Is IRFU policy against a person's rights?

irishbucsfan · 29-12-2015 1:31pm

molloyjh wrote: »

I think the IRFU will always make the point that you are far more likely to play for Iteland if you play in Ireland. Which is simply the reality of the situation for purely practical reasons. They need to use that reality as a selling point at times to keep guys here, which I think is fair enough. But if a player is good enough that despite the disadvantages playing abroad brings with it they still warrant selection then they will be selected. Compare that with the Armitage case in England where there definitely is a policy in place.

I think the exact same policy exists in Ireland as it does in England. I think Sexton was very much an outlier due to necessity, don't think we'll see it happen again. There was a period a few years ago when we were very short on full backs due to injury while Niall Morris was playing very well for Leicester and he wasn't brought in, the only reason would have been the policy and it was mentioned in the press iirc (by Thornley I think).

Don't see any reason why they wouldn't put the policy in place either, they need to do everything possible to keep players in Ireland.

blindsider · 29-12-2015 1:36pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They still can't discriminate when choosing who to renew or negotiate with. Those laws do still apply. It's illegal to refuse to hire a taxi driver because he's black/gay/female for example.

I don't really think that the IRFU would be restricted from discriminating against a player because he's based abroad, there are obviously legitimate reasons why they should be allowed to do so. But stranger things have happened in Europe.

They didn't. He was offered a contract and chose not to accept it. In fact, he chose to accept a contract from another party.

ENG have been doing this since 2010 - as per the article i posted earlier.

This is an non-argument.

@TheRapeofLucretia - a bit of Xmas CPD :-))

https://thepeninsulairelandblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/grounds-for-discrimination-to-increase-to-10/

There are currently 9 grounds for discrimination, which will be increased to 10.

molloyjh · 29-12-2015 1:39pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think the exact same policy exists in Ireland as it does in England. I think Sexton was very much an outlier due to necessity, don't think we'll see it happen again. There was a period a few years ago when we were very short on full backs due to injury while Niall Morris was playing very well for Leicester and he wasn't brought in, the only reason would have been the policy and it was mentioned in the press iirc (by Thornley I think).

Don't see any reason why they wouldn't put the policy in place either, they need to do everything possible to keep players in Ireland.

I can't speak to the Morris case in particular, but if he wasn't available for Irish camps then of course his selection opportunities were reduced. And didn't he spend most of his time playing wing back then anyway?

irishbucsfan · 29-12-2015 1:41pm

blindsider wrote: »

They didn't. He was offered a contract and chose not to accept it. In fact, he chose to accept a contract from another party.

That's not what the discussion is about though. This isn't about his recent negotations with the IRFU over playing in Ireland.

Loads of countries do it. Some people think we do it, some don't obviously. As I said above, I can't see any scenario where it's going to be tested in court (Armitage is hardly going to get support from Boudjelal to do it!), but that doesn't mean there aren't questions over what the outcome would be if it were.

The Rape of Lucretia · 29-12-2015 1:43pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's not what the discussion is about though. This isn't about his recent negotations with the IRFU over playing in Ireland.

Loads of countries do it. Some people think we do it, some don't obviously. As I said above, I can't see any scenario where it's going to be tested in court (Armitage is hardly going to get support from Boudjelal to do it!), but that doesn't mean there aren't questions over what the outcome would be if it were.

There aren't questions over the outcome. There simply isnt a case to make. Let alone rebuttals of a non existant accusation.

former total · 29-12-2015 1:43pm

molloyjh wrote: »

There is a reality that it is harder to get selected because it is harder to show your wares. That is simply real life. You can't deny the practicalities of it, even if you selectively quote my post.

EDIT: Also, what legalities? As has been pointed out the EU have not and will not get involved in representative sport. There are no legalities here.

Your post was so long that "selective" quoting was necessary. Try being more concise.

I agree that it's legally OK. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

irishbucsfan · 29-12-2015 1:47pm

molloyjh wrote: »

I can't speak to the Morris case in particular, but if he wasn't available for Irish camps then of course his selection opportunities were reduced. And didn't he spend most of his time playing wing back then anyway?

He was certainly playing full back where we were very limited. Either way I do think we have this policy in place, it's just that with most of our players based in Ireland we don't see it in action.

The Rape of Lucretia · 29-12-2015 1:47pm

former total wrote: »

I agree that it's legally OK.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I can't see any scenario where it's going to be tested in court but that doesn't mean there aren't questions over what the outcome would be if it were.

You appear to be agreeing with yourself that it both is legal, but maybe isnt.

irishbucsfan · 29-12-2015 1:50pm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

There aren't questions over the outcome. There simply isnt a case to make. Let alone rebuttals of a non existant accusation.

You may not think there are questions over the outcome, I disagree and I see no evidence to support that, I don't think anything can be taken for granted in this particular jurisdiction. I don't think there SHOULD be any questions over the outcome, mind you.

former total · 29-12-2015 1:52pm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You appear to be agreeing with yourself that it both is legal, but maybe isnt.

Quoting two different posters as though they are the same people will confuse you right enough.

CMOTDibbler · 29-12-2015 1:58pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's not what the discussion is about though. This isn't about his recent negotations with the IRFU over playing in Ireland.

Loads of countries do it. Some people think we do it, some don't obviously. As I said above, I can't see any scenario where it's going to be tested in court (Armitage is hardly going to get support from Boudjelal to do it!), but that doesn't mean there aren't questions over what the outcome would be if it were.

Well we haven't adopted it as a policy clearly. So that question is moot.

The Rape of Lucretia · 29-12-2015 1:58pm

former total wrote: »

Quoting two different posters as though they are the same people will confuse you right enough.

Apologies !

IBF seems to be out on his own.

irishbucsfan · 29-12-2015 2:05pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Well we haven't adopted it as a policy clearly. So that question is moot.

In the case of the IRFU they'd have to investigate whether or not the policy is in place, if it was a case against the RFU then it's very clearly in place.

CMOTDibbler · 29-12-2015 2:25pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

In the case of the IRFU they'd have to investigate whether or not the policy is in place, if it was a case against the RFU then it's very clearly in place.

Yes, the policy is in place in the RFU and the NZRU. Any investigation of the IRFU would hit enormous stumbling blocks in the form of Jonny Sexton and other players all the way back to Simon Easterby, Geordan Murphy and beyond.

If you could say there's a policy with the IRFU, then it's a policy of exclusion of players who aren't sufficiently of the calibre to warrant bringing them in and the logistics thereof.

The IRFU have never come out and said that if you play abroad you will not be selected for Ireland. The RFU have certainly said so.

irishbucsfan · 29-12-2015 2:32pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yes, the policy is in place in the RFU and the NZRU. Any investigation of the IRFU would hit enormous stumbling blocks in the form of Jonny Sexton and other players all the way back to Simon Easterby, Geordan Murphy and beyond.

If you could say there's a policy with the IRFU, then it's a policy of exclusion of players who aren't sufficiently of the calibre to warrant bringing them in and the logistics thereof.

The IRFU have never come out and said that if you play abroad you will not be selected for Ireland. The RFU have certainly said so.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the policy isn't in place internally within the IRFU. It would just need to be proven.

molloyjh · 29-12-2015 2:34pm

former total wrote: »

Your post was so long that "selective" quoting was necessary. Try being more concise.

I agree that it's legally OK. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

Ah now that's a piss poor excuse for selective quoting. It wasn't that long.

And you said let's discuss the legality of the policy in the post I quoted. I just made the point that there are no legalities.

molloyjh · 29-12-2015 2:40pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, but that doesn't mean the policy isn't in place internally within the IRFU. It would just need to be proven.

Which you'd struggle to do given the cases mentioned. There may be a rule of thumb that says where there's little between the players then pick the one playing at home. But there is definitively no policy in place. That's a fact that can't be disputed. Sexton, Bowe, Murphy and numerous others prove that. In fact I'd wager there are more cases that disprove the policy than there are ones that prove it.

You can point to that being because of the fact that we haven't lost many players abroad, and you may have a point. But until such a time as we start losing more to England or France and the IRFU are actually be tested in that regard, is it all not just a bit of a pointless discussion?

irishbucsfan · 29-12-2015 2:42pm

molloyjh wrote: »

Which you'd struggle to do given the cases mentioned. There may be a rule of thumb that says where there's little between the players then pick the one playing at home. But there is definitively no policy in place. That's a fact that can't be disputed. Sexton, Bowe, Murphy and numerous others prove that. In fact I'd wager there are more cases that disprove the policy than there are ones that prove it.

You can point to that being because of the fact that we haven't lost many players abroad, and you may have a point. But until such a time as we start losing more to England or France and the IRFU will actually be tested in that regard is it all not just a bit of a pointless discussion?

Yes but the majority of those cases (Easterby/Bowe/Murphy) are old now. Back in a period when England were selecting players based abroad as well let's not forget.

There is certainly no real evidence either way. I'd be very surprised if that policy isn't in place currently. You can't really say with any certainty that the policy isn't in place anyway, so it's a possibility worth considering.

former total · 29-12-2015 2:42pm

molloyjh wrote: »

And you said let's discuss the legality of the policy in the post I quoted. I just made the point that there are no legalities.

"There are no legalities" - how is that different from "the policy is legally ok"? I'm genuinely baffled as to what we disagree on. The policy is there and it doesn't (IMO) infringe Madigan's rights, do we not agree?

CMOTDibbler · 29-12-2015 2:44pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, but that doesn't mean the policy isn't in place internally within the IRFU. It would just need to be proven.

You say 'just' as if it was a trivial matter to prove. Whatever the merits of getting a decision against the RFU who have clearly stated their policy, getting a decision against the IRFU who have never stated such a policy and have never adopted one in any clear cut way would be impossible imo.

The worst that it could be called is favouritism. Which is what selection calls are often referred to as.

If Madigan isn't called up for training camps (absent any restrictions from UBB; something that could be much more problematic legally) then the IRFU may have a case to answer. But it's still more marginal than the RFU's situation.

irishbucsfan · 29-12-2015 2:48pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You say 'just' as if it was a trivial matter to prove. Whatever the merits of getting a decision against the RFU who have clearly stated their policy, getting a decision against the IRFU who have never stated such a policy and have never adopted one in any clear cut way would be impossible imo.

The worst that it could be called is favouritism. Which is what selection calls are often referred to as.

If Madigan isn't called up for training camps (absent any restrictions from UBB; something that could be much more problematic legally) then the IRFU may have a case to answer. But it's still more marginal than the RFU's situation.

If it was proven that a policy was in place, and that could be very clearly proven if internal communication was requested and there was evidence present there, then they're in exactly the same place.

How easy it would be to prove is something that you or I have absolutely no clue about. I'm considering a scenario where it is proven.

molloyjh · 29-12-2015 2:53pm

former total wrote: »

"There are no legalities" - how is that different from "the policy is legally ok"? I'm genuinely baffled as to what we disagree on. The policy is there and it doesn't (IMO) infringe Madigan's rights, do we not agree?

We disagree on whether there is a policy in place or not. I'm not at all convinced there is. There is, as I pointed out, real and practical disadvantages to playing abroad if you want to play for Ireland. There are precious few cases where an Irish player playing abroad has demanded selection and not gotten selected. There may be guidelines or rules of thumb that give additional advantages to players playing here, but that is completely different to a defined policy.

The simple fact is, as I have already said, we don't have enough evidence one way or another to conclusively say there is a policy or that if more players started playing abroad that the IRFU would not change its approach.

EDIT: If there is indeed a policy of any kind I would imagine it is one to encourage players to stay in Ireland using the national side as a major carrot as opposed to a policy to deliberately exclude players playing abroad. The two are fairly fundamentally different.

Riskymove · 29-12-2015 2:54pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

If Madigan isn't called up for training camps (absent any restrictions from UBB; something that could be much more problematic legally) then the IRFU may have a case to answer. But it's still more marginal than the RFU's situation.

No one has an entitlement under law to be selected for their country team

barring something outlandish like an official policy not to pick people based on race etc.

there really is no legal case to answer for a "people playing in Ireland will be considered first" policy or even a blunt "we wont pick people playing abroad" policy

CMOTDibbler · 29-12-2015 3:06pm

Riskymove wrote: »

No one has an entitlement under law to be selected for their country team

barring something outlandish like an official policy not to pick people based on race etc.

there really is no legal case to answer for a "people playing in Ireland will be considered first" policy or even a blunt "we wont pick people playing abroad" policy

I agree completely. It's a nonsense discussion really. IBF is talking about discovery of documents which is a long way down the road from where we are now. The simple fact is that selection is completely down to Joe Schmidt (something that was not the case prior to his appointment) and he can justify his selections any way he likes.

As molloyjh says, the most likely situation is that it's a carrot approach by the IRFU rather than the stick adopted by the RFU.

If Joe wants Madigan to play at 10 and UBB have him playing 12 all the time then that wouldn't do his chances any good either.

irishbucsfan · 29-12-2015 3:13pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I agree completely. It's a nonsense discussion really. IBF is talking about discovery of documents which is a long way down the road from where we are now. The simple fact is that selection is completely down to Joe Schmidt (something that was not the case prior to his appointment) and he can justify his selections any way he likes.

As molloyjh says, the most likely situation is that it's a carrot approach by the IRFU rather than the stick adopted by the RFU.

If Joe wants Madigan to play at 10 and UBB have him playing 12 all the time then that wouldn't do his chances any good either.

The only reason I bring that up is because you said it would be impossible to prove. It wouldn't be at all, that's just one example of where it could happen.

People are now trying to justify the policy because we would use it in a "nicer" way than the RFU. People get very naive when it comes to the IRFU at times. They use anything they can, as they should, in order to advance their interests (which are the interests of Irish rugby as a whole and not any individuals involved in it) and this policy is widely used by international rugby unions when it comes to finding a method of keeping players at home, as it should be.

But that's not really the point. I think it would be interesting if it was challenged in court. More specifically (and some people fail to grasp this it seems) in a court which has made some very inconsistent findings in the past (including in the realms of sport) which is why I don't think it's at all a foregone conclusion which way the decision would go, even if I personally believe it would be madness to prevent an NGB from putting in place this sort of policy. Sticks and carrots have nothing to do with it.

molloyjh · 29-12-2015 3:21pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The only reason I bring that up is because you said it would be impossible to prove. It wouldn't be at all, that's just one example of where it could happen.

People are now trying to justify the policy because we would use it in a "nicer" way than the RFU. People get very naive when it comes to the IRFU at times. They use anything they can, as they should, in order to advance their interests (which are the interests of Irish rugby as a whole and not any individuals involved in it) and this policy is widely used by international rugby unions when it comes to finding a method of keeping players at home, as it should be.

But that's not really the point. I think it would be interesting if it was challenged in court. More specifically (and some people fail to grasp this it seems) in a court which has made some very inconsistent findings in the past (including in the realms of sport) which is why I don't think it's at all a foregone conclusion which way the decision would go, even if I personally believe it would be madness to prevent an NGB from putting in place this sort of policy. Sticks and carrots have nothing to do with it.

How could it be challenged in court when there are no laws there that it is breaking and no court has any interest in getting involved? This isn't a legal matter. Never has been and certainly won't be in the near future.

irishbucsfan · 29-12-2015 3:31pm

molloyjh wrote: »

How could it be challenged in court when there are no laws there that it is breaking and no court has any interest in getting involved? This isn't a legal matter. Never has been and certainly won't be in the near future.

The courts certainly have gotten involved in sports employment in the past. Recently with the 6 + 5 rule (which is something that flies dangerously close to another, stated, IRFU practice). It doesn't need to break any law.

Riskymove · 29-12-2015 3:45pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The courts certainly have gotten involved in sports employment in the past. Recently with the 6 + 5 rule (which is something that flies dangerously close to another, stated, IRFU practice). It doesn't need to break any law.

judgements like that are based around barriers to employment and EU employment law

very different

this is about international representative selections

the problem is that even if there were an official policy and even if it was found to be illegal, it still wouldn't mean that players playing abroad would be selected

former total · 29-12-2015 3:52pm

molloyjh wrote: »

How could it be challenged in court when there are no laws there that it is breaking and no court has any interest in getting involved? This isn't a legal matter. Never has been and certainly won't be in the near future.

He is losing out by moving to France. A European Court COULD look at that and say that it's contrary to free movement within the Union and anything that does so is completely illegal. As far as employment law is concerned, moving to France and moving to Munster are equivalent.

I can't see that holding up but I've also seen some very odd ECJ judgements in the past... It would be very interesting.

Dricmeister · 29-12-2015 4:07pm

People who are saying that the law is irrelevant are wrong. You cannot discriminate against people within the EU. If the IRFU were silly enough to say "we'd be picking you (i.e. employing you) for this squad (i.e. job) if you weren't based in France", I would be very interested to hear the ECJ's thoughts on that.

Is IRFU policy against a person's rights?

Comments