RLWC 2017 may only feature full RLIF members

[Bronco Rob]

yeah i know, the point is to have less qualifiers rather than more qualifiers. That should help grow the game :roll:

I beg to differ, it gives nations who aren't affiliated an incentive in which to strive for rather than being satisfied with their small domestic competitions and relying on heritage players. If we want to have a credible World Cup and International game we need to raise the bar not keep it low.

Italy at the WC last year was a case in point, the FIRL had next to no domestic activity but made a WC through using heritage players which flies in the face of nations like Lebanon, Serbia etc who have good solid domestic structures in place. Italy were just fortunate enough to have the ability to call upon heritage players. Sure it made for a more competitive team but does that help grow the game moving forward?

I would however like to see a few fulltime employees working for the RLIF who give advice and help to fledgling nations especially those who are on the periphery of attaining membership status.

 

[bender]

I beg to differ, it gives nations who aren't affiliated an incentive in which to strive for rather than being satisfied with their small domestic competitions and relying on heritage players. If we want to have a credible World Cup and International game we need to raise the bar not keep it low.

Italy at the WC last year was a case in point, the FIRL had next to no domestic activity but made a WC through using heritage players which flies in the face of nations like Lebanon, Serbia etc who have good solid domestic structures in place. Italy were just fortunate enough to have the ability to call upon heritage players. Sure it made for a more competitive team but does that help grow the game moving forward?

I would however like to see a few fulltime employees working for the RLIF who give advice and help to fledgling nations especially those who are on the periphery of attaining membership status.

You give the italians as an example. I think it is poor. Italy is in a much better position, domestic wise than it was 4 years ago, just before the world cup. Bring this rule in, and if they sort themselves out, great. If they dont sort themselves out then they dont make the world cup, regardless of whether or not they qualify. How in the world is that a good thing?

This has nothing to whatsoever with reducing heritage players which is a different question altogether. It doesnt have anything to do with raising the bar either. It is more about consolidation. Get rid of the development countries, who will struggle to reach the new targets and that way the RLIF can concentrate their resources on the top few nations, some of whom can become competive in a relatively short period of time, mainly through the use of heritage players. It is actually quite ironic that most people who hate heritage players support the idea.

It means that world cup qualifying will be limited to those 16 who played in the last world cup with a 50/50 chance for most of Lebanon, South Africa, Canada, Jamaica, Russia and maybe one or two others. I suppose if they were to fully professional the qualifying series, with tv coverage and proper media support, it could actually be a good thing. But this wont happen, all it will do is restrict the number of qualifiers that need to be played.

My strong opinion is that we need to be increasing the qualifiers (so that sides from smaller nations are given meaningful games to play in) and rewarded by providing professional coverage of these games and getting them a following which might allow these smaller games to perhaps get some sponsorship and other income from the games and develop regional rivalries. This is the only thing that will give them incentive to develop their own leagues, so they can progress further. Artificially insisting that they conform to political requirements will not help in the slightest and will only ultimately result in people getting sick of politics and walking away from teh sport.

 

[Bronco Rob]

You give the italians as an example. I think it is poor. Italy is in a much better position, domestic wise than it was 4 years ago, just before the world cup. Bring this rule in, and if they sort themselves out, great. If they dont sort themselves out then they dont make the world cup, regardless of whether or not they qualify. How in the world is that a good thing?

This has nothing to whatsoever with reducing heritage players which is a different question altogether. It doesnt have anything to do with raising the bar either. It is more about consolidation. Get rid of the development countries, who will struggle to reach the new targets and that way the RLIF can concentrate their resources on the top few nations, some of whom can become competive in a relatively short period of time, mainly through the use of heritage players. It is actually quite ironic that most people who hate heritage players support the idea.

It means that world cup qualifying will be limited to those 16 who played in the last world cup with a 50/50 chance for most of Lebanon, South Africa, Canada, Jamaica, Russia and maybe one or two others. I suppose if they were to fully professional the qualifying series, with tv coverage and proper media support, it could actually be a good thing. But this wont happen, all it will do is restrict the number of qualifiers that need to be played.

My strong opinion is that we need to be increasing the qualifiers (so that sides from smaller nations are given meaningful games to play in) and rewarded by providing professional coverage of these games and getting them a following which might allow these smaller games to perhaps get some sponsorship and other income from the games and develop regional rivalries. This is the only thing that will give them incentive to develop their own leagues, so they can progress further. Artificially insisting that they conform to political requirements will not help in the slightest and will only ultimately result in people getting sick of politics and walking away from teh sport.

The game is in good order in Italy for the FIRFL (the rebel body) but it was the FIRL I was commenting on who are the official recognised body in Italy. The FIFL in the lead up to the world cup had a joke of a domestic comp, on memory I think it was 4 teams who played in a 3 game comp. I'm all for using heritage players if they give back to their nation of heritage and are there for the full qualifying process, not just blow-in at the eleventh hour to replace the players who got them there.

Please don't take offence but as for the rest I can't understand what point you are making especially political requirements? The RLIF have set out the parameters and nations need to adhere to these to qualify for the WC.

I'd rather see nations build on their domestic development rather than concentrate on Internationals so they build a solid platform to grow on. I just don't see the point of nations playing 'Internationals' in Western Sydney using Aussie based heritage players, how does this grow the game in the home nation?

 

[deal.with.it]

Yeah i dont understand the argument against this idea.

It means nations have to focus on domestic development to be able to qualify.

 

[bender]

The game is in good order in Italy for the FIRFL (the rebel body) but it was the FIRL I was commenting on who are the official recognised body in Italy. The FIFL in the lead up to the world cup had a joke of a domestic comp, on memory I think it was 4 teams who played in a 3 game comp. I'm all for using heritage players if they give back to their nation of heritage and are there for the full qualifying process, not just blow-in at the eleventh hour to replace the players who got them there.

This is the whole point isnt it. FIFL are the recognised members of the RLIF. FIRL is the rebel body. For who have a much bigger competition than FIFL. The rule is now that FIRL are not Members of the RLIF and therefore do not qualify for the World Cup. Almost certainly, the RLIF aligned federations will use it to justify the non selection of Rebel players like they have in the past.

For some reason everyone thinks this will lead to the rebel comps getting together. It wont. It didnt help them get together last world cup (when it was an unofficial rule) and formalising it wont help. I think 90 percent on this forum are misreading what it means insofar as it relates to countries with well established/successful rebel bodies.

Please don't take offence but as for the rest I can't understand what point you are making especially political requirements? The RLIF have set out the parameters and nations need to adhere to these to qualify for the WC.

Okay, a good example just popped up on this forum. There is going to be a middle east and African cup played featuring (from memory) South Africa, Lebanon and UAE. It is hoped in time that this will be expanded to include Morocco, Kenya and others. Let us assume that they are succesful in getting this 6 team competition up and running before the Qualifiers start.

Surely, the idea is to use this competition as a world cup qualifier, or at the very least encourage all of these teams to try to qualify for the world cup. This is how the game will grow. Let us assume for arguments sake that one of the newer nations such as Kenya wins the competition. This isnt completely out of the realms of possibility because presumably no nrl players will be used. What this new rule means is that despite Kenya having developed their own players and competition and qualified on the field for the world cup, they will be excluded from the event because they are not full RLIF members. Ironically, it might just mean that a heritage based Lebanon side would take their spot.

I'd rather see nations build on their domestic development rather than concentrate on Internationals so they build a solid platform to grow on. I just don't see the point of nations playing 'Internationals' in Western Sydney using Aussie based heritage players, how does this grow the game in the home nation?

I dont necessarilly disagree with this (though I see more good from the heritage games than others do). IN fact, i think Heritage is our biggest asset for the international game, but the problem is nation hopping, which should be one nation for life, unless changing from a bigger country to a smaller country. This would not only strengthen smaller countries. But it would help find good dedicated players/volunteers who might not necessarilly play the game at NRL standard (although i am sure plenty of NRL players would sitll make the switches).

The whole problem though is that what you are saying has nothing to do with what this new rule is saying. If what you are saying is the desired result,the solution is simple (and they sort of did it last world cup). You make a simple rule, you need a domestic competition with 8 teams (or whatever qualification you need), in order to play the world cup.

 

[Steve Davy]

Bender, That strikes me as a very well thought through post. I agree with the point that having World Cup qualifiers of regional competition has great value. I also agree that international games should not be held for their own sake (Denmark had great games against Malta, but it took all the effort we had and more money than we had). Indeed, I am sure there are several nations that would decline a World Cup spot, as the cost and commitment required would not result in worthwhile domestic recognition.

It is of course great when a nation takes up the game. In balance, it has to be ensured that they are a responsible body (medical etc) and are playing the game responsibly. Also, splits in occur in extremis when the official body loses confidence of the people. However, for the most part it is to be discouraged.

If someone arrived in Denmark and wanted to set up their own club, but thought the DRLF were useless and taking too long (or were just not willing to pay them), they could get a sponsorship deal by making outragous claims perhaps and spend a chunk of the money getting four union clubs to play for a cash prize. Suddenly there is a four team league, being played with uncertain rules and dodgy dealing - should they gain recognition? The answer is no, because there is a democratic body running rugby league and a way for the governing board members to be deselected openly and democratically. In this respect, the RLEF is right to be reluctant to recognise rebel leagues.

This breaks down when the governing body are secretive and undemocratic. This seemed to be the case in the USA and is perhaps why the USARL would always have a sympathetic ear (I cannot comment on Italy, as I have no experience there. Other that the head of the FIRL seems a decent man to me.

 

[deal.with.it]

You say it was basically a requirement of the last wc to have an 8 team domestic comp.
But really, it wasn't.
I see the requirement of being a full member simply as the RLIF saying "we want evidence."
At the end of the day it's Aus, NZ, Eng and to a lesser extent PNG, France, Wales that are stumping up the cash (or their government's cash) to hold the WC. I would be embarrassed and fearful that funding will never again be available if I was Wales and had hosted the USA in last year's WC.

I personally think RL is at a level where there is plenty of Minnows. If we had thd budget of RU we would welcome China, Singapore, Tuvalu etc into WC qualification (take a look at the IRB's WC Qual process).
But we don't. We have limited money and resources. The 2008 WC made $2M (?) and the RLIF spent the best part of $200k on WC quals. That is HUGE! It's even bigger if you count the pacific cup (which I'm reluctant to do).

So RL really needs a few smaller nations to step up, show they're the real deal, get full member status and then the RLIF will provide the money to increase your operations and provide opportunities through WC qualification.

I can understand the opposing argument, but personally I prefer this method.