WH AT Y O U S H O U L D B E T A L K I N G A B O U T T H I S MON T H …
“The unintended consequences of eligibility rule change”
IT’S LESS than a year since World Rugby amended its eligibility regulations, allowing players to switch nations if they hadn’t played Test rugby for 36 months and had a birthright link to the country they want to transfer to (they or a parent/ grandparent were born there).
There was plenty of positive rhetoric around the change, the governing body saying it would “benefit the global competitiveness of rugby”. Many felt it would boost the Pacific Island nations, allowing them to pick players who had represented Tier One countries but now wanted to switch to the country of their birth.
We’ve already seen Tonga make use of the rule, with former All Black Charles Piutau and Wallaby Israel Folau representing the ‘IkaleTahi in the Pacific Nations Cup. But could there be unintended consequences?
When it was introduced, most of the conversations in the men’s game centred on players switching from Tier One to emerging nations and hopefully leading to improved performances. Yet news broke in August that Tawera
Kerr-Barlow – a World Cup winner with the All Blacks who was born in Melbourne – had offered his services to Australia. Wallabies coach Dave Rennie was quick to point to the depth he had at nine but did admit the La Rochelle scrum-half was “a hell of a resource behind what we’ve already got”.
It raises the possibility that we could see a player lift the Webb Ellis Cup with two different countries. Not sure if that rings true with the “fairness and integrity” World Rugby spoke of when making the change. It’s all very well bolstering the depth of smaller nations and making international rugby more competitive, but increasing the talent pool of some of the world’s biggest teams…
What do you think? Is the rule change good or bad? Let us know your views.