What the hell? RLIF proposing anyone can play for any qualifying country

[southwalesrabbitoh]

With the low number of people who play RL on the planet we have to give people like A Milford the opportunity to play for Samoa if he doesn't get a spot in the Aussie squad.

Peter Stirling said that people should be able to swap between Tier1 and Tier 2 countries also. And John Joyner said in the 80's that RL might go to 12 a side. Which it should do. Get rid of the scrum also, have the choice of a 7 on 7 play in the oppositions half instead of a scrum (except in the last 5 minutes of the match).

 

[deluded pom?]

With the low number of people who play RL on the planet we have to give people like A Milford the opportunity to play for Samoa if he doesn't get a spot in the Aussie squad.

Peter Stirling said that people should be able to swap between Tier1 and Tier 2 countries also. And John Joyner said in the 80's that RL might go to 12 a side. Which it should do. Get rid of the scrum also, have the choice of a 7 on 7 play in the oppositions half instead of a scrum (except in the last 5 minutes of the match).

Peter Sterling talks crap too.

 

[DiegoNT]

Then this clown chips in...



Nonsense....nonsense everywhere


The sooner we have a under 20s world cup and lock everyone in from then,and let players outside the big 3 play origin & another nation other than australia...the better..

Until then we aren't playing a international sport....its glorified club rugby at the moment

Why should a player from samoa or Wales get to play Origin (if eligible) but not players from new zealand or england ( a jack reed or a foran type)?
You've made the rules uneven, not all nations play under the same rules. What other international sport has different eligibility's for different countries?

 

[Matterhorn]

Tim Somona was on sunday footy show yesterday

It came up about how he was born in NZ & represented Somoa. He spoke about what it meant playing for Somoa.

Fittler said he turned him down playing for city but also added the eligibility laws will be changed to make it easier for players in future to change.

Why not say how good it is a player turns down City to represent a country he is proud to represent.

 

[hutch]

Tim Somona was on sunday footy show yesterday

It came up about how he was born in NZ & represented Somoa. He spoke about what it meant playing for Somoa.

Fittler said he turned him down playing for city but also added the eligibility laws will be changed to make it easier for players in future to change.

Why not say how good it is a player turns down City to represent a country he is proud to represent.

Fittler was on the NRL app on Friday discussing international eligibility with renee gartner. He completely brushed off all of her good points in regards to Australia and NZ stealing all the best players if it becomes a free for all, was rolling his eyes and being completely disrespectful. Thing is, she was correct in what she was saying. He has no idea what he is on about.

 

[adamkungl]

Fittler was on the NRL app on Friday discussing international eligibility with renee gartner. He completely brushed off all of her good points in regards to Australia and NZ stealing all the best players if it becomes a free for all, was rolling his eyes and being completely disrespectful. Thing is, she was correct in what she was saying. He has no idea what he is on about.

Clearly no one involved the Australian Kangaroos or Origin set up is capable of giving a sensible viewpoint here.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

Why should a player from samoa or Wales get to play Origin (if eligible) but not players from new zealand or england ( a jack reed or a foran type)?
You've made the rules uneven, not all nations play under the same rules. What other international sport has different eligibility's for different countries?

So what some players aren't allowed to play Origin. Tough. Furthermore, players who have represented England or NZ have a chance of winning the WC Final, players from who don't play for one of the Big 3 don't. In fact it's unlikely they will ever play in a WC Final even, let alone win it. So if you've lived in Aus. for a fair chunk of your life, but have connections or were born in another country then you should be allowed to play Origin.

Foran and Reed have a chance of playing in big international matches, Tim Simona probably won't play for Aus. or NZ, so he won't.

We're not robots, we have feelings.

 

[DiegoNT]

So what some players aren't allowed to play Origin. Tough. Furthermore, players who have represented England or NZ have a chance of winning the WC Final, players from who don't play for one of the Big 3 don't. In fact it's unlikely they will ever play in a WC Final even, let alone win it. So if you've lived in Aus. for a fair chunk of your life, but have connections or were born in another country then you should be allowed to play Origin.

Foran and Reed have a chance of playing in big international matches, Tim Simona probably won't play for Aus. or NZ, so he won't.

We're not robots, we have feelings.

Why can't the small team's challenge. In recent years samoa, tonga have fielded decent packs, have depths in the outside backs, just need some halves. This idea that these players from smaller nations have to play origin to be relevant is the backward mindset that we need to eliminate from the international game. Whats going to happen when origin goes stand alone weekends and internationals are scheduled around the same time?

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

There's more to this than just Origin. It's to try and make the WC as competitive as possible. So if Milford doesn't make the Aussie squad he can go and play for Samoa.

Going back to Origin, if Tim Simona plays for NZ that's his Origin dreams over. So this helps in stopping the big 3 from hoarding all the best players. Simona should be allowed to play for NSW and Samoa.

If people are eligible to play for NSW or QLD they should be allowed to, and play for a developing RL nation. There are only 4 established RL nations. And 1 of those, France, is struggling.

 

[Caped Crusader]

If Tim Samona plays origin then the concept is dead. He'd be 100th in line for a spot

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Basically the RLIF is considering opening things up and hoping for "trickledown" talent. Which like trickledown economics just won't work - it only maintains the current order. At best, the absolute talent level of all teams will get a little better, most notably the Pacific Island teams and perhaps the home nations, but (a) countries that don't or can't rely on heritage will suffer even more so than now and (b) the big 3 will get disproportionally better.

The end result in relative terms is nothing really changes. No, actually it is worse, nothing changes and the image of international league is further degraded.

Whoever the bloody hell is opposing just putting in decent, stricter rules, that the fans actually want, and placing more emphasis on the international game by playing more games etc. needs to be removed from power. Or am I being too naïve?

 

[adamkungl]

Here is what I'll be sending. Would anyone like to co sign?

Dear Mr Collier, Mr Kazandjian, and Mr Baitieri,

As I'm sure you are aware, the Australian media has been reporting possible changes to the Rugby League international eligibility laws which, in short, would allow players to switch at any time between "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" nations.

I am writing to outline strong concerns held by some fans of the international game about these potential changes. I can not speak for everyone, obviously, but I do see these concerns reflected by a good number of fans who see international competition as the highest level of the game and the most important part of Rugby League's future.
These are the fans who give the most support to the international game, who are involved in growing International setups, who travel to watch world cups, who campaign for test matches not involving Australia to be televised in Sydney when they inexplicably aren't, who spread the word about web streams of Ukraine vs Czech Republic on the other side of the world.

Our concerns are as follows:

1. While we see the potential positive for short term improvement of some nations, allowing players to switch more frequently has a far more damaging long term effect on the game's credibility. A fickle media and fanbase will see international rugby league as no more than a glorified All-Stars concept.

2. Codifying nations in the rulebook as "Tier 1" or "Tier 2" or any other system that ranks them as such would be immensely damaging to the game. It is in effect saying that Australia, New Zealand and England are more important than others, get first pick of all available players, and other nations can scramble for the leftovers. "2nd tier" nations will never be competitive under a system that gives them 3rd or 4th pick of the best available players.

We believe that such a change might yield a short term benefit but overall have profoundly negative long term consequences for a growing international sport.

Various other measures have been suggested with the same goals in mind: Increasing high-level competition and increasing the sport's profile and credibility.

1. As a compromise between the current situation and a 1-nation-for-life rule, allow players to nominate their nation at the beginning of each World Cup cycle. No changes are allowed until the ending of the next World Cup. This locks in players for at least 4 years, allowing teams consistent growth and credibility, without completely abandoning the flexibility Rugby League may require as a small but growing sport.

2. More, and consistent test fixtures for all nations. Fans believe this is the biggest impediment to growing nations. Why would a player choose Nation B over Nation A when Nation A plays 5 televised matches in any given year for large match payments and Nation B may or may not play any? A well planned match calendar would go a long way in growing the game.

3. Push for the removal of Australian Kangaroo eligibility as a requirement to play State of Origin. This is a major draw which allows Australia to unnecessarily hoard players which otherwise might choose to play for a different nation. Note: This does not mean Origin should loosen any of its other requirements, ie. that a player must have grown up in NSW or QLD.


I understand my or any other fan's concerns are one of countless opinions on the matter and our concerns and goals may very well be different to those of the people who run the game.
Nevertheless, thank you for taking the time to read this.
We all hope for a bright future where International Rugby League is given the profile and attention it deserves.

Kind regards,

Adam Kungl

Sydney Rugby League Player and Fan

 

[paulmac]

Put my name on it Adam, a sensible meet in the middle compromise.

 

[adamkungl]

Maybe PM me if people want to put real names? idk

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Good message. I'll gladly send an independant copy.

 

[Sinman]

The more games... evening out the money.. the televising games (especially with the new 24 hour Fox channel coming up) and the Origin not tying people to AUS but keeping the same rules.. They are things that if all of them happened at once it could catapult the international game forward rapidly.. Even the basic fact that players would have something to aim at... If in your 10 year RL career you could play 40 tests for your nation (say.. Tonga) and get paid properly and know that you can build towards something that would be a game changer.. As it is now if you commit to Tonga in that same time you might get 12 matches and mostly not paid properly and not much happening between world cups.. Players would actually commit to that rather then just using it as a stepping stone to play for AUS or NZ...

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

Nah. We should make use of the thousands of RL players in Aus. RU is only the most popular sport in one nation on earth, and that's a small island in the middle of nowhere south of Australia.

Look at other sports where people represent a nation they weren't born in. There's hundreds of examples.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

The more games... evening out the money.. the televising games (especially with the new 24 hour Fox channel coming up) and the Origin not tying people to AUS but keeping the same rules.. They are things that if all of them happened at once it could catapult the international game forward rapidly.. Even the basic fact that players would have something to aim at... If in your 10 year RL career you could play 40 tests for your nation (say.. Tonga) and get paid properly and know that you can build towards something that would be a game changer.. As it is now if you commit to Tonga in that same time you might get 12 matches and mostly not paid properly and not much happening between world cups.. Players would actually commit to that rather then just using it as a stepping stone to play for AUS or NZ...

But we don't have the money to do that. RU has a lot more money, they have lots of people born and brought up in Samoa, Tonga and Fiji who play for their national sides, we in RL have mainly people born in Aus. representing Samoa and Fiji etc.

And we have to make use of all of those RL players in Aus.

 

[deal.with.it]

A very well written letter Adam. I completely agree.

 

[adamkungl]

I got a response, which is nice. It's good to know they've actually heard alternate ideas and taken the time to respond to them.
I won't post it publicly since it was a private email. However, in brief

He wasn't specific about a commitment to any solution but reading between the lines I'd say they're looking at dual eligibility as a likely one.
The board will be discussing eligibility and other issues later this month.
He also mentioned the plans for an Intercontinental cup in between WCs, which will be a tournament which pits regional champions against the top 3 or 4. Didn't specify a format but I'd expect it to be a twin tournament 3 or 4 Nations setup based on the little info we have.

I get the feeling theyre in a damned if they do damned if they don't scenario in regards to eligiblity. Obviously I prefer the suggested solution of 4 year lock-in to one nation. The media has been pushing for dual eligibility for quite a while.
Hypothetically, if whatever they come up with is hated by us IntRL nerds but accepted by the popular media and average fan, leading to a more well received World Cup, is it a bad outcome?
It's a big If - I think the media and other clowns will attack it regardless.