He made his Ireland debut before he played for Leinster.Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
I think it is the use of the word "abuse" which is the issue here. The grandparent rule isn't being abused to get these players playing for Ireland. They are perfectly entitled to play for Ireland.
Are these kinds of players not the reason the rule was brought in in the first place?
Last edited by osarusan; 08/06/2014 at 2:13 PM.
A lot of the rugby "structural" rules have been overtaken by changes in the game in the professional era. This is just a wild guess but I'd say that the 3 year rule was in place during a quaint old time when a guy like Brian Smith would move up to the northern hemisphere for career / academic purposes, while playing rugby as an amateur.
It'd appear to me that this rule now favours a few countries with the biggest professional teams, and also very much against those countries who don't select players who go abroad.
The talk I was at in Birkbeck College in London on Tuesday was to examine the institutional structure of global rugby and whether the IRB was in control anymore etc etc. I went along thinking it was all a bit of a mess but with a bit of vision and enthusiasm the structures could be tweaked to restore order. Jeff Probyn dispelled this idea completely, basically saying it was all totally and utterly a mess with little chance of repair.
Cricket's almost as bad, relying on six years residency AFAIK, especially Eng. & Wales, when they already have hundreds to choose from.
At the moment we might actually have to kidnap some good players !
And for the right price that would be perfectly okay with Sepp Blatter.
As long as we don't kidnap him!
A lot of people would be delighted if we kidnapped Blatter but we would have to pay an awful lot of money to get them to take him back !
I think the residency requirement is 4 years in cricket.
The quirk is that players like Morgan and Joyce could play for Ireland while clocking up their residency time in England and make a seamless switchover once they had reached the 4 years.
But if they want to return to Ireland, they have to stop playing for England for 4 years.
Just increased to seven or four if they're Irish, but that's the English board's own rule. Not sure what the ICC's rules are, presumably four.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cri...d-players.html
The ICC rules are for 4 years, further complicated by the inbred class system, full member/associate member. A low life associate member player can make the seamless switch after residency has been completed to a full member country, because the associate member is not fully recognised.
That's outrageous.
Football's eligibility criteria are beginning to look positively draconian.
I prefer 'sensible' ?
Last edited by ArdeeBhoy; 08/06/2014 at 9:01 PM.
And thanks for the cricket regs. updates...they literally seem to keep moving the boundary rope and make the rules up as they go along...especially that shower in Lords.
Aye, that was my issue. Abusing a rule would be to break it in some way or to misuse it contrary to how it was intended to operate, but that clearly isn't the case here.
Is there much of a line between abuse and exploit? A country can abuse and exploit a rule and still stay within the legalities of the rule.
What Thornley referred to was that the 3 year residency was being abused.
He said re abuse, "The second route has been abused in the past but latterly the three-year ruling has been freely tapped into as a form of a delayed international “signing” from abroad and, like it or loath it, Irish rugby is now merrily leading the charge."
Just because it is technically within the rules to act in that way, does not mean the rule is not being abused.
Abuse is referred to when the purpose of the rule is being misused.
eg Qatar offering passports to Brazilians was an abuse of the rules by finding and exploiting a loophole in the rule.
Thornley explains what he regards as exploitation,
"exploitation of the regulation favours the wealthy over the poor. Clermont have an academy in Fiji while France has also increasingly begun to dip into its old colonial outposts, and no less than Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England, France and Italy also target players in the Southern Hemisphere, mostly South Africans or from the Pacific Islands."
Thornley has written a very good article and managed to differentiate quite nicely between how big rugby unions exploit and abuse the rules.
Last edited by geysir; 09/06/2014 at 7:44 PM.
I think there's an important distinction. For me, abuse would amount to illegally breaking a rule or, as you also mention, misusing it contrary to its obvious origins or intended purpose. The term "exploit" can indeed, and often does, have generally negative connotations, but I don't see why this should necessarily be so. It can simply mean to utilise a rule to its fullest extent; that would be completely legal and certainly would not amount to abuse in my eyes. It has long been said that the FAI exploit the "granny rule", for example. I don't see why that need be interpreted as objectionable or disparaging, nor is there any question that what the FAI are doing amounts to abuse when they select players with Irish grandparentage.
The second route he refers to is rugby's equivalent of the "granny rule" though, is it not? He says that rule has been abused in the past. He refers to the three-year residency rule as being abused/exploited separately. Just because exploitation of a rule might have seemingly inequitable consequences doesn't necessarily mean there is abuse afoot. Some competitors are better positioned to take advantage of certain rules over other competitors. That's generally the nature of sport and why some competitors, or the wealthier unions in this instance, are better than others; they're better equipped to play within the set framework. What is the IRB's reading of the situation here though? Aren't the rules being utilised as intended, albeit more aggressively or profitably by richer competitors? If Thornley has an issue with that, he should surely condemn the legislators; not those who are doing what they're permitted, or even expected, to do. It's not the responsibility of better-equipped competitors to try and create a more even playing field.What Thornley referred to was that the 3 year residency was being abused.
He said re abuse, "The second route has been abused in the past but latterly the three-year ruling has been freely tapped into as a form of a delayed international “signing” from abroad and, like it or loath it, Irish rugby is now merrily leading the charge."
Just because it is technically within the rules to act in that way, does not mean the rule is not being abused.
Abuse is referred to when the purpose of the rule is being misused.
eg Qatar offering passports to Brazilians was an abuse of the rules by finding and exploiting a loophole in the rule.
Thornley explains what he regards as exploitation,
"exploitation of the regulation favours the wealthy over the poor. Clermont have an academy in Fiji while France has also increasingly begun to dip into its old colonial outposts, and no less than Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England, France and Italy also target players in the Southern Hemisphere, mostly South Africans or from the Pacific Islands."
Thornley has written a very good article and managed to differentiate quite nicely between how big rugby unions exploit and abuse the rules.
The whole rugby eligibility debate is very complicated in the Southern Hemisphere due the proximity of the pacific island to Australia and New Zealand. While it has been argued that NZ has used the islands to reinforce its depth of players, it does not stand up to scrutiny. Australia has targeted players of pacific islander background and if you look at any Australian rugby team, their numbers are well above that of the general population. The reality is that both countries do work within the rules, however, possibly due to skin colour, people's perceptions can be wrong. I think the three year residency rules while a little hard to accept, actually helps in creating more equality among nations.
Having watched the likes of Bundee Aki regularly, I think he will excite Connacht fans and will be an asset to Ireland. Football could possibly learn from rugby. The big boys seem to get more powerful, while the likes of ourselves and the home nations outside of England, find it hard to qualify regularly for the major tournaments.
From the current Australian 32-man rugby union squad there are 6 foreign-born players. They moved to Australia at the ages of 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16.
Similar picture from the current New Zealand squad. They have 4 foreign-born players in their current 31-man squad who moved to New Zealand aged 3, 4, 13, 17.
I think there is a big distinction to be made between players who moved and settled in a country as minors as opposed to 'mercenaries' who move as adults and are only in the country to begin with to earn a wage at whatever team was the highest bidder.
3 years is too short. Rodney Ah You (25) and Robbie Diack (28) aren't even citizens. Bundee Aki would be 27 before he qualified under the current rule. The five-year rule in football makes sense as it coincides with the period of residence usually required before you can attain citizenship in a new country.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. We had a debate about global rugby at Birkbeck College in London last week and the rugby "insiders" on the panel seemed to think that social mobility in rugby was a pipe dream and that the institutional arrangements were almost designed to lock out the developing nations, as per cricket. I half-jokingly suggested that if rugby is intent on not becoming like football it must become more like football - by adopting football's "superstructure". FIFA may be as corrupt as you like, but despite its dysfunctionality it and UEFA are strong bodies and UEFA in particular is very active in debating policy matters. The IRB is very passive and overly focused on designing a rule book that minimises litigation rather than growing the game. The 6 Nations / FIRA relationship makes Downton Abbey look like a socialist paradise.
Clearly an eligibility rule can be abused by a country and still stay within the legalities of the rule. A player can be bribed/incentivised to accept a 3 year residency and a new nationality. That's an abuse of the eligibility rule even if the incentive /bribe cannot be proven or even if it was not mentioned clearly in the rules. The 3 year residency rule is open to being blatantly abused by bribes. There is a hole big enough to drive a truck through the 3 year residency rule. Same way Qatar abused the eligibility rules in football.
You can get tangled in knots about the PC distinctions between abuse and exploit, but cynical exploitation of the rule by offering contracts/incentives is an abuse. That action defines the word in that context
Thornley used the word 'abuse' appropriately
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks