Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 304 | 305 | 306 | 307 | 308 | 309 | 310 | 311 | 312 | 313 | 314 | ... | 640

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325561 26-Sep-2019 20:36

Batman:

tdgeek:

networkn: So on your logic it's ok if our national team fields Sevu Reece but not at the world cup? I mean he is Fijian Born after all. Pretty sure Grant Elliot played for the black caps in the cricket world cup so no more cwc it's called the kfc cup now. Olympics are gone. U20s world cup gone. The article is nonsense.

The article is nonsense if you wish to see a world cup between nations, correct. Its nit a world cup its just a series, golf, rugby, cricket. NZ is New Zealanders or it isnt. and it isnt to mention one team.

Then half the NZ team should be stood down.

Is it half? I read less, a lot less. Define a NZ team, or any team. What is your criteria to represent NZ?

Mighty Ape

Shop now on Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Handle9

11258 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325562 26-Sep-2019 20:36

tdgeek:

Handle9:

Which 15 New Zealanders are playing for Namibia? Your reasoning and examples are pretty hard to follow.

Where did I say that?? Your replies are hard to follow if you make things up. 15 Kiwis playing for Namibia is plain bizarre. If you feel its fine to call any country's team a country team where some players are imported, that's fine. I happen to disagree. If thats ok. my definition of NZ, or Japan, or Namibia must differ from yours. I thought that means Kiwis, or Namibians, or Japanese, my mistake. It means people who live in this world, so we shouldn't be using country names, it it does not represent the country. Im actually surprised that what I assumed were rugby purists, dont care about representation of nations.

Your example was of NZ vs Namibia. As far as I can tell there are no New Zealanders playing for Namibia.

In your view is David Pocock Australian? I think he is, regardless of where he was born.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325564 26-Sep-2019 20:41

Does tackle mean something different in Canada? Their defense is like a sieve right now.

Oh I get it, they think it's touch rugby lol no wonder they look so confused hehehe

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325565 26-Sep-2019 20:42

Handle9:

tdgeek:

Handle9:

Which 15 New Zealanders are playing for Namibia? Your reasoning and examples are pretty hard to follow.

Where did I say that?? Your replies are hard to follow if you make things up. 15 Kiwis playing for Namibia is plain bizarre. If you feel its fine to call any country's team a country team where some players are imported, that's fine. I happen to disagree. If thats ok. my definition of NZ, or Japan, or Namibia must differ from yours. I thought that means Kiwis, or Namibians, or Japanese, my mistake. It means people who live in this world, so we shouldn't be using country names, it it does not represent the country. Im actually surprised that what I assumed were rugby purists, dont care about representation of nations.

Your example was of NZ vs Namibia. As far as I can tell there are no New Zealanders playing for Namibia.

In your view is David Pocock Australian? I think he is, regardless of where he was born.

I obviously used two nation names as examples. The issue is teams who are country based that use players not born there. How that means Kiwis playing for Namibia is beyond me. If its fine to import players, dont call it a NZ team, Namibian team, Japanese team, whoever the shoe fits. As its not a true reflection and celebration of each rugby nation. Or can it something else. Some other cup, as its nit really a world cup is it?

Handle9

11258 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325569 26-Sep-2019 20:48

tdgeek:

Handle9:

tdgeek:

Handle9:

Which 15 New Zealanders are playing for Namibia? Your reasoning and examples are pretty hard to follow.

Where did I say that?? Your replies are hard to follow if you make things up. 15 Kiwis playing for Namibia is plain bizarre. If you feel its fine to call any country's team a country team where some players are imported, that's fine. I happen to disagree. If thats ok. my definition of NZ, or Japan, or Namibia must differ from yours. I thought that means Kiwis, or Namibians, or Japanese, my mistake. It means people who live in this world, so we shouldn't be using country names, it it does not represent the country. Im actually surprised that what I assumed were rugby purists, dont care about representation of nations.

Your example was of NZ vs Namibia. As far as I can tell there are no New Zealanders playing for Namibia.

In your view is David Pocock Australian? I think he is, regardless of where he was born.

I obviously used two nation names as examples. The issue is teams who are country based that use players not born there. How that means Kiwis playing for Namibia is beyond me. If its fine to import players, dont call it a NZ team, Namibian team, Japanese team, whoever the shoe fits. As its not a true reflection and celebration of each rugby nation. Or can it something else. Some other cup, as its nit really a world cup is it?

What does a players birth country have to do with the country they represent? If you ask Billy Vunipolo would he identify as English or Australian. If you met him on the street and talked to him would you call him Australian? Can you seriously suggest that he should represent Australia when he only lived there as an infant?

Equally the many South Africans who have moved overseas and will never return. Similarly in cricket is BJ Watling a South African? Shouldn't Colin de Grandholme represent Zimbabwe? They will never return to South Africa or Zimbabwe to live so why should they be excluded from representing their adopted country?

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325581 26-Sep-2019 20:51

Handle9:

tdgeek:

Handle9:

Which 15 New Zealanders are playing for Namibia? Your reasoning and examples are pretty hard to follow.

Where did I say that?? Your replies are hard to follow if you make things up. 15 Kiwis playing for Namibia is plain bizarre. If you feel its fine to call any country's team a country team where some players are imported, that's fine. I happen to disagree. If thats ok. my definition of NZ, or Japan, or Namibia must differ from yours. I thought that means Kiwis, or Namibians, or Japanese, my mistake. It means people who live in this world, so we shouldn't be using country names, it it does not represent the country. Im actually surprised that what I assumed were rugby purists, dont care about representation of nations.

Your example was of NZ vs Namibia. As far as I can tell there are no New Zealanders playing for Namibia.

In your view is David Pocock Australian? I think he is, regardless of where he was born.

You know he was born in Zimbabwe. Does he have citizenship? Yiove answered my question., We dont celebrate a country in sport in Rugby, its like other sports. There are some that still define eligibility by birthright. In Pococks case my opinion is he has been raised as an Australian, he no doubt has citizenship, so Im happy with that. As distinct from "36 month imports making good coin (no issue with that) and outta here when contract is up"

If Roger Federer lived here for 3 years on a deal, he is a Kiwi tennis player?

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325584 26-Sep-2019 20:53

Handle9:

tdgeek:

Handle9:

tdgeek:

Handle9:

Which 15 New Zealanders are playing for Namibia? Your reasoning and examples are pretty hard to follow.

Where did I say that?? Your replies are hard to follow if you make things up. 15 Kiwis playing for Namibia is plain bizarre. If you feel its fine to call any country's team a country team where some players are imported, that's fine. I happen to disagree. If thats ok. my definition of NZ, or Japan, or Namibia must differ from yours. I thought that means Kiwis, or Namibians, or Japanese, my mistake. It means people who live in this world, so we shouldn't be using country names, it it does not represent the country. Im actually surprised that what I assumed were rugby purists, dont care about representation of nations.

Your example was of NZ vs Namibia. As far as I can tell there are no New Zealanders playing for Namibia.

In your view is David Pocock Australian? I think he is, regardless of where he was born.

I obviously used two nation names as examples. The issue is teams who are country based that use players not born there. How that means Kiwis playing for Namibia is beyond me. If its fine to import players, dont call it a NZ team, Namibian team, Japanese team, whoever the shoe fits. As its not a true reflection and celebration of each rugby nation. Or can it something else. Some other cup, as its nit really a world cup is it?

What does a players birth country have to do with the country they represent? If you ask Billy Vunipolo would he identify as English or Australian. If you met him on the street and talked to him would you call him Australian? Can you seriously suggest that he should represent Australia when he only lived there as an infant?

Equally the many South Africans who have moved overseas and will never return. Similarly in cricket is BJ Watling a South African? Shouldn't Colin de Grandholme represent Zimbabwe? They will never return to South Africa or Zimbabwe to live so why should they be excluded from representing their adopted country?

If Roger Federer lived here for 3 years on a deal, he is a Kiwi tennis player?

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325586 26-Sep-2019 20:53

networkn: So now it's not just the name of the cup it's the name of the teams too. Boy oh boy my head hurts

If the name of a country is hard to comprehend, well.

If Roger Federer lived here for 3 years on a deal, he is a Kiwi tennis player? Go on, say yes.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325589 26-Sep-2019 21:02

I am not going to continue to give this topic any more oxygen. It's nonsense.

Start another thread if you feel so strongly about it.

Handle9

11258 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325590 26-Sep-2019 21:04

tdgeek:

Handle9:

tdgeek:

Handle9:

Which 15 New Zealanders are playing for Namibia? Your reasoning and examples are pretty hard to follow.

Where did I say that?? Your replies are hard to follow if you make things up. 15 Kiwis playing for Namibia is plain bizarre. If you feel its fine to call any country's team a country team where some players are imported, that's fine. I happen to disagree. If thats ok. my definition of NZ, or Japan, or Namibia must differ from yours. I thought that means Kiwis, or Namibians, or Japanese, my mistake. It means people who live in this world, so we shouldn't be using country names, it it does not represent the country. Im actually surprised that what I assumed were rugby purists, dont care about representation of nations.

Your example was of NZ vs Namibia. As far as I can tell there are no New Zealanders playing for Namibia.

In your view is David Pocock Australian? I think he is, regardless of where he was born.

You know he was born in Zimbabwe. Does he have citizenship? Yiove answered my question., We dont celebrate a country in sport in Rugby, its like other sports. There are some that still define eligibility by birthright. In Pococks case my opinion is he has been raised as an Australian, he no doubt has citizenship, so Im happy with that. As distinct from "36 month imports making good coin (no issue with that) and outta here when contract is up"

If Roger Federer lived here for 3 years on a deal, he is a Kiwi tennis player?

So the criteria is now citizenship, not where you are born? Previously you said Sevu Reece shouldn't be eligible as he was born in Fiji. So if a player has a dual citizenship it's fine for them to represent either country? Someone who has never lived in England but has an English passport (like Brad Shields) is ok but someone who has emigrated to live in another country isn't able to represent that country?

In my view 3 years residency to qualify to represent a country is reasonable. You will definitely have players and a few countries who take the p1ss but on balance it seems reasonable to me. What is the alternative?

Edit: Weber / Shields

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325591 26-Sep-2019 21:06

I understand why you say that, its very clear. I dont feel strongly I have an opinion if thats ok. Maybe you should read the article as you haven't it seems. Its clearly about imports tarnishing the game, I have no idea why all these other arguments get posted. My Federer example is exactly the theme of the article. I struggle to see the complexity. Its a very realisable article and it poses questions. At least Batman was able to post a response without getting upset.

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325593 26-Sep-2019 21:13

Handle9:

So the criteria is now citizenship, not where you are born? Previously you said Sevu Reece shouldn't be eligible as he was born in Fiji. So if a player has a dual citizenship it's fine for them to represent either country? Someone who has never lived in England but has an English passport (like Brad Shields) is ok but someone who has emigrated to live in another country isn't able to represent that country?

In my view 3 years residency to qualify to represent a country is reasonable. You will definitely have players and a few countries who take the p1ss but on balance it seems reasonable to me. What is the alternative?

Edit: Weber / Shields

A few?? Read the article again. Its SOLELY about paid imports, thats it. Its not about kids escaping Mugabe and settling somewhere years and years ago and being raised as whatever country they are now in. Its about paid imports.

He highlighted hosts Japan as a prime example, with 15 players in their squad qualifying on three-year residency terms.

Thorburn touched on Ireland's controversial decision to select recently qualified South African lock Jean Kleyn instead of respected local Devin Toner for the tournament and noted that even World Rugby vice-chairman Agustin Pichot was crying foul

"But if we must have a residency period then I'd make it a 10-year one, as a decade or thereabouts is generally seen as life expectancy for a test rugby career.

"That would pretty much stop the numbers of players switching countries, and that would be a good thing."

Thorburn also highlighted Irish import Bundee Aki.

"He is not Irish. He's a New Zealander of Samoan descent. "When he was growing up as a kid, he was singing the New Zealand anthem or the Samoan one. All of a sudden, he's singing the Irish anthem. You wonder how that feels.

Thats why the article calls it a circus. Are nations fighting for a coveted title or are they talking a mockery of the sport? Its a mockery in my opinion.

Handle9

11258 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325596 26-Sep-2019 21:27

tdgeek:

Handle9:

So the criteria is now citizenship, not where you are born? Previously you said Sevu Reece shouldn't be eligible as he was born in Fiji. So if a player has a dual citizenship it's fine for them to represent either country? Someone who has never lived in England but has an English passport (like Brad Shields) is ok but someone who has emigrated to live in another country isn't able to represent that country?

In my view 3 years residency to qualify to represent a country is reasonable. You will definitely have players and a few countries who take the p1ss but on balance it seems reasonable to me. What is the alternative?

Edit: Weber / Shields

A few?? Read the article again. Its SOLELY about paid imports, thats it. Its not about kids escaping Mugabe and settling somewhere years and years ago and being raised as whatever country they are now in. Its about paid imports.

He highlighted hosts Japan as a prime example, with 15 players in their squad qualifying on three-year residency terms.

Thorburn touched on Ireland's controversial decision to select recently qualified South African lock Jean Kleyn instead of respected local Devin Toner for the tournament and noted that even World Rugby vice-chairman Agustin Pichot was crying foul

"But if we must have a residency period then I'd make it a 10-year one, as a decade or thereabouts is generally seen as life expectancy for a test rugby career.

"That would pretty much stop the numbers of players switching countries, and that would be a good thing."

Thorburn also highlighted Irish import Bundee Aki.

"He is not Irish. He's a New Zealander of Samoan descent. "When he was growing up as a kid, he was singing the New Zealand anthem or the Samoan one. All of a sudden, he's singing the Irish anthem. You wonder how that feels.

Thats why the article calls it a circus. Are nations fighting for a coveted title or are they talking a mockery of the sport? Its a mockery in my opinion.

What is the reasonable alternative? A 10 year stand down would have excluded David Pocock from international rugby until he was 24, despite having moved for reasons other than rugby.

How do you fairly define mercenaries vs players who move for other reasons? Significant number of South Africans are living overseas and won't go home due to their lack of personal safety. Should they be excluded from representing their new countries?

Whatever the eligibility rule it will either be grossly unjust or get abused. I think on balance it's fairly reasonable and I'd rather have some players taking the mickey than exclude huge numbers of players from international rugby due to an arbitrary construct.

GV27

5883 posts

Uber Geek

#2325661 27-Sep-2019 06:53

I love the frenzy the European press whip up over eligibility when they are the ones who block the 'right of return' rules and make it impossible for island players to play for their national teams.

It's concern-trolling from the days when New Zealand had more dark faces than they did. Now they have more island players yet still choose to push this barrow. Anything to make people think they aren't the problem.

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2325670 27-Sep-2019 07:26

Handle9:

tdgeek:

Handle9:

So the criteria is now citizenship, not where you are born? Previously you said Sevu Reece shouldn't be eligible as he was born in Fiji. So if a player has a dual citizenship it's fine for them to represent either country? Someone who has never lived in England but has an English passport (like Brad Shields) is ok but someone who has emigrated to live in another country isn't able to represent that country?

In my view 3 years residency to qualify to represent a country is reasonable. You will definitely have players and a few countries who take the p1ss but on balance it seems reasonable to me. What is the alternative?

Edit: Weber / Shields

A few?? Read the article again. Its SOLELY about paid imports, thats it. Its not about kids escaping Mugabe and settling somewhere years and years ago and being raised as whatever country they are now in. Its about paid imports.

He highlighted hosts Japan as a prime example, with 15 players in their squad qualifying on three-year residency terms.

Thorburn touched on Ireland's controversial decision to select recently qualified South African lock Jean Kleyn instead of respected local Devin Toner for the tournament and noted that even World Rugby vice-chairman Agustin Pichot was crying foul

"But if we must have a residency period then I'd make it a 10-year one, as a decade or thereabouts is generally seen as life expectancy for a test rugby career.

"That would pretty much stop the numbers of players switching countries, and that would be a good thing."

Thorburn also highlighted Irish import Bundee Aki.

"He is not Irish. He's a New Zealander of Samoan descent. "When he was growing up as a kid, he was singing the New Zealand anthem or the Samoan one. All of a sudden, he's singing the Irish anthem. You wonder how that feels.

Thats why the article calls it a circus. Are nations fighting for a coveted title or are they talking a mockery of the sport? Its a mockery in my opinion.

What is the reasonable alternative? A 10 year stand down would have excluded David Pocock from international rugby until he was 24, despite having moved for reasons other than rugby.

How do you fairly define mercenaries vs players who move for other reasons? Significant number of South Africans are living overseas and won't go home due to their lack of personal safety. Should they be excluded from representing their new countries?

Whatever the eligibility rule it will either be grossly unjust or get abused. I think on balance it's fairly reasonable and I'd rather have some players taking the mickey than exclude huge numbers of players from international rugby due to an arbitrary construct.

Its not players taking the mickey, its the countries. If you read the article its a joke, its a mockery of national competition.

What is reasonable? There is a clear gap between an example such as Pocock and the joke of imports in this RWC, some examples as bolded. If the organisers, who I note are also complaining, cannot differentiate between blatant stacking of teams with non Nationals, they need to revisit their role in the sport

Im surprised at the reaction to my simple post. Its as though I am bashing rugby or the RWC, I'm bashing those teams that p1ss in the face of the meaning of the RWC, its a 4 yearly, pinnacle of Rugby, Nationals teams, big and small all together in one place for 6 weeks. Yet its no big deal to fudge the games, instead of watching a spectacle

1 | ... | 304 | 305 | 306 | 307 | 308 | 309 | 310 | 311 | 312 | 313 | 314 | ... | 640