Changes in eligibility

First topic message reminder :

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.

You are right on the money, mate. We all agree that changes are needed. But not on exactly what they should be.

For me, I believe the criteria should be:
Country/nation of citizenship.
Then country/nation of residence for 3 years if under 18 and 4 years if over 18.
Selection for adult non-age group national teams. U20s would not apply, but any higher adult level, national team (National team, A team, other seconds, etc.) would.
If no second team exists then selection for the national team.

To me, this is the easiest way to ensure consistency across all tier one Rugby nations. The tier two is more complicated.

Doc, in a few years time a doubt whether anyone will have A-Teams... the rule has to be based on U20s rugby because that is something everyone does.

Some players are playing international rugby at 18 and younger. If they can decide who they represent, then so can anyone.

I think it is a good rule because it prevents a mercenary mentality which I don't think any real fans want. It also prevents advisors from encouraging players into situations that are financially motivated rather than rugby orientated.

I hear you. But I remember what a useless son-of-a-sailor I was at 18 or 19. Thats why I prefer not to use the U20. Personal experience only.

What about my other criteria? At least we can hopefully get to an agreement on everything else, then we can bang around a few vitual beers as we come to agreement on whether U20 or not?

I don't think that making a decision on where you think you are from, which nation you supported all your life is that hard a decision, I think i pointed out earlier that I think any six year old would give you an honest opinion on that.

Considering those U20s are already representing a country of their choice, why should they wish to revoke that other than for financial gain...!

I don't thin personal financial gain is motivation for reason when deciding eligibility. If you are lucky enough to be selected to represent your nation, club whichever then financial gain is a bonus. NOT A REASON to do so...!

Your other reasons i agree with. I think though that to tie in the laws on Residency with eligibility in coincidence with the time a work visa turns in to a passport the length would be nearer five years than three.

I don't see why there is a dispensation for youth.

My genuine opinion on residency or eligibility, like so many laws in rugby, should be simplified, reduce the interpretation.

The simpler the rule the clearer the rule and the easier it is for players to know what they are to do.

After all we all played once, well most of us did, and back then all we wanted to do was play the game. We loved it. We should not restrict that, reducing the confusion, or even simplifying the options would make everything better.

I dont wat residency to be a focus or a headline any longer. It is not part of rugby. Playing the bloody game is