Re: Hanson

Nine · Post by **Nine** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:44 am

pedro posted:
jaws1 posted:
What is the legality of this i thought that if you had an EU passport you could not be refused work in any of the EU countries .The Kolpak agreement is to trade with the EU i was led to believe.
Still have to apply for a work visa and need a letter from the home office to work in this ciuntry from an EU country.

True, but as he is a British citizen that's irrelevant in H's case - no one who is British has to apply for a permit to work in Britain!

Nine · Post by **Nine** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:53 am

pie eaters posted:
At the end of the day he as played for New Zealand so therefore is not eligible to play for Great Britain which means he is overseas

In rugby terms that may be right. But passports and rights to work in certain countries are governed by laws - rugby only has rules. There is a significant difference.

The RFL can bring in its own rules, like any organiser or employer, but all organisations' internal rules are subject to the law of the land. And his employment rights in this country are exactly the same as mine.

This is the issue to RFL will have to deal with - what rules can it have that will not clash with the law. That is why H's case isn't that simple. It's also fairly unusual, which is why I said before I don't think it's worth bothering about too much.

adrenalinxx · Post by **adrenalinxx** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:04 am

pie eaters posted:
At the end of the day he as played for New Zealand so therefore is not eligible to play for Great Britain which means he is overseas

That is not true, under that rule Hansen would not be able to play for New Zealand because he is already capped for England. If Hansen wanted to, and was selected to play for Great Britian then there is no rule that stops him doing so. Many Aussie have played for NZ after playing for Australia and vice versa, like wise many NZ players have played for teams like Tonga during the World Cup.

The differance between Hansen and non-quota players like Richards is that Hansen is a British citizen and is still eligable to play for GB, even though he may never do so. Under the Kolpack ruling Hasen is English as he is a British citizen and has been in England for over four years.

The main requirement for qualification for England is that the player must be a British or an Irish citizen and, if he was not born within England or Wales, he must complete a four-year residence period.

The above is from cricket but I presume it is the same for rugby league

DaveO · Post by **DaveO** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:12 am

adrenalinxx posted:
That is not true, under that rule Hansen would not be able to play for New Zealand because he is already capped for England. If Hansen wanted to, and was selected to play for Great Britian then there is no rule that stops him doing so.

He can't just chop and change his allegiance like that. What he did at junior level does not matter at senior level. Hansen is now a Kiwi international and he can't switch back again due to having represented the Kiwi's at senior level.

NZ were astute enough to get him to play for them thus tying him to them internationally.

Many Aussie have played for NZ after playing for Australia and vice versa, like wise many NZ players have played for teams like Tonga during the World Cup.

Most islanders can represent NZ e.g. Kevin Iro is from the Cook Islands and represented NZ. This is due to the relationship between NZ and the island nations (for example the Cooke Islands were annexed by NZ in the 1900's and sort of let go in the 1960's). That is not the same as playing for NZ and then GB.

I think you will find there is a difference between someone who represents their island nation and then playing for NZ or Australia compared to someone playing for NZ and then GB.

It is also a fact that of you play for NZ you can't be selected in Australia for the State of Origin. Sonny Bill Williams won't play SoO for this reason. So what you get happening is some NZ and pacific island players forgoing an NZ test jersey so they can play origin e.g. Karmichael Hunt.

Many Kiwi junior players play at junior level for NRL clubs in Australia and have to make a choice to either represent NZ or remain eligible to play SoO.

That is why there is a weird situation down under and it isn't to do with simply what nationality you are.

The differance between Hansen and non-quota players like Richards is that Hansen is a British citizen and is still eligable to play for GB, even though he may never do so.

He is no longer eligible for GB having represented NZ at full international level.

Under the Kolpack ruling Hasen is English as he is a British citizen and has been in England for over four years.

The Kolpak ruling does not apply to Hansen. He is not from an island nation that the Kolpak treaty applies to i.e. pacific island nations and others with a special trading/employment relationship with the EC. To be a Kolpak player you have to be from one of the pacific islands covered by the treaty. That does not apply to Hansen.

The main requirement for qualification for England is that the player must be a British or an Irish citizen and, if he was not born within England or Wales, he must complete a four-year residence period.
The above is from cricket but I presume it is the same for rugby league

[/quote]

If it did Dallas would have been eligible for Great Britain which he was not so clearly it does not apply.

Dave

Nine · Post by **Nine** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:36 pm

I think a better analogy, which should help people understand the Islander/Kiwi thing better, is with our GB team and the development British Isles nations.

E.g. Terry O'Connor played for GB. Due to his ancestry he was also entitled to play for Ireland (which covers the whole of that island, not just the UK-run bit). He has, therefore, played for both, thouhg in all honesty it is the GB side that is the top-class international side and Ireland that is the smaller/development nation.

In the same way, e.g. Kevin Iro played for the Kiwis, but due to his ancestry he was also entitled to pay for a separate country, Samoa.

The reality in both these examples is that a player will usually play for the "big" international side in his prime, but at the very beginning or end of hiscareer often likes to help otu the smaller nation.

adrenalinxx · Post by **adrenalinxx** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:48 pm

DaveO posted:
He can't just chop and change his allegiance like that. What he did at junior level does not matter at senior level. Hansen is now a Kiwi international and he can't switch back again due to having represented the Kiwi's at senior level.

Yes he can, if he wants to play for GB now there is nothing to stop him. GB might not want to select him because he has played for New Zealand but there are no rules to prevent him playing for GB in the future.

DaveO posted:
NZ were astute enough to get him to play for them thus tying him to them internationally.

If that were to be the rule then it would not solve the overseas player problems because Logan (an Aussie) would not be overseas due to playing for Scotland therefore tying him to Scotland internationally and making him Scotish. Players could just make one apperance for another country and suddenly become residents of that country.

DaveO posted:
Most islanders can represent NZ e.g. Kevin Iro is from the Cook Islands and represented NZ. This is due to the relationship between NZ and the island nations (for example the Cooke Islands were annexed by NZ in the 1900's and sort of let go in the 1960's). That is not the same as playing for NZ and then GB.

Why is it differant, from you statement above players are tied to the country they represent just because there is a relationship between the countries it doesn't mean they are the same country, Australia is in the Common Wealth but Australians are not considered British.

Hansen is still eligable to play for GB despite people believe that International Caps for one country prevents you from playing for another, this is just not true. Rugby League, Union, Football players have all switched from playing for one country to play for another.

I think it would be unfair to say that Hansen is classes as overseas just because he decided to have an international career, he is British, has lived in this country for along time and is eligable to play for GB. If an English man decided to play for Tonga in the world cup because his Grandfather was Tonga would that person then be Tongan.

DaveO · Post by **DaveO** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:22 pm

adrenalinxx posted:
DaveO posted:
He can't just chop and change his allegiance like that. What he did at junior level does not matter at senior level. Hansen is now a Kiwi international and he can't switch back again due to having represented the Kiwi's at senior level.
Yes he can, if he wants to play for GB now there is nothing to stop him.

Yes there is. You are talking nonsense in suggesting a full international (which is what Hansen is) can change allegiance as he sees fit. It is simply not allowed. It makes a mockery of the international game to say players can do as you suggest.

GB might not want to select him because he has played for New Zealand but there are no rules to prevent him playing for GB in the future.

Yes there are.

DaveO posted:
NZ were astute enough to get him to play for them thus tying him to them internationally.
If that were to be the rule then it would not solve the overseas player problems because Logan (an Aussie) would not be overseas due to playing for Scotland therefore tying him to Scotland internationally and making him Scotish. Players could just make one apperance for another country and suddenly become residents of that country.

His playing for Scotland didn't make him "Scottish" - he already was due to his ancestry giving him an EC passport.

He is "Scottish" just like Richards is "Irish".

Given neither have represented Australia either could theoretically represent GB but just like Hansen of they played for Australia they could not then switch to GB.

DaveO posted:
Most islanders can represent NZ e.g. Kevin Iro is from the Cook Islands and represented NZ. This is due to the relationship between NZ and the island nations (for example the Cooke Islands were annexed by NZ in the 1900's and sort of let go in the 1960's). That is not the same as playing for NZ and then GB.
Why is it differant, from you statement above players are tied to the country they represent just because there is a relationship between the countries it doesn't mean they are the same country, Australia is in the Common Wealth but Australians are not considered British.

The players are tied to GB, Australia and NZ in that if you are an international for one of those you can't switch to be an international for one of the others.

As has been mentioned Logan is "Scottish" so could play for GB (as Scotland is part of GB). A similar situation applies to NZ and the Pacific islands.

Where the restriction comes in is at the GB, Australia and NZ level.

Hansen is still eligable to play for GB despite people believe that International Caps for one country prevents you from playing for another, this is just not true. Rugby League, Union, Football players have all switched from playing for one country to play for another.

You can say it as often as you like but he can't. What other sports do is not relevant as I showed you with the residency issue. Henry Paul played for England at RU but that is in that sport. He is considered an (ex) Kiwi international in RL and would never have been eligible for GB.

I think it would be unfair to say that Hansen is classes as overseas just because he decided to have an international career, he is British, has lived in this country for along time and is eligable to play for GB. If an English man decided to play for Tonga in the world cup because his Grandfather was Tonga would that person then be Tongan.

Hansen has dual nationality. What you are missing is that just because someone is classed as a British national it does not grant them an automatic right to play for GB in RL because the sport has rules that say otherwise. He made his choice by playing for NZ and that is what governs his eligibility not his passport.

If he ends up being classified as an overseas player in future because he is a Kiwi international I can't see much argument with that.

By the way while Hansen was selected for the England U18's he withdrew deliberately to keep his international options open which he then closed by choosing the Kiwi's.

Dave

adrenalinxx · Post by **adrenalinxx** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:52 pm

There are examples of players switching betweem international clubs in Rugby League, no matter how unlikely that Hansen would decided to play for GB there is still a possibilty that he could switch therefore still retains his eligibilty to play for GB.

Which everway you argue this there is still a problem, saying International Representation governs the eligiblity of player it would means that any Aussies who has caps for another Nation would be classed as from that Nation and therefore not a quota players. If you says passport governs eligilbity then players with EU passports could not count on the quota.

It can't work one way and not the other saying Hansen has NZ caps therefore is a New Zealander and say that Logan with Scotish caps is an Aussie, both players are citizens of other countries.

I have already said that I think deciding elgibilty by the Nation which that person represents is a good idea to decide quota players because if a player is representing a developing nation then they are helping them compete against some of the bigger sides but it would work like that for all players.

DaveO · Post by **DaveO** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:16 pm

adrenalinxx posted:
There are examples of players switching betweem international clubs in Rugby League, no matter how unlikely that Hansen would decided to play for GB there is still a possibilty that he could switch therefore still retains his eligibilty to play for GB.

We could go on forever with this but now he has played for NZ he is not eligible for GB despite having a British passport in the same way Henry Paul is not despite his obvious English connections having played RU for England.

I would have thought the fact he withdrew from the England U18 side was pretty conclusive evidence he did not want to associate himself with a country at international level so he could play for another at a later date.

We will just have to agree to disagree about the eligibility issue but one thing is for certain and that is Hansen has made his choice and if you look for quotes from him about it he clearly is a Kiwi in RL representative terms.

That is his choice and that being so if the RFL decide he is no different than Barrett or Richards who would both be classed as overseas if the new rules come in then he can't complain.

Which everway you argue this there is still a problem, saying International Representation governs the eligiblity of player it would means that any Aussies who has caps for another Nation would be classed as from that Nation and therefore not a quota players.

Logan was not on our overseas quota because he had an EC passport not because he represented Scotland.

Aussies can't represent other nations on a whim. They have to have some connection to that nation as Logan does to Scotland. So Andrew Johns could not decide to play for Scotland and as a result be off-quota because (as far as I know) he has no Scottish family connections.

Richards is just the same. He is "Irish" as Logan is "Scottish" but Richards has not represented Ireland at RL and he is already off-quota because he has an EC passport.

If you says passport governs eligilbity then players with EU passports could not count on the quota.

I am saying the opposite. Hansen has a GB passport but because he has chosen NZ he is now ineligible for GB despite his GB passport.

It can't work one way and not the other saying Hansen has NZ caps therefore is a New Zealander and say that Logan with Scotish caps is an Aussie, both players are citizens of other countries.

If Hansen was like Iro he could play for a pacific island nation and NZ. Logan could in theory play for Scotland and GB in the same way.

But Hansen isn't like Iro. He sole representation is for NZ - so he can't play for GB.

Whether the Aussies would consider Logan or Richards (if the latter did represent Ireland) for Australia I don't know but I am certain they would not consider them if they had played for GB.

I have already said that I think deciding elgibilty by the Nation which that person represents is a good idea to decide quota players because if a player is representing a developing nation then they are helping them compete against some of the bigger sides but it would work like that for all players.

If you mean we should not count players from say Tonga or Samoa as having them play here helps those countries that is a whole different debate.

Dave

lucky 13 · Post by **lucky 13** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:40 pm

Just out of interest how did Tony Carrol play for NZ in the world cup and the for AUS after against us and NZ?