The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Island nations the winners after IRB changes

Roar Guru
30th July, 2014
Advertisement
Roar Guru
30th July, 2014
149
2241 Reads

Winds of change are drifting over international rugby, with the eye of the storm centred on the Pacific.

Images of Samoa and Fiji defeating Wales and Tonga gallantly beating France at World Cups gone by could be all the more frequent with a controversial law change introduced by the IRB made known to the public in recent weeks.

A raft of players previously capped by the likes of Australia and New Zealand could be pulling on different jerseys altogether when the Rugby World Cup kicks off in a little over a years time.

As part of the eligibility for the 2016 Olympics, the IRB has recently made an amendment to their previously rigid eligibility criteria. The changes allow for a player to represent a second country provided they hold a passport for that country, haven’t played rugby for their original nation for three years and compete in an Olympic qualifying event.

This could be a single IRB World Sevens Tournament in 2015. Importantly, this law change will come into effect in time for players to switch allegiance and compete in the 2015 Rugby World Cup.

A number of countries, including New Zealand, had previously lobbied the IRB for a stand-down period to be introduced to allow players, notably Pacific Island players, to represent another nation on the international stage if their initial international career had ended. Predictably these moves were vetoed with the home unions in particular fervently voting against it.

The law changes could prove a game changer in 2015. The big winners will likely be the Pacific Island nations, who could benefit from the addition of some top drawer talent to their squads. On the flipside of that, the Scottish who have Samoa in their pool will suddenly realise that their already tough job of qualifying for the knock-out phase just got immensely harder. 

The flower of Scotland could be the first to feel the full impact of this global rugby climate change.

Advertisement

And as if the Tier 1 sides in the group of death (Australia, England and Wales) thought their road to the final could have possibly been any harder, the winner of the pool will now likely face a Samoan side strengthened by a number of ex-All Blacks and Wallabies.

It is understood that from 2018-19 the international stand-down period will switch to three years rather than the existing 18 months, a nominal change in all reality and one which won’t stop the unusual prospect of a player appearing in one World Cup for one country and the next for another.

How’s this for a list of names that we could see back in international rugby in different colours for 2015.

Samoa: Isaia Toeava, Lelia Masaga, Rudi Wulf, Neemia Tialata, John Afoa, Casey Lualala, Benson Stanley, Chris Masoe, Mils Muliaina, John Schwalger, Kevin Senio.

Tonga:  Sam Tuitupou, Anthony Tuitavake, Mark Gerrard,  Sitaleki Timani, George Smith, Doug Howlett and Saimone Taumoepeau.

Fiji: Joe Rokocoko, Salesi Ma’afu and Sitiveni Sivivatu.

Samoa, who always possess powerful and talented backs and loose forwards but who sometimes lack international-class players up front could be bolstered in the front row by three former All Blacks in Neemia Tialata, John Afoa and John Schwalger. Impressive stuff indeed.

Advertisement

Could the Wallaby front row be the next to feel the sudden effect of this global rugby climate change?

It is not likely to be only the Pacific Islands that benefit from the law change however. The British sides in particular, where a number of players in the Antipodes still either hold or can obtain passports from, could also be benefactors.

There have been whispers that Steffon Armitage, who has been in sensational form for Toulon in recent seasons, could make himself available for France. Armitage holds dual citizenship after spending a portion of his childhood living in France.

He has been overlooked for England, since moving to Toulon, as a result of England’s strict domestic selection policy. What a kick in the teeth that could prove for England if the talented flanker now turns his focus to France.

So winds of change are on the horizon, but are these winds necessarily good for the international game?

Do we really want to see players use an international team as their plan B if their plan A is no longer an option to them. Perhaps this could actually have a detrimental effect on the Island nations with players choosing to ignore the Islands in favour of first attempting to make the All Blacks or Wallabies. Do we want Pacific Island players treating the Islands sides as a last resort rather than their first?

What about players that do go on to represent a second country. What of the intel they carry with them and what about the investment that their initial national side has put into them?

Advertisement

There are clearly pros and cons involved with this new law change. One thing is certain though, ultimately an international side wants a player representing them that has that nation in their blood, in their heart.

International sport is about giving it everything for your country, going the extra mile and when the chips are down finding some more. If a player is playing for their second choice team, yes they will give it their all, but will they go to those darkest of places?

Do they have that desperation to win, do they feel the pressure to win and the immense lows when they don’t? It only takes a player to be one per cent off their game and their side could ultimately pay the price.

This is where I believe England have got it wrong selection wise in recent years. Sure Riki Flutey and Shontayne Hape would have given it their all for the English side, but did they find that little bit extra like they would undoubtedly had if wearing black?

Make no mistake, this recent rule change could greatly alter the global rugby landscape. What promises to be an already fascinating World Cup just got that little bit more interesting…

close