RLIF Board to review eligibility rules

[morningstar]

God I hope they don't mess this up...

http://rlif.com/rugby-league-international-news/article/1651/rlif-board-to-review-eligibility

At the RLIF Board meeting held on 10 May the Board determined to conduct an immediate review of the international eligibility rules.

RLIF Chairman Nigel Wood commented: ‘The Board received a report from the Chief Executive concerning the eligibility rules and the RLIF regulations for international football. The Board determined that an immediate review of eligibility rules should be conducted by David Collier, the Chief Executive of the RLIF, and Andrew Hill, the Secretary of the RLIF. It was further determined that the Chief Executive should codify all RLIF Regulations into a consolidated document for ease of communication to stakeholders and Members. These are important pieces of work given the changing nature of international sport and the desire to ensure that the top players in each nation are eligible to represent their country in international football. The Board looks forward to receiving the detailed recommendations in the near future.

The Board also received a report on work to create global consistency of the Rules whilst encouraging and simplifying innovation in Leagues and competitions through the use of regulations.

The Board welcomed the CEO of the NRL Mr Todd Greenberg to his first RLIF Board meeting and it was proposed that Todd Greenberg would become a Director of RLIF.

The Board confirmed the Calendar of Events and expressed a preference for the introduction of an Intercontinental Cup in 2019 to be confirmed following discussions with partners in August/September 2016.

The Board further confirmed that the AGM and Congress will be held in Liverpool, UK from November 18-20 , 2016. The Board noted the strong interest from venues to stage matches during the 2017 Rugby League World Cup and anticipate that venues and matches will be announced in July 2016.

 

[taipan]

About bleeding time.Currently the flexibility of eligibility has made the set up a laughing stock.

Hard and fast rules must be put in place.You are either repping one country or you are representing another,not either when it is convenient.

The technicalities involved must be sorted out by the RLIF well before the RLWC2017.Else trying to promote it would be just that much harder.

 

[morningstar]

Agreed. I'm just dreading that Parish and Woolf are going to get their way and we keep the "oh I didn't make the big 3 so I should be able to go back and help out the islands" schtick.

Tonga and Samoa will forever be "2nd tier" nations if they continue to take scraps from the big boys. It's such short sighted thinking.

In the short term yes it makes them more competitive and we all would love to have another team to genuinely challenge the big 3, but what happens the day after they do finally get a result over Aus or NZ? The next time they meet the big boys will pick the eyes out of the team to mitigate that risk. Think about it you have just been surprised by a Milford inspired Samoa, you make damn sure the next time you meet Milford is in your team or even if he is woefully out of form you can make him 18th man.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

They'll f**k it up.

 

[siv]

No it needs to come into force after the RLWC

With maybe a final amnesty period

 

[roughyedspud]

As i said in a post last week..the core eligibility laws are absolutely fine and are inline with just about every sporting organisation in the world..we just need to tweek a couple..

1. Extend the residency rule from 3 years to 5 years...maybe even 10 years.

2. Change the "election period"..so...after every world cup final every player,in every comp from under 18s upwards,has until jan 1st to select a country to play for or change countries if they qualified too...and then their selection is then locked in till after the following world cup final,so they are locked in for 4 years..no ifs,no buts,no swapping mid way through the 4 years cos you didn't make the right choice..

 

[johnny plath]

Agreed. I'm just dreading that Parish and Woolf are going to get their way and we keep the "oh I didn't make the big 3 so I should be able to go back and help out the islands" schtick.

Tonga and Samoa will forever be "2nd tier" nations if they continue to take scraps from the big boys. It's such short sighted thinking.

In the short term yes it makes them more competitive and we all would love to have another team to genuinely challenge the big 3, but what happens the day after they do finally get a result over Aus or NZ? The next time they meet the big boys will pick the eyes out of the team to mitigate that risk. Think about it you have just been surprised by a Milford inspired Samoa, you make damn sure the next time you meet Milford is in your team or even if he is woefully out of form you can make him 18th man.

Not sure I agree with sentiments here, to me they actually seem short sighted. People seem to base them on the fact that players will choose their heritage nation over where players are born and have grown up. People seem to disregard the fact that just maybe these players want to play for NZ or Aust or England. If you go the hard line your making players make a choice?. What if they all choose to go for the top tiered option?. It seems the coaches of the lower tier nations are open to this reality, but people here seem to actually think they know more than those at the coalface, dealing with the realities of a multi cultural sport where people have very mixed ethnicity and nationality. Where will the quality and depth in the 2nd tiers come from if players choose to bide their time and fight for a spot in the country of their birth or majority life. What will be the vehicle to show to the world the quality of rugby league if upwards of 100 of the top players are sitting on the sidelines during world cups and other international events/matches. They will go back to being non competitive and interest in internationals will again plummet.

This is not fudging a rule? if players are genuinely eligible and want to play why not?. At this stage of our international development cycle we shouldn?t give a f**k what other sports think?. We aren?t them and we should grow our game in whatever way works best?. Lets sit in our ivory towers in 50 years when it is established and we have global depth ? we don?t have that yet. If you go the hard and fast one nation for life I think we?ll be left disappointed in what our international competition looks like.

 

[latingringo101]

As i said in a post last week..the core eligibility laws are absolutely fine and are inline with just about every sporting organisation in the world..we just need to tweek a couple..

1. Extend the residency rule from 3 years to 5 years...maybe even 10 years.

2. Change the "election period"..so...after every world cup final every player,in every comp from under 18s upwards,has until jan 1st to select a country to play for or change countries if they qualified too...and then their selection is then locked in till after the following world cup final,so they are locked in for 4 years..no ifs,no buts,no swapping mid way through the 4 years cos you didn't make the right choice..

I agree with the residency rule, it should be bumped up to 5 years.

I think that yoiur 2nd idea has merit however i think it should be U/20s, asking a 16 or 17 year old who they want to play for when they haven't made a nations first team is a bit of a tough ask for 4 years.

 

[roughyedspud]

By the time a world cup comes around they'll be 21-22....how old was milford when he played for samoa in the last world cup? 18? 19?

Also asking them to choose at that age increases the chance of us having a under 20s world cup

 

[Pommy]

I hope they totally ban changing countries when you've played a full game for a nation.

 

[siv]

My input

Enforce a 2 year wait for changing countries

But allow a immeduate change option for the next 10 years if changing from the Big 3 to a Tier 2/3 nation

Australia needs to apply its SOO rules to the Kangaroos

 

[RL The greatest game]

As from 1st January 2017 and wipe the slate clean and start again.
You can only play for a country if you was born there or who had a parent born there or has lived in that country for at least 10 years.
Once you have played for a country at senior level there is no switching to another country.
Its so simple to enforce and there are no grey areas.

 

[morningstar]

Not sure I agree with sentiments here, to me they actually seem short sighted. People seem to base them on the fact that players will choose their heritage nation over where players are born and have grown up. People seem to disregard the fact that just maybe these players want to play for NZ or Aust or England. If you go the hard line your making players make a choice?. What if they all choose to go for the top tiered option?. It seems the coaches of the lower tier nations are open to this reality, but people here seem to actually think they know more than those at the coalface, dealing with the realities of a multi cultural sport where people have very mixed ethnicity and nationality. Where will the quality and depth in the 2nd tiers come from if players choose to bide their time and fight for a spot in the country of their birth or majority life. What will be the vehicle to show to the world the quality of rugby league if upwards of 100 of the top players are sitting on the sidelines during world cups and other international events/matches. They will go back to being non competitive and interest in internationals will again plummet.

This is not fudging a rule? if players are genuinely eligible and want to play why not?. At this stage of our international development cycle we shouldn?t give a f**k what other sports think?. We aren?t them and we should grow our game in whatever way works best?. Lets sit in our ivory towers in 50 years when it is established and we have global depth ? we don?t have that yet. If you go the hard and fast one nation for life I think we?ll be left disappointed in what our international competition looks like.

To me your line of thinking seems to be the definition of short term planning Johnny, quick fix now and think about it again in 50 years time?

I am not against reppiing two countries I just think there should be rules in place. Im a big fan of the 4 year world cup cycle eligibilty that others have suggested.

If you want to rep your heritage fine, do it as an up and comer or the back end of your career. Don't do it because your form took a dive and you're not good enough to make the Kiwis squad. I just want to see commitment to a cause.

Im fine with Milford playing for Samoa at RLWC 2013 then switching to Aus for RLWC17. In the reverse i'm fine with Frank Pritchard playing for NZ at RLWC13 then playing for Samoa in RLWC17.

What I hate is the notion that Manu Ma'u can play for Tonga in 2015, play for the Kiwis in 2016. Have a form slump in 2017 not make the kiwis squad and then go back to Tonga to "help them out". There is no commitment or sacrifice in that.

 

[JasonE]

The residency rule should be 7 years and I have always believed that the heritage rules should be limited to parents.
I can understand a player should be able to play for a country where his parents are born but grand parents is a step too far.

 

[adamkungl]

unfortunately everyone has different opinions for different reasons. Hopefully our leaders actually lead rather than pander, and come up with a solution that advances the long term future of the international game.

My preference is
ELIGIBILITY
A player is eligible based on the following criteria
Birth
Residency : 5 yrs or citizenship
Relation: Parent birth or citizenship

NOMINATION
A player must nominate a country to play for.
Nomination occurs
-Within 90 days immediately after a World Cup
or
-upon signing a first professional contract
or
-upon first selection by a national team

A player may not nominate a 2nd country in case of non-selection.

Nomination can not change for any circumstances until the 90 day period after the next World Cup.

TEST MATCH TEAMS
In a sanctioned test match or world cup match a team must include 4* domestic competition players (players who currently play in, or have played in a local domestic competition for at least 1 season in the last 5 years*)

*I'm not definite on these numbers, but am as a general idea

 

[juro]

If you are eligible to play for multiple countries, you need to make an election. To change your election, there should be a 2 year waiting period where you can't play any international games.

 

[roughyedspud]

unfortunately everyone has different opinions for different reasons. Hopefully our leaders actually lead rather than pander, and come up with a solution that advances the long term future of the international game.

My preference is
ELIGIBILITY
A player is eligible based on the following criteria
Birth
Residency : 5 yrs or citizenship
Relation: Parent birth or citizenship

NOMINATION
A player must nominate a country to play for.
Nomination occurs
-Within 90 days immediately after a World Cup
or
-upon signing a first professional contract
or
-upon first selection by a national team

A player may not nominate a 2nd country in case of non-selection.

Nomination can not change for any circumstances until the 90 day period after the next World Cup.

TEST MATCH TEAMS
In a sanctioned test match or world cup match a team must include 4* domestic competition players (players who currently play in, or have played in a local domestic competition for at least 1 season in the last 5 years*)

*I'm not definite on these numbers, but am as a general idea

Too complicated..

Birth
Heritage
Residency (5year)....or 7 or !0..whatever

Election period - on jan 1st after a world cup final players,under 18s upwards, decide who they want to play for,or switch,providing they are eligible and then they are locked in for 4 years..

Thats that...simple

 

[bender]

It should be loose eligibility rules, but one nation for life unless switching from a major league nation to a developing nation.

 

[roughyedspud]

The aussies won't go for one nation for life

 

[mikeob]

Not sure I agree with sentiments here, to me they actually seem short sighted. People seem to base them on the fact that players will choose their heritage nation over where players are born and have grown up. People seem to disregard the fact that just maybe these players want to play for NZ or Aust or England. If you go the hard line your making players make a choice?. What if they all choose to go for the top tiered option?. It seems the coaches of the lower tier nations are open to this reality, but people here seem to actually think they know more than those at the coalface, dealing with the realities of a multi cultural sport where people have very mixed ethnicity and nationality. Where will the quality and depth in the 2nd tiers come from if players choose to bide their time and fight for a spot in the country of their birth or majority life. What will be the vehicle to show to the world the quality of rugby league if upwards of 100 of the top players are sitting on the sidelines during world cups and other international events/matches. They will go back to being non competitive and interest in internationals will again plummet.

This is not fudging a rule? if players are genuinely eligible and want to play why not?. At this stage of our international development cycle we shouldn?t give a f**k what other sports think?. We aren?t them and we should grow our game in whatever way works best?. Lets sit in our ivory towers in 50 years when it is established and we have global depth ? we don?t have that yet. If you go the hard and fast one nation for life I think we?ll be left disappointed in what our international competition looks like.

I agree. We need to help the nations that are not the big three and we need to do what is best for the game in 2016 and that means make it easy for the other nations to have there best team on the field, not harder.