IRB shouldn't restrict players to one country

It wasn't unanimous, Dave - NZ, Aus & England all voted for a proposal that would allow players to 'step down' from a tier 1 union to a lower one under certain circumstances. It was voted down, but not unanimous.

And neither does Lund because he's average. He wouldn't get into the France or England squads.

The IRB had a meeting about this and the voting was unanimous in favor of restricting players to one country. Sucks I know....I think they should restrict it to only being able to switch allegiance to play for an eligible tier 2 nation like the Islands after a three year period of not being capped. The Island nations would be very beneficial from this and could field very competitive teams more so than they have now IMO.

Hence, many decide to pursue careers as professional rugby players in Europe, the UK or even Japan, as do many NZ and some Australian players. Unlike the Kiwis and Aussies, they don't forfeit their eligibility for national representation in doing so.

samoa will never adopt rugby league..it's rugby union country..rugby union is part of the culture and landscape in the islands..

if course they're happy with the status quo..they pick and choose who they want, to including p.i players playing rugby in nz and australia..sosene anesi's and david smith's international careers were practically over before they started when they were picked to play a few minutes in the black jersey..

no..the nzru allows the super franchise to recruit a maximum of two international (not necessarily p.i) players..it's not mandatory and the franchises choose instead to recruit from their provinces and academies..the point is, we don't have any players in super rugby (fotualii and perenise are going to europe next year) and p.i nations - god bless those boys who choose to play out of their skin for samoa - do not have a fraction of the luxuries top rugby nations have at their disposal..

NZ allows PI players to play for Super Rugby franchises without requiring they be eligible for the All Blacks.

I dont understand your point. PI players are free to play in any professional competition, that doesn't impact on their eligibility for international representation.

nz and australia have five fully professional super rugby franchises..p.i nations have none..there's your disadvantage right there..

One more point - a few people on this thread have said that, were it permitted, the richer nations clubs would sign a guy like Carter with the intention of him becoming eligible for that nation. Clubs are separate from the national unions and would generally prefer if their players DON'T play international rugby as it overlaps with the club season and is yet another injury risk for their investment. One of the big reasons SH players are so sought after is that they available for the entire season, unlike many of their NH counterparts. Now, it's entirely possible the union may look to provide extra incentives, but that's another story. The clubs aren't gonna do it on their own.

If you look at the selection of Schwalger in isolation, you could mke a case - but when you consider the same thing happened with a bunch of non PI players in many positions*, it's far far more likely it's just a case of Henry selecting a guy to have a look at him in the AB environment Sosene Anesi, Ben Smith, Casey Laulala, Kevin Senio, Angus McDonald, Clarke Dermody, Saimone Taumopeau, Scott Hamilton, Kevin O'Neill, Hika Elliott, Scott Waldrom, George Whitelock, Tanerau Latimer, Jamie McIntosh, Alby Mathewson, Wyatt Crockett, Mike Delaney, Benson Stanley, Bryn Evans That's just from memory and there'll be plenty of others, but all of those guys have been tried during Henry's tenure and dropped with less than 5 tests, some with only 1 match. Some of them have dual eligibility, most don't. Henry selects a lot of players - he's blooded an average of something like 9-10 players a year, some of them are gonna be of PI ancestry, some are only gonna have a handful of appearances and there's gonna be some crossover.

Actually, we are talking about nationality here, not race. When you describe a Fijian Australian, (Race then Nationality). Another example of this is an African American. Because being American is a nationality and not a race you never hear of an American African. The NZ Maori is a race based team, not the same as a nationality based team. I understand a person can have affection for two countries, this should not however allow them to play for two countries. I persoanlly have an affection for and qualify to play for 5 countries, however, I am Australian, my past is here, my identity is here and my future is here. Also I am a crap player and no country wants me.

Not the same thing at all. One's nationality is an identity that they carry for life, marriage is a decision one makes at some point in time. When you represent your country you represent your identity.

Bush, When Sheek says, "“Today, many more of the Wallabies top 40 owe their heritage to either Fiji, Samoa or Tonga. What has caused this? Is it a simple migration progression, or did professional rugby accelerate the progression?” I think I see his point, or at least understand why the question is being asked. A contibutor to the change in racial heritage of the Wallabies can be found by discussing this point. As we evolve as a society perhaps we can learn something from deconstructing this change.

I think we can all agree that Sheek did himself a disservice yesterday. What he said had no intellectual backing and was offensive to many fine Australians. However, we all say silly things at times. i think we should now let it rest.

Sheek, I have read your post with a cool head and believe this quote " as long as they make an effort to blend into what might be deemed the predominantly Australian way – English speaking, European culture, christian religion, democratic way of life." is offensive. Your way of life is not the "Australian way of life". Each person in Australia has a right to live how they choose as long as it is within the laws of Australia. Notions of assimilation being a superior model to multi culturalism are grating at best.

I like it Soapit. The six year rule looks like a good idea to me. The only concern is that it could become the ' thin edge'. Six years could morph into five then 2 then 6 months. Other criteria need to be in place. Imagine Jonah coming out for his ancestral nation! Imagine Samo coming out for Fiji. It could make for a culturally rich world cup. It needs control. It can't be a wishy washy case of second guessing your nationhood after missing out on power nation selection eg RL 'world' cup. But these talents should be expressed. By the way slightly off topic but instead of a play off btw 3rd and 4th each world cup there could be a Baa Baas type game between the best of the rest- or a SH Baa Baas versus NH Baa Baas. Such a game would have real ratings compared with watching 'also rans' play.

bolo sack, I assume you're responding to me? If so, yes I agree with you mostly. I'm taken aback a little by the reference to white people not understanding culture, but I'll move past it ;) Certainly the Tongan's and Samoan's I went to school with were very proud of their homeland and indeed, depsite being born in Australia, would have loved to have played for their ancestral homeland. But that doesn't mean players like TPN, Salesi Ma'afu and Wycliff Palu aren't Australians and are somehow less entitled to play for the Wallabies. It also certainly doesn't make them mercenaries or people drawn only to Australia for the money on offer for playing professional rugby. They were born here, they happen to be good at Rugby and now they play for the Wallabies. Isn't that enough?

sheek, I'm interested in your belief that you haven't been caught out in any way. You said: "I suspect for many of them, but not all, the decision to play rugby in either Australia or New Zealand was an opportunistic one, not because they believe in the country itself." I have just proven to you that it was not a "choice", either opportunistic or otherwise. They were, almost to the man, born here. So yes, you have been caught out making an incorrect statement. You've also said: "Today, many more of the Wallabies top 40 owe their heritage to either Fiji, Samoa or Tonga. What has caused this? Is it a simple migration progression, or did professional rugby accelerate the progression?" How could professional rugby have played a part when they were all born here? Even the youngest were still born before 1995, which means that when their parents opted to come to this fine country they were not coming for the professional Rugby Union prospects... I'm not picking on you mate, and it certainly is an emotive discussion, one that is probably unnecessary on this forum. However, I can assure you that I have read each post, & every word of each post, with a cool head, and I am still confident in my original comments and position.