World Cup expands to 14 teams

[East Coast Tiger]

Lebanon will play by the same rules as everyone else. They used domestic players in the last WC qualifiers and in the Euro Cup last year. That is likely to happen again this year and in any WC qualifiers for 2013. THere has been no word on a domestic player rule like last time but surely there will be one.

 

[bender]

If Lebanon are to play they must come out of their domestic comp and qualify otherwise forget it, who would pay 30 quid to watch A grade players from sydney and would do not good to the domestic comp.

While they have a domestic comp the reps are controlled here not there.

What about New Zealand, should they come out of their domestic comp also?

 

[Big Picture]

Lebanon will play by the same rules as everyone else. They used domestic players in the last WC qualifiers and in the Euro Cup last year. That is likely to happen again this year and in any WC qualifiers for 2013. THere has been no word on a domestic player rule like last time but surely there will be one.

There should be one, but it can be improved a lot. Considering that countries name a roster of 24 players, each one should have to name a minimum of 7 domestically-produced players on their tournament roster, players who played their first senior (i.e. open age) RL in that country. They could be players still playing in the domestic league or they could now be playing pro RL somewhere else, but they would have to have started playing senior RL there. That would leave a maximum of 17 roster spots for players who qualify purely due to heritage or residence. Once the roster is named, no additions or replacements should be allowed for any reason (including injury) unless they maintain or increase the team's domestic player content. In short, 7 or more domestically-produced players on every team's roster at all times, no exceptions.

 

[Big Picture]

What about New Zealand, should they come out of their domestic comp also?

No, any player who played his first senior (i.e. open age) RL in that country is a domestic player since he's a product of the domestic development system.

 

[Knownothing]

No, any player who played his first senior (i.e. open age) RL in that country is a domestic player since he's a product of the domestic development system.

So Benji Marshall, and any other New Zealanders who come to Australia as schoolboys, would not qualify to play for New Zealand?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

The Kiwis have plenty of Australian born or bred players these days but they still have plenty who would qualify under a domestic rule. The ones that would struggle would be Tonga and Samoa. They rely on players brought up in Australia and NZ so if they had to pick six or seven domestic players they would almost certainly all be from the domestic comp. Fiji and PNG is in a smilar situation but a. they have a few domestic produced players that now play in Australia and England and b. they have chosen plenty of domestic players anyway and they often do quite well.

 

[Big Picture]

So Benji Marshall, and any other New Zealanders who come to Australia as schoolboys, would not qualify to play for New Zealand?

Of course they do, they just wouldn't come under the domestic player quota if they first played senior RL in another country.

 

[roopy]

The domestic player rule was dropped when Tonga threatened to take it to court - because excluding one player and letting another in exactly the same circumstances play because of this rule would be overturned as an unfair restraint of trade by a court.
Forget about it - if we allow any 'grandfather rule' players - we must allow all.

 

[The Observer]

The domestic player rule was dropped when Tonga threatened to take it to court - because excluding one player and letting another in exactly the same circumstances play because of this rule would be overturned as an unfair restraint of trade by a court.

Tonga may have used that restraint of trade as their legal means for challenging the domestic player rule, but that is not why they challenged it. Coach Jim Dymock claimed that it would be unsafe for amateur domestic players to play against full time professionals. This didn't stop previous amateur Tongan teams taking part in the World Sevens against professional NRL players and professional international teams like England and France. So I'd say another reason was that Tonga wanted to have the strongest team and the best chance of winning their pool.

The domestic player rule just needs to be tweaked to also allow players that were born/grew up in the country. That might have allowed Tongan born players like former Warriors prop Hame Lauaki to be considered homegrown if they lived there for a few years (e.g. three or more).

 

[East Coast Tiger]

If Tonga wants to play in the WC it can agree to the rules.

 

[roopy]

If Tonga wants to play in the WC it can agree to the rules.

If we write rules that are not fair to all individuals, courts will overturn them.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Tonga can get f**ked. A court can't prevent the RLIF kicking them out when they haven't earned their place to start with. Bring the rule in and if anyone wants to take it to court they can. Until then it should stand. No other country complained and the rule is fair anyway. It's applied equally to all countries.

 

[Sparky 74]

14 teams not bad but I would have a 24 team comp

England
Ireland
Wales
Scotland
France
Italia
Malta
Greece
Lebanon
USA
Russia
Jamaica
Japan
Australia
New Zealand
South Africa
Tonga
Cook Islands
Samoa
Fiji
PNG
Cech Rep
Holland
Canada


With 2 pool comp top 12 nations will gun for the World Cup
bottom 12 will gun for the WC plate

 

[kiwileaguefan]

What about New Zealand, should they come out of their domestic comp also?

11 of the 17 who made the World Cup team for the final have played domestic league in NZ

 

[bender]

11 of the 17 who made the World Cup team for the final have played domestic league in NZ

So, if 5 of those 11 lose form or are injured next time, NZ shouldnt be allowed to put up a full strength side?

 

[bender]

There should be one, but it can be improved a lot. Considering that countries name a roster of 24 players, each one should have to name a minimum of 7 domestically-produced players on their tournament roster, players who played their first senior (i.e. open age) RL in that country. They could be players still playing in the domestic league or they could now be playing pro RL somewhere else, but they would have to have started playing senior RL there. That would leave a maximum of 17 roster spots for players who qualify purely due to heritage or residence. Once the roster is named, no additions or replacements should be allowed for any reason (including injury) unless they maintain or increase the team's domestic player content. In short, 7 or more domestically-produced players on every team's roster at all times, no exceptions.

So now, it isnt good enough for a player to be born in that country?

 

[kiwileaguefan]

So, if 5 of those 11 lose form or are injured next time, NZ shouldnt be allowed to put up a full strength side?

Arghhh no because 5 other players in the squad have come through NZRL domestic Comps...

I count 16 players of the Kiwis World Cup Squad that have played Rugby League in NZ....then you add in players like Roy Astosi, Ben Matulino, Frank-Paul Nuuausala, Jeff Lima, Kevin Locke, Russel Packer and Jared Waerea-Hargreaves who were players ruled out because of injury or picked for the Kiwis squad last year….

 

[bender]

There should be one, but it can be improved a lot. Considering that countries name a roster of 24 players, each one should have to name a minimum of 7 domestically-produced players on their tournament roster, players who played their first senior (i.e. open age) RL in that country. They could be players still playing in the domestic league or they could now be playing pro RL somewhere else, but they would have to have started playing senior RL there. That would leave a maximum of 17 roster spots for players who qualify purely due to heritage or residence. Once the roster is named, no additions or replacements should be allowed for any reason (including injury) unless they maintain or increase the team's domestic player content. In short, 7 or more domestically-produced players on every team's roster at all times, no exceptions.

The only way of improving the domestic rule, is to improve the standard of the domestic competition. How an individual nation does this is up to the individual nation because each nation is different.

A lot of people seem to forget that the World Cup does have a domestic rule still. The rule is that to play in the world cup you need to have a domestic competition. The last World cup saw this rule bent for a couple of clubs. This time that will not happen and will not need to happen, because the clubs that it was bent for have all (except for one that no longer plays) improved to the stage where they have their own domestic comp. This means the next World cup will only only feature bona fide nations. That is a step forward.

IN fact, some bonafide nations will actually miss out and not qualify. That is a step forward also. South Africa, Jamaica, Serbia and possibly even Russia are sides who 20 years ago would have been the 6th best nations in the world (maybe even better) but who today will be doing well to make the top 14 under any rules. That is progress, and that means that regardless of who is selected, this world cup is a serious event in anyone s book. There is no longer any need to worry about artificially creating the image that the game is played domestically in certain countries, because if they are in the world cup, it is.

The next advance should be not an artificial distinction, but simply a return (and it is a return because it always has previously been the rule) to one nation for life. In fact, if the RLIF is hellbent on it, I would even consider allowing one (and one only) compassionate change of nation for a player, provided that this player is moving from one of the big 3 to a smaller nation. That is a far bigger problem than forcing domestic players to play.

 

[bender]

Arghhh no because 5 other players in the squad have come through NZRL domestic Comps...

I count 16 players of the Kiwis World Cup Squad that have played Rugby League in NZ....then you add in players like Roy Astosi, Ben Matulino, Frank-Paul Nuuausala, Jeff Lima, Kevin Locke, Russel Packer and Jared Waerea-Hargreaves who were players ruled out because of injury or picked for the Kiwis squad last year….

Okay then what if 10 are injured (Swine Flu?) :crazy: You get the point. There is no reason for NZ to be forced to favour certain players over others, any more than Australia should be forced to pick players from Victoria, WA etc.

Incidentally, if Hazem El Masri plays 6 games in Lebanon, why is he suddenly more lebanese than now?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It's not an eligibility issue, it's actually about helping domestic competitions by expsoing their players to the top level and ensuring there are more legitimate home grown players in each team. If we're going to keep the ridiculous grandparent rule we need something like this to give some of these teams a bit of credibility.