Pro 14 - General Thread

[johng]

Because Embra are Italian?

I'm guessing because Cheetahs aren't eligible for Europe.

Bang on. Missed that.

[johng]

There is one round less in the league so this playoff sees 8 teams in playoff action rather than just 4 and with the scrapping of the inter league playoffs there is plenty of space in may for it.

6 teams play 21 games. 6 teams play 22 games and 2 teams play 23 games.

Sustainable with 6 to 9 games in Europe?

Well a lot better considering the top 14 finalists could have played 29 games and if a french team make Euro and national finals that's a possible 38 CLUB GAMES in a season.

Also. I just noticed they tidied up qualification with this paragraph....

In accordance with a decision of the EPCR Board comprising the nine unions, federations and league bodies, the 20th place in the Champions Cup will be determined as follows:

i) Champions Cup winner, if not already qualified
ii) Challenge Cup winner, if not already qualified
iii) Challenge Cup losing finalist, if not already qualified
iv) Play-off match between the losing Challenge Cup semi-finalists, if not already qualified
v) Highest ranked non-qualified club by virtue of league position from the same league as the Champions Cup winner

[johng]

6 teams play 21 games. 6 teams play 22 games and 2 teams play 23 games.

Not strictly true. If 3rd to 6th make the final they will play 24 games

[neill_m]

Because Embra are Italian?

I'm guessing because Cheetahs aren't eligible for Europe.

Bang on. Missed that.

As things stand after 6 rounds:

Glasgow, Munster, Zebre (Conf A) and Scarlets, Ulster and Leinster (Conf B) are in the Champions Cup for next season.

The Play-off for the last spot would have Edinburgh (4th in Conf B) hosting Cardiff (5th in Conf A).

The League Play-offs would be Munster v Leinster with the winners away to Llanelli and Ulster v Cheetahs with the winners away to Glasgow.

[paddyor]

There is one round less in the league so this playoff sees 8 teams in playoff action rather than just 4 and with the scrapping of the inter league playoffs there is plenty of space in may for it.

6 teams play 21 games. 6 teams play 22 games and 2 teams play 23 games.

Sustainable with 6 to 9 games in Europe?

Well a lot better considering the top 14 finalists could have played 29 games and if a french team make Euro and national finals that's a possible 38 CLUB GAMES in a season.

Also. I just noticed they tidied up qualification with this paragraph....

In accordance with a decision of the EPCR Board comprising the nine unions, federations and league bodies, the 20th place in the Champions Cup will be determined as follows:

i) Champions Cup winner, if not already qualified
ii) Challenge Cup winner, if not already qualified
iii) Challenge Cup losing finalist, if not already qualified
iv) Play-off match between the losing Challenge Cup semi-finalists, if not already qualified
v) Highest ranked non-qualified club by virtue of league position from the same league as the Champions Cup winner

The way it was with a slight tweak then?

[Laighin Break]

There is one round less in the league so this playoff sees 8 teams in playoff action rather than just 4 and with the scrapping of the inter league playoffs there is plenty of space in may for it.

6 teams play 21 games. 6 teams play 22 games and 2 teams play 23 games.

Sustainable with 6 to 9 games in Europe?

Well a lot better considering the top 14 finalists could have played 29 games and if a french team make Euro and national finals that's a possible 38 CLUB GAMES in a season.

Also. I just noticed they tidied up qualification with this paragraph....

In accordance with a decision of the EPCR Board comprising the nine unions, federations and league bodies, the 20th place in the Champions Cup will be determined as follows:

i) Champions Cup winner, if not already qualified
ii) Challenge Cup winner, if not already qualified
iii) Challenge Cup losing finalist, if not already qualified
iv) Play-off match between the losing Challenge Cup semi-finalists, if not already qualified
v) Highest ranked non-qualified club by virtue of league position from the same league as the Champions Cup winner

Interesting that 'Challenge Cup losing finalist, if not already qualified' is an option, but 'Champions Cup losing finalist, if not already qualified' isn't.

[blockhead]

Mike Ruddock is being sounded out for the Cardiff gig.

[simonokeeffe]

Apologies if someone has already mentioned this but just read an article saying that the SARU are in advanced talks about adding two teams to the Anglo welsh cup. I've generally been fairly negative about the SA teams joining our league but now that they have I want it to work out, and I'd have thought it was crucial to keep the English at bay. Assuming this happens, I could easily foresee the other SA super rugby teams looking to join the premiership in future and the Cheetahs and the Kings jumping ship, it just seems like a stepping stone to that. As much as it appears unlikely that the premiership would take on foreign teams, adding them to the cup seems strange in isolation and I reckon they may have been kicked into action because of the Pro12 changing.

I mentioned the rumour before but it's official now/
Though they said below super rugby so itd be promoting 2 Currie Cup sides or making composite sides. Either way it's a stupid idea of ploughing resources into a tournament nobody watches or gives a hoot about

Super Rugby sides can;t dump Super Rugby without dumping the Rugby Championship and I cant see that happening

[blockhead]

SA teams moving up into the eng prem would require seismic changes to the structure of english club rugby.
Would they;
a. Go to a 14 team league? That would fill the extended season for them straight away.
b. Create 2 Conferences of 7? The conference system would now be a brilliant idea.
c. Drop 2 Prem teams to accommadate the SA teams, and presumably, no more relegation? Again, suddenly a great idea.

It'll work of course if its "what the fans want".

[kermischocolate]

Also. I just noticed they tidied up qualification with this paragraph....

In accordance with a decision of the EPCR Board comprising the nine unions, federations and league bodies, the 20th place in the Champions Cup will be determined as follows:

i) Champions Cup winner, if not already qualified
ii) Challenge Cup winner, if not already qualified
iii) Challenge Cup losing finalist, if not already qualified
iv) Play-off match between the losing Challenge Cup semi-finalists, if not already qualified
v) Highest ranked non-qualified club by virtue of league position from the same league as the Champions Cup winner

Interesting that 'Challenge Cup losing finalist, if not already qualified' is an option, but 'Champions Cup losing finalist, if not already qualified' isn't.[/quote]

I wondered that too.

[COYBIB]

Note sure if this has been mentioned before, but interesting rule in Pro14 that I, at least, wasn't aware of:

Rule 6.2: "A maximum of two non-European players are permitted in a Team’s match squad."

Given the Kolpak ruling, this rule does not apply to Pacific Islander or South Africans, so in our case Isa Nacewa is not affected by this rule.

It does mean, however, that we will not be able to field all of Fardy, Gibson-Park and James Lowe in the same matchday 23 in the Pro14 - unless one of them has dual citizenship with one of the countries under to Kolpak ruling.

It also makes it interesting that this then greatly increases the value / preference for South African players over Australian or New Zealanders. Another nail in the coffin of South African rugby, as if it wasn't already bad enough.

Lastly, it raises an interesting point on an expansion of the rule that states that in the case of South African teams, they can only field 2 non-South African players, which you would think is an unfair application of the law to them, as other teams could field (as an arbitrary example) 7 domestic players, 6 South Africans and 2 NZ / OZ players, where as they must field 13 SA players and make do with only 2 imports. I'm not sure that rule would stand up if tested.

[kermischocolate]

Note sure if this has been mentioned before, but interesting rule in Pro14 that I, at least, wasn't aware of:

Rule 6.2: "A maximum of two non-European players are permitted in a Team’s match squad."

Given the Kolpak ruling, this rule does not apply to Pacific Islander or South Africans, so in our case Isa Nacewa is not affected by this rule.

It does mean, however, that we will not be able to field all of Fardy, Gibson-Park and James Lowe in the same matchday 23 in the Pro14 - unless one of them has dual citizenship with one of the countries under to Kolpak ruling.

It also makes it interesting that this then greatly increases the value / preference for South African players over Australian or New Zealanders. Another nail in the coffin of South African rugby, as if it wasn't already bad enough.

Lastly, it raises an interesting point on an expansion of the rule that states that in the case of South African teams, they can only field 2 non-South African players, which you would think is an unfair application of the law to them, as other teams could field (as an arbitrary example) 7 domestic players, 6 South Africans and 2 NZ / OZ players, where as they must field 13 SA players and make do with only 2 imports. I'm not sure that rule would stand up if tested.

Been discussed at length elsewhere (can't remember if it was here or not)- in terms of "European" anyone who is eligible to work in Europe due to Chengen is classed as European-so that covers most rugby nations. The rule has been around for years.

I wonder if the wording hasn't been changed since Pro12 became 14?

[Dave Cahill]

Note sure if this has been mentioned before, but interesting rule in Pro14 that I, at least, wasn't aware of:

Rule 6.2: "A maximum of two non-European players are permitted in a Team’s match squad."

Given the Kolpak ruling, this rule does not apply to Pacific Islander or South Africans, so in our case Isa Nacewa is not affected by this rule.

It does mean, however, that we will not be able to field all of Fardy, Gibson-Park and James Lowe in the same matchday 23 in the Pro14 - unless one of them has dual citizenship with one of the countries under to Kolpak ruling.

It also makes it interesting that this then greatly increases the value / preference for South African players over Australian or New Zealanders. Another nail in the coffin of South African rugby, as if it wasn't already bad enough.

Lastly, it raises an interesting point on an expansion of the rule that states that in the case of South African teams, they can only field 2 non-South African players, which you would think is an unfair application of the law to them, as other teams could field (as an arbitrary example) 7 domestic players, 6 South Africans and 2 NZ / OZ players, where as they must field 13 SA players and make do with only 2 imports. I'm not sure that rule would stand up if tested.

Actually, we saw two weeks ago that Isa isn't covered by the Kolpak ruling as he travels as a New Zealand national.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[simonokeeffe]

If one of the 3 can get an EU passport thats the problem solved

[Dave Cahill]

If one of the 3 can get an EU passport thats the problem solved

Academy players in NZ and Aus are advised to get Island/European passports if they are entitled to them. Lifemi Mafi, for example, travelled on a Tongan passport and Chris Whitaker had an English one

[simonokeeffe]

If one of the 3 can get an EU passport thats the problem solved

Academy players in NZ and Aus are advised to get Island/European passports if they are entitled to them. Lifemi Mafi, for example, travelled on a Tongan passport and Chris Whitaker had an English one

Not sure how much islander any of our 3 have, we just need an English granny or a shotgun wedding for one of the Kiwis

[neiliog93]

I'm confused....will we be able to field Isa, Gibson-Park and Lowe in the same Pro 14 matchday XXIII or not?

[olaf the fat]

Regarding Isa, having played for Fiji is he considered a Kolpak player? (well, as far as the Pro 14 require anyway)

[Dave Cahill]

Regarding Isa, having played for Fiji is he considered a Kolpak player? (well, as far as the Pro 14 require anyway)

Being qualified to play for a country (and indeed playing for them) isn't the same as being a national of that country. At the end of next season JGP will be qualified to play for Ireland, but he won't be an Irish national and won't have an Irish passport. The Kolpak case was about nationality and the rights attached to certain nationalities, not any particular sports internal regulations.

Isa would be the anti-mafi (careful) - Mafi travelled as a kolpak national (Tonga) though he could never play for a kolpak country (played sevens for NZ), Isa played for a Kolpak country, but travels as a NZ national.

[Xanthippe]

]Actually, we saw two weeks ago that Isa isn't covered by the Kolpak ruling as he travels as a New Zealand national.

Is that definite Dave? All Pacific Islanders need visas for South Africa so he could actually be on a Fijian passport