playing for a country not of your origin

And he played for Canada because they showed up to '96 World's short players and he had dual citizenship with Canada and SA. So he didn't take anyone's place, was 17 at the time (I think) and gained a lot of experience by playing that year I'm sure. Where's the harm in allowing that? He probably made Canada a bit better if for no other reason than allowing someone appropriate rest during a game.

We are still a small sport and by recent actions probably shrinking a bit. Why would you want to limit cases like his?

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

I think if you can prove that you are applying for citizenship, then you are obviously not "bouncing"; you are emigrating and therefore should be eligible.

We have a player here in Sydney who has gained residency (is working here) but cannot gain citizenship until he has been a resident for 2 years according to the aus governement rules. Unfortunately there is not enough time before the next worlds so he can't try out. If this had been a high profile sport, then he would be a "dindky-di" aussie by now, for sure!

When you read the minutes from that meeting in Sheefield, it talks about "residency", but not citizenship. There is a big difference (2 years here in aus).

Also, another point - if you gain citizenship with another country (sometimes, you have to give up your existing citizenship so might not have dual) between worlds, does the back-to-back rule not apply?

__________________
Off Half-Backs Rule

so why didnt he keep playing for canada duck? thats the question.

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

I'm not sure Lyndon is a good example of bad. He only played for Canada because they were in South Africa, where he lived and learned hockey, and had been playing on Junior teams (and I think a southern Hemi as well) he had dual citizenship so when they showed with less than 10 players he played with them. Had it been at that time a choice if you play with Canada you will forever play with Canada he wouldn't have. It was oppurtunity and he had citizenship. That was '96
in '98 he came with SA got Silver and if UW hockey was the most important thing to him he would have returned to SA and kept playing with them till they got gold. Insted he moved to the US to start buisnesses. Since he had been living in the States for over three years, was staying here he started playing with us. But he did skip 2000 and 2004 for the sake of his devotion to the buisnesses he's been starting and building, and as far as I know he has no interest in going back to SA or really anyother county.

So basically even though we like to give him a bad time about slutting around for different countires, really it was one opportunity to play for a team that was under represented to which he had citizenship. Its not like he was world traveling and decided to play with some random country.

__________________
An aquifer is a water bearing layer of rock or soil. Aquifers are separated by impermeable layers of rock or clay called an aquitard. Aquitard, however may sound a bit offensive to some, and therefore we will be changing the name to Aquachallenge.

I personally agree with the three year rule. It means you have to skip a worlds. A four year rule on the other hand will often mean you have to skip two worlds.

Given a three year rule I have no problem with people swtiching countries repeatedly. Doing so will hardly be done for UWH reasons given you halve the number of worlds you can play in.

I think the case of Lyndon supports my view that the extent of this supposed "bouncing around" of players is negligible. If that is the best example then what are we all arguing about? I can't think of any negative outcomes from this case. Even his motivation for switching in each case has a clear and reasonable basis.

I reckon that getting the best players in the world, to worlds has value just as getting the best teams in the world, to worlds does. But hey, its all subjective and our views are the result of our experiences plus where each of us sit on the ideology vs. pragmatism scale.

I agree with Nicky. UWH is not a professional sport. Most players move countries for other reasons (I was from SA). Why exclude top players in a sport that is supported by too few?
One way is to drop the citizenship rule and see how many stacked teams turn up at worlds. If there are none, no problem.

__________________
Chuck the guide rule

I believe the country you are playing for needs to take some responsibility for whether you can play for them. I am a Kiwi playing in Australia, I played for the NZ team that won worlds way back in 1988, and the Australian team that won last year in Sheffield. In the middle I have lived in England (where I wasnt allowed to play) and Ireland. I have lived here in Australia for over 4 years and I am married to an Australian, but it took alot for me to make that decision to play for Australia. One of the deciding factors was that if I wanted to play at the elite level this was my only option. To play for NZ you need to be able to attend the training camps. They hold the training camps often every 6 weeks. In the past lots of players who have wanted to go to worlds have had to cut their OE trips short and go home to train. I believe this is a good thing, and that we should be putting something back into our sport. I got alot of flack from my kiwi friends but at the end of the team I wanted to play top hockey. This is where I train and play. But I dont think that if in 2 years time I move back to NZ I shouldnt be able to play for NZ again (hell - are there rules about playing when you are in your fifties).

Residency and citizenship are two different things. The WAA rules require four years minimum consecutive residency.

In a sport like ours, which isn't a billion dollar industry and where must people have to finance themselves, I think residency suffices as a criteria.

Citizenship isn't always that easy to come by and there could be a whole host of reasons that someone would not want to apply for it - not least because dual-citizenship that doesn't come by birth isn't always allowed so to have to give up your original passport JUST to play hockey is ridiculous!!!

I think someone who has lived in a country for several years (and who has probably paid taxes to said country in all that time!) has enough allegiances to be allowed to play for them...

If hockey was a massive household name sport I could understand, but it's not, so I don't see why anyone should be denied the right to play because they've left "home" and can't afford the time nor money to fly back for training camps when they could be selected elsewhere!!

its simple, its because worlds and international hockey isnt a bloody pot-luck tournament, representing your country only means something if you have people playing for their countries.


you dont mix and match where you come from.... and if you leave home, part of your consideration is going to be well, i wont be able to play for my country any more... is it worth it.

size of the sport is irrelevant, if we dont take ourselves seriously, no-one will.

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