Who loves the three year residency rule?

First topic message reminder :

So a majority must have voted for this in the IRB but since it's come in all I read either in the press or forums are criticisms of this. The criticisms are coming both from countries feeling the player drain (South Africa's press conference in Ireland) or the countries that are supposedly benefiting. (Ireland today) So here's a serious question: who proposed this rule and who voted for it? And amongst you all who loves it?

tigertattie wrote:was Strauss vs Strauss in Ireland vs SA the first time two cousins or brothers have faced each other on opposite international teams?

Did the Bachops not face each other at some point for Samoa v NZ?

Theres probably been others...

viewtothegym wrote:I think the three year rule is joke.

I agree...

Not a dig at any nation just as a whole the rule really waters down the value of a cap fr your country.

Anyone who says otherwise is just kidding themselves, i find it embarrassing watching Kiwis,South Africans who are not good enough to play for the country of birth so go to other nations for a few years and walk into the job.

I would like the qualification to be longer - so people who move when young can qualify but adults have to lose half their careers or more.

viewtothegym wrote:Not a dig at any nation just as a whole the rule really waters down the value of a cap fr your country.

Anyone who says otherwise is just kidding themselves, i find it embarrassing watching Kiwis,South Africans who are not good enough to play for the country of birth so go to other nations for a few years and walk into the job.

Only one South African has qualified for England by residency in ages and that was Botha. I wouldn't say 4 years playing amateur rugby, 2 years playing championship rugby and 2 years playing premiership rugby was a 'walk into the job'.

All the rest have parents who were English.

(Of course Ireland have Strauss who they brought to Ireland as a 'project player' and capped him as soon as qualified, so it does happen)

that's a bit rich coming from the nation that capped mickey flute y. and a shed load of others. especially as that nation has the most rugby players in the known universe.

Strauss is the first player Ireland have capped on residency this millennium .

Anyway. I have no problem with England or anyone else capping whoever they want under the rules. certain things don't sit too well with me like bent playing for Ireland before he played for Leinster. not a big fan of richer nations "bribing" players from poorer nations to play for them either. but on balance I'm fine with the rules as they are.

including injuries and shortened careers. the average international playing career is about 6 years. so 3 is fine.
we can never tell how Irish or English a player feels, so it's pointless to object on those grounds.

I was reading a bit more about Strauss.

Appartently he learned the national anthem from youtube before the game, fair play to him putting the effort in.

One thing I always though was that as part of the team building they should be taught Irelands call, so they could all belt it out and make sure they know the words.

But one thing that did stand out was Strauss is still a South African citizen, and not doesn't even have duel nationality. He can't apply for Irish Citizenship untill after 5 years residency!

How does the IRB allow the 3 year rule yet EU has 5 year residency?

Surley they should be in line at 5 years for both?

Jenifer McLadyboy you say you don't like Bent playing for Ireland before he had played for Leinster, but for me that isn't a problem at all.

If he was born in England and playing there and was called up you wouldn't have a problem with it, so why is playing in England ok, but you have a problem with someone who played in New Zealand being called up?

Look at Simon Easterby, never played in Ireland, yet no one ever had a problem with his selection.

Bent has been playing for Hurricanes, and I'd say that is a high enough level to be recongised by the Ireland team, just because us fans and the media are not as fimilar with him as if he was playing in England doesn't mean the coaches and Scouts haven't been watching him.

If Dan Tuohy was still at Gloucester, and was called up would anyone have a problem because he hadn't played in Ireland? So why do people take issue with Bent?

Kevin Maggs is another good example too. Speaking of which we could really do with him now. He is aparently still playing too.

I guess the idea of fast tracking someone into the team isnt ideal without even having been involved in squads or A games etc. However, when they turn out as good as Maggs, Henderson and Easterby then all is forgotten.

Kingshu wrote:Jenifer McLadyboy you say you don't like Bent playing for Ireland before he had played for Leinster, but for me that isn't a problem at all.

If he was born in England and playing there and was called up you wouldn't have a problem with it, so why is playing in England ok, but you have a problem with someone who played in New Zealand being called up?

Look at Simon Easterby, never played in Ireland, yet no one ever had a problem with his selection.

Bent has been playing for Hurricanes, and I'd say that is a high enough level to be recongised by the Ireland team, just because us fans and the media are not as fimilar with him as if he was playing in England doesn't mean the coaches and Scouts haven't been watching him.

If Dan Tuohy was still at Gloucester, and was called up would anyone have a problem because he hadn't played in Ireland? So why do people take issue with Bent?

The bold bit is why I think the rules are fine. We all have different ideas of what is or isn't good.

Example: have you ever thought someone in the public eye was a total w*nker, and then met them, or met a member of their family, or a mate of their's, and discovered that what you mistook for "being a w*nker" was something else entirely?

Some people will say "x has no loyalty to Ireland" where x could have spent the last 10 years in Australia or wherever singing rebel songs and drinking Guinness unbeknown to those people.

There can never be a test of "Irishness" or "any other nationness" that will satisfy everyone.

Something that you don't like, I may be fine with and visa versa.

On the specific issue of Bent. I never said I "had a problem with" him. Just that his journey from plane to Ireland squad did not "sit too well" with me.

Leinster scouted him not Ireland. He just appeared at the time when no alternatives for the TH spot were better than him, and the need was great. It was the right thing to do to put him in, but it did not sit right with me.

You say what if he was in England? Well then we would know a lot more about him, and would probably have approached him at under age level, or would have seen him up against players that were known quantities.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Kingshu wrote:Jenifer McLadyboy you say you don't like Bent playing for Ireland before he had played for Leinster, but for me that isn't a problem at all.

If he was born in England and playing there and was called up you wouldn't have a problem with it, so why is playing in England ok, but you have a problem with someone who played in New Zealand being called up?

Look at Simon Easterby, never played in Ireland, yet no one ever had a problem with his selection.

Bent has been playing for Hurricanes, and I'd say that is a high enough level to be recongised by the Ireland team, just because us fans and the media are not as fimilar with him as if he was playing in England doesn't mean the coaches and Scouts haven't been watching him.

If Dan Tuohy was still at Gloucester, and was called up would anyone have a problem because he hadn't played in Ireland? So why do people take issue with Bent?

The bold bit is why I think the rules are fine. We all have different ideas of what is or isn't good.

Example: have you ever thought someone in the public eye was a total w*nker, and then met them, or met a member of their family, or a mate of their's, and discovered that what you mistook for "being a w*nker" was something else entirely?

Some people will say "x has no loyalty to Ireland" where x could have spent the last 10 years in Australia or wherever singing rebel songs and drinking Guinness unbeknown to those people.

There can never be a test of "Irishness" or "any other nationness" that will satisfy everyone.

Something that you don't like, I may be fine with and visa versa.

On the specific issue of Bent. I never said I "had a problem with" him. Just that his journey from plane to Ireland squad did not "sit too well" with me.

Leinster scouted him not Ireland. He just appeared at the time when no alternatives for the TH spot were better than him, and the need was great. It was the right thing to do to put him in, but it did not sit right with me.

You say what if he was in England? Well then we would know a lot more about him, and would probably have approached him at under age level, or would have seen him up against players that were known quantities.

I would like to say on Bent He played 11 times including friendlies for the Hurricanes hardly a regular starter like. Now also off course we have to remember Fitzpatrick was injured so we were running a bit short on options. Also Dan Tuohy can't get in the Ireland team when he plays for Ulster never mind when he played in England

Far be it from me to start agreeing with Jennifer. But Bent is analogous to Waldrom at the Tigers. A player brought in to cover gaps created by the opening of international windows.

Until his agent rolled his sleeves up and dug out an erstwhile unknown dear old grey-haired bespectacled English granny complete with rocking chair and knitting.

greytiger wrote:Far be it from me to start agreeing with Jennifer. But Bent is analogous to Waldrom at the Tigers. A player brought in to cover gaps created by the opening of international windows.

Until his agent rolled his sleeves up and dug out an erstwhile unknown dear old grey-haired bespectacled English granny complete with rocking chair and knitting.

Ah that's OK. You're not really agreeing anyway. Bent knew all about his granny. In fact his sister lives in Ireland.

I have no objection to him playing for Ireland. SLIGHTLY unseemly haste at him getting there. But we were in crisis for a TH so hey.

What about back to Strauss,

I've no problem with him, other nations have made use of the 3 year residency rule, so no issue there, and think fair play he's gone out of his way to learn the national atheme, and fit in, so not picking on Strauss,

But Strauss is still a South African citizen, and not doesn't even have duel nationality. He can't apply for Irish Citizenship untill after 5 years residency!

I always though that the IRB 3 year residency rule was set because it was an EU directive, but it appears not EU is 5 years. So why do IRB allow 3 years?

IMO it should be 5 years in line with EU, either parent or grandparent qualifies, you for national teamor 5 years residency (as it does for citizenship).

For Football as well as rugby there is just a gentlemans agreement to pick players with ties to that country, (parent/grandparent).
In football there have been possible issues raised, about certain players qualifing on residency and then being able to turn out for national team. When someone qualies for citzenship on residency, they become a UK citizen, not English, Scotish, Welsh, N.Irish, but since they hold a UK passport any of these teams could pick him, (in football none of them have yet for fear, that it would bring in calls for it to be a GB team not the four, and then say N.Ireland could pick any young English player they wanted if they hada UK passport, even with no Irish ties at all.)

IRB rules appear to be even less clear, Visser can play for Scotland because he played there for 3 years, but even if he recieved citizenship, it wasn't Scottish citizenship, but UK, England could have picked him due to UK passport.

What I'm getting at is the IRB rules are currently shakey as they are based on agreements between the Unions on who can play, they don't have a basis on law, and as such are open to challanges in the courts.

No Kingshu in football in the UK they have to have been under the relevant FA's control for so many years beforehand as a schoolboy to be eligible or be born there or have a parent/grandparent etc. Although anyone eligible for NI is also eligible for ROI but that's a different rule altogether. That stops players just transferring round the UK with the passport rule.

Kingshu wrote:What about back to Strauss,

I've no problem with him, other nations have made use of the 3 year residency rule, so no issue there, and think fair play he's gone out of his way to learn the national atheme, and fit in, so not picking on Strauss,

But Strauss is still a South African citizen, and not doesn't even have duel nationality. He can't apply for Irish Citizenship untill after 5 years residency!

I always though that the IRB 3 year residency rule was set because it was an EU directive, but it appears not EU is 5 years. So why do IRB allow 3 years?

IMO it should be 5 years in line with EU, either parent or grandparent qualifies, you for national teamor 5 years residency (as it does for citizenship).

For Football as well as rugby there is just a gentlemans agreement to pick players with ties to that country, (parent/grandparent).
In football there have been possible issues raised, about certain players qualifing on residency and then being able to turn out for national team. When someone qualies for citzenship on residency, they become a UK citizen, not English, Scotish, Welsh, N.Irish, but since they hold a UK passport any of these teams could pick him, (in football none of them have yet for fear, that it would bring in calls for it to be a GB team not the four, and then say N.Ireland could pick any young English player they wanted if they hada UK passport, even with no Irish ties at all.)

IRB rules appear to be even less clear, Visser can play for Scotland because he played there for 3 years, but even if he recieved citizenship, it wasn't Scottish citizenship, but UK, England could have picked him due to UK passport.

What I'm getting at is the IRB rules are currently shakey as they are based on agreements between the Unions on who can play, they don't have a basis on law, and as such are open to challanges in the courts.

Why would anyone bother challenging in court? For citizenship you have the rest of your life. For pro Rugby you have an average of 6 years as an international.

Makes you wonder why Neil Lennon just didn't cut his losses and play for the ROI.

Apparently there's an African bod who might get called up for England.
Well there was talk of it on the radio earlier in the week but I hear that England played Sweden (and lost) so maybe that's water under the bridge.

Wilfred Zaha was born in Ivory Coast but can play for England he played v Sweden but could still play for Ivory Coast if he wanted as it was only a friendly and they don't count in football on the residency side which is pretty stupid. Oh and that rule is recent meaning basically Lennon could not have played for ROI

Now back to the proper sport of Rugby. i think I have to agree here with Jennifer, I have no problem with the residency rule, I can see why Ireland had not much choice other than to have Bent there with injuries and I don't like who larger nations could persuade player with university money etc.

"How does the IRB allow the 3 year rule yet EU has 5 year residency?

Surley they should be in line at 5 years for both?"

This is my point. Why did the IRB suggest a three year residency when the laws of countries require far longer to become a citizen?

The three year residency tilts international rugby in favour of richer unions who can afford to import the best players and pay them the highest wages and makes it far harder for any lower ranked/ poorer union to keep their best players for their national side.

If the rule was seven years then the people who would qualify would be people who genuinely wanted to live in their adopted country, not just who offered them the most cash.

and they would have at least a season of their international career ahead of them too.

Umm it is cynical though to think richer nations are stealing poorer nations players I mean the poorer nation could cap that player at anytime. These days it is mostly players who cannot or do not get picked play for their own country who choose to try and play elsewhere such as Richard Strauss or Botha for England etc as Jenifer says International careers are so short 7 years is not viable these players would not have an international career as they ain't getting picked by where they were born and couldn't be picked by their adopted nation either. Very few players make it through before they are 23 or 24 if your rule was in effect the players would at least be 31 or 32 before they would qualify giving them a max of 2 years international rugby.