playing for a country not of your origin

I find this on the WAA web:

"Citizenship Rules

1. All athletes of a national team must have the nationality of the country or submit proof that they have been a resident of that country for the previous 4 years. (the residency must be continuous it can not be accumulative)
2. Dual nationality, Athletes having dual nationality may choose to compete for one or another country, but this choice obliges them for a period of three years as a minimum.

I just think the main aspect to consider is nationalism.

I play for Belgium. Sure, my generation will never be world champion and no matter how much I train, I will unfortunately most likely never win a medal.
However, I take pride in defending my country and I think that is also the foundation for Liam's reaction.

I would never play for another country than Belgium. (although never say never) Just a matter of healthy chauvinism I guess.

If you feel comfortable in both countries, I can imagine you are willing to play for both, but I can't imagine just switching between the two of them every year.

As for Liam's comment on good level hockey. If you're willing to move around, there are some great tournaments in Europe.
I try to go to at least one big tournament a month (as traveling from Sweden automatically means taking a plane) When I was living in Belgium, I could play every weekend at some tournament in the Netherlands, France and other close countries.
And if you don't have a team, just mail me. I'm always up for a game.

I can see where you're all coming from...!

But I can understand too that someone who has lived in another country for years may want to represent that nation at all international championships (year in, year out) and not the country for which they hold a passport, but that's another matter!

Anyway, regardless of their reasons, there are surely some people who will use the WAA rules. So, I think it's very important that the WAA determine what they will consider as "proof" that someone has "been a resident of that country for the previous 4 years"...

Thanks everyone for their input. I was relieved to read Lena's take! Thanks for that ... when you're living the topic its hard for it not to be emotive. I'm going to try to keep this short! I'd also like to support Nicky's comment that one can be passionate about playing for ones country, but practicalities of reality can mean that either you move teams or sit out international comps... I left my home country in 2001 and have been on the move ever since. With some of the suggested solutions people have made, I would never have experienced a worlds.... my uwhockey (and my life!) would have been all the poorer without those experiences...

I think it is generally agreed that there is much more honour associated with playing for one's own country, and I would expect that it would always be a persons first choice. I have been in the unfortunate position of playing against my country of birth and this is very difficult (made easier on the first 2 occasions by having tried to play for them but not making the team). Switching allegiance is not easy, but if it's switch or not play and you're dedicated to playing and training then the decision is made easier. I love playing hockey and will try to play whenever I can, wherever I am....

I guess I'm not of the opinion that stepping down between wolrds is a great idea and also a one way gate sounds awful to me! When I have moved it was not to emigrate, but because of work related opportunities...while living and training in Aus I was grateful to be able to trial & play for them... but I hope one day to be back in my home country and it would be be awful to have a rule not allow me to try to play for them ever again!

Lena's point about high profile sports being able to hurdle rules because they have $$ is also valid (eg a rugby player once got citizenship in 17 days) - we do not have this luxury.

I'd like whatever the rule ends up being to allow for everyone who cuts the grade to be able to play - in a fair way (so, yes, definitely have clear rules). If you're living somewhere then I think you should be able to play for either that country, or for your country of origin. It is valid that a weaker player of that country will not play because the 'foreign' player has taken their spot... but what if the 'foreign' player has no other options. Is this the price they must pay for living outside of their country (yes?)

yeah thats the price you pay leigh, obviously. i think you've done amazingly well to get as much hockey as you have!

i dont want to see players "bouncing" around... that is what angers me, and yeah i know a lot of people do get passionate, of course.

it IS your country you're playing for... not the country you happen to be residing, in, YOUR country. you may change that country, but you dont have 2 or 3. its one at a time, and it's for the long run. thats why it means something.

i could go on a short OE to london as thousands of kiwis do... 2 years or so, thats long enough to switch to play for GB. then come home and play for nz again. ...to be honest i dont think i'd make the GB team, though i think i'm a good enough player... if they knew i was heading back to nz afterwards i dont think they'd want me, they're a patriotic bunch and i'd agree with them.

i have uwh mates in quite a few countries... whats to stop me chatting to them, saying yeah, you guys will have a strong team next year, ok i'll come over now, we'll get another mate from somewhere else, year and a half on a mini OE, play for them, win us a gold and have a good time.

i have no probs with steve for example switching and playing for spain. but i don't think he should be allowed to go straight back to ireland afterwards.

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

Nationality is a fairly loose concept anyway. But it must be defined for international sport to work. The supplied definition has a small problem with it though. The problem has arisen in the past and will arise again in the future.

Just to quote the rules again
"Citizenship Rules
The rules in relation to citizenship are as follows;
All athletes of a national team must have the nationality of the country or submit proof that they have been a resident of that country for the previous 4 years. (the residency must be continuous it can not be accumulative)
Dual nationality, Athletes having dual nationality may choose to compete for one or another country, but this choice obliges them for a period of three years as a minimum.
These rules will be in force for the 2008 world championships and be retrospective from 1st September 2006"

If we all just rewind our minds to the early to mid 90s again we might remember that these rules fail to cover the situation in Eastern Europe. This would mean that our Slovenian friends plus any of the former Yugoslavian republics could legitimately be excluded from the world champs. You can't have 4 years residency in a country that has been constituted for less than four years. Perhaps a clause might be in order? This would stop any utter bastard from bringing this up at a later worlds and being technically correct.

A very good point Nat. I think a clause is necessary.

I also agree with Liam, that "bouncing around" shouldn't be allowed, but I can see that someone might want to play for their adopted country and not their own.

I think that if someone stays a significant amount of time in a foreign country (e.g. at least four years permanent residency) they obviously have some close ties to it, so they should be allowed to play for them, if they don't want to play for their own national side, but that their commitment should be longlasting...

The thing is though, that there does need to be concrete definitions of the "proof" of continual residency for at least four years that the rules require, otherwise allegiances will be switched often...

Has this ever happened to any great extent in the past under any previous regime? If the strongly nationalist views of almost everyone that has replied to this topic could be extrapolated to the wider uwh community it would suggest that very few players would even want to switch allegiances for non-genuine reasons. I accept that large scale player transfer between countries could be negative for the sport but I don't see any evidence that that would even occur.

I also agree with Liam when he says people shouldn't be bouncing back and forth. Sure switching nations is possible, but is should be a clear choice.

I remember that when I was in Marseille, there were several people playing in the GB squads during the Europeans.
A year later, in Sheffield, I saw them playing for South Africa. I wouldn't be surprised if they would play for GB again during the next Europeans, if they had a chance.

I can't blame them for taking the opportunity to play high level hockey when living in another continent, and understand their motivation.
Nonetheless, I consider it to be pure oportunistic and unfair towards other countries and players who's place they take.

Yes they got some good results, but during the worlds their place was taken by a less talented player, which immediately made an impact on the team. I consider that to be less of a problem during Europeans.
Furthermore it makes the competition less interesting for some smaller countries who would have a greater chance.

In that opinion I have a lot of respect for Bennie Potgieter, the SA who has been playing for Holland the last couple of years. I believe he would have no problem making the SA team, but once took the decission to switch and sticks with it.

lyndon rive is the perfect example nicky. he spent a few years bouncing around to and from south african mens and youth teams, played for canada and ended up playing for the states where he is now.

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench