On Monday my article took a look at the extraordinary week that was in regards to the international eligibility storm that has raged in the rugby headlines of both hemispheres.
Now the spotlight will turn and shine on some of the individual cases (some damaging, some nothing more than a storm in a tea cup) that have involved the international eligibility rules.
This article will also discuss which unions are engaging in that dirty ‘P’ word (poaching) that’s been thrown around among administrators and fans of major rugby playing nations in recent times.
Before I get into the nuts and bolts of some so-called ‘poaching’ cases, it’s important to actually understand what the term means in regards to international rugby.
For the purpose of this article, it will be loosely defined as any selection scenario where the selecting country has to reference the international eligibility rules to justify the individual’s inclusion in their national squad.
What the media and us fans make a ‘big deal’ out of has shaped this poor definition and it unfortunately results in individuals and unions being criticised over certain selections that really shouldn’t have to be looked at twice.
For the record, my own definition of poaching is where a country makes a selection that may adhere to the IRB’s international eligibility rules, but when looking at the individual’s circumstances/history it becomes apparent that the selection runs in the face of the spirit and credibility of the international game.
At this point I’d also like to make you aware that this article will look at a wide range of cases that have been associated with the weakened definition of poaching, but again for the record, this author might not necessarily agree with said case being labelled as an example of poaching.
Ok, now that the disclaimers are out of the way, to answer the question above in short (who is poaching?), everyone is (remember the loose definition). Of the IRB’s 17 high performance nations, there might be two cleanskins in the bunch (Argentina and Romania).
Of the 15 remaining nations, history tells us that all have dabbled in the practice of poaching to varying degrees over time.
Australia has had a significant amount of the mud slung in its direction over the last week with Steve Hansen unleashing on his Tran-Tasman rivals following his team’s 18-all draw against the Wallabies.
No doubt some of it stuck with almost all of our points being scored by a kiwi who’s spent two years in Australia and qualifies to play for his adopted homeland due to his grandmother being a dinky-dye Aussie. Furthermore, it was only in 2008 that he was lining up for New Zealand’s world champion under 20’s team as a 19 year old.
When we look at Wallabies from the past decade, it becomes apparent that we do have a history of selecting players who have represented other countries at junior level.
Current Wallaby squad member, Sekope Kepu represented New Zealand at under 17, 19 and 21 levels despite being born in Sydney. South African natives Dan Vickerman and Clyde Rathbone have also played for the Wallabies following involvement in junior Bok representative sides.
A quick look at the birth places of current and past Wallabies uncovers a number of players who began life overseas. Some like Digby Ioane moved to Australia well before they started to seriously kick around a Gilbert, while others like Sitaleki Timani started calling Australia home in their late teenage years after showing a significant amount of football ability.
So it appears there may be something behind Hansen’s rant, but are Steve’s remarks shattering a glasshouse of hypocrisy that he’s sitting in like John O’Neill would have you believe?
For mine, two of the more recent blaring examples of All Black ‘poaching’ are the Sivivatu and Lauaki cases. Both were born in the Pacific Islands, represented the ‘Lions style’ combined Pacific Island team in 2004 and were then selected for the All Blacks the following year.
Sitiveni Sivivatu was born in Fiji and didn’t move to New Zealand until he was 17, well after showing his potential as a young rugby player. He went on to earn 45 caps and score 29 tries for the All Blacks between 2005 and 2011.
At the age of 13, Sione Lauaki moved to New Zealand (from his native Tonga) a little earlier than his PI team mate. He went on to represent the All Blacks 18 times between 2005 and 2008.
Both Sivivatu and Lauaki were capped by the Pacific Islands team three times during their southern hemisphere tour in 2004. At the time these weren’t recognised as test caps (hence their ability to go on and represent the All Blacks), however this has since been updated.
Both players faced the Haka on that 2004 tour and (fun fact) both have accumulated at least one test try (2 in the case of Sivivatu) against the mighty All Blacks.
There was a backlash from the Pacific rugby community following their selection in the 2005 All Blacks squad. It was suggested that this Pacific Islands team had been used as an All Black development tool for players to play at an international standard of rugby.
This lead to PI games in 2008 (and will again be the case if they tour in the future) being included as test caps to ensure that players who are selected for the Pacific Islands team can then only be selected for the Pacific nation that they are eligible for.
Go a little further into the history books and we find a case of the New Zealand Rugby Union picking off a true blue Aussie in the form of scrum half Steve Devine. Born and bred in Australia and representing his country of birth at under 21 level, Devine moved to Auckland where he spent the required 3 years to qualify for the All Blacks on residency grounds. He went on to earn 10 caps for the All Blacks and was included in the 30 man squad that finished third at the 2003 World Cup.
Some one-eyed Aussie supporters could also mount a case for the evergreen Brad Thorn following his 14 caps for Queensland and eight caps for Australia in rugby league.
Thorn was born in New Zealand and spent the first eight years of his life in the land of the long white cloud before moving to Australia.
After moving across the ditch he took up league and the rest, as they say, is history. After beginning his professional league career with the Broncos in 1994, Thorn switched code and national allegiances in 2001 when he signed with the Crusaders.
Just like Australia, there also seems to be quite a number of All Black representatives born overseas.
As well as three of the four names listed above, recent stars like Collins, So’oialo, Rokocoko, Kaino, Toeava, Franks and now Kerr Barlow would all have been eligible to represent another country as they were born outside of the country they ended up giving their allegiances to.
And like Australia, some foreign born All Blacks came to New Zealand early in life and developed through their exceptional system, while some made the move much later.
When looking at the six powers in the north, much of the ‘poaching’ is done using long range missiles that are landing all over the southern hemisphere.
Argentina has long been a hunting ground for Italian raids with their national captain and arguably the best number eight in the northern hemisphere headlining the list of Argentine born Azzuri.
While the ANZAC’s pick off Pacific Island talent from close range, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa are not immune of the advances from the home nations. Wales number eight Toby Faletau was born in Tonga but moved to Wales as a seven year old so we can’t really blame him or the dragons for who he decided to pin his allegiances to.
Boom centre Manu Tuilagi was born in Samoa, the country that his two older brothers represent(ed), however he decided to turn his back on royal blue for white after seven years in England.
Now Mako Vunipola is set to make his international debut for England after being called into England’s elite player squad.
Despite being born in New Zealand to Tongan parents, if Fijian coach Inoke Male is to be believed, Vunipola represents the beginning of a flood of Pacific Island eligible players who will switch allegiances to countries like England and France due to the money on offer.
In the last five or so years, England has seemed to develop a love affair with South Africa born players with numerous examples of potential Boks switching their allegiances to the lily whites after reaching the required three years of residency.
Matt Stevens, Hendre Fourie, Mouritz Botha, Nick Abendanon and Brad Barritt are all examples of this phenomenon. Richardt Strauss’s selection in the most recent Irish squad has added weight to the claims of northern hemisphere teams poaching players from South Africa.
England’s love affair with South Africa may only have been exceeded by the one they have with New Zealand.
In more recent times you could even further define it as their love affair with New Zealand rugby league representatives which has included the selection of previous Kiwi players Henry Paul, Lesley Vainikolo and Shontayne Hape. There have been other recent examples of New Zealand born and bred rugby talent playing for England such as Dylan Hartley, Mark van Gisbergen and Riki Flutey.
The fact is that for all the ‘poaching’ that the New Zealand are supposed to do, no rugby nation gives more to the rest then they do. Countless examples can be found from the top tier nations to the developing rugby nations.
Just this week Sean Maitland has pledged his allegiances to the Scots despite being a solid domestic player that just hasn’t been able to crack an All Blacks squad.
Although there are examples of All Blacks who were born in the Pacific nations, there are many more examples of New Zealand born players representing the islands as a result of the heritage based eligibility rule.
Australia is another country that supposedly takes so much from the rugby world, but when you look a little closer you’ll find that we’ve given a lot like our cousins across the Tasman.
Brent Cockbain, brother of legendary Australian blindside Matt was ironically first called up to the Welsh squad by none other than Steve Hansen during his reign as Wales’ national coach.
Others like Steve Devine to New Zealand, Luke McClean and Craig Gower to Italy, Nathan Hines and Dan Parks to Scotland and David Paice to England are recent examples of Australian born and bred players who have switched allegiances to another top tier nation.
To further leap to the defence of Australia and New Zealand who arguably cop more criticism than most other rugby nations (even if it might be coming from our other ANZAC partner), both are multi cultural societies. Australia in particular, with the most recent census uncovering the fact that one in 5 residents in 2011 was born overseas.
Therefore, seven of our current squad of 30 being born overseas is almost a perfect reflection of our society. Furthermore, a significant amount of migration to Australia has come from New Zealand. Due to this trend and some associated societal issues, I don’t expect the number of New Zealand born Wallabies to be decreasing any time soon.
Like Australia experiencing significant amounts of migration from New Zealand, the land of the long white cloud has experienced similarly impressive amounts of migration from the Pacific Islands. Again this is a trend that I can’t see reversing and there will continue to be a good number of first and second generation Islanders playing for the All Blacks.
Due to these demographic factors, there’s a certain point where it should be acceptable for the Wallabies to select a Kiwi and the All Blacks to select an Islander and but no doubt it’s time the rules were put under the microscope to ensure credibility and fairness going ahead.
Some of the legitimate examples above represent the tip of the iceberg in terms of international poaching.
From this it’s clear to see that despite the finger pointing that’s gone on over the last week, just about all serious rugby nations have involved themselves in this questionable practice.
Since professionalism, the situation that we’re left with was always going to be hard to contain under the current rule structure as the larger unions have added financial incentives to international caps and players have spread themselves around the globe in search of the best deal.
It has resulted in players switching allegiances after notching up the 3 short years of required residency or taking a quick look at the family tree to see if there’s a fall back plan should they not be able to crack their native squad.
The rules have left us with some great scenarios for international rugby like Wellington born Lome Fa’atau proudly representing Samoa, the country of his heritage and the birthplace of his parents.
But the more publicised eligibility issues tend to be the negative ones, where a stronger rugby nation is profiting from selecting a player from a nation with a similar standing or, in the more ugly scenarios, a weaker nation.
It’s also important to note that all of these unions are operating within the rules. It might not be within the spirit of international play but the rules are clear for everyone to see and none of the cases above are examples of breaches of these rules.
However, it’s become apparent that the eligibility goalposts need to be moved to ensure the international game nurtures a culture of good spirit and fairness.
It’s no easy task but the game’s governing body must make some changes to these eligibility rules. The result has to ensure the happy stories of players switching allegiances (Lome to Samoa) continue but the more questionable selections by rugby superpowers are limited.
The credibility of the international game must be maintained and it can’t become a club league-like situation where players flock to where the money is.
Fiji’s Coach Male is making some scary predictions that, if true, will ensure that the eligibility storm will continue to rage on into the future.
I cringe to think what this could mean for the international game, which is one of rugby’s greatest assets.
Ai Rui Sheng
Guest
That racist Gerrymander, aka IRB, which gives more votes to the UK than all of the SH combined!!!!!!! And 52 times the votes of brown eyed Fijians or Tongans.
Mike
Guest
You are quite entitled to spit the dummy over it, just don't expect us to care. Given that we have (apparently) more registered players than New Zealand, I don't think we'll have any trouble filling a national 3rd tier comp. But if we don't, especially at the start, and people from other countries want to move here and try their hand, they will be welcome to do so. And I wouldn't get too precious with your objections - the day that Australia doesn't need to take players from other countries is also the day we will start to beat you consistently. If I were you, I would be happy that Australia's development system is so far below yours that we end up taking the odd player off you.
Rob9
Guest
You’re missing points Ryan. As soon as you can understand that what this all boils down to is personal opinion over what each individual thinks is right and wrong we might be able to establish something that resembles a civilised debate. All of this is our own beliefs from the Harris case, to the cases of these 2 PI born (and rep’ed) players and everything in between. It doesn’t make me more right and you more wrong or vice versa. Technically speaking the only thing that’s right is the law and that makes all of these IE cases ‘moot’. That’s the ‘FACTS’ Ryan and something you seem to be struggling to understand. I listen to what others think is right (including you until you’re tone became irrational) and all I expect is others to listen to what I think is right, not that they take my line of thinking. It’s ok for people to take different stances on issues and it’s not the end of the world when someone criticises the NZRU over a decision they’ve made. Ryan I wrote in my original article about New Zealand’s contribution to world rugby and in particular the PI’s. So maybe I have stopped to think about it…
Ryan
Guest
If anyone is attacking characters Rob it is you no one else! You can defend your "moot point" all you like it does not however validate it in my opinion. You can sing shoulda coulda wouldas all day. But let's stick to the FACTS shall we. At the time the Pacific team had absoloutely no bearing on international eligibility so your argument is pointless. NZ had everyright to field players in that team as did Australia. The only mockery I see here at the moment is your incessant need to try and sully the NZRU by declaring that they should not have permitted AB eligible Pacific Islanders to represent their heritage at a time when their prescence in the composite side had again ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on eligibility. The NZRU did not demand their inclusion in the team they were selected on merit. I really don't care what you think is right as you clearly don't care what others think is right or wrong. So I'll leave it there, they were eligible to play and did so then they were selected for the ALL BLACKS why? Because their presence in that team had no bearing on their eligibility for any nation, do you understand that Rob69, they could both still have been picked for Tonga or Fiji but again that is a FACT that you are choosing to omit. Sivivatu I agree is a bit of a poach Lauaki most certainly not he was developed by the NZ system end of story! One could argue the Pacific team benefited from the New Zealand system, have you stopped to think of that? No I didn't think so!
yahyah
Guest
Fair enough then. But not one NZer raised this issue when Quade and Kepu first made the Wallabies. Why now? Does the fact that Harris has an Aussie grandmother make no difference to your theory? And also just to clear things up, i said the make up A bulk not THE bulk. And was also referring to a long line of Samoan ABs dating back decades. Apologies.
yahyah
Guest
Well my apologies. Much of your arguments were based around NZ rugby hence my assumption. But as to your list of players from SA, some of them have happily hung up their international boots. What you forget is that essentially, rugby is an occupation for these fellas and at a certain stage, theyll need to establish which offer would benefit them financially as they contemplate their post rugby future. They are not being lost. They were paid a fair amount throughout the years and have since given back to their respective Super teams and international teams. Samoan players on the other hand recieve a much smaller paycheck from NZRU hence why they commit to European rugby instead. They are not likely to face any financial problems if a handful of fringe Super rugby players switch to Samoa instead. This compensation fee will only involve more business heads and more politics. Thats exactly what rugby DOESNT need at the moment.
yahyah
Guest
Johnno you missed the point i made. I did not say they chose NZ or Wallabies because they make more money. If you had read my comment properly I said that as a result of playing for Samoa, the likes of Kahn and Anthony or Paul will be offered a much smaller pay check if they choose to remain in Super rugby. That way NZRU do not have to invest so much money on them if they do not benefit the ABs. That way people like you can see money being saved in your precious NZRUs pockets. Samoans have long been blessed by NZ so I have no disrespect for NZ. My point is simply that you shouldnt be complaining about losing players that werent likely to make thr AB lineup. NZRU spent much money developing them as they were obviously all aiming for the ABs. But when a player is certain he wont nake it then he'll find another alternative which NZRU will then recognise and spend less on them. Nothing wrong about it.
Mike
Guest
Good to hear that Clyde Rathbone is making a comeback. Don't know if he'll make it as far as Wallaby selection, but he will at least put our S15 players on notice that they have to harden up. In case anyone has forgotten, Rathbone learned his edge in South Africa, including as a national U21s rep, before he moved to Australia. :)
Rob9
Guest
I disagree but accept the point you make there Jerry.
Jerry
Guest
Perhaps, but it was also in the PI's interests to provide as competitive a team as possible in order to maximise revenue and make future fixtures. I'm not so sure that Sivivatu and Lauaki's presence was a negative for the PI's overall.
Rob9
Guest
Sure Jerry, if that's what path it would have taken. For the benefit of PI rugby the NZRU should have shown a bit of foresight and advertised an in house policy of not selecting players that represent the PI team before it was given test eligibility. As I said to Ryan below, this team deserved to be filled with players that had every intention of representing their specific island from the get go for their player development and the development of these unions. The fact that the IRB changed their test status suggests that their original stance was an error of judgement.
Rob9
Guest
Firstly Ryan, can we please get over this idea that an Australian expressing a point of view that involves some negativity about the NZRU is ‘forcing my view onto others’. I accept points of view that are different to my own and furthermore I accept that the majority won’t be changed (yours and Lippy’s included). But that doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to defend and express my own ideas. That is what we call debating and as I suggested to Lippy above, it’s a key element of what this site is built on. I find your suggestions otherwise as a back-door and subtle way of attacking character and it demonstrates poor form on your part. Now I’m well aware of the issues surrounding the selection of these two guys, including the events in the lead up. Can we just look at the big picture for a second. What I would have liked to have seen is the NZRU’s response to PI interest of the 2 players is them stating to Siv and Lauaki that despite the current non test status of PI games, in the interest of PI rugby the NZRU will not pick players who represent this combined team. This was the PI’s time to shine with this combined team receiving recognition that each individual island alone would never be able to achieve in the professional age. Clearly there was a lot of pride and passion associated with wearing this jersey and every single position in that squad deserved to go to guys who were prepared to represent their PI union. What transpired made a mockery of the system that aimed at raising funds and doing some good for the development of PI rugby. History now shows that the IRB saw this situation the same way as the change in PI test status is probably the most recent rule alteration that in some way involves eligibility. This argument may fall over at the first hurdle Ryan but so does every single other eligibility argument out there. As I said, Harris has an Australian grandmother…. Guess what’s happened at the first hurdle there… It doesn’t mean that it’s right and I’ll argue with every one-eyed Australian fan out there that we shouldn’t have picked him.
richard
Guest
Yahyah, I have just checked the make - up of the ab's EOYT squad, it is - 5 pacific islanders 8 maoris 17 europeans This is hardly an indication of samoans making up the "bulk of the team". Of course, with the likes of A.Savea and B.Tamifuna, among many others, coming through the ranks, thats bound to change sooner, rather than later.
Pogo
Guest
Sorry this drives me nuts. It is a moot point, not a mute point. But yeah at the time the PI game was considered as a barbarians type game, rather than a proper international.
Jutsie
Guest
I dont know my rugby history as well as you guys as Im too young to remember but what was the deal with frank bunce? didnt he play for samoa before NZ? Was he NZ born and developed in the NZ system or was he samoan born?
Jerry
Guest
Then you're really saying he shouldn't have played for the PI's.
Ryan
Guest
Your argument falls down at the first hurdle Rob and this is where I agree with Lippy and he with me it seems. At the time Lauaki played for the Pacific team it had absolutely NO bearing on eliginbility so it is in case a mute point. Let it go is that really that hard for you to grasp. It had no impact on who these players would eventually play for and as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions now. The NZRU and both players made sure that it would not affect their eligibility and if it had done, they would not have played in the matches. Again another FACT that you are omitting purely to sensationalize your article. So your debate are Lauaki is null and void and really does little for your argument whatsoever but that is just my opinion and I doubt you will agree as it can clearly bee seen from the tone of your replies you are trying to force your view onto others.
richard
Guest
Sorry mate, I do get a little hot under the collar on this subject, but I'm afraid you are missing the point. You mention these three players as mediocre; well even if this was the case,it's not relevant to my argument. It is about the PRINCIPLE. The point you, and a lot of the others are missing is that they are still nz players,regardless of their ability. They could have poached Steven Donald, and I would have been pissed, because he's still a nzer. Got it now? btw Samoans don't make up the bulk of the team - 4 of the 15 in the last test were samoan, if you extend that to the wider EOYT squad, which is predominantly maori and european,it is quite a small representation. Do agree with you on Ardie Savea though, he will be McCaw's long term replacement.
Rob9
Guest
I was using 2 examples of cases that I believe weren't right. If Lauaki hadn't represented the PI's I would have no issue with him going on to represent the AB's. Is that really so hard to see? It's why in my eyes (again this is all subjective) he shouldn't have played for the AB's. I have no issue that he was 13 when he moved to NZ, the age Cooper was (as you so often point out) when he moved to Australia. If Cooper spent his first 13 years in one of the PI's, moved here then went on to represent the Pacific Islands before their tests were sanctioned then I wouldn't agree we should pick him under those circumstances. I don't care if it was England, New Zealand, Australia or Argentina involved, it was wrong. There should be more respect for the PI jersey and their development then that. And I agree there are cases of Australia neglecting that respect as well (Fiji under 19 rep Samo playing for the Wallabies).
Lippy
Guest
And there you go again bringing up Lauaki as an.example again ignoring the Cooper factor in Australia. But I expect that from you now.