Changes in eligibility

I would like to see the IRB simplify the eligibility rule. Do you think that the changes below would work or are they too simple?

1) You are tied to a country once you get a full cap.

2) Residency rule increased to six years.

3) Get rid of grandparents from eligibility rule.

Far too simple.

Maybe I'll get a chance to expand later.

1) Too strict,
2) You can get citizenship quicker than that,
3)The grandparent rule keeps it interesting.

I propose that the IRB conduct an enquiry into possible future International qualification rules,and the committee comprise Shane Howarth,Steven Shingler,Ruaidhri Murphy and Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu...

Start with the easy one - I think most of us would be happy to see the scrapping of eligibility through grandparents.

Eligibilty by playing - are you suggesting that a player is only tied to a country once they play a full cap international for the senior side? If so, I think that's a bit too lax - the present rules aren't too far away other than that they were written by lawyers and so are clear as mud. Easier to say that being picked for any national representative side after the age of 18 should tie you to that country (i.e. 7s, A sides and U20s, but not the U17s or U18s which are often run through school systems). At the moment, as discussed in the Shingler case, there is a disparity that England U20 players (for example) are not tied to England because we have an A side, whereas Wales U20s may be, depending on who they played against.

I'm not a great fan of eligibility through residency for anyone who moves to a country as an established professional rugby player, but it would be very difficult to adjudicate the law if that was a criterion. I would though suggest a shorter residence period for anyone who moved before the age of 18 (say 3 years continuous residence) and a longer one (maybe 7 years or more, so that the likelihood of being capped by the adopted country is minimal) for someone migrating as an adult.

dummy_half wrote:Start with the easy one - I think most of us would be happy to see the scrapping of eligibility through grandparents.

Isn't one of Scott Johnson's roles with Scotland to scour the globe for Scottish-qualified players? He/they won't be happy if that happened.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Start with the easy one - I think most of us would be happy to see the scrapping of eligibility through grandparents.

Isn't one of Scott Johnson's roles with Scotland to scour the globe for Scottish-qualified players? He/they won't be happy if that happened.

Safe,

If that is one of his roles then lets hope he does a better job of it than Henry and Co did during that time we had Howarth and Sinkinson (we all know out come of that) then we had Luscombe, Marinos and JJ Hughes FFS.

I think an A cap or full should mean then your tied, U20s and below shouldn't count IMO.

I would go with graduated eligability

Birth or parental birth - autoamtic
Grandparent - 2 years
Born in a non playing or minor nation e.g Holland - Residency 3 years
Born in a second string nations e.g Pacific Islands, Japan, Gerogia, Usa, Canada - Residency 4 years
Born in a top nations e.g 6N amd 4N - Residency 5 years.
You play for any team that is not age restricted - that is it you cant play for anyone else (this should include Rugby League)
You play for a team that is age restricted then 2 years extra residency required on top of the above.

You leave the country you qualified for to live elsewhere then Residency is null and void and it takes a 1 year after you return to be elibable again - stops the farce like when Flutey went to France as soon as England eligable

Bedford
I wouldn't mind your option either (that U20s don't count), but what is important is that the IRB make the rule consistent. As it currently stands, I could play for England U20s (well, other than being twice the age and not good enough) but still be eligible for another nation (although that would only happen when Yorkshire is granted independence), whereas if you played for Wales U20s against some teams you'd be tied in for life but against other teams you'd still be free to make the decision later.

It's a crazily inconsistent situation.

Geoff, I see the point of the graduated eligibility but its a bit complicated when what is needed in my opinion is simplicity.

1. Grandparents - no problem.
2. Once you play for U20 for a country your tied. By this time you are an adult and should therefore know where you stand.
3. residency is the tricky one, mainly because you could live there initially as a result of your parents moving. 3 years is too short for an adult and I'd go for 5 years for an adult. Think 3 years if under 18 is ok.

I am more in favour of the grandparent rule, than the residency rule.

Why do we care when a player moves from one country to another, but nobody complains when coaches do the same? I don't see the difference.

Perhaps Hanson and Henry should have been tied to Wales?

dummy_half wrote:Bedford
I wouldn't mind your option either (that U20s don't count), but what is important is that the IRB make the rule consistent. As it currently stands, I could play for England U20s (well, other than being twice the age and not good enough) but still be eligible for another nation (although that would only happen when Yorkshire is granted independence), whereas if you played for Wales U20s against some teams you'd be tied in for life but against other teams you'd still be free to make the decision later.

It's a crazily inconsistent situation.

Dummyhalf,

Couldn't agree more and this is where the Shingler row has come from, as at the time (or so it is believed) France had quoted their U20s as their 2nd team so it counted. If he had playes against England U20s then it wouldn't have had - load of horlicks.

Bedford
Am I right to think that Shingler had already played for Wales U20s against England (and Ireland?) prior to the France game? Just highlights what a complete shambles the Rule as written actually is.

Yeah but because their U20s were not registered as their 2nd string team Wales couldn't issue caps. Its MAD,MAD I tell you.

I think if you play U20s for a nation that should tie you to that nation end of. After all by the time your ready to play for the U20s you are, as far as the laws go, an adult and you are trusted to be sensible enough to vote, drink, smoke, shag, drive etc. So to not be able to know your own nationality at that age is worrying!

Comes back to my earlier point Spidey. What if you have multiple genuine nationalities? I'm a passport carrying national of several places. At different times in my life I've felt different inclinations towards different places. Why shouldn't I be allowed to represent my countries? (lack of talent aside of course).

Mitey
Ir's an interesting question, and probably more relevant to a lot of people in the UK than elsewhere (but can also apply to NZers of PI ancestry). However, I do think it is right that you could only represent one of those countries at a high international level - there may be a case to be made for allowing players who have been capped by top level International sides to also represent a country much lower down the scale if you have the required elligibility (I did know someone who played for the Netherlands and Esher).

In this sort of discussion, I always use the example of my neice - she was born in Switzerland to an English father (we don't add any other bits of the UK through parental birth, but that could have added to the fun) and a German mother. Obviously in 20 years time she'll have a better chance of representing Great Britain in Olympic skiing than she would her other two elligible nationalities, but how the **** do you make the choice of who you are?

but how the **** do you make the choice of who you are?

It's normally quite easy, you just compare the number of 0's on the contracts

Round we go again, the 606 favourite debate. No GG this time though, what a shame. I suppose the added is he Welsh or Scottish (or English) might add a new twist.

I'd love to see one of these that doesn't mention granny gate, Vainikolo, NZ poaching, John Gallagher, or descend into a "your team's worse than ours" debacle.

To actually add to the debate:

- I like the idea of naming your country when you sign your pro contract
- I would get rid of the grand parents rule as it's just a bit silly
- I would make residency qualification 4 years if you were under 18 when you moved there and 8 years if you were over 18.

Any problems with that for the over whelming majority of cases?

Screaming
I thought we were doing quite well so far in avoiding the 'blue touch paper' subjects.

In fact, I think as fans most of us are of fairly similar opinions in preferring players of strong bonds with the country to represent our national teams, otherwise what is the point in having an international side at all?

As for John Gallagher representing the All Blacks, that was a very different time and can any of us really say that if we'd had the opportunity to play for the All Blacks as an amateur, we'd have turned it down? The only thing I would say is that is reflects terribly on the England selectors of that period that he was nowhere near recognition in his home country.

dummy_half wrote:Screaming
I thought we were doing quite well so far in avoiding the 'blue touch paper' subjects.

In fact, I think as fans most of us are of fairly similar opinions in preferring players of strong bonds with the country to represent our national teams, otherwise what is the point in having an international side at all?

As for John Gallagher representing the All Blacks, that was a very different time and can any of us really say that if we'd had the opportunity to play for the All Blacks as an amateur, we'd have turned it down? The only thing I would say is that is reflects terribly on the England selectors of that period that he was nowhere near recognition in his home country.

I agree, I was hoping that those topics would not be mentioned. I realise the irony of mentioning them to tell people not to mention them causing them to be mentioned...

This has been the furthest one of these has ever got without descending I think.

I think also that it's an important issue that needs to be addressed. I don't see why the IRB can't apply the laws I have suggested above and I don't see many problems with them. From previous debates I think most people agree that residency needs changing. The idea of signing your country when you sign your pro contract I think is excellent as it stops players from deliberately moving somewhere to play for that nation (unless they play their first pro game there). Perhaps this could be relaxed for 2nd tier nations? Then again maybe not, I'm undecided on that at the mo.

Screamingadabs and some others,
When you considered your suggested rules did you consider such things as:
A.The different scenarios that arsie between UK nations and say countries like Austarlia and New Zealand in terms of ease/convenience of travel?
B.Any possibility of making allowances between Tier one and tier two nations in terms of their development and growth of the game.
C.The integrity and image of tournaments like the World cup to both rugby and non rugby playig nations?In 1995 New Zealand put 145 points on Japan,move forward to 2011 and Japan with the assistance of the odd foreigner hold the ABs to a difference of less than 80 points.

Yes, we all can be critical of the rules as they currently stand,but please remember that some of these rules were written with the intended bigger benefit to the game in mind,What might need considersation every now and then is a slight updating /tinkering,Before the FULL IRB committee.

The Grandparents' rule is ridiculous - what impact does where my Great Grandparents happened to be resident when my Grandmother was born have on my nationality?

I'd go with 6 years qualification, with any time under-18 counting double.

screamingaddabs wrote:Round we go again, the 606 favourite debate. No GG this time though, what a shame. I suppose the added is he Welsh or Scottish (or English) might add a new twist.

I'd love to see one of these that doesn't mention granny gate, Vainikolo, NZ poaching, John Gallagher, or descend into a "your team's worse than ours" debacle.

To actually add to the debate:

- I like the idea of naming your country when you sign your pro contract
- I would get rid of the grand parents rule as it's just a bit silly
- I would make residency qualification 4 years if you were under 18 when you moved there and 8 years if you were over 18.

Any problems with that for the over whelming majority of cases?

The pro-contract thing is something I am a big fan of, but I think it needs a little bit more than that. I think someone signing a pro-contract should be allowed to name as many countries as they are eligible for at that time. So, using England as an example:
An Englishman playing in England who only wants to play for England would name England.
A dual nationality player could name both the countries he is eligible for and make his decision at a later date.
And then someone like Botha or Fourie who came over to England on an amateur deal and then made it pro (but wasn't at that stage eligible for England) can only name 1 country (as that is all he is eligible for), but that country could be their native country (South Africa) or their adopted country where they now live and work and would be eligible for in the future. But that would mean that they can't play for their native country.

I say either
let anyone play for who ever is willing to choose them regardless of anything - who really cares

or

base it on Citizenship and the player must renounce all other Citizenships. Course then Britan might have to break up and get proper country passports.

Yeah pretty good ideas guys.....

1) Birth or parents birth....
2) I'd increase the residency to 5-7 years
3) Grandparents rule scrapped
4) U20's play for that country once selected

and

5) If you have represented Rugby League for a country./..thats the country you must play union for....should you switch..

Also where do you stand on the rule where say NZ have capped a talented player from Fijian decendancy...but then dropped him after one or two games....

After two years or so....could that player be available for Fiji again...so they are allowed to use their limited resources...(of course he could never play for NZ again after that)

I dont think you should be able to represent a nation when you are only living in their country on a work visa to play for a sports team.

miteyironpaw wrote:Comes back to my earlier point Spidey. What if you have multiple genuine nationalities? I'm a passport carrying national of several places. At different times in my life I've felt different inclinations towards different places. Why shouldn't I be allowed to represent my countries? (lack of talent aside of course).

I can see what you mean. I am looking at it from people I knows view point (like we all are I guess). I was born the ENglish side of the bridge, my mother is English, my father Welsh, and my Grandparents are English, Welsh, English, Irish. So I should have as much an excuse to be messed up nationalitywise as anyone else, yet I have know I was welsh since before starting secondary school. My nieces will be qualified for all the home nations (born in Scotland, Welsh parents, Irish/English/Welsh/Engish grandparents) but I would still expect them to know who they were nationalitywise by the time they are starting school.

SS,

My kids have similar mixed qualification, Englins by birth, Welsh parents and Irish grandparents.

My daughter certainly thinks she is Welsh, my son seems not to be bothered, supports Wales at Rugby England at football.

But if they had a chance to play at the top level of any sport and their way was blocked into one country would I stop them jumping to any 'easier' country to get to top level.

bedfordwelsh wrote:SS,

My kids have similar mixed qualification, Englins by birth, Welsh parents and Irish grandparents.

My daughter certainly thinks she is Welsh, my son seems not to be bothered, supports Wales at Rugby England at football.

But if they had a chance to play at the top level of any sport and their way was blocked into one country would I stop them jumping to any 'easier' country to get to top level.

Thats exactly how I see it with regards to not taking the easy route.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Screamingadabs and some others,
When you considered your suggested rules did you consider such things as:
A.The different scenarios that arsie between UK nations and say countries like Austarlia and New Zealand in terms of ease/convenience of travel?
B.Any possibility of making allowances between Tier one and tier two nations in terms of their development and growth of the game.
C.The integrity and image of tournaments like the World cup to both rugby and non rugby playig nations?In 1995 New Zealand put 145 points on Japan,move forward to 2011 and Japan with the assistance of the odd foreigner hold the ABs to a difference of less than 80 points.

Yes, we all can be critical of the rules as they currently stand,but please remember that some of these rules were written with the intended bigger benefit to the game in mind,What might need considersation every now and then is a slight updating /tinkering,Before the FULL IRB committee.

A. I don't really see a problem. If you're English and move to NZ or the other way round then if you already had, or sign a pro contract when you get there, then you have to put your original country. Maybe I'm missing the point, could you elaborate please?

B. Perhaps the bit I added about 2nd tier nations should be added? (it was "Perhaps this could be relaxed for 2nd tier nations? Then again maybe not, I'm undecided on that at the mo.")

C. See B.

Lets be honest would Rupert Moon or Copsey have played for Wales if they could have got into England side, likewise Dewi Morris playing for England if he could have got into Welsh side.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Also where do you stand on the rule where say NZ have capped a talented player from Fijian decendancy...but then dropped him after one or two games....

After two years or so....could that player be available for Fiji again...so they are allowed to use their limited resources...(of course he could never play for NZ again after that)

I suppose that either you relax the rules for 2nd tier nations (not in the Rugby Championship or the 6 Nations) or you say that if that player chose NZ when he signed a pro contract why should he be able to play for Fiji? If he was truly Fijian would he not have put Fiji? At the moment I'm siding more with the relaxing rules for 2nd tier nations, but I admit that both arguments have weight.

robbo277 wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:Round we go again, the 606 favourite debate. No GG this time though, what a shame. I suppose the added is he Welsh or Scottish (or English) might add a new twist.

I'd love to see one of these that doesn't mention granny gate, Vainikolo, NZ poaching, John Gallagher, or descend into a "your team's worse than ours" debacle.

To actually add to the debate:

- I like the idea of naming your country when you sign your pro contract
- I would get rid of the grand parents rule as it's just a bit silly
- I would make residency qualification 4 years if you were under 18 when you moved there and 8 years if you were over 18.

Any problems with that for the over whelming majority of cases?

The pro-contract thing is something I am a big fan of, but I think it needs a little bit more than that. I think someone signing a pro-contract should be allowed to name as many countries as they are eligible for at that time. So, using England as an example:
An Englishman playing in England who only wants to play for England would name England.
A dual nationality player could name both the countries he is eligible for and make his decision at a later date.
And then someone like Botha or Fourie who came over to England on an amateur deal and then made it pro (but wasn't at that stage eligible for England) can only name 1 country (as that is all he is eligible for), but that country could be their native country (South Africa) or their adopted country where they now live and work and would be eligible for in the future. But that would mean that they can't play for their native country.

Yup, sounds fine so long as the residency period for over 18s is increased.

I think the eligibility rule can be much more simplified.

You can represent a country when you gain citizenship and vote. simple

bedfordwelsh wrote:SS,

My kids have similar mixed qualification, Englins by birth, Welsh parents and Irish grandparents.

My daughter certainly thinks she is Welsh, my son seems not to be bothered, supports Wales at Rugby England at football.

But if they had a chance to play at the top level of any sport and their way was blocked into one country would I stop them jumping to any 'easier' country to get to top level.

I understand your point, my wife is Irish, my kids were born in Oxford and London but have also lived in Auckland, Sydney, New England, France and Italy.

Your kids support a team, they have their own allegiances. If your boy plays rugby he might want to play for Wales if he wants to play soccer he might choose England. It is his choice, in the current case with Shingler, it was also clearly his choice, he made a decision he wanted to play for Wales. Suddenly deciding that there is a financial gain on going back on that decision is not really grounds for change in my mind.

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:SS,

My kids have similar mixed qualification, Englins by birth, Welsh parents and Irish grandparents.

My daughter certainly thinks she is Welsh, my son seems not to be bothered, supports Wales at Rugby England at football.

But if they had a chance to play at the top level of any sport and their way was blocked into one country would I stop them jumping to any 'easier' country to get to top level.

I understand your point, my wife is Irish, my kids were born in Oxford and London but have also lived in Auckland, Sydney, New England, France and Italy.

Your kids support a team, they have their own allegiances. If your boy plays rugby he might want to play for Wales if he wants to play soccer he might choose England. It is his choice, in the current case with Shingler, it was also clearly his choice, he made a decision he wanted to play for Wales. Suddenly deciding that there is a financial gain on going back on that decision is not really grounds for change in my mind.

I absolutely agree with that. It just needs to be sorted in a manner where it cannot be short cutted (sorry new word).

Every country has a strick procedure to follow if you want to become a citizen, if those same qualification is adhered to by the sporting bodies in each individual country then the qualification rule cannot be misused or abused.

Become a citizen, by whatever the requirements are for that country. that means you are now eligible to vote and enjoy all benefits from that country, there for you may represent them on international level.

geoff998rugby wrote:I would go with graduated eligability

Birth or parental birth - autoamtic
Grandparent - 2 years
Born in a non playing or minor nation e.g Holland - Residency 3 years
Born in a second string nations e.g Pacific Islands, Japan, Gerogia, Usa, Canada - Residency 4 years
Born in a top nations e.g 6N amd 4N - Residency 5 years.
You play for any team that is not age restricted - that is it you cant play for anyone else (this should include Rugby League)
You play for a team that is age restricted then 2 years extra residency required on top of the above.

You leave the country you qualified for to live elsewhere then Residency is null and void and it takes a 1 year after you return to be elibable again - stops the farce like when Flutey went to France as soon as England eligable

+1

Great ideas and just what I was thinking.

Just to throw a curveball into the arena.
As i argued on the old 606 with redsomething, i was born in International waters to a English Mother and HalfWelsh Father. Always considered myself English but i would be eligable for England and Wales through parents/grandparents, However as i was not born in any nominated country i could be free to claim anyone

What nationality is on your birth certificate.

Knackeredknees, if you were born in the Pacific, and it says it on your passport, I'd elect myself Prime Minister and then King and then I'd charge tax on all ships crossing it and all planes flying over your 'airspace' A nice little side earner.

Cymroglan wrote:What nationality is on your birth certificate.

Place/Town of Birth is the ships name
and the Country of birth is Spain as this was the first port of call after my birth, Nationality after quite a big argument between my parents and Spanish officials/Embassy staff is British.

Belive me this has caused no end of problems for me in my life, took nearly 3 times as long for me to be accepted into the RAF because of it

I bet it did

Knackeredknees wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:What nationality is on your birth certificate.

Place/Town of Birth is the ships name
and the Country of birth is Spain as this was the first port of call after my birth, Nationality after quite a big argument between my parents and Spanish officials/Embassy staff is British.

Belive me this has caused no end of problems for me in my life, took nearly 3 times as long for me to be accepted into the RAF because of it

Shouldn't your nationality be the country of the flag your ship was flying?

Portnoy wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:What nationality is on your birth certificate.

Place/Town of Birth is the ships name
and the Country of birth is Spain as this was the first port of call after my birth, Nationality after quite a big argument between my parents and Spanish officials/Embassy staff is British.

Belive me this has caused no end of problems for me in my life, took nearly 3 times as long for me to be accepted into the RAF because of it

Shouldn't your nationality be the country of the flag your ship was flying?

You can Fornicate Away if you think i'm ever going to be a septic

But then again i could have got selected........

Cymroglan wrote:I would like to see the IRB simplify the eligibility rule. Do you think that the changes below would work or are they too simple?

1) You are tied to a country once you get a full cap.

2) Residency rule increased to six years.

3) Get rid of grandparents from eligibility rule.

1) No you should be tied to a country when you get an U20 cap or higher, there is an U20 World Cup each year, why should Wales send players like Loxton, Jarvis, Shingler and Tom Prydie only to have other countries pick them off?
Is it fair that, that investment is given to another country?

2) Yes 3 years is too short.

3) I agree, the grand parent rule is silly, it should be birth country or parents.

I think that instead of all the Grandparent rule make it that you can not represent a county if you are only allowed to be there on a work visa.

That would remove all of the contentious surprise grandparents that suddenly appear.

Not many opinions above from those against change?

bedfordwelsh wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Start with the easy one - I think most of us would be happy to see the scrapping of eligibility through grandparents.

Isn't one of Scott Johnson's roles with Scotland to scour the globe for Scottish-qualified players? He/they won't be happy if that happened.

Safe,

If that is one of his roles then lets hope he does a better job of it than Henry and Co did during that time we had Howarth and Sinkinson (we all know out come of that) then we had Luscombe, Marinos and JJ Hughes FFS.

Also Scotland aren't taking advantage the Teams being half full of antipodean players that qualify for them through residency in three years.