Isa Nacewa - World Cup??

Gracelessly Tom

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Im merely establishing that rugby would have no problem with selected players being refused entry by the hosts; Japan and its intermittent problems with China seemed a plausible example. And when going to America (a likely host in the 2020s I'd say) you can run into problems if you are a member of a communist party which the players of a handful of countries are likely to be.

Ditto if the English in 2015 decided not to give visas to Namibian or Tongan or Uruguayan players if they felt there was a risk they'd stay beyond the end of their visa or something - the IRB would just shrug their shoulders it seems.

Fair enough if you think thats all OK - I'd be hugely against it but we don't seem to have any common ground in the disagreement.

I still don't think you fully understand, the NZ government (amongst others) has said that due to the military coup and the regime and their ideals they will not allow Fijian military personnel into the country. All other Fijians welcome. The military are, in simple terms, holding apartheid beliefs and practises.

As for the part about Japan and China and the US and communism, these are not the same in any way, shape or form. Pointless argument I'm afraid. A country having historical arguments with another is no way to back up your point that they could seek to ban these teams from entering a possible WC held there. Not a plausible argument.

Finally, why would Namibians, Tongans or Uruguayans want to seek asylum in the UK??? Do they normally seek asylum when they go to play matches?? No, so again, pointless argument.

I don't think you realise the point here. NZ have banned Fijian military personnel, not Fijians. All your arguments are based around loose ideas that one country doesn't like another from a conflict years ago and is banning their players. Not the case at all.

mikedragon32

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Rugby is physical, not violent.

Mmmm. Never punched? Been punched? Saw a mill on the pitch?

It was suposed to be a bit of humour. Wasted.

Stev_o

Aren't there a few All Black players who'v been in court for assault before to do with punching their wife or something?

I know in League Greg Bird couldn't get a visa to play in the UK and instead had to sign with a RL team in France can't remember if he was allowed into the UK to play matches.

ArmaniJeanss

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

I still don't think you fully understand, the NZ government (amongst others) has said that due to the military coup and the regime and their ideals they will not allow Fijian military personnel into the country. All other Fijians welcome.

Its actually more than just military personnel - its players whose girlfriends/wives have fathers in the military (see my later link)

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

As for the part about Japan and China and the US and communism, these are not the same in any way, shape or form. Pointless argument I'm afraid. A country having historical arguments with another is no way to back up your point that they could seek to ban these teams from entering a possible WC held there. Not a plausible argument.

I don't think you realise the point here. NZ have banned Fijian military personnel, not Fijians. All your arguments are based around loose ideas that one country doesn't like another from a conflict years ago and is banning their players. Not the case at all.

I'm merely trying to put across how farcical things could get and the slippery slope you can be on if the host country is allowed have a veto on individual players for any reason. It goes against the very essence of sport.
If Fiji aren't banned from the competition by the IRB then the IRB should be insisting that all their players are allowed play - The IRB are the ones who hold the power here imo and a quiet word in the ear of NZ that this tournament can and will be moved elsewhere would work.

Finally FIFA rarely have my respect but in 2007 New Zealand denied a visa to a Fiji player in a World Cup qualifier - he wasn't military, neither was his partner, but her father was.
FIFA told NZ to take a jump in order to 'preserve the sporting integrity of the competiton'. Will the IRB have the same balls?

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/southafrica2010/organisation/media/newsid=614454/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simione_Tamanisau

desertcircus

I'm glad that the NZRU are standing firm on the issue of Fijians connected to the military. We'd all be much happier if Fiji was a democracy instead of being ruled by a junta, and one of the few ways we can put pressure on them without hurting the civilian populace is by doing this. Rugby's a great deal less important than this.

tolosenc

@ArmaniJeans: It's not the NZRU that is banning the Fijian military personnel from the tournament, it is the government of New Zealand which is banning them from their territory. The IRB could huff and puff all they like, but NZ aren't going to change their stance.

When SA weren't allowed to play due to apartheid, did that go against the very essence of sport?

ArmaniJeanss

tolosenc wrote: »

@ArmaniJeans: It's not the NZRU that is banning the Fijian military personnel from the tournament, it is the government of New Zealand which is banning them from their territory. The IRB could huff and puff all they like, but NZ aren't going to change their stance.

When SA weren't allowed to play due to apartheid, did that go against the very essence of sport?

I'm 100% aware that its the NZ govt, not the NZRU. A few other posters don't seem to be so the clarification is timely anyway.

I suspect if say the IRB 'huffed and puffed' to the extent of threatening to take the tournament (or Group D) away from NZ like FIFA took the WC qualifier that the stance of the govt would change.

I've said a few times that if the international community or the IRB believes that the regime is so bad that a total ban is appropriate (like SA or Yugoslavia in the early 1990s) then that would be a good (even preferable) solution, better than someone in the NZ govt deciding which members of Fiji's selected squad have a too-close relationship or familial relationship with the army. Its the latter I have a problem with, the latter that I think is against the essence of sport.

desertcircus

Who else apart from the New Zealand government should be deciding whether or not to grant visas to enter New Zealand? This isn't an IRB decision; it's the New Zealand government declaring that they will not allow entry to anyone connected to a military junta to which the NZ government are officially opposed. This is absolutely nothing to do with sport. This is about the laws of the country meaning something. Abandoning a government policy because you don't want to upset the IRB would be an act of cowardice and a stronger hand dealt to the Fijian junta. Allowing Fiji to send their first-choice squad is several orders of magnitude less urgent and important than putting pressure on the junta. That's the prerogative of the NZ government, and they're entirely within their rights to refuse to bend the rules for the guys who can carry a ball.

JustinDee

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'm 100% aware that its the NZ govt, not the NZRU. A few other posters don't seem to be so the clarification is timely anyway.

I suspect if say the IRB 'huffed and puffed' to the extent of threatening to take the tournament (or Group D) away from NZ like FIFA took the WC qualifier that the stance of the govt would change.

I've said a few times that if the international community or the IRB believes that the regime is so bad that a total ban is appropriate (like SA or Yugoslavia in the early 1990s) then that would be a good (even preferable) solution, better than someone in the NZ govt deciding which members of Fiji's selected squad have a too-close relationship or familial relationship with the army. Its the latter I have a problem with, the latter that I think is against the essence of sport.

The sport has nothing to do with it. You don't seem to get that.

Gracelessly Tom

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Its actually more than just military personnel - its players whose girlfriends/wives have fathers in the military (see my later link)



I'm merely trying to put across how farcical things could get and the slippery slope you can be on if the host country is allowed have a veto on individual players for any reason. It goes against the very essence of sport.
If Fiji aren't banned from the competition by the IRB then the IRB should be insisting that all their players are allowed play - The IRB are the ones who hold the power here imo and a quiet word in the ear of NZ that this tournament can and will be moved elsewhere would work.

Finally FIFA rarely have my respect but in 2007 New Zealand denied a visa to a Fiji player in a World Cup qualifier - he wasn't military, neither was his partner, but her father was.
FIFA told NZ to take a jump in order to 'preserve the sporting integrity of the competiton'. Will the IRB have the same balls?

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/southafrica2010/organisation/media/newsid=614454/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simione_Tamanisau

You really are not getting what is going on in Fiji, it is apartheid, similar to SA all those years ago. NZ government has said if they receive guarantees that Fiji will hold democratic elections by 2014 then the entire squad will be allowed entry. Fijian leaders won't give the guarantee.

I think the IRB should ban them, the same as was done to South Africa. Unfortunate, but what is going on there needs to be stamped out, if it takes things like this to happen then so be it.

As for the bit in bold...... seriously, you think the IRB are that powerful?? That if the almighty IRB came a-knocking on the NZ parliament doors that they'd change their minds?? Come on. 3 and a half months out from the World Cup and you think the IRB hold the power as far as changing the venue?? Even FIFA couldn't pull that off and they hold a hell of a lot more power.

I fail to see how you can attack NZ for their policy and claim FIFA would handle it better. FIFA don't give a sh1t about the welfare of countries, they are power hungry, greed mad and only care about their competitions going well. And before anyone mentions the fact that they ban countries who interfere with the local FA's, that is not at all the same as banning them for policies and the way they treat their own, that is merely FIFA not wanting their precious football getting tarnished.

*don't get me wrong, I love football, big supporter, but just have very little respect for FIFA as an organisation. Recent events are highlighting their issues even more.

totallegend

JustinDee wrote: »

The sport has nothing to do with it. You don't seem to get that.

Hang on a minute now, there's no need for that sort of tone; ArmaniJeanss has his opinion and he's explained it well, he's backed it up with reasonable arguments. Whether he "gets it" or not is your opinion, not facts.

I don't think anyone is condoning the regime in Fiji, the question is whether NZ should be allowed to effectively exclude a participating nation who have not been suspended by the IRB.
Personally, I don't think they should; if the IRB take a decision that the regime in Fiji is so abhorrent that Fiji should be excluded from international competition, then that's fine, but this is a unilateral decision which could potentially affect the entire tournament. You can be guaranteed that if NZ has less clout at the IRB and Fiji had more, there wouldn't be an issue here.

justsomebloke

JustinDee wrote: »

The sport has nothing to do with it. You don't seem to get that.

And you don't seem to get the fact that the IRB should be pushing for an event independent of all political interference, so it pretty much horses for courses

Gracelessly Tom

totallegend wrote: »

Hang on a minute now, there's no need for that sort of tone; ArmaniJeanss has his opinion and he's explained it well, he's backed it up with reasonable arguments. Whether he "gets it" or not is your opinion, not facts.

I don't think anyone is condoning the regime in Fiji, the question is whether NZ should be allowed to effectively exclude a participating nation who have not been suspended by the IRB.
Personally, I don't think they should; if the IRB take a decision that the regime in Fiji is so abhorrent that Fiji should be excluded from international competition, then that's fine, but this is a unilateral decision which could potentially affect the entire tournament. You can be guaranteed that if NZ has less clout at the IRB and Fiji had more, there wouldn't be an issue here.

Absolutely they should!! It is not the NZRFU that has banned them it is the government of the country that have banned military personnel and their families from entering NZ. It has nothing to do with rugby and everything to do with world politics.

The fact the IRB have not banned them has nothing to do with the issue. Do you honestly think the IRB would ban a country due to their ruling regime prior to national governments banning them? No chance whatsoever, it needs governments having these stances for sports bodies to realise the severity of the situation.

Also, of course it's a unilateral decision, no one else can make the NZ laws bar their government.

cython

Joe the Santa wrote: »

And you don't seem to get the fact that the IRB should be pushing for an event independent of all political interference, so it pretty much horses for courses

Ah here, be realistic! The only way that an event could be guaranteed by an independent, multinational sporting body like the IRB to be free from "all political interference" would be to stage it in international waters, and while a tennis court may have been built on water in Qatar, it's not exactly possible to build a series of floating rugby stadia to stage all the matches!

It's all well and good to wax lyrical about the essence/purity of sport and all that jazz, but at the end of the day, NZ is an independent state, and while I have no problem with the IRB/NZRFU, or any other body making a request or pleading a case for something like this to be waived, it is not their place to be issuing an ultimatum to, or making demands on, the foreign policy of a host country, especially at this late stage.

JustinDee

Joe the Santa wrote: »

And you don't seem to get the fact that the IRB should be pushing for an event independent of all political interference, so it pretty much horses for courses

It isn't "horses for courses". Nothing of a sort.
The event has to be held somewhere and that somewhere is condition to laws pertaining to the country in question.
The IRB has no power over any member country's laws, be they border, customs or otherwise. Not one and nor should it. It is a sporting body, not a judicial organisation. Ditto with union.
If a country wishes to legally ban movement across their border of anyone, they will and can do so. If the personality in question wishes to appeal a case, overturning a ban they can do so but with the very relevant government agencies that have placed the ban in the first place.

The event is free of political involvement. The country's borders & customs are not, however.
Hence the ban on players in question being rightfully and legally kept in place.

Sånn er livet.

JustinDee

totallegend wrote: »

I don't think anyone is condoning the regime in Fiji, the question is whether NZ should be allowed to effectively exclude a participating nation who have not been suspended by the IRB

No, it isn't. The "question" is a poster trying to argue that a minority of players from Fiji (some not even first-choice) involved with the regime of that country, be exempted from New Zealand's immigration laws. Not a very realistic or legal precedent to set, I would think.

No participating nation has been excluded. Effectively or otherwise.

totallegend

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

Absolutely they should!! It is not the NZRFU that has banned them it is the government of the country that have banned military personnel and their families from entering NZ. It has nothing to do with rugby and everything to do with world politics.

The fact the IRB have not banned them has nothing to do with the issue. Do you honestly think the IRB would ban a country due to their ruling regime prior to national governments banning them? No chance whatsoever, it needs governments having these stances for sports bodies to realise the severity of the situation.

Also, of course it's a unilateral decision, no one else can make the NZ laws bar their government.

We know that it's a government decision, not an NZRFU one, but volunteering to host an event like the World Cup brings with it certain obligations on the host country and maybe they're not all as palatable as that country would like.
The NZ government is/was heavily involved in the bidding and organisation of this tournament and is underwriting the financial loss which the NZRFU are going to make. I doubt their bid for the tournament included a disclaimer that they reserved the right to exclude any team or players who don't meet NZ immigration standards. Maybe it should have and a more fully informed decision on hosting the tournament could have been made.

If they want to deny members of the Fijian goverment entry, fine; they shouldn't be given a platform to legitimise their undemocratic regime and I'm all on board for that. However, the players who are in the military are probably not the highest ranking members of the junta and denying someone entry because a family member is in the army is a bit much I think.

Finally, where does one draw the line? Ireland are in a group with Russia, which has a grim human rights record and is run by a regime which isn't too fond of democracy or independent judiciary either...

ArmaniJeanss

JustinDee wrote: »

No, it isn't. The "question" is a poster trying to argue that a minority of players from Fiji (some not even first-choice) involved with the regime of that country, be exempted from New Zealand's immigration laws. Not a very realistic or legal precedent to set, I would think.

There are plenty of precedents for it so it is legally realistic.

Heres for example how in 1986 the USA bid for World Cup 1994 included 'federal government guarantees' allowing players, coaches and representatives of hostile countries to obtain visas.
http://www.bigapplesoccer.com/worldcup2010/article.php?article_id=24942

I'm guessing the IRB just never saw the potential for it to be an issue hence never insisted on such a clause in their contracts with the NZ govt.

JustinDee

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

There are plenty of precedents for it so it is legally realistic.

Heres for example how in 1986 the USA bid for World Cup 1994 included 'federal government guarantees' allowing players, coaches and representatives of hostile countries to obtain visas.
http://www.bigapplesoccer.com/worldcup2010/article.php?article_id=24942

I'm guessing the IRB just never saw the potential for it to be an issue hence never insisted on such a clause in their contracts with the NZ govt.

Oh for ...
There's no precedent for it in Australia or New Zealand. Nor is there in the sport of rugby union (or rugby league for that matter).
It has nothing to do with the IRB who have nothing like the clout that an organisation as FIFA would have. Thankfully however, they respect the law of the country hosting their event and don't make arrogant, irresponsible demands as 'let in anyone regardless of record'.

Boy, have there been some pretty whacky comparisons between soccer and rugby in this forum lately.

Gracelessly Tom

totallegend wrote: »

We know that it's a government decision, not an NZRFU one, but volunteering to host an event like the World Cup brings with it certain obligations on the host country and maybe they're not all as palatable as that country would like.
The NZ government is/was heavily involved in the bidding and organisation of this tournament and is underwriting the financial loss which the NZRFU are going to make. I doubt their bid for the tournament included a disclaimer that they reserved the right to exclude any team or players who don't meet NZ immigration standards. Maybe it should have and a more fully informed decision on hosting the tournament could have been made.

If they want to deny members of the Fijian goverment entry, fine; they shouldn't be given a platform to legitimise their undemocratic regime and I'm all on board for that. However, the players who are in the military are probably not the highest ranking members of the junta and denying someone entry because a family member is in the army is a bit much I think.

Finally, where does one draw the line? Ireland are in a group with Russia, which has a grim human rights record and is run by a regime which isn't too fond of democracy or independent judiciary either...

When they bid for the 2011 competition Fiji was not under the current regime so the point is moot.

Russia is not fond of democracy? Really? Was last time I checked, in fact the people fought for years to get it. Also, they don't have apartheid policies in place!

This argument is going nowhere, I'm out.

totallegend

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

When they bid for the 2011 competition Fiji was not under the current regime so the point is moot.

Yes, that's correct, but this situation could have arisen with a number of countries in the 2011 RWC, my point was that bidding for the World Cup imposes certain obligations on host countries.

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

Russia is not fond of democracy? Really? Was last time I checked, in fact the people fought for years to get it. Also, they don't have apartheid policies in place!

Don't take my word for it; 'The Economist' magazine knows a lot more about world politics than either you or me. In their 2010 "Democracy Index", they rank Fiji at #119 with Russia at only #107, it makes for interesting reading.

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

This argument is going nowhere, I'm out.

I think I've put forward my position in a reasonable manner; if you don't agree that's up to you.

Sangre

Hypothetical situation:

What if Argentina successfully bid for and obtained a RWC. Subsequently another dispute breaks out over the Falklands Islands - it needn't be full blown combat - and suddenly we find ourselves in the position that England, Wales and Scotland are prevented from entering Argentina for the RWC.

How should the IRB deal with that? Should the home nation rugby unions be told to lump it and sod off? Should the IRB just accept it and carry on with the WC with three of the top tier nations missing? Would the RWC collapse?

Obviously rugby unions have absolutely no say in visa/immigration issues. But to fail to plan for or accommodate such eventualities is extremely short sighted. There might be a slim chance of the above happening, but failure to anticipate any political situation interfering with the WC and planning accordingly is naïve.

Obviously we can't make a union force its government to allow teams to enter. The union has no say in such matters. However, any event that interrupts a union(s) participating in the RWC has drastic financial implications for that union, and said union shouldn't bear that burden. I believe it should be the host country who should foot the bill. If they can't afford it - which is likely - they should insure themselves against this risk and this insurance should be a mandatory requirement of any bid.

irishbucsfan

Sangre wrote: »

What if Argentina successfully bid for and obtained a RWC. Subsequently another dispute breaks out over the Falklands Islands - it needn't be full blown combat - and suddenly we find ourselves in the position that England, Wales and Scotland are prevented from entering Argentina for the RWC.

As well as a host of Irish players, I'd imagine!

desertcircus

It's not a fair comparison; Fiji are not being prevented from sending a team. Certain Fijians are being denied entry on the basis of their connection to the junta. It's akin to a player being refused entry to Australia on the basis of a criminal conviction.

tolosenc

Yeah, Fiji can still send a team, just not certain individuals.

errlloyd

Gonna be controversial.

But its very much the equivalent of denying an Irish player entry to an English world cup because he was a member of the IRA.

CatFromHue

errlloyd wrote: »

Gonna be controversial.

But its very much the equivalent of denying an Irish player entry to an English world cup because he was a member of the IRA.

what? thats a stupid comment.

its completely different than that.

no one from fiji has killed anyone from nz.

this is an interesting read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_and_the_United_Nations

the un doesnt seem to have a major problem with the fijian military so why should the kiwis?

errlloyd

CatFromHue wrote: »

what? thats a stupid comment.

its completely different than that.

no one from fiji has killed anyone from nz.

Fine its like the US banning them, something that is perfectly reasonable. These players are linked with a paramilitary organisation.

JustinDee

CatFromHue wrote: »

the un doesnt seem to have a major problem with the fijian military so why should the kiwis?

Strange question (especially using a Wikipedia article to back it up??).
Aussie and NZ have the right to determine their own foreign policies. If the non-Pacific members of the UN don't give a stuff then that's their problem. Bears nothing.

Amazing that people are making such a fuss over this too.
Without having to look it up, how many players are banned from travelling and are they even first-choice selections? I'll bet those willing to overlook the strife don't even know the story behind the past FIVE military coups.

totallegend

OSI wrote: »

This was confirmed on the Radio this morning by Nacewa saying he was putting his wife and kids first by not going to the world cup.

Can't find a link to any articles on line for it though which is frustrating.

Seems like a poor but diplomatic excuse for an expected decision.

That's a shame, the tournament will be poorer without him.

Good news for Leinster though.

wixfjord

Definitely will be a poorer tournie without Isa, and as someone said, if Fiji got all their players together they'd be a serious force, and he deserves to be playing at the top level.

In saying that, I'm delighted from a Leinster POV.
Could be looking at a back three of Nacewa, Horgan and Carr for the first few ML games of the season, which would be very strong.

ArmaniJeanss

JustinDee wrote: »

Strange question (especially using a Wikipedia article to back it up??).
Aussie and NZ have the right to determine their own foreign policies. If the non-Pacific members of the UN don't give a stuff then that's their problem. Bears nothing.

Well it would be easier for the people who "don't even know the story" to believe the Aussie/NZ viewpoint if there was widespread sharing of the same anti-Fiji-government sentiment throughout the UN.

Otherwise some of us may suspect that the Oz government is just pandering to its substantial Indian* population, and that the NZ government is just worried about the current Fiji government's closer links with China.

And that the Fijian players concerned (and it doesn't really matter to me whether there is 1 or 10, whether they are 1st XV or not) are just a victim of political bullying from the 2 regional superpowers.


* Fiji has a 38% IndoFijian population, the current leader is from the 52% ethnic Fijians.

Careful Now

Seems like fiji are getting what they deserve. They screwed Isa over and now getting payback.

JustinDee

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well it would be easier for the people who "don't even know the story" to believe the Aussie/NZ viewpoint if there was widespread sharing of the same anti-Fiji-government sentiment throughout the UN

Otherwise some of us may suspect that the Oz government is just pandering to its substantial Indian* population, and that the NZ government is just worried about the current Fiji government's closer links with China

Whatever you're googling, that is bizarre logic and all conveniently subjective.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

And that the Fijian players concerned (and it doesn't really matter to me whether there is 1 or 10, whether they are XV or not) are just a victim of political bullying from the 2 regional superpowers.
* Fiji has a 38% IndoFijian population, the current leader is from the 52% ethnic Fijians.

If the regime is fine by you then great. Pardon the Aussie and Kiwi govts for actually giving a hoot.

hardCopy

Current situation aside, I can see ArmaniJeans' point from a more general point of view.

Obviously the contracts are signed for this and presumably the next RWC, but what's to stop the IRB making political neutrality a condition of future RWC bids?

The olympics have seen nations competing in spite of massive political divisions, shouldn't the RWC aspire to be something similar?

sock puppet

Careful Now wrote: »

Seems like fiji are getting what they deserve. They screwed Isa over and now getting payback.

How did they screw him over?

irishbucsfan

sock puppet wrote: »

How did they screw him over?

They told him his appearance wouldn't count towards his elligibility

CatFromHue

JustinDee wrote: »

Strange question (especially using a Wikipedia article to back it up??).
Aussie and NZ have the right to determine their own foreign policies. If the non-Pacific members of the UN don't give a stuff then that's their problem. Bears nothing.

Amazing that people are making such a fuss over this too.
Without having to look it up, how many players are banned from travelling and are they even first-choice selections? I'll bet those willing to overlook the strife don't even know the story behind the past FIVE military coups.

yeah wiki isnt a great source but at 12.15 last night well i was lazy!

my point was though that yes nz and oz can choose to let or not let whoever they want on to their soil. they are acting unilaterally though (yes i know there are two of em).

according to here http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3887_6964083,00.html
it's 4 to 6 possible military members they want to include. i didnt think it was that high a number myself.

i think there is something very fishy going on here though. fiji have played against oz in oz twice times since 2006 and will play a friendly against nz in nz before the tri nations this season. no talk of a boycott for these games!

irishbucsfan

CatFromHue wrote: »

i think there is something very fishy going on here though. fiji have played against oz in oz twice times since 2006 and will play a friendly against nz in nz before the tri nations this season. no talk of a boycott for these games!

How many military personnel played in those games in Australia?

CatFromHue

irishbucsfan wrote: »

How many military personnel played in those games in Australia?

i dunno, considering this was after the 2006 coup (i was in nz at the time on a whv so remember seeing the kiwi news about it. nearly half the footage of the coup leader was of him playing rugby with his mates. if i remember right he gave an ultimatium to the govt to leave power on a friday or he would take it by force. a few days later he said they had til the saturday. there was a big game on that he wanted to watch on the friday:pac::pac:) i presume the ban was in place so i presume none.

my point was fiji didnt seem to kick up to much then.

sock puppet

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They told him his appearance wouldn't count towards his elligibility

Is this confirmed at all? I thought it was just Nacewa didn't know it would make him ineligible. It's not like he was a superstar who had nations fighting over him at the time.

JustinDee

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They told him his appearance wouldn't count towards his elligibility

Really? Did they? What did they say?

BrianOFlanagan

http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/141361.html

Back on subject! Check this out.

CatFromHue

BrianOFlanagan wrote: »

http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/141361.html

Back on subject! Check this out.

bit mad that. he has said no for the last few years and said no again today. i think its fair to say he doesnt want to play for fiji.

irishbucsfan

JustinDee wrote: »

Really? Did they? What did they say?

Who knows, but that's what Nacewa says in his interviews (I think someone posted that one here) and I have no reason not to believe him.

JustinDee

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Who knows, but that's what Nacewa says in his interviews (I think someone posted that one here) and I have no reason not to believe him.

He made for world cup/international rugby and took a bet with a country he was likely to be selected with. As a pro, he had a business manager and the ruling was well established and in public eye as well as amongst the playing community.

All done and dusted. Leinster win out.

CatFromHue

i dont see nacewa as being blameless in this situation. he obviously was a young guy and asked someone in authority who either got it wrong or lied.

it should be noted that one of the best all blacks of all time, michael jones, played for samoa before he played for nz. also tuigamala played for both the all blacks and then for samoa.

JustinDee

Ruling was changed following the 1999 RWC though.

Donnielighto

The IRB should stipulate that any bidding nation allows all selected players in to ensure there are no abuses by host nations. It could ban players and nations impartially itself if it felt there was some breach of ethics or general morals a la the banning of the boks during aparthied.

CatFromHue

JustinDee wrote: »

Ruling was changed following the 1999 RWC though.

he was 21 in 2003. he must not have been reading his irb rule book as much as he should.