t do is wait until other countries have developed their talent, and then poach the finished product i.e Aus. and England. If these islanders are born there, and come through your systems, then fine, we wouldn’t have a problem with it.Also, using super rugby to poach nz talent ( Jason Woodward and Nasi Manu are the latest to be signed up by oz sides) with the intention of them being available for the wb’s is poaching by stealth.
The bottom line is Hanson replied to a loaded question by one of your smarmy reporters, and got a reply that he, and it would seem, the oz rugby fraternity didn’t like hearing.The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
To Spiro’s comment that Fisher believed that nz and oz would suffer in this pro age, that isn’t true, the only country suffering is nz, who are now basically the nursery of world rugby.
October 24th 2012 @ 10:39am
Funk said | October 24th 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
he’s been mentioned before….Steve Devine? Aust U21s, Aus 7s.
October 24th 2012 @ 5:10am
Kane said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:10am | Report comment
Well we did used to own Samoa, why do you think so many of they got unrestrictive entry into New Zealand?
Also in over 100 years of All Back tests, out of the 1116 All Blacks, only 25 were born in the Pacific Islands.
October 24th 2012 @ 5:32am
defunkt said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:32am | Report comment
Don’t bother bringing hard facts to this discussion, if it doesn’t suit their desired position they’ll just pretend the ‘inconvenient truth’ isn’t so.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:09am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:09am | Report comment
And Australia had governance of Papua New Guinea for many many years but that doesn’t stop idiot kiwi’s dragging Will Genia’s country of birth into this discussion.
October 24th 2012 @ 10:18am
Jutsie said | October 24th 2012 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Or stop all of us bagging england whenever they select sth african, nz or aus born players for the national cricket or rugby teams. After all we were all once or are still “owned” by them.
October 24th 2012 @ 12:33pm
Funk said | October 24th 2012 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Stop bagging England!…..no chance, it’s just not how I was brought up!
October 24th 2012 @ 5:13am
Mark said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:13am | Report comment
Hansen does have a point but he seems to put it out there in a stupid immature way.
1The difference with Harris and the others you mention is that regardless of birth, you should NOT be allowed to represent another nation if you have played for your country on . By that I mean if you represented your country in u20s
October 24th 2012 @ 9:58am
soapit said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:58am | Report comment
i agree that all senior rep rugby should be treated the same. schoolboys should get a free pass though
October 24th 2012 @ 5:13am
Mark said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:13am | Report comment
.
October 24th 2012 @ 5:20am
The Grafter said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:20am | Report comment
I thought Mike Harris was eligible due to having an Australian grandmother?
Hes been in Australia two years and says hes Australian. Ive been in Australia 25 years, and call myself a NZer living in Australia. Strange how one can change their spots so quickly.
October 24th 2012 @ 5:47am
David Lord said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:47am | Report comment
Spiro, had Mike Harris kicked four goals instead of five. and the ABs had won 18-15, Hansen wouldn’t have said boo. But an 18-all draw ruined the winning streak, so Hansen has a major dummy spit. Pathetic.
October 24th 2012 @ 8:40am
defunkt said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Had Mike Harris kicked four goals instead of five. and the ABs had won 18-15, I’m pretty sure the journo who asked if NZ’s talent identification program was working wouldn’t have asked the question and there’d be no reason for Hansen to say boo.
Should we instead just have post-match conferences filled with “no comment” responses?
October 24th 2012 @ 10:02am
soapit said | October 24th 2012 @ 10:02am | Report comment
eiher that or hansen learns to answer questions like a mature professional
October 24th 2012 @ 9:41am
peterlala said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:41am | Report comment
David, which is better. Steve Hansen complaining, or Robbie Deans saying the All Blacks are the best side ever and no one can beat them.
Hansen may be a bad loser (drawer), but as US football coach Vince Lombardi said, “Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser,”
Hansen’s “dummy spit” says he wants to win.
Robbie Dean’s reverential praise means something else.
October 24th 2012 @ 12:09pm
ohtani's jacket said | October 24th 2012 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Hansen was pretty honest about the All Blacks performance, the media simply chose to run with these comments for the same reasons as the self-confessed rubbish you write.
October 24th 2012 @ 4:07pm
nick said | October 24th 2012 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Garbage.
Dummy spit? Hardly. Hansen is a pretty cool customer these days but he speaks his mind. Explaining your position is not “spitting the dummy” as your unlettered opinion reads, it’s honest and forthright.
His main point was not about test selection but about Australia having 5 super rugby sides but needing to fill them out with NZ players. Thats a fair assessment in my books. Why the hell would you agitate for 5 sides if you ain’t got the players to fill them so you need to go knocking on doors in NZ?
October 24th 2012 @ 6:06am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:06am | Report comment
He is, and this is the element of eligibility that Spiro hasn’t bothered to mention.
I’m struggling to recall any time a player has qualified through a parent or grandparent without people commenting negatively on it – often it’s even supporters of the team they have chosen to represent.
Sure, some of these players have gone on to have impressive careers for countries they’ve qualified for based on their parents/grandparents, but it’s often a tenuous link at best.
All things being equal, I’d say international rugby would do well do get rid of the ‘grandparent clause’.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:11am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:11am | Report comment
Yes Harris has an Australian grandmother. This qualifies him for Australian citizenship. The same way a lot of Australians and New Zealanders can obtain EU passports by virtue of who their grandparents are. If you’re entitled to a passport, you are entitled to represent that country in sport.
You can’t get rid of the ‘grandparent clause’ without a whole raft of legal ramifications Jerry.
Furthermore, you can’t choose where you’re born, you can choose where you live and work as an adult. Personally if someone wants to be an Australian or a New Zealander or a Dane and moves to the country, I don’t see the issue.
People complaining have no basis for their dissatisfaction except xenophobia and spiteful jealously dressed up as nationalism.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:14am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:14am | Report comment
I don’t think it’s xenophobia or nationalism, necessarily – I’d just like to see international rugby be a bit more meaningful and can think of loads of times the grandparent clause has made something of a mockery of it.
If Harris wants to be an Aussie, fine – stay there, qualify for the Wallabies through residency and buy a house in Queensland. But the grandparent clause is flawed.
Though, I suppose the PI sides would suffer heavily if it were removed, so I imagine it’s not going to be changed anytime soon.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:20am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:20am | Report comment
The ‘grandparent clause’ is LAW. It isn’t about IRB eligibility rules. If you can get a passport for a country, you’re a citizen of that country with all rights and privileges pertaining thereunto including the ability to represent that country in sports.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:26am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:26am | Report comment
Citizenship/passport etc is irrelevant – different countries have different requirements, so it’s not used as a standard of eligibility.
Eg Fiji doesn’t allow its citizens to hold any other passports, some countries (the Netherlands for instance) provide that even a person born in that country may not automatically become a citizen etc.
And just because a person is a citizen of a country, they may not be eligible under the IRB laws due to the “One country” clause – eg Quade Cooper and Riki Flutey are NZ citizens by LAW but are no longer eligible for NZ in RUGBY. There’s no legal requirement for the IRB to have retain the grandparent clause.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:39am
Sam said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:39am | Report comment
well said jerry
October 24th 2012 @ 6:50am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:50am | Report comment
Citizenship and Passport bypass eligibility requirements for that first country, they’re not irrelevant.
Now the ARU may not let them play if they don’t play rugby in Australia, but that is a different issue. They’re being crossed out on selection criteria not on their nationality.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:57am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:57am | Report comment
Again – citizenship and what passport a player holds isn’t relevant to eligibility because it’s not a uniform standard.
Here’s a hypothetical that illustrates why – what if Japan suddenly announced it was relaxing its citizenship requirements so that any foreign national could become a Japanese citizen within 6 months. Suddenly Sean Maitland, Robbie Fruean, Andre Taylor and a whole host of young Aussie and SA players are offered huge contracts for Japanese clubs and within 6 months they hold Japanese passports. Does the IRB now have to drop the 3 year residency clause?
October 24th 2012 @ 7:04am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:04am | Report comment
Hypotheticals don’t really help.
Here’s a hypothetical, what if Aliens landed near Darwin and wanted to play rugby?
To answer, I doubt the IRB would, and I doubt those players would move there. You’re also discounting what the JRU would want. However IF the players wanted it badly enough AND the JRU wanted it badly enough then the IRB could certainly be challenged on that point of it’s policies.
October 24th 2012 @ 8:59am
oncewerewallabies said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Jerry…I’d suggest you stick with what you know before claiming to understand the legislative requirements around passports in Fiji
Fiji now allows for dual citizenship, please visit the Fiji Immigration website
http://www.immigration.gov.fj/
October 24th 2012 @ 9:03am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:03am | Report comment
My mistake – I recall either Joe Rokocoko or Sitiveni Sivivatu saying the reason they didn’t have an NZ passport is because it would require them to give up their Fijian one. Maybe they were incorrect.
Aha! It has only been allowed since 2009 – that explains it.
http://www.fiji.org.nz/files/3113/3789/3672/Dual_Citizenship.pdf
October 24th 2012 @ 6:37am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:37am | Report comment
And – while on the subject, I don’t actually think having an Australian grandparent qualifies an NZ citizen for Australian citizenship (and I’m fairly sure that’s the case in most IRB test nations – it doesn’t in the UK or Ireland, all it will get you is a 4 year ancestry visa).
October 24th 2012 @ 6:49am
vincent said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:49am | Report comment
Red Kev, could you refer us to the particular statute or case law that states that the grandparent rule is a leagally enforcable right?
Because IOC and CG games qualifying criteria does not include a grandparent rule, citizenship or parents citizenship required to qualify under IOC guidelines. So why hasn’t the IOC been challenged in court over this?
October 24th 2012 @ 6:54am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:54am | Report comment
As Jerry pointed out, it doesn’t automatically qualify you for a passport in all situations – I thought it did because a friend of mine did get a British passport that way many years ago.
As for legal challenge – because you can still be stopped from playing for your country if you’ve played for another country under IRB regulations. You can still be stopped from playing for your country if that country (like AUS and NZ) requires you to ply your trade ‘at home’ to play for the national team.
HOWEVER, there is no rule that stops someone who is a citizen of a country playing for their national team providing they meet the selection criteria for the national side (which would include sporting performance and the ARU/NZRU rule about playing in Australia/New Zealand). That could be challenged.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:02am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:02am | Report comment
“HOWEVER, there is no rule that stops someone who is a citizen of a country playing for their national team providing they meet the selection criteria for the national side”
The “One Country” rule does exactly this, actually.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:04am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:04am | Report comment
No, because they don’t meet the selection criteria for the national side. I covered that comment about 3 sentences earlier in the post.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:08am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Only because the requirements of the national side reflect the IRB requirements.
If Quade Cooper signed for the Chiefs to play alongside SBW in 2013, leaving aside arguments as to ability & attitude, the only thing preventing him from representing the AB’s would be the IRB, not the NZRU.
Actually – a real world example, Isa Nacewa. He was born in NZ, lived in NZ, played for the Blues and was contracted to the NZRU. Fulfilled all NZRU requirements and, had he been eligible, would almost certainly have gained a few caps for the AB’s. But, due to the IRB eligibility requirements and a few minutes for Fiji in 2003, he wasn’t eligible.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:17am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:17am | Report comment
I don’t see your point.
The one country rule is fine. Although I would actually like to see it relaxed in the case of over 30s players playing for tier two or tier three (i.e. non-six nations and non-rugby championship) countries.
So is the ARU and NZRU rule about not selecting overseas based players.
If someone wanted it bad enough I am sure they could challenge those rules (though why they would I don’t know). Despite the underlying premise that people would country hop, the majority would not, because the type of people who want to represent their country genuinely love their country. You might get the odd mercenary who would play for Australia then Scotland then Japan but they would be the overwhelming minority.
My point, way back at the start, is why the hell does a couch potato arm chair commentator like you or I care where someone was born? Now I understand NZ is basically a mound of boiling mud in the South Pacific plagued by horizontal rain so no-one moves there, but Australia is full of people from somewhere else. I’m from somewhere else. Where you want to be is more important than where you were born.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:29am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:29am | Report comment
My point(s) are as follows:
1) I think that in many cases, certainly where ‘tier 1′ countries are involved, the grandparent clause has more often than not created sitations that denigrate test rugby. Surely, test rugby should be more about players that were developed by the countries they represent?
2) Seeing as having a grandparent from a country doesn’t actually qualify you for a passport or citizenship in most countries (it may qualify you in some PI nations, I don’t know), the citizenship argument is actually irrelevant to the grandparent clause.
3) You’ve said that ” there is no rule that stops someone who is a citizen of a country playing for their national team providing they meet the selection criteria for the national side” “Citizenship and Passport bypass eligibility”.
The one country rule shows that neither statement is true. There is already an IRB eligibilty requirement that over-rules citizenship which suggests there is no legal requirement for the IRB to consider citizenship in its eligibilty requirements. It’s a red herring.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:44am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:44am | Report comment
Your points one and three are contradictory. You think countries that develop players “own” them. You don’t use this word but your position is they have no right to represent any other country.
However you also think citizenship is irrelevant which means players can play for any country at all, and in fact devalues the entire concept of country.
So what is your real problem?
Why should rugby be held to different standards than other sports?
October 24th 2012 @ 7:50am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:50am | Report comment
They’re not contradictory at all, you’re inferring that because I said “Citizenship is irrelevant’ I think it should be free reign. I don’t – I think the IRB should have it’s own eligibility rules which are separate from citizenship (which, incidentally, it does).
I also don’t actually think a country should ‘own’ a player. I have no objection to the residency rule – if a player has committed to a country and has played there for 3 years (or however long the IRB sets the residency period) then he has a tether to that country in terms of rugby. That’s not the case when Brendan Laney plays for Scotland 10 days after he gets off the plane.
I just think the grandparent rule should be abolished*. I thought I’d made that pretty clear.
*or at least amended to exclude tier 1 nations.
October 24th 2012 @ 8:05am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Other than the one country rule which is reasonable and should apply to the olympics too, I don’t think the IRB should be able to impose eligibility rules beyond being a legal citizen. Far simpler.
October 24th 2012 @ 8:07am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:07am | Report comment
“Other than the one country rule which is reasonable and should apply to the olympics too, I don’t think the IRB should be able to impose eligibility rules beyond being a legal citizen. Far simpler.”
I disagree on that point, but regardless – even if that were true, the IRB could still get rid of the grandparent clause.
October 24th 2012 @ 2:47pm
golden bull said | October 24th 2012 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Jerry, seriously that draw must have hurt you and Hansen! Must suck to think a kiwi has choosen Australia over new zealand. And because he played well we drew with you so your response is we take your players, not too mention Harris grand mother so he is eligible…no, instead you are bitter. You hate not winning!
October 24th 2012 @ 2:56pm
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Grow up.
October 24th 2012 @ 2:56pm
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
October 26th 2012 @ 2:12pm
Bridge said | October 26th 2012 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
You got to remember that he has been here for 2 years, he didn’t just walk in the door and straight to the wallabies he had to prove himself through the reds. He’s said he choose to take the contact because NZ didn’t want him, the grandparent clause was just a bonus.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:29am
SandBox said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:29am | Report comment
well said Red Kev
October 24th 2012 @ 6:12am
mania said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:12am | Report comment
grafter, harris would still consider himself a kiwi. this is his job nothing more. he will give it his all but deep down he’s still a kiwi. he may temporarily wear green and gold but he’ll always be one of us.
good on him and i hope he does well. it was kind of fitting that the wb’s needed the steely cool nerve of a kiwi to achieve parity in the weekend.
October 24th 2012 @ 2:40pm
Warwick Todd said | October 24th 2012 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
You probably erect scaffolding and cling to your country of birth like a security blanket. Harris was given an opportunity to play International rugby and earn the salary that comes with it. Any Kiwi living in Australia with the temerity to criticise Harris (or others) is a total hypocrite.
October 24th 2012 @ 5:49am
Mark said | October 24th 2012 @ 5:49am | Report comment
re post,
Hansen does have a point but he seems to put it out there in a stupid immature way.
You stated Harris under rule 3 but you forgot to mention he has played for the junior All blacks which is the issue with eligibility. Not only that, he only lived in Australia for 2 YEARS before donning the green and gold.
Rule 1 and 2 is clear cut . However rule 3 is a JOKE and should be scraped.
The difference with Harris and the others you mention is that regardless of birth, you should NOT be allowed to represent another nation if you have played for your country on another level . By that I mean if you represented your country in u20s you should not be allowed to represent another country at the senior level.
This is the category that someone like Harris represented NZ in u20 and Sekope Kepu in u17, u19, u21 (amazing he can get selected for OZ after playing for nz in 3 different national levels).
Not only is it a get out of jail card but it devalues the system of the country he used to represent and the country he will end up playing for. I mean why would the NZRU waste money and funds spent on conditioning and training players who will end up playing for another country in a few years time. Its like the NZRU have thier won money moulding good players who will end playing for someone else.
If I were the NZRU I would be fuming seeing ex NZ representatives playing for someone else.
Sean Maltland is another case. An ex u20 player for NZ and played for the Crusaders and now is headed off to Scotland. The Scottish rugby union is already talking about national selection which shows how rule 3 devalues the system in which the player is leaving.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:09am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:09am | Report comment
Yeah, the grandparent clause can create some absurd situations – I recall Brendan Laney playing for Scotland within about 2 weeks of arriving in the country and before he’d even turned out for his club.
Also, as an aside, Maitland is actually Quade Cooper’s cousin so it may be the case that two cousins end up playing each at test level both playing for countries other than the one they were born in (I think the Bachop brothers may have done this playing against each other for Japan and Samoa).
October 24th 2012 @ 6:50am
moaman said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:50am | Report comment
Shame for QC he can’t ‘jump ship’ and play for Scotland!
BTW Spiro—-What did Hansen actually say about Harris? Direct quote please. psSmall corrections; Tawera K-B. And Owen Franks was born in Motueka.I was there in March (and I didn’t need a passport nor a grandparent!).
October 24th 2012 @ 6:26am
richard said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:26am | Report comment
Thanks Mark, this a very balanced comment, nz is just getting fed up with having our talent poached, whilst having to put up with years of the ‘ nz rapes the islands” myth.
October 24th 2012 @ 6:54am
vincent said | October 24th 2012 @ 6:54am | Report comment
The IRB should adopt the IOC qualifying criteria, it makes sense given the inclusion of 7s in the Olympics. Citizenship or citizenship of parent required to represent a country.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:14am
Chiefs4life said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:14am | Report comment
rule 3 is only there to help develop tier 2 rugby nations as they dont have the depth compete internationally. The biggest problem is that the tier 1 nations have taken advantage of this.
October 24th 2012 @ 7:35am
post said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Why would the NZRU waste money on a player to have them go play for another country? Good question, why DID the NZRU put money into Harris only to leave him unable to even get into a super rugby team? McKenzie saw talent being left to waste, and the rest is history. Have a whinge about it all you want, but this isnt some rule Aus blindsided you with.
The rules create a situation that allows as many countries as possible to get a decent team together. This gives more teams a fighting chance and helps spread the game worldwide, how is that bad?
October 24th 2012 @ 7:43am
Marcus said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:43am | Report comment
“why DID the NZRU put money into Harris only to leave him unable to even get into a super rugby team? ”
simple. He did not perform to the standard that would get the attention of the NZ rugby franchises. Harris is a case of giving up despite his young age and looking for an easier root. You don’t get things handed to you on a plate as they do in Australia. You earn it.
The rule is only suited for 2nd tier nations as they dont have the depth to compete globally. I don’t think Australia falls into that category considering their monetary resources, player numbers and population.
October 24th 2012 @ 1:40pm
Campbell Watts said | October 24th 2012 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
Nothing wrong with an easy root Marcus!!
October 24th 2012 @ 8:16am
chief247 said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:16am | Report comment
“why DID the NZRU put money into Harris only to leave him unable to even get into a super rugby team?”
simple. If you don’t have form/talent then you don’t get considered. Things aren’t handed out to you on a plate as they do in Australia.
October 24th 2012 @ 9:48pm
Post said | October 24th 2012 @ 9:48pm | Report comment
Then Australia took the gamble on him and further developed to his skills by playing him in Super Rugby, and he now represents his new country. If, as many of you say, Harris still wouldn’t see a black jersey anyway, why do you even care?
October 24th 2012 @ 7:56am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Are the junior all blacks paid by the NZRU?
If so you might have a point, if they’re not (as I think the schoolboys and age group teams aren’t) then you don’t have a claim at all. Yoi can’t own a player just because they played rugby in your country.
October 24th 2012 @ 8:05am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Just a point of terminology, the Junior All Blacks are the NZ 2nd XV, what used to be called NZ A.
As to Harris (or Kepu) playing for NZ in age group before representing Australia, it’s essentially an arbitrary point that the IRB has set the eligibilty cut off. At present it’s only selection in the Senior national side (eg All Blacks, Wallabies), second national side (Junior AB’s, Australia A) and the national 7′s team that ‘binds’ a player to a country, but the IRB could just as easily included national age group sides (as FIFA does).
October 24th 2012 @ 8:17am
Terry Tavita said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:17am | Report comment
“but the IRB could just as easily included national age group sides (as FIFA does).”
if the irb did that then the pi teams will never be competitive at international level..cook islands has only 12k people, tonga 100k and samoa 180k..
October 24th 2012 @ 8:28am
EJ said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:28am | Report comment
thats is where this rule gets complicated. Its fine in football as there are many competitive teams but not in rugby.
It was intended for certain countries but now its been taken advantage by the tier 1 countires.
Maybe the IRB should should exclude these eligibility rules for countries inside the top 5.
October 24th 2012 @ 8:29am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Yeah, I think that’s a big consideration.
Personally, if the IRB is gonna retain the grandparent clause I’d say Tier 1 nations should be excluded. And I’d also like to see the amendment (that NZ & Aus supported) which would have allowed a player to ‘step down’ from a tier 1 to a tier 2 nation (so a player like Sosene Anesi or Sam Tuitoupou who is no longer required by the AB’s would be able to represent Tonga/Samoa). Though if that were implemented, I’d say there should be a cut off (eg no more than 10 tests played – to see someone like Jerry Collins or Mils Muliaina turning out would be absurd).
October 24th 2012 @ 8:34am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Both sensible suggestions. Now, define “tier 1″ (I assume it is Six-Nations and Rugby-Championship).
October 24th 2012 @ 8:41am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Thats what I was thinking, yeah – with the possible exception of Italy.
October 24th 2012 @ 8:25am
Red Kev said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Does Australia even have an ‘A’ side anymore? I have this nasty feeling we don’t.
That the IRB is setting the point arbitrarily – senior side not age group, 3 years not 5, grandparent not parent – is just another reason to remove all those details from the IRB’s purview. Make it citizenship based, one country only then let the individual nations get their own house in order (SA selects players from Europe whereas NZ and AUS won’t). I don’t really believe the IRB is competent enough to do more than that.
I still am curious as to the match payment issue though. If the NZRU has paid them to play (i.e. made them professional employees of the NZRU) then that would certainly add weight to the argument that they should not be able to represent other countries. This is a professional sport now, if you’re not paying them you can’t complain when they go looking to get paid elsewhere.
October 24th 2012 @ 8:30am
Greg said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Harris did play ITM cup and u20s which are both financed by the NZRU
October 24th 2012 @ 8:43am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:43am | Report comment
I don’t there’s been a Junior AB fixture for a few years either.
Financial considerations meant the NZRU struggles to afford both an NZ Maori side and a Junior AB side and its been leaning toward the Maori for the last few years. And playing for NZ Maori doesn’t count towards IRB eligibility otherwise the likes of Riki Flutey and Sean Maitland would have been bound.
October 24th 2012 @ 12:12pm
atlas said | October 24th 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Yes they are: http://www.nzrpa.co.nz/player_services/collective_agreement
Paid NZ$3500 per week when the team is together.
October 24th 2012 @ 8:09am
David Lord said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:09am | Report comment
How did Cape Town born Dan Vickerman play for both the South African and Australian under 21s.
October 24th 2012 @ 8:14am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:14am | Report comment
Is that a serious question?
October 24th 2012 @ 8:44am
Brett McKay said | October 24th 2012 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Because he moved to Australia aged 20, Lordy. Qualified for the Wallabies with a grandparent. Clyde Rathbone was the same..
October 24th 2012 @ 10:06am
Spiro Zavos said | October 24th 2012 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Mark, I would make the point that care needs to be made about this suggestion that any national representation would automatically qualify and disqualify players from various national teams.
I think it would lead to warehousing on a major scale with school-boys warehoused and so on.
Also, the travelling ethic of rugby needs to be sustained and protected. Young players often travel the world to get rugby and life
experience. This is good for them and good for rugby. If they are good enough they are sometimes promoted to a national age team of the country they are visiting.
A notable example of this sort of experience is Martin Johnson who represented the NZ Juniors on a sabbatical in the King Country learning the secondrowers trade from the master, Sir Colin Meads.
The NZers wanted him to stay on. But he went back to England to arguably the greatest career of an England captain and player. He did marry a NZ woman, so male children and grand-children will be eligible for England and NZ, I suppose.
October 24th 2012 @ 10:44am
Funk said | October 24th 2012 @ 10:44am | Report comment
So what his daughters won’t? I know you may be surprised Spiro, but some girls/women actually play sport! God help us if they ever get into politics:) shut the gate a bit late on that one!
October 24th 2012 @ 11:18am
Jerry said | October 24th 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
His daughters could probably play for England….
October 24th 2012 @ 3:17pm
AussieKiwi said | October 24th 2012 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
That is insulting to Kiwi women, they are much tougher than that