Your International Eligibility Criteria

[dimitri]

Publish what you think should be The Eligibility Criteria!

I believe a points system could be good! Eg you need 100points to play for a nation.

Points Gained as follows:

Birth: 100
Country First Play ANY Rugby League: 100
Passport/Citizenship: 100
Residency: 25 points for each year spent in the nation.
Parent Born: 50 points for each parent
Grand Parent Born: 25 points for each

What do you think it should be?

 

[bobbis]

Should be same as it is now, parent, grand parent, birth or 3 years continuous residency and you can play for a country. The only addition I would make is that once a player has played for the full senior international or senior second XIII of a country they are inelligible to ever play for another country. Importantly there should be someone actually policing it. The RLIF should be a fulltime independent body who looks after this type of thing, the NZRL shouldnt show the ARL a birth citificate, thats what an international federation is for. The reason we have the current potential farce isn't because of the rules, its because theres no decent administration ensuring strict adherence to the rules.

 

[hutch]

i agree with both of your ideas, especially the one nation rule. at least have some sort of guidelines in place which stop players from representing one country one week and another country the next.

i like your points system tho dimitri!

 

[Nook]

As Bobbis said

Current eligibility criteria + one nation rule.

Only thing they should look at is a limited exception for the second tier countries but I think the one nation rule is probably the way to go.

It isn't hard - the RLIF/ARL/"Tas Bateiri plus a few t shirts" need to sort it.

 

[nadera78]

Current criteria plus one nation only. No exceptions!!!!!!!!

 

[IanG]

Well I'd simplify it and making it a two pronged eligability criteria.
I'd get rid of the whole parent grandpartent thing and it'd be down to the player themselves.
It'd then be either Their country of birth or the country they're a citizen of. If those 2 are one and the same then that's the only country they can represent.

A while back I read what the criteria is for Cricket. If the player has already played for a counrty they have to wait 4 years before thay can represent another.

 

[International RL]

Current criteria plus one nation only. No exceptions!!!!!!!!

Yep definately.

There is nothing more damaging than having players turn out for multiple countries. If we're going to do that though, we have to organise more meaningful games for smaller nations to ensure players are more likely to play fror them in the long term. Tests against the big 3 etc.

Furthermore the biggest danger in all of this is the residency rule. I know that Hunt is eligibile under the 'rules'. But come on...is this what we really want? The NRL is the best comp in the world rugby league wise. We want players from other countires to come here and get better...what we dont want is players to all of a sudden come here at a youngish age, become awesome and then play for Australia against weaker nations...Its totally self defeating and something that needs to be looked at due to the fact that the NRL is like a magnet for over-seas footy talent.

Thats why i get the sh*ts about Karmichael etc...not because i dont think he is 'technically' eligible. But because I think its against the spirit of what we are trying to do and ultimately weakening the code. WE are sucking the young talent out of other nations and then getting them to play against the countries they are from. Its ridiculous.

Maybe we could get them to sign loyalty pledges BEFORE leaving? I dont know, but thats my BIGGEST concern in all of this.

 

[Nook]

This nonsense about Hunt is completely self defeating.

Hunt is eligible for Australia - would be in any sport. He came here at a young age, played his first RL here, could have represented either but decided to go with Australia. This isn't a technicality. It is how it works.

There is abosolutely nothing wrong with this. The only precedent it sets is "people who are eligible for Australia can play for Australia" - I'd have thought this was already pretty well established.

There are two solutions to the problem of guys coming to Australia at a youngish age to play footy (Hunt isn't one of these so he is not relevant in this argument). Firstly the NZRL (with the NRL's help) needs to imporve its junior structures, hold on to more good young players, provide a direct pathway to the NRL at home so guys aren't shipped off to Aus at 15/16. A second NZ NRL team would help. The second thing is to boost the status of internatioanl RL, especially for the smaller nations.

All this talk of Kiwis turning out for Australia is nonsense. Hunt played his first RL here. Kaufusi played his first RL here. They didn't come here to play RL, no-one stole them. Marshall and Williams both came out as 16 year olds and both stuck with NZ despite being eligible to play for both.

 

[International RL]

Its not rubbish.

Its a very real problem. Just dismissing it as 'rubbish' is hardly going to make it any better, nor makes your point any more valid.

These guys moved here pretty late in their lives (Kafusi, Hunt). Not like Mason who was born in NZ but has lived in Australia all his life (I think). What is Hunt's citizenship? What does it say on his passport? Is he actually Australian or a New Zealander? If he is an Australia well then I guess I stand corrected...though it still annoys me.

If not...Then I'm sorry I just can't fathom how a bloke can move here in his teens play some footy here for a few years and become 'Australian'. Its a ridiculous situation.

Yes it is 'standard' by other sports, but it isn't taking into account the unique circumstances of rugby league, that the NRL is one of the few elite competitions in the world. It is widely accepted that the NRL is the best rugby league comp in the world. We all think that we need players from overseas playing here to lift their standards and become greater players for their domestic nations.

The thing is though we have this odd situation, that doesn't happen in other sports, where players come here that we try and place them in our rep teams. You don't see this in the English Premier League etc. And even if it does, the strength of the code is not such that one incredibly strong nation is pilfering all of those around it. What is the point if the best young kids recruited and trained are going to turn out for Australia? It is criminal for NRL clubs to actively recruit in other nations, bring them here for a few years and then slap origin and test jerseys on the best ones. How can you justify that it isn't a stupid and counter-productive process?

Its not as though there is an alternative. We can't expect players to stay at home in their pacific nations and all of a sudden compete with NRL standard kangaroo players. It will never happen. They have to play and be coached here...But then they are encouraged to play for Australia under residency! ITs madness.

'Residency' whilst technically valid and a world standard in other sports is not good enough in a Rugby League context. It has the effect of holding our code back and crippling it from within as Australia will continue to get stronger and stronger. It will have the effect of Australia being able to 'legitimately' rob the poor to make themselves stronger. How can you sit there and justify this to me as positive on the basis of some technical rule?

Putting another team in NZ, along with junior 'structures' may help things. But at the end of the day it isn't going to stop the 15 Australian NRL teams sniffing around talent in other countries. It is still 2 teams v 15. Young kids are still going to go looking for opportunities.

I am in agreeance on the building up of the emerging nations, as I have previously stated. This is vital, but we still need some stronger conviction from the governing bodies and from Australia particularly in terms of player selection.

Now Benji and Williams decided to play for NZ..but how long until the next young gun decides he wants to play origin? then what? We would have the situation of Australia contiuning to rob the poor to make itself stronger. That isn't right.

 

[Nook]

Its not rubbish.

'fraid it is mate.

These guys moved here pretty late in their lives (Kafusi, Hunt). Not like Mason who was born in NZ but has lived in Australia all his life (I think). What is Hunt's citizenship? What does it say on his passport? Is he actually Australian or a New Zealander? If he is an Australia well then I guess I stand corrected...though it still annoys me.

They moved here late in their lives? Hunt was 11 or 12, Kaufusi was 15. They weren't even close to being adults. And neither of them had played Rugby League until they arrived in Australia. If you get annoyed at Hunt choosing to play for Australia that is fair enough - I'd rather have seen him play for NZ too.

If not...Then I'm sorry I just can't fathom how a bloke can move here in his teens play some footy here for a few years and become 'Australian'. Its a ridiculous situation.

People move here and become "Australian" all the time - why should it be any different for football players.

Why should a guy who moves here as a youngster and plays footy here not be allowed to play football for Australia?

Would your argument be the same if it was an 11 year old who moved here from Kenya or India or Brazil? Still not allowed to play for Australia?

The thing is though we have this odd situation, that doesn't happen in other sports, where players come here that we try and place them in our rep teams. You don't see this in the English Premier League etc.

You see it all the time. Look at the Kiwis and others running around for Japan in RU. Look at the Argentinians playing for Italy. Australian born blokes playing for Croatia in the Soccer WC after moving there to play as adults.

And that is just for adults who choose to relocate based on the lure of a contract.

Contrast Hunt and Kaufusi who moved here for family reasons and took the game up here. Completely different situation.

And even if it does, the strength of the code is not such that one incredibly strong nation is pilfering all of those around it. What is the point if the best young kids recruited and trained are going to turn out for Australia?

Where is the evidence of this? Hunt and Kaufusi were not recruited and trained. Benji and Williams were and they chose NZ, without hesitation.

It is criminal for NRL clubs to actively recruit in other nations, bring them here for a few years and then slap origin and test jerseys on the best ones.

Where has this happened??

How can you justify that it isn't a stupid and counter-productive process?

I'm not in the business of trying to justify something that doesn't exist.

Its not as though there is an alternative. We can't expect players to stay at home in their pacific nations and all of a sudden compete with NRL standard kangaroo players. It will never happen. They have to play and be coached here...

Kids being recruited from RL comps on the islands? Seems like this discussion is 99.5% hypothetical.

But then they are encouraged to play for Australia under residency! ITs madness.

Who are you talking about? Seems like you are imagining something and then getting annoyed about it.

'Residency' whilst technically valid and a world standard in other sports is not good enough in a Rugby League context. It has the effect of holding our code back and crippling it from within as Australia will continue to get stronger and stronger. It will have the effect of Australia being able to 'legitimately' rob the poor to make themselves stronger. How can you sit there and justify this to me as positive on the basis of some technical rule?

Justify what? :crazy:

Putting another team in NZ, along with junior 'structures' may help things. But at the end of the day it isn't going to stop the 15 Australian NRL teams sniffing around talent in other countries. It is still 2 teams v 15. Young kids are still going to go looking for opportunities.

Yes they are - and like Sonny Bill and Marshall they'll go back to represent their countries as better players.

Now Benji and Williams decided to play for NZ..but how long until the next young gun decides he wants to play origin? then what? We would have the situation of Australia contiuning to rob the poor to make itself stronger. That isn't right.

Finally we get to the crux of the issue - we "would" have a problem. Albeit a minor one. It is the players choice. Australia is entitled to chose eligible players. If this is an argument about the Australian policy then sure, we can point out that it'd be better if they (in this hypothetical situation) weren't selecting guys who had been recruited to play RL for NRL clubs from the islands/NZ. Possibly there should be a policy of not doing so at a selection level.

But the rules aren't to blame.

 

[linny]

This nonsense about Hunt is completely self defeating.

Hunt is eligible for Australia - would be in any sport. He came here at a young age, played his first RL here, could have represented either but decided to go with Australia. This isn't a technicality. It is how it works.

There is abosolutely nothing wrong with this. The only precedent it sets is "people who are eligible for Australia can play for Australia" - I'd have thought this was already pretty well established.

Hunt is eligible for Australia, it satisfies all the rules that he play in an Australian jersey. However, for the interest of International Rugby League, it is very damaging for players born in other countries to pledge allegiance to Australia and further unbalance the player pools that each respective country has.

Due to elevated standard of the NRL, the only realistic way to lift the International standard is to get players from other countries to play in the NRL. Now what good is this if they pledge their allegiance to Australia and leave their country?

With this happening the only way that International footy will grow is if players develop to an NRL standard with the exposure to coaching/competition that they receive in their home countries.... now I think the chances of this happening is 0

With the Karmichael example, yes its within the rules that he plays for Australia, is it good for the game though? defintely not.... And its this reason that Rugby League should be trying to stop this

 

[Philip_Smith007]

'Residency' whilst technically valid and a world standard in other sports is not good enough in a Rugby League context. It has the effect of holding our code back and crippling it from within as Australia will continue to get stronger and stronger. It will have the effect of Australia being able to 'legitimately' rob the poor to make themselves stronger. How can you sit there and justify this to me as positive on the basis of some technical rule?

Brilliant!
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Another point that hasn’t been risen is the fact the Hunt actually displaces an actual Australian.

There is a plethora of great “Australian” fullbacks, why do they need a kiwi born fullback. It seemed when Hunt was selected for the team in the ANZAC test it was more of a grab for him so the Kiwis couldn’t have him rather than selection on form!

Put yourself in the situation either as yourself or as one of your children, you have grown up in your country, born and breed their, you have had the dream since a little child to play for your country, you make it in the NRL or Super League and after a couple of seasons you are in contention for a position in your country’s team.
But someone who hasn’t lived their whole life in the country, but has residency/citizenship after 2-3 years and is selected infront of you or your son.

How does that leave you feeling? Or your child?
Different story now?

Hunt has made his choice, but should of he been aloud to keep other talented Australians out of their team?

The rest of the world will never be able to compete with Australia with the way the rules are now. They need to be changed and this talent stealing stopped by the larger country. Or you can kiss international league goodbye.

 

[International RL]

Mate don't try and dismiss it as rubbish. Once again I re-iterate it as being highly critical in the development of the code. Your attitude in itself is 'rubbish' and short-sighted that does not take into account the realities of the situation and the future prospective development of the code.

I'm not going to bother replying to every one of your points as it will just a circular argument.

However I notice you didn't bother refuting that they aren't Australian citizens...yet the qualify under a rule that is counter-productive to the code.

This is really only the tip of the iceburg. You only have to look at the recruitment policies of NRL clubs to know there is going to be an explosion of islander/kiwi talent about to hit the NRL. Thats when the full extent of this problem is going to emerge.

Yes I agree it does happen in other codes, but those other codes
A) dont get the bad press we do
b) have the situation of having one or 2 extremely elite comps being so far ahead of the rest of the world in standard.

So if you look back at what I wrote, you'll see the point I am making that we shouldn't hold ourselves to those standards as this is a unique rugby league situation.

 

[Nook]

They may well be Australia citizens, who knows? They live here, they played their first RL here, they qualify. That is one issue.

The other issue you are talking about is the prospect of young guys being recruited from NZ/the islands etc specifically to play RL and then being pinched by Australia. This has not happened. It may, and the arguments you make about the need for RL to address it are valid. But it is a separate issue and linking them together does your argument no favours.

I'd suggest that if it becomes a problem it is one which needs to be dealt with on a policy level rather than though regulation. The eligibility rules, as they stand, are fine (apart from the lack of a one nation rule but lets leave that to the side for a moment) - in line with most other sports. If the ARL wants to cheapen the jersey by using players brought over here from NZ/elsewhere as 15/16/17/18 year olds to play with NRL clubs, changing that attitude is the key, not changing the rules.

 

[Nook]

Or your child?

If it were my child I'd rather he cop it on the chin and get back on the training paddock and try to become the best fullback eligible to play for Australia, rather than whinge about it being unfair.

 

[Philip_Smith007]

If it were my child I'd rather he cop it on the chin and get back on the training paddock and try to become the best fullback eligible to play for Australia, rather than whinge about it being unfair.

And if they never make it due to the Kiwi born playing being of similar age? You are still happy with the situation?

 

[International RL]

Yes it may be a policy issue. But I can't see them doing this?

Do you think Australia will honestly rob itself of the opportunity of taking a SBW or a Benji if available?? Hell no.

The admin are selfish and it is reflective of the general attitude towards the international game in this country.

I understand your point about the rules, but if there isn't something done to actually restrict Australia from doing it, outside a massive philosophical shift, nothing will stop them from continuing the skew the player pool in their favour.

Do you honestly think it's a good thing seeing Hunt and Kafusi turn out for Australia? If you don't and it is some rule or policy allowing it to happen, then something is wrong with that rule or policy.

In the law, a law is held invalid and bad if it is not respected by the public it is governing and does not achieve outcomes of perceived justice.

If a 'rule' allows Australia to take these players..I'm not happy with it. And I don't think it is achieving a just outcome for the game.

Just saying "oh well they moved here in their teens, played footy here, they're free to play for australia". Is simply not good enough. I mean Kafusi was FIFTEEN when he moved here. That's old enough to be tried as an adult in the court of law. He really can't be considered an Australia unless he gets citizenship.

Hunt came at 12, so maybe there is more of a grey area there...but even so. 12 is pretty darn old to all of a sudden turn you back on a country. If i moved overseas at 12 I certainly wouldn't have run out for that country and 'proudly' sung its national anthem...and i definately wouldn't have done it at 15. I mean how can they honestly say that they're proud Aussies if they haven't even become citizens. If they had become citizens it would make it more believable that they were doing it for the right reasons and not just for the opportunities to play Origin (which was sited by both Kafusi and Hunt as their primary motivations for playing for AUS....which is a whole other argument).

Yes I accept the fact that they have the option to do as they wish. But rather than throwin you hands up in the air and blindly sticking to the wording of some regulation and pointing to 'other sports' doing the 'same'...we need to devise a policy and regulatory framework that will encourage kids to play for their home nations and there by expand OUR code.

The reason I link these arguments is because they are inextricably linked. You can't simply hold Hunt's decision in isolation to what is going on elsewhere. To do so is misrepresentative of the argument and argued on technicality rather than on merit and beneficial policy.

It is all part of one policy and I identify it on the basis that it should be sorted out before it becomes an epidemic and severly hampers future international efforts.

 

[Nook]

Do you think Australia will honestly rob itself of the opportunity of taking a SBW or a Benji if available?? Hell no.

I think there would be an outcry if some young superstar brought out from NZ by a NRL club at 16 or 17 was thrown into the Aussie team a couple of years later. If it happened once it wouldn't happen again. Look at the Hunt saga and how much press that generated - and he came here with his family as a child.

The admin are selfish and it is reflective of the general attitude towards the international game in this country.

And if that attitide persists the international game, long term, is rooted - regardless of any tightening up of the perceived inconsistencies in the eligibility criteria. Changing the criteria will achieve very little if the ARL chooses not to give a rats about the international game.

I understand your point about the rules, but if there isn't something done to actually restrict Australia from doing it, outside a massive philosophical shift, nothing will stop them from continuing the skew the player pool in their favour.

Continuing to skew? It isn't Australia's fault that it is the only country in the world with a couple of hundred thousand RL players. Who have 'we' stolen? Hunt who came here as a child, Kaufusi who came here as a child. Not stolen from anybody - certainly not the NZRL.It is an alarmist reaction to a thus far non-existent trend. And let's not forget - the Aussies aren't the only ones taking advantage of some of the less clearcut aspects of the eligibility debate. The Kiwis in the last year have played (in addition to one bloke who clearly is not eligible) a 3 year resident and a bunch of guys who were born in Australia (not to mention those who grew up here after emmigrating at a young age).

Do you honestly think it's a good thing seeing Hunt and Kafusi turn out for Australia? If you don't and it is some rule or policy allowing it to happen, then something is wrong with that rule or policy.

I'd probably prefer if they were playing for the Kiwis but I'm not going to spit the dummy about it. They both made a choice - a perfectly legitimate choice in light of both the rules and their family histories and current situations - to play for Australia. You keep raising Hunt - there is absolutely nothing wrong with him being picked for Australia. Nothing. He is eligible for both countries, he chose one. End of.

In the law, a law is held invalid and bad if it is not respected by the public it is governing and does not achieve outcomes of perceived justice.

Strange reference to the law aside - would it be fair if a Kenyan-born kid who came here as an 11 year old, took up Rugby League and became an out and out star was not allowed to represent Australia? Would that really be fair? Because if you have a problem with the Hunt situation surely you would have a problem with that too.

If a 'rule' allows Australia to take these players..I'm not happy with it. And I don't think it is achieving a just outcome for the game.

Australia isn't 'taking' anybody. The victim mentality has crossed the ditch, it seems. Fact: these guys chose to play for Australia - both rejected approaches from NZ before they were offered spots in the Australian team.

Just saying "oh well they moved here in their teens, played footy here, they're free to play for australia". Is simply not good enough. I mean Kafusi was FIFTEEN when he moved here. That's old enough to be tried as an adult in the court of law. He really can't be considered an Australia unless he gets citizenship.

He'd be eligible to play for Australia or whoever else in the vast majority of sports in the world. Rugby League has unique circumstances but a reactionary ditching of fair rules common to all sports isn't an appropriate response.

Hunt came at 12, so maybe there is more of a grey area there...but even so. 12 is pretty darn old to all of a sudden turn you back on a country. If i moved overseas at 12 I certainly wouldn't have run out for that country and 'proudly' sung its national anthem...and i definately wouldn't have done it at 15. I mean how can they honestly say that they're proud Aussies if they haven't even become citizens.

You aren't Karmichael Hunt.

But rather than throwin you hands up in the air and blindly sticking to the wording of some regulation and pointing to 'other sports' doing the 'same'...we need to devise a policy and regulatory framework that will encourage kids to play for their home nations and there by expand OUR code.

I'm not blindly doing anything. The residency rule is sensible enough in my opinion - arbitrary and possibly you could make the period longer although it wouldn't make much difference. Starting to draw more arbitrary lines about when people are or are not fit to represent Australia based on the age at which they came to this country is, quite simply, ridiculous. We live in a world and particularly a region where this kind of migration is going to contiue to accelerate into the future. There are stacks of Polynesian kids running round in the junior comps as you say, and you know what - most of them, the vast majority, are Aussies. They should, can and will represent Australia.

It is all part of one policy and I identify it on the basis that it should be sorted out before it becomes an epidemic and severly hampers future international efforts.

What is your solution? What rule do you propose?

 

[Nook]

Here's part of mine.

If you want young Kiwi kids who come over here to play with NRL clubs to play for the Kiwis (realisitically this is what we are talking about here) - build up respect for and pride in the Kiwi jumper. Plenty already exists. Plenty more could be done. Specifically:

- not selecting players who aren't eligible, then trying to bitch, whinge, lie and moan your way out of it with ridiculous interpretations and threats
- not whinging when players eligible for Australia chose to represent Australia
- not seeking the allegiance of players with tenuous ties to NZ (think Fien, Tony Martin, and previous approaches to others including Villasanti, Thurston(!)etc) at the expense of the young talent that exists

It is very easy to point the finger at the big mean ARL. But as the last week has shown those at the top of the tree in the NZRL have no clue. Fix that and restore a bit of respect for NZ Rugby League and we're halfway there.

 

[bartman]

Hows this for criteria?

We draw a distinction between our elite countries (where league has a long history and is well developed) and the countries which are aspiring to development.

For Australia, New Zealand, England (or GB&I), France and PNG - our five automatic qualifiers for World Cup, you are eligible if you are born in that country, or have gained residency/citizenship status in that country, simple as that.

This allows for Kiwi kids who move aged 7-13 and grow up in league in Australia to consider themselves Australians, if they choose to recognise this through citizenship laws. No grandparent rules for these established countries, since they are considered good enough to automatically be included in the World Cup.

For any non-elite, still developing league nation (ie the rest of them), people can qualify via the above, or via ancestry basis using current grandparent rule. This hopefully encourages some decent players from elite competitions yet are below the level of national rep status to get involved in international footy, and help out the developing sides from the countries of their heritage.

There needs to be an upper limit set on how many non-native or citizened players can turn out for a developing nation (not the other way around), and this should be set at 8 (under 50% of a 17 man squad). All players' identifications of which country they may seek to represent must be recorded at the point of reigstration in an elite level competition (eg NRL, Superleague, Bartercard), and would be valid for four year cycles (matching a possible world cup representative cycle). National selectors must pledge to respect these idenmtifications, and not encourage players away during this time, but players or countries can have a window to change or appeal these identifications for whatever reasons only at the start of every four years.

The trick then is to make it attractive or equal for ambitious youngsters to represent their "rightful" country instead of (sometimes understandably) jumping ships to taste the nectar of high level rep football. This involves scheduling of regular (annual?) meaningful matches for all countries (I'm looking mainly at the Pacific here), and an examination and broadening of State of Origin.

It needs to be a three way series, to prevent players wanting to identify as Aussies (instead of kiwis, or islanders of different varieties) just so they can get into SOO. The third team could be a barbarians/others, and would include NRL based players not (eligibility-wise) from NSW or Qld, ie other states, other countries, since what makes SOO great is that is basically close to the best 34 players in NRL, bar the Kiwi/Islanders/others. One game in Brissie, one game in Sydney, one game in Melbourne each season, winner is team with most wins or bets points difference if table is tied, makes every minute of every game count, without adding an extra game to the season calendar.

Obviously need a bit of fiddling around the edges to flesh this out, mainly a reduction in club games so that in return clubs have to embrace and allow players to be involved in the developing international games. Needs broadcatsing agreement to cut 26 rounds to 22, playing each team once, and seven teams twice, and then there's four exatra weeks available somewhere... Have the international program after the grand final, just start the season a bit later (all sanctioned trials in March, proper start in April).