Project Players

Neil3030 · 25-10-2016 8:07pm #1

Interested to see how the poll turns out....

Bridge93 · 25-10-2016 8:21pm

Players drawn from another set of criteria

I've no real issue with it as it is. Would like to think Irish players would be picked but if a better option is available and the regs suit we should pick them. Would rather it be 5 years but as long as its 3 we should use it or else you're giving advantage to others who embrace it

25-10-2016 8:34pm

Players drawn from another set of criteria

I'd prefer 5 since that's the actual requirement for naturalisation to become an Irish citizen. Once that has been done, you're as Irish as the next guy. I wonder what other countries have it at. Is France 3 years?

FACECUTTR · 25-10-2016 8:35pm

Option 4, but with a longer qualification period (e.g., 5 years)

Until the rules are changed (if ever) then we should have the best players who are qualified to play in the National team. Wether or not people think it's right or wrong is irrelevant. I think 5 years playing in the country is sufficient to be qualified. 3 years is very short.
But that's my opinion and that matters nothing to World Rugby.

awec · 25-10-2016 9:59pm

Above, plus players with grandparents from that country

I went with parents, but I'd actually mix it with residency too.

The player should have Irish parents AND be resident in Ireland for a period of time before being capped.

Teferi · 25-10-2016 10:05pm

Above, plus players who qualify under IRB regulation 8.1 (3 year rule)

Grandparents, parents or just be born in the country. Otherwise you're out of luck. I'd be delighted with that.

Neil3030 · 25-10-2016 10:11pm

Option 4, but with a longer qualification period (e.g., 5 years)

awec wrote: »

I went with parents, but I'd actually mix it with residency too.

The player should have Irish parents AND be resident in Ireland for a period of time before being capped.

I was thinking residency should be a criterion, but that might allow an opportunistic government to be very selectively generous with residencies to benefit their team.... I think to avoid this, it should be central IRB criteria, possibly including, but not restricted to residency.

penybont exile · 25-10-2016 11:46pm

What about players who are not born in the country ...... specifically children of immigrant families whose parents were not born in the country either ......

Faletau
Vunipola bros
etc

Teferi · 25-10-2016 11:52pm

Above, plus players who qualify under IRB regulation 8.1 (3 year rule)

penybont exile wrote: »

What about players who are not born in the country ...... specifically children of immigrant families whose parents were not born in the country either ......

Faletau
Vunipola bros
etc

I think the poll was dealing with overage players. In all of the debates that I've seen the general consensus is that the underage players would be allowed play for their adopted country.

pickarooney · 26-10-2016 1:56am

I don't think being born in the country should count if you haven't spent a significant amount of time there.

bilston · 26-10-2016 8:00am

Players drawn from another set of criteria

It's not black and white for me. I don't mind a couple of project players, I just don't want loads of them. But then you're either qualified or your not so I don't think a limit is appropriate either. Therefore making it a bit harder to become IQ may reduce the number of the NIQs so extending the residency from 3 to 5 years is probably my preferred way forward.

The downside of that is that it will inevitably weaken the provinces as it will be harder for them to sign NIQs.

sydthebeat · 26-10-2016 8:39am

Option 4, but with a longer qualification period (e.g., 5 years)

I have no problem as it is.

Would aki have (a) come over here or (b) signed a new contract with connacht, if a 5 year rule applied?
Would "project players" exist at all if we had to wait until they were 26, 27, 28 years of age before they became IQ?
Would "project players" initially be offered 2 year contracts to see if they made the grade, and if they didn't be replaced by another niq, and another, and another..... As those niq spots world become so valuable? Where would that leave Irish player development in that positions?

For a small country like ireland with a particularly small pool of personal players, I don't have any major issue with capping foreign players who pledge their careers here. The competition IS good as it drives the Irish born players to be better and better. It also drives the coaches to become better and better too.

Buer · 26-10-2016 8:44am

I sit on the opposite side of things to most, I suspect. I've little enough time for the plastic paddy approach. I'd immediately cull the grandparent eligibility rule. I have a good few relations in the UK and Australia who have Irish parents and would not consider themselves Irish for a moment although they're extremely conscious and proud of their heritage. If they had the option to play for England or Australia, they'd take it in a heartbeat over their ancestral ties. I'm happy to leave the children of Irish parents eligible to represent Ireland but beyond that is far too distant. 1 out of 4 grandparents is a silly situation.

I'm happier to see people come here, contribute to Irish rugby for a number of years (I wouldn't be too against seeing it increased to 4) and then become eligible for Irish selection. The likes of Isaac Boss and Tom Court have less business pulling on an Irish jersey than Richardt Strauss for me. He arrived here, worked his ass off, contributed heavily to the game in this country, got capped and has become an Irish citizen.

Isaac Boss and Tom Court came here, got an Irish jersey within 8 months of arriving (Court appeared for the Wolfhounds before even appearing for Ulster) and once their time with provinces were at an end, hit the road to continue their careers elsewhere and I doubt we'll see them back in Ireland ever again beyond a holiday. They were great servants to Irish rugby but let them be great servants due to their own dedication and not by a coincidence of lineage.

sydthebeat · 26-10-2016 8:52am

Option 4, but with a longer qualification period (e.g., 5 years)

Hang on, Isaac boss spent ELEVEN years here and only went back (at 35!) to give his homeland province the final couple of years he has.

I certainly don't see him as a rugby tourist in the way you describe.

crisco10 · 26-10-2016 8:56am

sydthebeat wrote: »

Hang on, Isaac boss spent ELEVEN years here and only went back (at 35!) to give his homeland province the final couple of years he has.

I certainly don't see him as a rugby tourist in the way you describe.

And hung around a long time after his international prospects had died away.

Buer · 26-10-2016 9:29am

sydthebeat wrote: »

Hang on, Isaac boss spent ELEVEN years here and only went back (at 35!) to give his homeland province the final couple of years he has.

I certainly don't see him as a rugby tourist in the way you describe.

But he was. He had his career here, made good cash and left to go home and close out his career with his local team. You even refer to NZ as his homeland.

I was a huge fan of him but, purely in a dispassionate manner, he came here because he had a grandmother from Antrim, picked up a number of caps and increased his earning power significantly by doing so and then returned to his home nation at the end of his career.

He played for NZ at underage and didn't come here until he was 25 when he knew he was never going to be a big name.

Buer · 26-10-2016 9:32am

crisco10 wrote: »

And hung around a long time after his international prospects had died away.

He was capped in his final season in the RWC warm ups and then went to the RWC as a replacement. He left the season his international career had clearly ended.

Dravokivich · 26-10-2016 9:52am

Option 4, but with a longer qualification period (e.g., 5 years)

Project players generally tend to be in their early 20's. With a 5 year requirement where is the desire to cap someone who'll be approaching their 30's? Also, players who might only be available for a limited amount of time in the international arena? 5 years is a lot of time to invest in a player, with very little to come back from it.

Yeah_Right · 26-10-2016 10:00am

Players drawn from another set of criteria

I agree with Buer to some extent. I'd have a bigger issue with Granny Rule players than those that qualify through residency. Harding being selected in the Scottish squad when he'd never set foot in the country. Didn't something similar happen with Bent and Ireland?

Maybe they could have a 2 tier qualification. If you have a grandparent from a country, you can qualify for them but you have to have played 1 or 2 seasons there as well. No ancestral link then it's 5 years residency.

sydthebeat · 26-10-2016 10:01am

Option 4, but with a longer qualification period (e.g., 5 years)

Buer wrote: »

But he was. He had his career here, made good cash and left to go home and close out his career with his local team. You even refer to NZ as his homeland.

I was a huge fan of him but, purely in a dispassionate manner, he came here because he had a grandmother from Antrim, picked up a number of caps and increased his earning power significantly by doing so and then returned to his home nation at the end of his career.

He played for NZ at underage and didn't come here until he was 25 when he knew he was never going to be a big name.

this isnt dan carter we're talking about.. "increased his earning power"??? im quite positive he didnt go back to waikato as their marquee top earning player

im not sure what you want from the likes of him?? does his worth of what he did in a green shirt increase because of what he does afterwards?

Dravokivich · 26-10-2016 10:14am

Option 4, but with a longer qualification period (e.g., 5 years)

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I agree with Buer to some extent. I'd have a bigger issue with Granny Rule players than those that qualify through residency. Harding being selected in the Scottish squad when he'd never set foot in the country. Didn't something similar happen with Bent and Ireland?

Maybe they could have a 2 tier qualification. If you have a grandparent from a country, you can qualify for them but you have to have played 1 or 2 seasons there as well. No ancestral link then it's 5 years residency.

Yeah. But you'd have to think about what lead to it. Bent was brought in by Leinster due to him being IQ. But I doubt it was expected he'd be called up so suddenly into the international squad. Which I believe was due to injuries? But it was a few years back now so can't really recall.

Surely the concern would be more valid if the IRFU were selecting foreign IQ/Project players and placing them in provinces.

Buer · 26-10-2016 10:37am

sydthebeat wrote: »

this isnt dan carter we're talking about.. "increased his earning power"??? im quite positive he didnt go back to waikato as their marquee top earning player

im not sure what you want from the likes of him?? does his worth of what he did in a green shirt increase because of what he does afterwards?

I should have been clearer. His earning power increased by coming here as a viable Irish selection option and increased further after being selected. I'd be confident the contracts he signed here were well ahead of what he'd have been offered as a player in NZ or as a standard project player.

You seem to think I'm having some sort of pop at him or denigrating his time with Leinster or Ulster which I'm not at all. He took advantage of the system and contributed a lot to the team here. Just the same as Tom Court who is in the same boat having qualified through a single grandparent.

The idea that someone who has played underage for another country can come here and walk into a green jersey because 25% of his lineage came from Antrim/Limerick is frivolous in my mind. I'm not going to overlook that just because the guy was a great player for the team I follow.

MarinersBlues · 26-10-2016 10:38am

Above, plus players who qualify under IRB regulation 8.1 (3 year rule)

[font=Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, sans-serif]Ruadhri O'Connor ingratiating himself to Connacht supporters again!
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ruaidhri-oconnor-number-of-imports-threatens-to-undermine-green-shirt-35161983.html [/font]

The way I see it currently:

The issue is being talked about as if there is only one option for each position and if someone is brought in the rest of the players for that position are on the scrap heap.

It is clear that the IRFU are taking aim at the world cup.
it was clear as day that you need at least three options for every position due to injuries and tactical consideration.

The imports are providing us with a depth we could not achieve with the current set up. The increased movement of players between provinces and the rise of Connacht means we may be able to provide that sort of depth in time.
Until then this is what we have to do to promote rugby in Ireland

Bigger picture:
it is quite clear World Rugby are about to change the rules to make project players more difficult or less desireable. They should if they want to stop the drift of genera;l support toward the clubs.

Teferi · 26-10-2016 10:55am

Above, plus players who qualify under IRB regulation 8.1 (3 year rule)

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Ruadhri O'Connor ingratiating himself to Connacht supporters again!

Alternatively, a few Connacht supporters might want to give up the victim complex. Framing it as an anti-Connacht issue is disingenuous but feeds well into the general anti-Dub/D4-Meeeeeeja rhetoric you hear outside the Pale so it will always find a listening ear.

Truth is, this piece has been written or debated or both each time a Project Player has taken the field. It's cheapening the jersey and it has nothing to do with anyone being anti-Connacht.

Sanjuro · 26-10-2016 10:57am

Players drawn from another set of criteria

Really doesn't bother me as much as other people, but I wouldn't object to the rule being extended to 5 years.

sydthebeat · 26-10-2016 11:07am

Option 4, but with a longer qualification period (e.g., 5 years)

Buer wrote: »

I should have been clearer. His earning power increased by coming here as a viable Irish selection option and increased further after being selected. I'd be confident the contracts he signed here were well ahead of what he'd have been offered as a player in NZ or as a standard project player.

You seem to think I'm having some sort of pop at him or denigrating his time with Leinster or Ulster which I'm not at all. He took advantage of the system and contributed a lot to the team here. Just the same as Tom Court who is in the same boat having qualified through a single grandparent.

The idea that someone who has played underage for another country can come here and walk into a green jersey because 25% of his lineage came from Antrim/Limerick is frivolous in my mind. I'm not going to overlook that just because the guy was a great player for the team I follow.

im no advocate for the grandparent rule, and ive often said before id prefer the route strauss took to a green shirt over the likes of Bent, but the grandparent rule is pretty much standard throughout the major international sports and not going to change soon, and not really the topic of this thread.

however i just disagree that Boss is an example of whats bad with the rule. If anything id offer him as a an example of whats good. The man gave 11 year of his professional career to ireland, 240 caps between two provinces.

An example of whats bad would be Laney in scotland. Parachuted in for his debut, 20 caps then off to japan for a pay day.

stephen_n · 26-10-2016 11:16am

Players drawn from another set of criteria

MarinersBlues wrote: »

[font=Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, sans-serif]Ruadhri O'Connor ingratiating himself to Connacht supporters again!
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ruaidhri-oconnor-number-of-imports-threatens-to-undermine-green-shirt-35161983.html [/font]

The way I see it currently:

The issue is being talked about as if there is only one option for each position and if someone is brought in the rest of the players for that position are on the scrap heap.

It is clear that the IRFU are taking aim at the world cup.
it was clear as day that you need at least three options for every position due to injuries and tactical consideration.

The imports are providing us with a depth we could not achieve with the current set up. The increased movement of players between provinces and the rise of Connacht means we may be able to provide that sort of depth in time.
Until then this is what we have to do to promote rugby in Ireland

Bigger picture:
it is quite clear World Rugby are about to change the rules to make project players more difficult or less desireable. They should if they want to stop the drift of genera;l support toward the clubs.

How in anyway could that be construed as anti-Connacht?

Buer · 26-10-2016 11:28am

sydthebeat wrote: »

im no advocate for the grandparent rule, and ive often said before id prefer the route strauss took to a green shirt over the likes of Bent, but the grandparent rule is pretty much standard throughout the major international sports and not going to change soon, and not really the topic of this thread.

however i just disagree that Boss is an example of whats bad with the rule. If anything id offer him as a an example of whats good. The man gave 11 year of his professional career to ireland, 240 caps between two provinces.

An example of whats bad would be Laney in scotland. Parachuted in for his debut, 20 caps then off to japan for a pay day.

Scottish rugby was done with Laney. They couldn't pay him more than buttons and the whole place was falling apart at the time. He was into his thirties, had been dropped by Scotland and Paterson was the main man at Edinburgh. He was right to leave for his own sake and had already taken a pay cut to sign his last deal. Hines left them at the same time under similar circumstances. I'd take far more issue with Sean Maitland who played for one contract in Scotland and went to a poor team on a nice salary for an early retirement.

I think Boss did obviously contribute a lot to Irish rugby but he came here for much the same reasons as anyone linked to the country through the granny rule. The fact that he stayed 11 years as opposed to 4 or 5 doesn't make a huge amount of difference in terms of the rule. A project player could have done the exact same.

His connection with Ireland isn't strong enough such that he should be able to walk off a plane and play for Ireland without ever having set foot in the country.

I'd much rather the granny rule be discarded with more than anything else in relation to foreign players representing Ireland regardless of it being acceptable in other sports.

MarinersBlues · 26-10-2016 11:55am

Above, plus players who qualify under IRB regulation 8.1 (3 year rule)

Ah here lads!
I have been defending him on the Connacht thread.
That was purely tongue in cheek.

MarinersBlues · 26-10-2016 11:57am

Above, plus players who qualify under IRB regulation 8.1 (3 year rule)

Winters · 26-10-2016 12:27pm

Above, plus players who qualify under IRB regulation 8.1 (3 year rule)

Interestingly Argentina have only one Super Rugby team and no project players. The rule is there for them but they choose not to "use" it the way Irish Rugby is. Admirable to say the least.

Is AJ McGinty Ireland's only "Project Player" export?

Project Players

National teams should only select: 148 votes

Comments