Pacific rugby gets a yellow card from IRB

Here´s reaction today from the President of the Oceania Rugby Unions : "Rugby Union's Oceania chief has accused his Celtic counterparts of running scared by refusing to tweak international eligibility rules to strengthen Pacific Island teams. Federation of Oceania Rugby Unions (FORU) president Harry Schuster blamed Ireland, Wales and Scotland for blocking a move to change current laws, which ban players who have represented one country ever taking the field for another. Schuster said the law meant players such as former All Blacks Jerry Collins and Chris Masoe could not play for their birthplace, Samoa, even though their international careers with New Zealand were effectively over. The Samoa-based official said he was shattered the International Rugby Board (IRB) late last month rejected a New Zealand-sponsored move to relax the rules. "I can't [say] how devastated and disappointed we are at this decision," he said. "There are quite a number of players who will be just as gutted." Schuster said the Celtic nations mounted the strongest opposition to the proposal because they feared the challenge full strength Pacific teams would pose for them. "They were just looking for excuses to stop our proposal because the fact of the matter is, they are so scared of how powerful we'll become if it goes through," he said. Kevin Senio, who is ineligible to play for any country but New Zealand after winning a sole Test cap for the All Blacks with a 20 minute appearance off the bench in 2005, said he would love to play for Samoa. "As a player that could have been available for Samoa I'm frustrated, the idea of playing for Samoa would've been something special," he said. "I'm keen to see it happen and will endeavour to see the rule changed even long after my playing career." AFP

Indonesia are good at badminton ... and they have lots of islands ... that are in the pacific .. lets include them too ....

Nationality and citizenship actually have nothing to do with which country you can play rugby for. The country you are elegible for depends on where you, your parents or grandparents were born, and having lived in a country for 36 consecutive months. "Who establishes the eligibility criteria in Rugby Union? The IRB will continue to establish the criteria by reference to which a Player’s eligibility to play for the senior or next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of a Union or a Union’s senior National Representative Sevens Team will be determined. Citizenship of a country and/or whether a Player holds a passport of a particular country are not, of themselves, determinative in identifying which Union a Player is eligible to represent. This will be determined solely in accordance with the IRB’s eligibility criteria." The IRB have taken this stance as different countries have different citizenship rules, and they believe one rule should apply to all, hence the born in or 36 month rules.

The rule is the following: "REGULATION 8. ELIGIBILITY TO PLAY FOR NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE TEAMS 8.1 Subject to Regulation 8.2, a Player may only play for the senior fifteen-aside National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team and the senior National Representative Sevens Team of the Union of the country in which: (a) he was born; or (b) one parent or grandparent was born; or (c) he has completed thirty six consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing." You can see the full document at: http://www.fira-aer-rugby.com/upload/file/1287399004_gfirbregulation8_883.PDF

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

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.

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.

neither is NZ Maori a country but they play in the PNC I like the Hawaii idea. There are regular outrigger canoe competitions between island nations and I believe hawaii competes in those races.

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.

Um ... I dont think Hawaii ever competed against Tonga, Samoa and Fiji. Hawaii isnt a country anyway ... it is just a state of the US .. so any matches they are involved in would not be tests.

where you are born and raised is something that is beyond your control..they all Samoan mate..live with it!

I reckon Hawaii should be added to the mix. In the mid 90s, they were let into the (Pacific) Three Nations for a couple of years with predictable results. But if we were to allow more Island sides in then Hawaii should be one of them!

You're correct about the amazing level of success Manu Samoa has had with their seven's team. Amazing what a combination of talent, expertise and continual high performance competition can do. Exactly what Samoa, Tonga and Fiji needs - more quality Tests in IRB sanctioned windows. It's no secret that the more you play quality opposition, the better you become. The issue with the All Blacks never playing in Samoa is more an emotional one – we may recognize why because of the financial stuff but it’s the fact that NZ is Samoa’s closest friend and they could have played here at least once. It would just be awesome – something Samoans would really appreciate – but yeah all about the money. I agree with the sentiment, it would be a fantastic gesture by the NZRU to have the All Blacks play in the Islands. Even as a once off.

This competition, forseen by Canberra, could become as big as the RWC, with Qualifying in South America, Africa and Oceania. And would allow the creation of a NH counterpart with North Americans, Asians and Europeans. The competition calendar would be a full 4-year cycle.

Kovana, you mean "I" not "We". It's fine to identify yourself with a particular culture irrespective of where you were born. If you want to promote your Samoan culture (by heritage), that's fine too, wherever you're living, be it in NZ, Samoa or elsewhere. But when you insist that all NZers with Samoan last names are really Samoan (like you did in the thread where you claimed that four of the Barbarians are Samoan) you're simply dreaming racist dreams. Wake up and realise that not all NZers with Samoan ancestry are, or want to be, the same as you.

GavinH, I also liked this one on "IRB committed to Pumas’ daunting step up": David of Canberra said: In between the RWC, there should be a Southern Hemisphere tournament between Aus, NZ, SA, Argentina, Samoa, Fiji and Tonga. Sure, the island nations and Argentina won’t be as strong as the big three, but consistent and continuous exposure to the Big Three will improve their play over time. The improvement by Fiji at the 2007 RWC, the results by Samoa in RWCs overall suggest that if they play more often against tough opposition, they will get better. One of the reasons that Australian rugby is considered as a world power in rugby terms is because, despite a small player base proportional to national population, we have had to play the All Blacks again and again and again. Of course, what about Italy’s lack of success in the Six Nations despite being exposed to France, England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales – well, given the lack of overall succes in the RWC by the Northern Hemisphere, you can’t argue that Italy’s opposition is giving the opportunity to develop to a higher level.

Good idea. Of course NZ and Aus would need to be 'A' Teams (or Maori for NZ) I think there should be a focus on PNG so would be great to bring them into regular competition. Even though they are currently well behind they have quite a few league players that could be converted to union. One of the underappreciated benefits of putting the likes of Samoa on a self sufficient footing is that the iRB can then focus its resources on the next level (much like the EU focussing on Ireland and Spain for subsidies in its early years). I would definately focus on PNG next as the other nations are unfortunately so small (population wise) that there is a likely ceiling to their potential.

Actually, one idea that comes into my mind would be to hold a Oceania Cup on every even year, with two divisions. Division I - two groups of 3 teams, using IRB rankings (A - 1, 4, 6; B - 2, 3, 5). All teams would play within their groups plus one game against a team of the other group, using IRB rankings (1-2, 3-4, 5-6). The group champions play the final. The group last places play to decide who stays in D-I and who plays against D-II champions to a place in D-I. For example, using today's rankings, Division I would be as such: Group A - NZL, SAM, PNG; Group B - AUS, FIJ, TGA. And the intergroup matches would be: NZL-AUS; SAM-FIJ; PNG-TGA. Division II - two groups of 4. all teams would play within their groups plus one game against a team of the other (NZL-AUS; SAM-FIJ; PNG-TGA). The group champions play the final. Cups would be held in a rotation basis between AUS, NZL and the Pacific Islands. Both Divisions would be played at the same time at the same venues.

fiji sevens was back this year after a 10 year break quote: Rauca, along with countless other cities around the globe, are counting down to 2011 when the contracts for the current IRB Sevens World Series legs expires. “We hope Suva gets the recognition it deserves and has the chance to get back on the IRB 7s circuit if there is an expansion after 2011,” adds Rauca.

South Africa is, by a massive marging, the biggest revenue source for SANZAR. I'd guess it is also the one with the largest growth potential given gdp growth and integration.