International Eligibility Proposal

Players will be able to nominate two countries they wish to represent under a radical eligibility proposal.

The Rugby League International Federation is reviewing the existing eligibility laws with a view to making it easier for players who miss out on Australian, New Zealand or English selection to become available for emerging nations. A discussion paper currently being circulated to member nations is considering an overhaul that would make it easier for players to switch allegiances without repercussions to increase the profile and competitiveness of the international game.

Under the proposal, eligible players could nominate one of the three tier-one nations – comprising Australia, New Zealand and England – and then any other team they qualify for, with the remaining countries classified as tier-two nations.

But no shifting would be allowed between the tier-one nations, meaning there couldn't be another case like that of Tonie Carroll, who represented Australia and New Zealand.

love it

Yep, good stuff.

Finally.

My only question and I hope the answer is yes, "Can you change from tier 1 to 2 within a calendar year ?" eg. Semi played the anzac test, doesn't get picked for the 4 nations or expanded version thereof and plays for Fiji. Next Anzac test he gets picked for Australia again, I don't have a problem with that.

Essentially, if eligible you nominate 2 countries and play all the internationals for both.
*Obvious exception, you can't change allegiance within a tournament

It's that simple. Like (think it was Dip or Random said) a final or SOO is worth 150 points and you carry over the suspension.

These complex issues sell papers but the solutions are fuckin simple.

Moley and Lurker put your name to this byline (wouldn't be the first time)

Sorry guys but I personally think it is a shite idea.

I mean realistically I don't think I have ever seen (in my lifetime) more NRL players turn out for the emerging nations and I don't think they have ever been as consistently competitive as what they are today.

All this suggestion does is further create that scenario which doesn't sit well with anyone; where a talented player from an emerging nation gets a start in a 'Tier 1' side and their motivation is questionable and probably not passion for that country/guernsey.

If anything it does the opposite of what we really should be working on when it comes to the international game as it effectively chips away and possibly cheapens the significance of the 'Tier 1' clashes.

A "Country of Origin" style concept? Something about it doesn't pass the sniff test, but at least it's addressing the issue front on.

At it's heart, it would seem to be giving the developing nations a leg-up, by "releasing" tier 1 eligible players to play for their country of birth. That definitely sounds good at face value, and maybe that's all we can hope for right now, but where is the line in the sand?

If we accept that non-tier 1 nations are never going to be tier 1, then I guess this is a good thing. I'm sort of with OSM, but think the concept cheapens national pride, not the significance of tier 1 matches.

Still - it's nice to see someone had an idea outside the box!

i'd suggest national pride has been thrown out the window long ago when players were picking $$ over their country anyways

atleast now when those guys arn't picked for Aus/NZ, they can play for who they have real pride playing for

It's a great idea but it's only relevant if clubs will allow players to represent those countries.

If only I made it pro, they would have had to throw out the eligibility book. Eligible for NSW, QLD, Australia, England and Wales.

dasherhalo wrote:A "Country of Origin" style concept? Something about it doesn't pass the sniff test, but at least it's addressing the issue front on.

At it's heart, it would seem to be giving the developing nations a leg-up, by "releasing" tier 1 eligible players to play for their country of birth. That definitely sounds good at face value, and maybe that's all we can hope for right now, but where is the line in the sand?

If we accept that non-tier 1 nations are never going to be tier 1, then I guess this is a good thing. I'm sort of with OSM, but think the concept cheapens national pride, not the significance of tier 1 matches.

Still - it's nice to see someone had an idea outside the box!

I agree it does that too.

I guess my point was more along the lines of addressing what I believe is a far bigger concern - the increasing insignificance of 'Tier 1' international clashes.
And that this idea only adds to that lack of significance and which probably then has a greater impact on the floundering international scene.

If the NRL just bit the bullet and sorted out the piss-poor scheduling once and for all, the international games could really become the pinnacle of the game again - particularly given how many players from other countries are now playing at the top level.
As it is they are either just an afterthought at the end of a long season or a one off game mid comp that makes no sense.

How is it even remotely a bad idea.

If a player doesnt get picked for a tier one side then they should be allowed to play a country that represents their heritage.

A player like hayne does nothing but carry on about how good his time with the Fiji team was.
It doesnt cheapen it at all IMO. Not in the slightest.

Players want to play for the big gun teams because 1. they are eligible for them and therefore have a connection and want to play for that country.
2. They get paid more.

If they dont get picked it shouldnt meant that "WELL YOU CANT PLAY REP FOOTY THEN". They should be allowed to play for lower tier team.

Sure, that's one way of looking at the positives.

Read my post again - the bit OSM highlighted is pertinent, and an example of how it could be viewed as "not a good idea" - though that's the be all and end all of what I said.

"I'm really proud to be representing my country... until I get picked for another country".

I'd like all countries playing League to be equal, but in the real world, there's a big divide in resources. So, sure: tiers make sense, in the sense that we'd like other nations to develop to the point where it's a level playing field. But, as OSM said: it's diluting tier 1 significance. It's great to release the talent that would be otherwise be sitting out of International League, but I like a sense of national identity to my national sports.

Of course they want to play for the big guns and make the big bucks - it's human nature and common sense. Doesn't mean I have to like it?

But, as I said above - I'm glad someone's thinking outside the box. I may not like it, but I don't HATE it, so if the players like it, who gives a stuff what I think?

I agree mate, but just because a bloke chooses another team - when he has ties to both - does not mean the second choice is watered down.
Most guys will chose the one that pays them more and is more likely to be successful.
I love that we will get more quality nrl players playing for the other teams - which will in turn make those teams better, and will do nothing but make these teams more even.

I guarentee that if this comes in, one day in the not too distant future Samoa/Tonga etc will pull off a massive upset over australia/nz. And it will be brilliant.

I think in theory it's great for a guy like Milf or McGuire to play for Samoa if not selected for Oz. Problem is the same rule has guys like Radradra selecting Australia instead of Fiji. That's not so good.

Dip wrote:I think in theory it's great for a guy like Milf or McGuire to play for Samoa if not selected for Oz. Problem is the same rule has guys like Radradra selecting Australia instead of Fiji. That's not so good.

Maybe semi fucking loves australia?
This country that has given him all these opportunities and made him rich

A radical eligibility proposal – which will change the equation for the nations outside the big three of Australia, New Zealand and England – has been approved by the Rugby League International Federation.

The Herald on Sunday can reveal:

Eligible players can nominate one tier one nation to represent and one tier two nation
Players can switch between their two countries multiple times within a World Cup cycle
There is no stand-down between a change of allegiance
Players of Polynesian heritage can play State of Origin but still be available to turn out for their native island country

As well as the forecast changes, the RLIF also recently extended its residency qualifying period from three to five years following the furore surrounding Semi Radradra’s recent selection for Australia.

nice

i think

dasherhalo wrote:nice

i think

Does the new residency rule (i.e. an increase from 3 to 5 years) address the concerns I had previously?.....probably not.

In fact it may even be harder to watch a bloke like Semi turn out for the Aussies after playing for Fiji over 5 years now rather than 3.

I get what they are trying to achieve; and don't get me wrong I love the idea of eligible blokes that don't make the Tier 1 teams, then turning out for the Tier 2's.

I would just like to see the rules tightened around the Tier 2's getting selected for the Tier 1 teams.....along with my long-standing gripe about the piss-poor scheduling and the lack of significance that is given to the international games.

No Worries wrote:
As well as the forecast changes, the RLIF also recently extended its residency qualifying period from three to five years following the furore surrounding Semi Radradra’s recent selection for Australia.

Semi has been playing for the Eels sicne 2012.

So because they didn't like him palying for Australia this year, they are considering a rule that will see him ineligible until next year?

With residency qualification, pretty much any NRL player will be eligible for Australia, and the good ones will choose to do so, origin being a prime factor.

Probably the best proposed change is allowing non Australian's to play origin. Will hopefully result in some guys opting for NSW/QLD and a pacific island/whatever.

I don't really see how allowing players to effectively play for 2 countries simultaneously will be a long term boost to the game - it effectively relegates the minor nations to permanent B sqauds, albeit stronger ones than what they are now.