What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

IRL Announces Updated Eligibility Rules

Dakink

Bench
Messages
3,109
I'm happy. Some won't like the ease of switching but personally I think restricting the big 3 but opening up the possibility for players to represent developing nations is a plus for me.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
It would be hard to find a complaint about this.

Key changes

"Tier" language is no longer used to refer to Aus, NZ, Eng V the rest.

A player can only rep 1 nation per year.

A player named in a squad, whether sanctioned international 13 or 9s, is considered to have elected.

GB should it return, is counted basically as England, and a player can not represent Aus or NZ + GB.


What it means?

I think the 1 year change is very sensible. This will make things easier to understand, and look better to media and fans. Takes a lot of the sting out of poor discussions around eligibility while retaining the strengths of the new system.

1 thing to note - a player could be left in no man's land if he is selected for NZ or England mid-year then is not selected again in October.
However maybe it will make fringe players consider their options a bit more seriously and choose to stick with Samoa/Tonga/Cook Islands etc rather than risk being left out altogether.

Taking the tier 1 tier 2 wording out is also an important change. May we never have another tOngA sHoUlD bE tIeR 1 thread.
 

jim_57

Bench
Messages
3,122
It would be hard to find a complaint about this.

Key changes

"Tier" language is no longer used to refer to Aus, NZ, Eng V the rest.

A player can only rep 1 nation per year.

A player named in a squad, whether sanctioned international 13 or 9s, is considered to have elected.

GB should it return, is counted basically as England, and a player can not represent Aus or NZ + GB.


What it means?

I think the 1 year change is very sensible. This will make things easier to understand, and look better to media and fans. Takes a lot of the sting out of poor discussions around eligibility while retaining the strengths of the new system.

1 thing to note - a player could be left in no man's land if he is selected for NZ or England mid-year then is not selected again in October.
However maybe it will make fringe players consider their options a bit more seriously and choose to stick with Samoa/Tonga/Cook Islands etc rather than risk being left out altogether.

Taking the tier 1 tier 2 wording out is also an important change. May we never have another tOngA sHoUlD bE tIeR 1 thread.

The Pacific Nations have an advantage with Australian eligible players now since Australia play no mid-year test. Will fringe Kangaroos players turn down a game for Samoa/Fiji/Tonga/PNG on the off chance they get selected for Australia 4-5 months later?

The Great Britain thing has a few holes in it. If a player plays for Australia then Scotland he is ineligible for a combined team including Scotland? In saying that it isn't a huge issue and hopefully GB is used very sparingly if at all going forward anyway.
 

Pommy

Coach
Messages
14,657
My biggest issue is treating nations differently. If it’s acceptable for an islander to represent his nation and his heritage why should anyone else be prevented from doing the same?
Rules in sport should be blanket not selective in my opinion.
The Great Britain rule makes no sense if you’re eligible to play for Wales, Scotland or Ireland why have a rule treating you as being English?
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
It's not treating you as being English, it's treating GB as (for lack of a better word) tier-1 eligibility.

You can play for Scotland and Australia. Or Scotland and GB. If you want to play for GB, don't play for Australia.
I've got no issue with this.
 

Matua

Juniors
Messages
2,335
Still would prefer that a player has to specify who they want to play for at the beginning of each calendar year

A player eligible for any nations other than Australia, England, New Zealand can only make one switch between those nations in a four-year period. Players qualified for Australia, England and New Zealand plus any other nation can make multiple switches however they can only elect to represent one nation in any calendar year.
So a player can represent NZ and Samoa as much as they like, but can't represent Tonga and Samoa as much as they like? Seems strange.

Players can only represent one of Australia, England or New Zealand in a career, even if eligible for more than one of those nations. If eligible they can play for nations outside of those three.
Seems like a stop Kalyn Ponga from switching to NZ rule. ;)
 
Last edited:

Pommy

Coach
Messages
14,657
It's not treating you as being English, it's treating GB as (for lack of a better word) tier-1 eligibility.

You can play for Scotland and Australia. Or Scotland and GB. If you want to play for GB, don't play for Australia.
I've got no issue with this.

So players who play for the other home nations just get shafted with no rep games if there’s a GB tour on?
I don’t really understand why this rule even needs to exist. It makes no sense you can play against Australia wearing a Welsh shirt which is a ranked team whilst you can’t in the shirt of what is essentially an invitational team.
For the record I don’t want GB to play games and I want it even less to be stacked with foreigners but that doesn’t mean the rule is any less bullshit.
I would be interested to see the outcome of a player taking the IRL to court of arbitration on this as I think there’s a case to be made for discrimination in allowing some people to play for heritage whilst retaining the right for their nation and not allowing it to others.
 

Captain Apollo

First Grade
Messages
9,135
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/le...etween-state-and-country-20200509-p54rcy.html

SMH is reporting a change in eligibility rules - but the quotes in the article merely seem to reference the changes made back in Feb.
The bit about Origin is strange. Not clear whether there has been a new update which references Origin specifically, or the SMH has added 2 and 2 to get 7 /decided Queensland is a nation now.

This is how Wide World of Sports reported the important part -

The Sydney Morning Herald reports players will soon have to make a choice between state and country as part of changes to international eligibility laws.

Under the news rules, NRL players who wish to represent either New South Wales or Queensland at State of Origin level will not be allowed to play for another country other than Australia for Test footy.

According to the Herald who obtained the criteria document, it states in part: "A Player who has elected to represent a Nation cannot then elect to play for another Nation in the same calendar year."

Remember, the State of Origin eligibility says you must declare yourself available to play for Australia.
 

Pommy

Coach
Messages
14,657
So isn’t this an issue with origin eligibility rather than international. You have to nominate Australia to play SOO and then in theory can’t change back.
This is not impacted on by the IRL at all, QLDRL AND NSWRL can just change their criteria if they want to stack their teams with the best eligible talent.
 

Hello, I'm The Doctor

First Grade
Messages
9,117
My biggest issue is treating nations differently. If it’s acceptable for an islander to represent his nation and his heritage why should anyone else be prevented from doing the same?
Rules in sport should be blanket not selective in my opinion.
The Great Britain rule makes no sense if you’re eligible to play for Wales, Scotland or Ireland why have a rule treating you as being English?

I think you misunderstood
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
They didnt change anything, except for the changes mentioned in February.

The IRL have also confirmed on twitter in response to the SMH/WWOS article that their eligiblity rules make no mention of Origin, as always.
 

hutch

First Grade
Messages
6,810
It is still completely possible to play origin next year and then for another nation at the World Cup. Funny how the newspapers try and twist the story into an origin one but in reality it’s just rehashing the IRL news from February.
 
Messages
4,734
Misunderstood what?



Bad Australia hoarding all the Australians. Nobody is putting a gun to their heads.
I don't have a problem with Australia hoarding players when they are actually Australians.

With some teams we are getting to the point where it's basically just teams of Aussies, Kiwis, and Englishmen wearing blue or red shirts instead of green, black, or white ones, and allowing players to pick and choose between first and second tier nations almost at will is starting to become a bit embarrassing, especially when quite a few of them would never qualify for the second tier nation in nearly any other sport.

It just comes off as a really lame way to artificially make the sport look like it's stronger internationally than it really is.
 

Pommy

Coach
Messages
14,657
I don't have a problem with Australia hoarding players when they are actually Australians.

With some teams we are getting to the point where it's basically just teams of Aussies, Kiwis, and Englishmen wearing blue or red shirts instead of green, black, or white ones, and allowing players to pick and choose between first and second tier nations almost at will is starting to become a bit embarrassing, especially when quite a few of them would never qualify for the second tier nation in nearly any other sport.

It just comes off as a really lame way to artificially make the sport look like it's stronger internationally than it really is.

Which sports wouldn’t they qualify for those nations in?
 
Top