Ardie Savea's intriguing rugby eligibility law change suggestion
All Blacks loose forward Ardie Savea has brought into question whether international eligibility laws should be applicable to coaches in the same way that they are enforced for players.
Test eligibility has been a contentious issue in rugby for some time, with the ever-lasting debate flaring up again recently after the announcement of Kiwi duo Johnny McNicholl and Willis Halaholo in Wales' squad for this weekend's clash against the Barbarians in Cardiff.
They are two of many players who have qualified for adopted nations on World Rugby's controversial residency grounds, which states a player can play for a country outside of their's, their parent's or grandparent's nation of birth provided that they live in their new homeland for three years consecutively.
Continue reading below...
As of next year, the period of residency will be increased to a five-year period, but once a player has committed themselves to one nation, they become ineligible to represent any other international side, regardless of how many countries they were eligible for prior to their test debut.
A loophole through rugby seven's involvement in the Olympics means that players can switch allegiance if they stand down from international rugby for three years and partake in either four World Rugby Sevens Series tournaments or an Olympic qualifying event for their second nation.
However, many professional players willing to switch international allegiances struggle to find the time to commit themselves to the Olympic loophole given their nearly year-long commitments to their clubs on an annual basis.
The format of sevens also makes it difficult for those who play in the tight five positions to commit to the abbreviated format of the game due to its fast-paced, high-intensity nature.
Consequently, plenty of minnow nations - particularly the Pacific Island countries, who provide a plethora of professional rugby players to teams around the globe - suffer from a severe loss of talent to wealthier, better-resourced unions and clubs.
"Random thought - rugby union players aren't allowed to switch allegiance once playing for their country," he said. "Should the same rule apply to coaches?," he wrote to his 37,500 followers on Twitter.
Such a move would make the likes of Gatland, outgoing Ireland coach Joe Schmidt, Japan boss Jamie Joseph and incoming Wallabies mentor Dave Rennie - all of whom were considered frontrunners for the vacant All Blacks job before ruling themselves out of contention for various reasons - ineligible to take charge of New Zealand.
The main argument against such a rule is that it restricts the flow of idea, which allows for a better product worldwide.
Conversely, though, the current eligibility laws for players restricts growth for tier two nations such as Fiji, Samoa and Tonga.
The lure of financial incentive from offshore clubs has seen many players from these Pacific nations lost to overseas unions through residency grounds, with plenty of these players only earning a handful of test caps for their adopted country.
"The systems in place are actually conducive to keeping teams like the Pacific Islands poor," Leo told TVNZ in August.
"But if you go to a country like France, where I do a lot of work, we're just propping up French professional rugby, especially when you go down to the second and third divisions, it's Pacific Island sourced.
"At the moment, if you want to be a professional player, you've got to leave. That's the reality of the situation."
In other news:
Latest Comments
It's just an endemic problem within EPCR. Glasgow threw away the game on the weekend too by resting players. Those sorts of crazy results are all over tournament.
The closest knockout result in 23' was a 14 point win. 24' had a 1, 3 and 12 point margin games, the rest all 30/40 point thrashings by the home team. In every single game.
Haha that's a great line, thanks for the share.
The issue is not really solving the itinerary for South African teams, that is easy, the problem is solving it for the teams that are required to come back from South Africa and win the following week. The perfect example of this was La Rochelle last year having to beat Stormers away and then return for a day to France before heading off to Dublin. They consequently but unsurprising got spanked. It's the same problem Super Rugby created when it required higher ranking sides to travel to another countries top team at the pointy end of the season.
As has been discussed in a recent article about England having too many teams in EPCR, the problems are many and varied in general. Combining EPCR and league games into a signle itinerary/season is no problem, both comps simply need to get together at planning stage and be prepared to have flexible weekends where the two comps are swapped around, but is it going to be as easy to suggest that the EPCR just needs a week off from the Ro16 stage to Quarters (or pool to Ro16 I can remember which it was)? What if that LaRvStomers game was a quarter, when is the semi, or the final going to be played?
South Africa's future is, of course, in South Africa. There is talk of a group wanting to create a Super League in America, touring big cities, no doubt some in the Middle East being included, in a World Series type format of the games biggest stars. It's a terrible idea by itself, but especially when there is already Europe, the ME, and all of Africa crying out for more high level rugby, and South Africa's huge abundance of players that can provide it.
Go to commentsDragging you UP you mean Ojohn.
Go to comments