Foreign Born Players

noway12345

Is it just me or do you think it devalues the Rugby World Cup when you see so many foreign born players playing for teams? Japan had a great win against South Africa but they did so with a big number of New Zealanders and other nations on board. I started this thread because Scotland scored two quick tries, the try scorers were Dutch and Kiwi.
Samoa have 13 foreign born players in their squad, Tonga have 12, Wales, Japan and Scotland have 11, France have 10, Australia, Italy and USA 9, we have 5 and New Zealand have 5, England have 3, everyone has atleast one player.
Some of the foreign born players were only born away from the country they represent but have lived in that country from a young age. Heaslip would be an example of this and a good few Welsh players aswell. Many of the players are there only on the residency rule however. Does anyone else think that 3 years is too short?
I think it takes away from it, I'd much prefer to win with 15 Irish players on the field. Japans win was great but it was done with many other nationalities on board. Do people disagree with me? Do you think it's good for rugby? What's your views?

stadedublinois

For me, foreign born isn't an issue in itself. A lot of them qualify through their parents/grandparents or because they grew up in the country. Tonga and Samoa have the most foreign born but none of them through residency. Some players probably don't even have the nationality of the country they were born (like Heaslip??).

lerugbynistere (a French rugby site) have a complete list of foreign born players and how they qualify (the year for residency is important, it gives an idea of when they moved to the country). Can't post the link but it should be first link if search "rugbynistere etranger"

The residency issue should probably be looked at, but it is hard to begrudge players like Visser (and Debaty, born in Belgium) playing for another country when there is not much rugby in their own countries.

razorblunt

Visser served his time in Edinburgh for, what, 7/8 seasons?
Alot of the Scots here do have a problem with Hardie being brought straight into the squad when he is unassigned a team to play for yet (they don't seem to have much issue with Strauss & Nel).

Hidalgo-Clyne probably counts for Scotland in those numbers too, which isn't fair.
Tomasso/Tommy Allen doesn't count for Italy but probably should do.

3 year rule is a joke tbh, countries bringing over players 3 years in advance with the sole purpose of naturalising them for a world cup is definitely not within the spirit of the competition.

nice_guy80

Australia have a few former rugby league lads from other countries

We cannot talk though, few in the Irish squad too

Yeah_Right

noway12345 wrote: »

Is it just me or do you think it devalues the Rugby World Cup when you see so many foreign born players playing for teams? Japan had a great win against South Africa but they did so with a big number of New Zealanders and other nations on board. I started this thread because Scotland scored two quick tries, the try scorers were Dutch and Kiwi.
Samoa have 13 foreign born players in their squad, Tonga have 12, Wales, Japan and Scotland have 11, France have 10, Australia, Italy and USA 9, we have 5 and New Zealand have 5, England have 3, everyone has atleast one player.
Some of the foreign born players were only born away from the country they represent but have lived in that country from a young age. Heaslip would be an example of this and a good few Welsh players aswell. Many of the players are there only on the residency rule however. Does anyone else think that 3 years is too short?
I think it takes away from it, I'd much prefer to win with 15 Irish players on the field. Japans win was great but it was done with many other nationalities on board. Do people disagree with me? Do you think it's good for rugby? What's your views?

This post is stupid and here's why. You list how many foreign born players countries have but skip over Ireland who have at least 4. You mention Heaslip and some Welsh players as being exceptions. Why not do that for other countries? What about players with dual citizenship?

The bigger issue is foreign born coaches! They need to eliminate that!

I don't have a major issue with it, but another sport I follow provides some caution.

Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya and Somalia supply a massive amount of athletes to other (primarily European) countries now for middle distance. There is such a high standard in parts of north and east Africa and the physical and environmental advantages make such significant differences that average athletes compete well against their sea level equivalents when they change nationality.

The reality is that some countries with strong rugby heritage will have players that end up breaking into other teams but it's not something which I think is going to dramatically impact the game at an international level because no nation has such a dramatic advantage.

Put it this way, we have a player that came through the Irish system to a certain degree who wasn't focused on rugby as a professional career and has ended up playing in this world cup at 10 for USA. I think it's a brilliant story and one of the best of the tournament. I don't see it is an international playing loophole and certainly don't have an issue with it.

This will only become a problem when good players avoid caps so they can eventually play for another country.

Is that happening a lot currently?

Kiwi_knock

There was talk that World Rugby will announce an increase to 5 years for residency after the end of the World Cup. It might lead to players being targeted at a younger age.

noway12345

Yeah_Right wrote: »

This post is stupid and here's why. You list how many foreign born players countries have but skip over Ireland who have at least 4. You mention Heaslip and some Welsh players as being exceptions. Why not do that for other countries? What about players with dual citizenship?

The bigger issue is foreign born coaches! They need to eliminate that!

You didn't read my post properly. I did mention Ireland, we have 5 foreign born players. I was using Heaslip and the Welsh players as an example of foreign born players who have lived in the country they represent from a young age. It says it right there in my post. Read a post correctly before you embarrass yourself again. Thanks.

Yeah_Right

noway12345 wrote: »

You didn't read my post properly. I did mention Ireland, we have 5 foreign born players. I was using Heaslip and the Welsh players as an example of foreign born players who have lived in the country they represent from a young age. It says it right there in my post. Read a post correctly before you embarrass yourself again. Thanks.

Apologies. I did miss the "we have 5" bit.

I get a bit pissy about this sort of thing because for a long time people (mainly NH fans and journalists) would accuse NZ of "raping" the Pacific Islands while ignoring the facts. Once NH teams started selecting project players and brown skinned players, this outcry died down.

I have no issue with players playing for a country they aren't born in. My criteria would be citizenship or whatever the elligibility is to join their military. If you can die for a country then you can play rugby for them.

noway12345

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Apologies. I did miss the "we have 5" bit.

I get a bit pissy about this sort of thing because for a long time people (mainly NH fans and journalists) would accuse NZ of "raping" the Pacific Islands while ignoring the facts. Once NH teams started selecting project players and brown skinned players, this outcry died down.

I have no issue with players playing for a country they aren't born in. My criteria would be citizenship or whatever the elligibility is to join their military. If you can die for a country then you can play rugby for them.

It's too much though. I'd much prefer to win with a complete Irish squad than with the 3 foreign born players (Heaslip and Murphy are excused). It takes away from Japans win over South Africa because so many of their players were foreign born. This is just my view of course.

Yeah_Right

noway12345 wrote: »

It's too much though. I'd much prefer to win with a complete Irish squad than with the 3 foreign born players (Heaslip and Murphy are excused). It takes away from Japans win over South Africa because so many of their players were foreign born. This is just my view of course.

What would your cut off be for a player to be excused as foreign born? Genuine question. I ask this because I have heard various opinions on this.

noway12345

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What would your cut off be for a player to be excused as foreign born? Genuine question. I ask this because I have heard various opinions on this.

Do you mean what I think should be allowed? Like it's 3 years for residency rule now? I don't like the residency thing at all, maybe it should be an age thing. If you go over a certain age you can't choose a different country from where you were born or lived for most of your life. I'm not sure of the answer to be honest.

RedemptionZ

I think it's an issue but not a particularly big one. That Japan team is still majority Japanese, and tbf the nature of rugby means that certain nations may struggle in certain positions due to the genetics of the native population. It's no secret that Eastern Asians aren't on average as tall as Europeans, so second row and to a lesser extent the backrow would be an issue, at least until the game grows there to a degree that the elite tall athletes from Japan want to play rugby. In a case like that, I actually see them being able to use the residency rule as a positive thing, Japan are much more competitive which will only encourage more Japanese kids to play. And before people say the Japanese just aren't suited to rugby, they've got a population of over 100 million, they've got plenty of big lads, it's just at the moment the majority have no interest in playing rugby.

When the residency rule starts being abused it will become a bigger issue, but for the moment it's actual beneficial for rugby, imo.

noway12345

RedemptionZ wrote: »

I think it's an issue but not a particularly big one. That Japan team is still majority Japanese, and tbf the nature of rugby means that certain nations may struggle in certain positions due to the genetics of the native population. It's no secret that Eastern Asians aren't on average as tall as Europeans, so second row and to a lesser extent the backrow would be an issue, at least until the game grows there to a degree that the elite tall athletes from Japan want to play rugby. In a case like that, I actually see them being able to use the residency rule as a positive thing, Japan are much more competitive which will only encourage more Japanese kids to play. And before people say the Japanese just aren't suited to rugby, they've got a population of over 100 million, they've got plenty of big lads, it's just at the moment the majority have no interest in playing rugby.

When the residency rule starts being abused it will become a bigger issue, but for the moment it's actual beneficial for rugby, imo.

Are Scotland abusing it? If we got a load of props shipped in back when we were really struggling for them would that have been abusing it?
It's one thing for countries like Japan to be getting players in, teams like New Zealand and Australia definitely shouldn't. Aswell as the 6 nations teams. South Africa actually only have 1 player from Zimbabwe.

Yeah_Right

noway12345 wrote: »

Do you mean what I think should be allowed? Like it's 3 years for residency rule now? I don't like the residency thing at all, maybe it should be an age thing. If you go over a certain age you can't choose a different country from where you were born or lived for most of your life. I'm not sure of the answer to be honest.

Yeah that's what I meant. What you thought the criteria should be.

What do you think the cut off age should be? And what about players with dual citizenship?

Yeah_Right

noway12345 wrote: »

Are Scotland abusing it? If we got a load of props shipped in back when we were really struggling for them would that have been abusing it?
It's one thing for countries like Japan to be getting players in, teams like New Zealand and Australia definitely shouldn't. Aswell as the 6 nations teams. South Africa actually only have 1 player from Zimbabwe.

The ABs don't have any players that moved as "project players" and the only 2 in the Aussie squad that I can think of are Speight and Smith.

I think it's good that that some of the lower ranked teams have imports as it helps their performance which in turn raises the profile of the game in those countries.

noway12345

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Yeah that's what I meant. What you thought the criteria should be. What do you think the cut off age should be? And what about players with dual citizenship?

23 I think. I think if a player has no connection to a country (relatives from there) or hasn't lived there at any time under the age of 18 they should only play for their country of birth. I think many will think this is too harsh but anyway, that's my view.

noway12345

Yeah_Right wrote: »

The ABs don't have any players that moved as "project players" and the only 2 in the Aussie squad that I can think of are Speight and Smith.

I think it's good that that some of the lower ranked teams have imports as it helps their performance which in turn raises the profile of the game in those countries.

I'm not just talking about the current line ups. Things can happen in the future.

I agree that it helps the lower ranked teams but it can be abused by the higher ranked ones.

RedemptionZ

noway12345 wrote: »

Are Scotland abusing it? If we got a load of props shipped in back when we were really struggling for them would that have been abusing it?
It's one thing for countries like Japan to be getting players in, teams like New Zealand and Australia definitely shouldn't. Aswell as the 6 nations teams. South Africa actually only have 1 player from Zimbabwe.

No, Scotland aren't. They only have 3 players that have qualified through residency, it just happens that two of them qualified in 2015, but nonetheless these aren't players that were 'poached' from South Africa. New Zealand haven't been poaching players, they only have 5 foreign born players and only 2 have recently qualified through residency (2012). Australia only have one recently qualified through residency and that's Speight.

testicle

The issue is different in Italy for some reason. It's 3 years if you play for Treviso or Zebre, but 5 if you play in the League of Excellence. Surely that's an issue with employment law?

Stheno

noway12345 wrote: »

Are Scotland abusing it? If we got a load of props shipped in back when we were really struggling for them would that have been abusing it?

I'm not sure you are aware of the rules.

Only a certain amount of players in each position can be project players in the provinces iirc, so if we fill our quota of project players at prop we can't suddenly ship in a pile more and wait three years.

Can someone who knows this better than me clarify it?

rrpc

I don't think it's a problem at all. Countries with small playing pools need imports to fill gaps and develop the game.

I'm not as sure about the situation where someone who plays once for a national team can then not play for any other national team after that. Isa Nacewa being a case in point. There's a guy who could have played for the All Blacks had he not put in a few minutes for Fiji in his early career.

This is not the case for other sports and is deeply unfair in rugby imo.

total former

Yeah_Right wrote: »

The ABs don't have any players that moved as "project players" and the only 2 in the Aussie squad that I can think of are Speight and Smith.

I think it's good that that some of the lower ranked teams have imports as it helps their performance which in turn raises the profile of the game in those countries.

I think you'd have to count Naholo and Fekitoa as project players?

But you're right, the losers in any tightening of the rules would be the weaker countries and no-one really wants that.

Nermal

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

There was talk that World Rugby will announce an increase to 5 years for residency after the end of the World Cup. It might lead to players being targeted at a younger age.

Should be increased further to 7 IMHO.

dregin

Jordi was born in Barcelona. ROG was born... North America somewhere. If a player wants to uproot themselves, their families and come here for 3 years to play, I've zero problem with them playing for Ireland? Do people really think Nathan White came here with his sights set on the Irish no. 3 spot? I very much doubt it. He worked hard for the least glamorous province and is now reaping his due rewards. Fair play, I say.

desertcircus

It drives me nuts when I see people talking about how people like Richard Strauss aren't really Irish. We grant citizenship to people who've fulfilled a given set of criteria: while there's certainly room for debate on the residency requirement, once a player becomes a citizen then all talk of them not being truly Irish should stop. Strauss carries an Irish passport. He's entitled to vote in every election an Irish citizen is entitled to vote in. If he falls on hard times, he has the same entitlement to social welfare as any other Irish citizen. He is as Irish as anyone else in the squad. That's what citizenship is, and it bugs the hell out of me to see people casually differentiating between two types of Irish citizen and declaring that one type isn't really Irish. That's utterly unacceptable in every other sphere of public life: we wouldn't dream of telling a foreign-born Irish citizen that they're not truly Irish, because that way lies all kinds of bigoted nastiness, but when it comes to rugby a huge chunk of otherwise normal and reasonable people decide that it doesn't matter that Strauss has a harp on his passport, knows every word of the national anthem and has spent about half of his adult life living and working in Dublin. Or that he can run for election, claim social welfare, or fight and die in the Army if he wants. Or that he's been representing a quarter of the country for the past six years on the field. International rugby is somehow far more important than Irish democracy, the welfare system and the defence of the nation: Strauss is good enough for all those, but not to chase an oval ball while wearing a green jersey instead of a blue one a few times a year. It's nonsense. Either the citizenship process needs to be reviewed, or Strauss is Irish and referring to him as not being properly Irish is wrong as well as insulting.

desertcircus

Nermal wrote: »

Should be increased further to 7 IMHO.

On what basis? What specific issue exists with the three-year rule that moving to seven will solve?

pickarooney

Basically, if a player moves to a country for the sole reason of playing rugby for that country then his playing for that country is going to feel wrong for a lot of people. If he moves for any other reason it won't matter as much.

flangemeistro

Interesting list here [IMG][/img]

Neil3030

flangemeistro wrote: »

Interesting list here [IMG][/img]

Interesting but misleading. For example, Heaslip and Murphy's nationality is Irish, they were just born abroad because their parents were working there at the time.

Not in the same camp as a Jared Payne or Nathan White.

awec

desertcircus wrote: »

It drives me nuts when I see people talking about how people like Richard Strauss aren't really Irish. We grant citizenship to people who've fulfilled a given set of criteria: while there's certainly room for debate on the residency requirement, once a player becomes a citizen then all talk of them not being truly Irish should stop. Strauss carries an Irish passport. He's entitled to vote in every election an Irish citizen is entitled to vote in. If he falls on hard times, he has the same entitlement to social welfare as any other Irish citizen. He is as Irish as anyone else in the squad. That's what citizenship is, and it bugs the hell out of me to see people casually differentiating between two types of Irish citizen and declaring that one type isn't really Irish. That's utterly unacceptable in every other sphere of public life: we wouldn't dream of telling a foreign-born Irish citizen that they're not truly Irish, because that way lies all kinds of bigoted nastiness, but when it comes to rugby a huge chunk of otherwise normal and reasonable people decide that it doesn't matter that Strauss has a harp on his passport, knows every word of the national anthem and has spent about half of his adult life living and working in Dublin. Or that he can run for election, claim social welfare, or fight and die in the Army if he wants. Or that he's been representing a quarter of the country for the past six years on the field. International rugby is somehow far more important than Irish democracy, the welfare system and the defence of the nation: Strauss is good enough for all those, but not to chase an oval ball while wearing a green jersey instead of a blue one a few times a year. It's nonsense. Either the citizenship process needs to be reviewed, or Strauss is Irish and referring to him as not being properly Irish is wrong as well as insulting.

Citizenship is irrelevant in this discussion IMO.

He is an Irish citizen but only because the IRFU brought him over to play for Ireland. It's the act of targeting players deliberately to make them Irish qualified that sits a bit uneasy with me. Same with Payne. If Strauss or Payne could play for the boks or NZ they'd not be playing for us.

Comparisons with ROG, Heaslip etc are also just wrong. These lads grew up in Ireland, they were not professional players targeted by the IRFU.

I have no real issue with people born elsewhere playing for Ireland, I just don't like the deliberate attempts to lure foreign players here with the promise of getting to play test rugby in a few years.

If we got rid of this project player status it would be a good start.

Neil3030

Shoe on the other foot - does anyone begrudge AJ MacGinty moving to the states, having a nice life for himself and representing the Eagles? Granted, he probably wasn't poached, but I certainly wouldn't begrudge similar players in his position being targeted by countries like the USA.

padser

pickarooney wrote: »

Basically, if a player moves to a country for the sole reason of playing rugby for that country then his playing for that country is going to feel wrong for a lot of people. If he moves for any other reason it won't matter as much.

No one moves to a country for the "sole" reason of playing rugby for that country.

This argument always irritates me because people take illogical, arbitrary and contradictory positions.

Clearly there needs to be some qualifying criteria for who can play for a given country. Spending a chunk of time in that country feels like a pretty good qualification. We can argue about the length of time. Given that right careers last on average 8-10 yrs, 3 yrs feels like a pretty decent commitment to me....

awec

padser wrote: »

No one moves to a country for the "sole" reason of playing rugby for that country.

This argument always irritates me because people take illogical, arbitrary and contradictory positions.

Clearly there needs to be some qualifying criteria for who can play for a given country. Spending a chunk of time in that country feels like a pretty good qualification. We can argue about the length of time. Given that right careers last on average 8-10 yrs, 3 yrs feels like a pretty decent commitment to me....

Not all of them, but the project player system is based around signing pro players to play for a province with the lure of test rugby at the end of 3 years.

I've no doubt it factors very heavily when it comes to contract discussions. "So yea, we'll give you x salary and at the end of three years you'll probably play for Ireland."

razorblunt

Neil3030 wrote: »

Shoe on the other foot - does anyone begrudge AJ MacGinty moving to the states, having a nice life for himself and representing the Eagles? Granted, he probably wasn't poached, but I certainly wouldn't begrudge similar players in his position being targeted by countries like the USA.

Watching that USA-Scotland game last night, I wondered would they do likewise with Ian Nagle, he packed in rugby to move to D.C. and seek out a professional career outside rugby. If he was playing any sort of rugby over there they should keep an eye on him.

razorblunt

RedemptionZ wrote: »

No, Scotland aren't. They only have 3 players that have qualified through residency, it just happens that two of them qualified in 2015, but nonetheless these aren't players that were 'poached' from South Africa. New Zealand haven't been poaching players, they only have 5 foreign born players and only 2 have recently qualified through residency (2012). Australia only have one recently qualified through residency and that's Speight.

That number for Scotland can't be right, Strauss, Nel, Visser and Seymour qualify through residency, right?

total former

razorblunt wrote: »

That number for Scotland can't be right, Strauss, Nel, Visser and Seymour qualify through residency, right?

Seymour qualifies through parentage

NewDirection

True definitive nationalism is all but disappearing these days, and it is mostly a symbolic thing at the moment. Its a man made idea, as is shown by the number of criteria mentioned on this thread to define it. This lad moved when he was [insert age here], he's Irish... this lad moved when he was [insert older age here], he's not Irish.

If someone has been in Ireland for a number of years, feels integrated enough into the culture, and is proud enough to pull on the green jersey, and get stuck in with the rest of the "Irish" lads, let him at it.
I grew up watching a load of English born lads playing soccer for us, and never saw them as anything but Irish. To me its down to the commitment when they play that matters, not the number of years living here.

I do understand residency rules need to be there to stop exploitation of this.

RedemptionZ

razorblunt wrote: »

That number for Scotland can't be right, Strauss, Nel, Visser and Seymour qualify through residency, right?

Nope, Seymour qualifies through his mother, who was born and raised in Glasgow.

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2015/09/13/foreign-born-players-rwc-2015/.

Yeah_Right

The citizenship argument is an interesting one. 3 years to be eligible for the Irish rugby team but 5 years to become a citizen. Maybe the eligibility rule should be the same as citizenship for Tier 1 nations.

Also you can't call Fekitoa or Naholo project players for NZ as they moved there in high school. It's like calling Quade Cooper a project player for Australia.

Scipio_Hib

Yeah_Right wrote: »

The citizenship argument is an interesting one. 3 years to be eligible for the Irish rugby team but 5 years to become a citizen. Maybe the eligibility rule should be the same as citizenship for Tier 1 nations.

Also you can't call Fekitoa or Naholo project players for NZ as they moved there in high school. It's like calling Quade Cooper a project player for Australia.

There might be a 'right of establishment' issue there. If someone is coming here to 'work' they don't have to become a citizen. Given these are paid players you might run into issues of employment law.

3 years residency is about right.

Yeah_Right

I agree that employment law could come in to it.

Also the problem with tying it to citizenship means it would be different in different countries.

I would be interested in seeing some changes that allowed former players from Tier 1 teams becoming eligible for Tier 2 nations.

Scipio_Hib

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I agree that employment law could come in to it.

Also the problem with tying it to citizenship means it would be different in different countries.

I would be interested in seeing some changes that allowed former players from Tier 1 teams becoming eligible for Tier 2 nations.

To be honest I think if you've played for a national team that should be your lot - if you allow players a second go with a Tier 2 nation, that can adversely affect their development as players no longer good enough for Tier 1 opt to play in the lower Tier, and displace their particularly younger players.

Yeah_Right

Scipio_Hib wrote: »

To be honest I think if you've played for a national team that should be your lot - if you allow players a second go with a Tier 2 nation, that can adversely affect their development as players no longer good enough for Tier 1 opt to play in the lower Tier, and displace their particularly younger players.

You are right. I get what you're saying.

I just think of some of the guys from the Pacific Islands who get a game or a season for NZ, Aus, England or France then have a long professional career but never play test rugby again. Some of them would be major assets for Samoa/Tonga/Fiji.

total former

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Also you can't call Fekitoa or Naholo project players for NZ as they moved there in high school. It's like calling Quade Cooper a project player for Australia.

Not quite the same; Fekitoa and Naholo arrived in NZ as 17/18 year-olds on the basis of their rugby ability, Cooper in Australia as a kid when his family emigrated.

I don't object to that, btw, it's obviously within the rules and I don't think there's anything dodgy about it, but there's a pretty significant distinction there.

Scipio_Hib

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You are right. I get what you're saying.

I just think of some of the guys from the Pacific Islands who get a game or a season for NZ, Aus, England or France then have a long professional career but never play test rugby again. Some of them would be major assets for Samoa/Tonga/Fiji.

Is it better to have a short AB career or a long Samoa/Tonga/Fiji career? I don't know, but I guess most players would rather roll the dice and try get into the ABs, rather than opt for a Tier 2.

Maybe a shorter residency qualifying period with an upper age limit would help - in other words before age 25 you can reside somewhere and play for that nation but if you are going to change you have to move and have begun another residency qualification period.

Nermal

desertcircus wrote: »

On what basis? What specific issue exists with the three-year rule that moving to seven will solve?

Nothing other than that I don't think someone can become Irish in three years.

Yeah_Right

total former wrote: »

Not quite the same; Fekitoa and Naholo arrived in NZ as 17/18 year-olds on the basis of their rugby ability, Cooper in Australia as a kid when his family emigrated.

I don't object to that, btw, it's obviously within the rules and I don't think there's anything dodgy about it, but there's a pretty significant distinction there.

It is different yes. Cooper's whole family moved to Australia. Nothing to do with rugby. A better example would have been Mike Harris or Henry Speight who moved to further their rugby careers. Fekitoa definitely moved with aim of furthering his rugby career. He trialled for Wesley (big rugby school) with the aim of getting a scholarship. Naholo moved to Wanganui (the NZ equivalent of Westport) to live with family and go to school. I don't think he envisaged a pro rugby career.

flangemeistro

Neil3030 wrote: »

Interesting but misleading. For example, Heaslip and Murphy's nationality is Irish, they were just born abroad because their parents were working there at the time.

Not in the same camp as a Jared Payne or Nathan White.

I don't think it's misleading, the title on the table is "players born elsewhere" and the title on this thread is "foreign born players".
Heaslip and Murphy fall into both categories.

nehe milner skudder

im not sure where the line is on the matter-thats up for debate.
but i think we have crossed it.
jared payne is a failed allblack who settled for ireland.