Discussion in 'International' started by morningstar, Apr 19, 2017.
Agree, where does it stop? Once squads are named that should be it.
I'm with 'spud. Once squads are selected then the chosen players are locked in to the respective nation. Any replacement for injuries that occur after the squads are selected must be chosen from outside of a "tier two" nation's squad. I'm no fan of the nominating two nations rule but I can wear it if it benefits the game as a whole. This action simply benefits Australia to the detriment of Tonga. Australia (or any of the 3) are the only beneficiaries of this abuse of the rules.
I actually believe the Tier 1 and Tier 2 rule should be extended to include that no Tier 1 player can play for a Tier 2 nation and vice versa unless he has NOT been chosen for a period of 2-3 years to avoid stupid situations that compromise the credibility of the international game.
A player being selected for one nation and within a week playing for another makes a joke of the whole situation, unless these games are used for origin trials for the players eligible. I shake my head at the lack of leadership in this sport, it's pathetic.
Another point is that squads chosen by nations predominantly made up of heritage players should always include a number of home grown players eg. squads of 20 should carry 2-3 home grown players.
Similar to what Ireland are doing now with the selection of their teams.
And finally how about Pacific teams playing in the pacific not in Parramatta, Penrith and Campbelltown, there is no reason why England can not play Samoa in Samoa or PNG in the Cook Islands or Port Moresby, or Tonga play in Fiji other than it doesn't suit Fox sports. It's time for the game to put the game first.
There really should be a squad lock in period.
For tournaments I believe the tier 1s must submit their squad 3 weeks in advance and after this point they can no longer select dual-eligible players.
This should apply to standalone tests as well, with a shorter lock period.
In general I am supportive of the dual eligibility rule, took a while to come around but I believe it will be positive for the game. But there can't be situations where Australia can straight up pick a player out of another team's squad.
Agreed these tests on Saturday should be in the islands, time to spend some money and do things right. Get some credibility , the players may not be born in samoa, but play the damn test match on the island. Also my opinion is that if you not born in Australia nz or England you should not be able to make them tier 1 country because they pay more. Semi should not be playing for Australia, the islanders and other European countries will never bridge the gap otherwise.
(Put aside whether he's good enough again)
Could Chris McQueen play for qld again now that he plays for England?
Oh, ive got a question....
Can the good players opt out of appearing for their Tier 1 side and head straight to their 2nd option or will they be obliged?
That is a good question that hasn't been cleared up properly yet. Say Milford would prefer to play for Samoa over Australia, will he be 'forced' or 'convinced' to stick with Aus? And I know origin has nothing to do with international footy but they keep talking about these players going back to a tier 2 country and still being eligible for origin if they miss out on Australia, but will nsw/qld still pick these players if theirs first choice is the tier 2 country even if a tier 1 country wants them?
This is my biggest concern with the whole thing...
It is good that players (who qualify) can select NSW and a Pacific Nation if they want to.
What worries me is that the Tier 1 nations will just pick all the best and leave the dregs for the rest.
If, for example, Fiji starts building to being a genuine WC challenger, is Australia just going to come in and take all of the best players?
And, if they players say they would rather stick with Fiji and have a run at a WC title, can they be obliged or coerced??
This is partly why i would like to see the ARLC jump in bed with the Pacific Nations and form closer ties....
Rep payments for Tier 1 and Tier 2 should be the same to encourage competition, but this will only happen if the ARLC sees an angle of self-interest.
Do you reckon Origin would be any good if NSW was offering $50k-per-match while QLD could only say "do it for the love".
was sent a copy of the new rules to play international rl today. in addition to the other rules, this one seems pretty clear that players from any of the qualifying games cannot change countries for the wc. no matter if it is a 1,2 or 3 level country, or if they qualified or not.
wonder how this could effect england, then scotland, wales or ireland. also australia/new zealand, then the island nations.
A Player is entitled to move between a Tier 1 and a Tier 2 or Tier 3 Nation freely save that a Player may not change their National Team during any RLIF Global Event (including any qualification matches played as part of that RLIF Global Event including Continental Qualification Matches) in which that Player is participating and may only represent one Nation during each RLIF Global Event .
Any players that could be affected?
Hardly any players of note play in the qualifiers. Unless Tedesco played for Italy or Frizzell played for Wales (and they didn't from memory) it won't be an issue.
And even if it was it would be ignored, or they'll say the RLIF can give dispensation.
Solomone Kata, Manu Ma'u and Jordan Rapana played for Tonga & Cook Islands respectively in the pacific qualifier.
Doubt the RLIF will enforce this retroactively. Aussie & NZ media will go into meltdown if Rapana is disqualified from playing for the Kiwis.
Kiwis will be f**ked if they do.
Although they've all played for NZ since so it would be weird to say they can't now. Shows up the stupidity of swapping. Plus some teams don't have to qualify and some don't. So that's inconsistent as well.
I like this idea of 'cup tying' players, I don't think it's too much to ask of players to commit one way of the other for a couple of years.
If players are not willing to commit to qualify why should they waltz in to the side at the expense of players who did?
The Pacific game wasn't a qualifier though was it? Weren't Tonga and Samoa automatically given a 2017 WC spot?
Fiji and Samoa. I believe Tonga won a qualifier against the cooks?
PNG are hosts.
No. Only the quarter finalists minus USA were auto qualifiers from RLWC2013.
PNG qualified as hosts so that left Tonga & Cook Islands to play off for the last pacific spot.
based on this rule anyone that played in a qualifier would not be able to play in the wc for another team. the rules seem less clear when it comes to playing a non wc international. but the literal determination would appear to exclude any player who played any qualifier from changing for the wc.
rapana would be allowed play for nz in other games but not in the wc. going to be interesting to see how this plays out. does anyone have team lists for qualifiers for countries who did not auto-qual? shouldn't matter if they won or lost
Separate names with a comma.