Guys, 'heritage' and 'domestic' have become the terms used over the years. Where you're born, of course makes you eligible for that country, but does not automatically make you 'domestic'. EXAMPLE. George Peponis, born in Greece, left at age 2, is NOT a domestic player if he were to play for Greece.
Here are the current rules as taken from the RLIF site:
The criteria for a domestic quota player:
i. Presently registered by the Participating Countries’ NGB; and
ii. Having played a minimum of ten matches in the current or most recent Participating Countries’ championship season [or for a club based within the participating country but with a league structure beyond that country] or a combination of both the current and preceding season; or
iii. If less than ten games have been played as per ii, above, not having played rugby league in any other country; or
iv. Currently playing overseas having originally transferred from a team in the country applying for domestic quota clearance for which the player has played a minimum of ten matches in that country’s domestic championship, or if less than ten games have been played as per ii, above, not having played rugby league in any other country; or
v. Is a product of the Participating Countries’ youth programme:
a) having played a minimum of ten registered youth games domestically; or
b) If less than ten games have been played as per a), not having played rugby league in any other country
If a case arises that is not covered by the above the RLIF will make a judgment based on the spirit of the rule, which is to promote players who play rugby league in the Participating Country
I find it really sad that the rules are the for a reason, and people are constantly going through them with a microscope, looking for loopholes, or to be clever and say "Uh ha! Gotcha!" Rather than just abiding by them and getting on with it.
Anyway, I did not mean to start the heritage debate, I'm sorry about that, and good luck once again to the Nicaraguans!
