Ex Wales captain Michael Owen is the latest to pipe up over residency rules

Well, does he have a point ? I for one agree with him 100%, things need to change, and they need to change now, it was not going to be long before professionals within the game started to voice their concerns:-

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/29134222

I agree 10000000% with that.

3 years is a joke.

But we have discussed this on here before and we all agree.

Why dont those in charge see the problems

I'm reminded of Brent Cockbain, MO's Ponty/Wales team mate.

You've got multiple players this season who have arrived in Ireland this season, good players who we are happy to have in a provincial context, saying "Yeah if I'm in Joe Schmidts squad at the end of my three years here that would be awesome"- and all of them are early twenties.

It's really worrying for me. I just feel like we've reached the point now players are sitting down at a fairly young age with a goal of playing international rugby and then picking the country that they feel offers the best route to that, especially if they are a young South African or New Zealander who isn't instantly successful after leaving school.

I also agree 3 years is too short a period, what really gets me though is when they (BBC) cannot even get their facts right, it was widely reported that the Ospreys had to have special dispensation off the WRU to have Steenkamp as he was above the age threshold of 27 to be able to sign him.
I've had a go at a number on these boards for NOT doing adequate research and then you get organisations like the BBC being just as bad.

I think your pretty much spot on Notch.

It needs to be dealt with now. Raising the 3 years to 8/9 or ten. would solve it pretty quickly.

Oh and then remove the grand parents rule.

Then Remove the cross code nationality changing...ie Kiwi (or which ever) RL players should not be allowed to play for England (or which ever) in union due to residency...ala Vainikolo, Paul, Hape....etc

The idea it goes against the ethos of international rugby is a bit daft.  International rugby used to be that you played for the place you lived, regardless of how long you lived there for. It's only recently that people have started getting their knickers in a know because the fact the work they're moving for is rugby related it makes it different somehow (I don't really get the logic myself). But still, different global landscape and all that, I'd have it so you had to be a citizen of the said country AND have qualified via birth, parents or residency. So if you were a citizen (Ben Botica) but weren't born in the UK or any parents/grandparents were born in the UK then you would have to live here for three years.  If you're not a citizen you would have to get that first (for UK it's at least 5 years I think).  It may cause some problems with some nations being stricter than others but tough Poopie.

EDIT: Geordie, I think 10 years is absolutely and completely ridiculous. Why on Earth should you need to live somewhere twice as long as it takes to gain citizenship that play rugby for them? I'm mean truly the mind boggles.

EDIT: and why just rugby league? What is it you don't like? If it's the fact they've represented someone else it should be all events right? Not just sport but anything.

Ten years may be a little excessive...but it shouldnt be much less.

Yup im a great believer that if you have chosen your nation you stick with it.....REGARDLESS of what sport it is!

Cool, but it should be just sports. Any representation for a nation at all (as an adult). Not sure what non-sport representation things there are but I'm sure there must be some.

Personally I don't agree and don't have a problem with players representing more than one nation at union (with some regulation of course). But that's the fun of meeting new people, finding other people to argue with

Personally I don't agree and don't have a problem with players representing more than one nation at union (with some regulation of course).

We'll have to agree to disagree on that score then Hammer...

Some of the tricky ones are the likes of Gareth Anscombe and i think it was Maitland who qualify but have never even visited the country before...i just dont like that...but what can you do if they qualify through parents.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Personally I don't agree and don't have a problem with players representing more than one nation at union (with some regulation of course).

We'll have to agree to disagree on that score then Hammer...

Some of the tricky ones are the likes of Gareth Anscombe and i think it was Maitland who qualify but have never even visited the country before...i just dont like that...but what can you do if they qualify through parents.

Isn't one of Gareth Anscombe's parents Welsh ?

Ok, I'll answer my own question, yes he qualifies through his Welsh mother.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/gareth-anscombe-force-players-look-7699535

Thats what im saying Dowlais...he qualifies perfectly well...but just sad that he's never actually visited that country before.....

@Dowlais Yeah, he (Geordie) said that in his post, the very one you quoted (in fact the very last word).

Geordie, I have a much bigger issue with birth, whether it's self, parents or grandparents.  It's only benefit is it simple and relies on one document (birth certificate).  I despise the fact Waldrum can qualify immediately but have no issue with Vainikolo (even though he played NZ RL).

Heathcote playing for Scotland when his only qualification is his dad had been moved there for work for a handful of years when he happened to be born. To be clear, I no issue with Scotland selected him, he's eligible and I think all should work with the current IRB regs, but he shouldn't (IMO) been eligible.  Same applies to plenty of others. Brad Barritt I didn't mind too much as he played in England for around 3 or 4 years before getting a full cap but wouldn't have liked it if he had got one straight away. Same with Hartley who was here around 6 years (I think), Manu (5 or 6 years) etc.

I want my England team to be representative of English rugby not a team of people with some tenious link via blood or where their parents happened to be living when they were born.

But I accept that showing a Birth Certificate is easy so it will remain.

I know, I should read the full article before replying, instead of just skimming through them, and you posted just as I realised, sorry, and yes you are correct, although I think Anscombe could have got an All Black cap or two in time but he chose Wales, why I do not know, perhaps his mother had a quiet word with him, but he has not chosen the "easy" route, even if it is the "easy" route, if you know what I mean, he chose Wales when he would have more than likley had a good chance at the All Blacks.

Who thinks Steenkamp, Bernardo, Earle or Snyman will get capped? From what I've seen I don't think they will. Most clubs use the time-serving players to strengthen their squads with better or more experienced rugby players.

Given the All Black 10 curse I'd say Anscombe was in with a shot. He's fourth best IMO, but Hansen favours Slade because he's been in and around the ABs squad a while now.

I think residency should be 6 or 7 years. I don't mind the grandparent rule because those players would be brought up knowing where they came from and would have some attachment to their grandparents country.

The whole issue of Eligibilty is a minefield...

Immigration means people move all over at various ages and this blurs what some "traditional people" say residency about.

Personally i dont see it that a person has to be born in that specific country, but i do think that person should have spent a good period of time there...preferably learning most of their skills there.

I do think however once you have made that decision to represent one country or another then you must stay with that. I cant agree on chopping and changing.

The only time that im in dimlema about is the tier 2/3/4 nations.

Hypothetical Situation:
A player is Ivory Coast born and raised, but who has played 2/3 games for France in the past (over 2/3 years previously). Should that player be allowed to represent the Ivory Coast after that? Whilst i hate chopping and changing nationalites i can see the benefit of this as Ivory Coast benefit from a top class player and it doesnt affect Tier 1 rugby.

So am i being hypocritical?

However im completely against swapping between tier 1 nations!

profitius wrote:I think residency should be 6 or 7 years. I don't mind the grandparent rule because those players would be brought up knowing where they came from and would have some attachment to their grandparents country.

My Granddad was Irish and i have absolutetly zero affinity or attachment with that country whatsoever in regards to representing them.

The whole British thing is a grey area aswell, ok, Scotland might become a little less patchy if they go independant, but besides the colour of our jerseys what is the difference between all the countries in the UK ? We all have the same passports, we all abide by the same laws, we all use the same money, christ we even have families with a Scottish farther an English mother living in Wales and have children born in Wales, which country would the children be able to play for, they could have their choice.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

profitius wrote:I think residency should be 6 or 7 years. I don't mind the grandparent rule because those players would be brought up knowing where they came from and would have some attachment to their grandparents country.

My Granddad was Irish and i have absolutetly zero affinity or attachment with that country whatsoever in regards to representing them.

My father in law was born in Ghana (actually pre independence) and so my daughter could represent them, despite the fact my wife has never been there, neither has she and to be honest its hard to imagine when either of them would visit.

But back on topic, I suppose what annoys me about this whole business is that a number of southern hemisphere players now mention in their press release how they signed with the intention of playing for Wales/Ireland/wherever in the future. For me that is what cheapens international rugby, aiming to represent a country before you even step off the plane and begin living there.

I agree its a difficult one LD.

Personally...My Dad is from Newcastle, Mother from Glasgow. Scottish Grand parents on mothers side and an Irish grandfather and English grandmother on my dads side.

And i was born and brought up in Liberia, West Africa due to my dads work. But having an English father and family, spent time on holidays and lived in England from the age of 11 i consider myself English.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

profitius wrote:I think residency should be 6 or 7 years. I don't mind the grandparent rule because those players would be brought up knowing where they came from and would have some attachment to their grandparents country.

My Granddad was Irish and i have absolutetly zero affinity or attachment with that country whatsoever in regards to representing them.

I'm with you on that Geordie, my Paternal Grandfather was Cornish, my Maternal Grandfather was Irish (Wexford), there would have been a 100/1 chance I might have represented Ireland, there would be NO chance of me playing for England, especially as my Grandfather and many other Cornishmen don't class themselves as English.

profitius wrote:I think residency should be 6 or 7 years. I don't mind the grandparent rule because those players would be brought up knowing where they came from and would have some attachment to their grandparents country.

Three year residency is too short, maybe five years would be better. On the grannie rule, in the case of Ireland if somebody born outside the country has at least one Irish grandparent then legally they qualify for Irish citizenship so I don't have a huge objection as long as the player involved can clearly show that they qualify.

Back in Jack Charlton's day as Irish soccer manager we scoured the world for anybody with a drop of Irish blood to produce a team that got to a world cup QF. Mind you we also got Tony Cascarino who it later emerged after he retired didn't have a single drop of Irish blood in him going back many generations beyond grandparent

profitius wrote:I think residency should be 6 or 7 years. I don't mind the grandparent rule because those players would be brought up knowing where they came from and would have some attachment to their grandparents country.

Three year residency is too short, maybe five years would be better. On the grannie rule, in the case of Ireland if somebody born outside the country has at least one Irish grandparent then legally they qualify for Irish citizenship so I don't have a huge objection as long as the player involved can clearly show that they qualify.

Back in Jack Charlton's day as Irish soccer manager we scoured the world for anybody with a drop of Irish blood to produce a team that got to a world cup QF. Mind you we also got Tony Cascarino who it later emerged after he retired didn't have a single drop of Irish blood in him going back many generations beyond grandparent

6 or 7 years would probably be a fairer one for residency...

brennomac wrote:

profitius wrote:I think residency should be 6 or 7 years. I don't mind the grandparent rule because those players would be brought up knowing where they came from and would have some attachment to their grandparents country.

Three year residency is too short, maybe five years would be better.  On the grannie rule, in the case of Ireland if somebody born outside the country has at least one Irish grandparent then legally they qualify for Irish citizenship so I don't have a huge objection as long as the player involved can clearly show that they qualify.

Back in Jack Charlton's day as Irish soccer manager we scoured the world for anybody with a drop of Irish blood to produce a team that got to a world cup QF.  Mind you we also got Tony Cascarino who it later emerged after he retired didn't have a single drop of Irish blood in him going back many generations beyond grandparent

Ah to be fair to him that was because he didn't realise his granny/grandad was adopted by their Irish parent and wrongly assumed he didn't actually qualify (he did). Although you're probably technically correct in the blood bit!

GeordieFalcon wrote:

profitius wrote:I think residency should be 6 or 7 years. I don't mind the grandparent rule because those players would be brought up knowing where they came from and would have some attachment to their grandparents country.

My Granddad was Irish and i have absolutetly zero affinity or attachment with that country whatsoever in regards to representing them.

On the flip side my Grandmother was Scottish and from my time spent with her growing up i have a very strong emotional connection with the country. I don't know if i'd ever represent them as i'll never be good enough. But i do understand that people can have a strong attachment to a place that a member of their family came from.

But three years is too short and players stating they're coming over in the hopes of getting a cap which really translates in to: The big money in rugby is at international level.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

profitius wrote:I think residency should be 6 or 7 years. I don't mind the grandparent rule because those players would be brought up knowing where they came from and would have some attachment to their grandparents country.

My Granddad was Irish and i have absolutetly zero affinity or attachment with that country whatsoever in regards to representing them.

Others would have a great affinity so its best to keep that option open. If someone takes up the offer then nobody could complain while if they feel no affinity then they could reject it.

It will never be changed... why because there are 2-3 tier 1 nations which rely heavily on it.

Scotland, Italy and to a lesser respect Ireland & Wales would suffer big time if the residency rule changes.

These nations collectively have a strong hold over rule changes and are not going to hit themselves hardest are they. It's not about what is right, its about what they must do to be competitive.

I would increase it to 5 years easily but its not going to happen anytime soon.

In terms of grandparents. Its different for all and I too would prefer to see it go. I mean my da is half Italian, spoke only Italian until he was 5 when he finally went to school, went to Italy every year for his holidays as a kid and almost moved there as a teenager to take over the family business... yet he's as Italian as Ronald Macdonald let alone me.

fa0019 wrote:It will never be changed... why because there are 2-3 tier 1 nations which rely heavily on it.

Scotland, Italy and to a lesser respect Ireland & Wales would suffer big time if the residency rule changes.
These nations collectively have a strong hold over rule changes and are not going to hit themselves hardest are they. It's not about what is right, its about what they must do to be competitive.

I would increase it to 5 years easily but its not going to happen anytime soon.

In terms of grandparents. Its different for all and I too would prefer to see it go. I mean my da is half Italian, spoke only Italian until he was 5 when he finally went to school, went to Italy every year for his holidays as a kid and almost moved there as a teenager to take over the family business... yet he's as Italian as Ronald Macdonald let alone me.

I would not say that Wales or Ireland would suufer that badly, if you looked at things as they are now, England have more Southern Hemisphere players than both Wales and Ireland.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:It will never be changed... why because there are 2-3 tier 1 nations which rely heavily on it.

Scotland, Italy and to a lesser respect Ireland & Wales would suffer big time if the residency rule changes.
These nations collectively have a strong hold over rule changes and are not going to hit themselves hardest are they. It's not about what is right, its about what they must do to be competitive.

I would increase it to 5 years easily but its not going to happen anytime soon.

In terms of grandparents. Its different for all and I too would prefer to see it go. I mean my da is half Italian, spoke only Italian until he was 5 when he finally went to school, went to Italy every year for his holidays as a kid and almost moved there as a teenager to take over the family business... yet he's as Italian as Ronald Macdonald let alone me.

I would not say that Wales or Ireland would suufer that badly, if you looked at things as they are now, England have more Southern Hemisphere players than both Wales and Ireland.

One off snapshot LD perhaps not you're right but since professionalism certainly and if you look at Ireland they are a big worry in terms of their notable recent recruitments.

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:It will never be changed... why because there are 2-3 tier 1 nations which rely heavily on it.

Scotland, Italy and to a lesser respect Ireland & Wales would suffer big time if the residency rule changes.
These nations collectively have a strong hold over rule changes and are not going to hit themselves hardest are they. It's not about what is right, its about what they must do to be competitive.

I would increase it to 5 years easily but its not going to happen anytime soon.

In terms of grandparents. Its different for all and I too would prefer to see it go. I mean my da is half Italian, spoke only Italian until he was 5 when he finally went to school, went to Italy every year for his holidays as a kid and almost moved there as a teenager to take over the family business... yet he's as Italian as Ronald Macdonald let alone me.

I would not say that Wales or Ireland would suufer that badly, if you looked at things as they are now, England have more Southern Hemisphere players than both Wales and Ireland.

One off snapshot LD perhaps not you're right but since professionalism certainly and if you look at Ireland they are a big worry in terms of their notable recent recruitments.

Not Ireland (don't know about Wales),you're totally wrong there.

I agree, when we first went pro we needed SH tallent to cover the drain we lost to Rugby league, but now we have recovered and we are able to send out a side full of Welshy's. O.k we have Faletua, but he has lived up here since he was about 5yrs old, but the rest are Welsh, even the one's born in England, John Davies was born across the border like George North, but they have lived 99% of their lives in Wales so I guess they count.

I think most of us are in agreement that the idea of an overseas professional rugby player signing for a team in another country with the intention of representing that country after fulfilling 3 years residency makes a mockery of the concept of 'international' rugby.

There has to be some sort of qualification through residence, but it should definitely be much longer - 6 or 7 years sounds more reasonable, with any years spent in the country prior to age 18 counting for double.

I'd do away with the Grandparent rule as well, as in many cases the connection is too tenuous (iirc, Waldrom didn't even know his Granny was English...). Perhaps the compromise there would be for a 3 year eligibility period if qualified through Grandparents?

Of course my perspective on this is relatively simple - I'm English, as were my parents, grandparents etc - heck, of my four grandparents, 3 were born within 5 miles of Huddersfield and the 'foreign' one was from Lincolnshire. I lived in Wales for almost long enough to qualify by residency, but escaped . Other people have much more complex national identities, and I can see how it becomes much more of a grey issue: my niece has an English father, German mother and was born and lives in Switzerland - pick any one of three countries to represent.

so the recent recruits such as CJ Stander, Jared Payne, Tyler Bleyendaal, Gerhard van der Heever are not?

As well as 2 recent caps Diack, Herring and then Strauss???

Thats all in this RWC cycle no?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:It will never be changed... why because there are 2-3 tier 1 nations which rely heavily on it.

Scotland, Italy and to a lesser respect Ireland & Wales would suffer big time if the residency rule changes.
These nations collectively have a strong hold over rule changes and are not going to hit themselves hardest are they. It's not about what is right, its about what they must do to be competitive.

I would increase it to 5 years easily but its not going to happen anytime soon.

In terms of grandparents. Its different for all and I too would prefer to see it go. I mean my da is half Italian, spoke only Italian until he was 5 when he finally went to school, went to Italy every year for his holidays as a kid and almost moved there as a teenager to take over the family business... yet he's as Italian as Ronald Macdonald let alone me.

I would not say that Wales or Ireland would suufer that badly, if you looked at things as they are now, England have more Southern Hemisphere players than both Wales and Ireland.

One off snapshot LD perhaps not you're right but since professionalism certainly and if you look at Ireland they are a big worry in terms of their notable recent recruitments.

Not Ireland (don't know about Wales),you're totally wrong there.

Totally wrong?

so the recent recruits such as CJ Stander, Jared Payne, Tyler Bleyendaal, Gerhard van der Heever are not?

As well as 2 recent caps Diack, Herring and then Strauss???

Thats all in this RWC cycle no?

fa0019 wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:It will never be changed... why because there are 2-3 tier 1 nations which rely heavily on it.

Scotland, Italy and to a lesser respect Ireland & Wales would suffer big time if the residency rule changes.
These nations collectively have a strong hold over rule changes and are not going to hit themselves hardest are they. It's not about what is right, its about what they must do to be competitive.

I would increase it to 5 years easily but its not going to happen anytime soon.

In terms of grandparents. Its different for all and I too would prefer to see it go. I mean my da is half Italian, spoke only Italian until he was 5 when he finally went to school, went to Italy every year for his holidays as a kid and almost moved there as a teenager to take over the family business... yet he's as Italian as Ronald Macdonald let alone me.

I would not say that Wales or Ireland would suufer that badly, if you looked at things as they are now, England have more Southern Hemisphere players than both Wales and Ireland.

One off snapshot LD perhaps not you're right but since professionalism certainly and if you look at Ireland they are a big worry in terms of their notable recent recruitments.

Not Ireland (don't know about Wales),you're totally wrong there.

Totally wrong?

so the recent recruits such as CJ Stander, Jared Payne, Tyler Bleyendaal, Gerhard van der Heever are not?

As well as 2 recent caps Diack, Herring and then Strauss???

Thats all in this RWC cycle no?

These recent recruits are just that,recent.We certainly haven't used the rule very much since professionalism as you said.

You also forgot to mention Rodney Ah You in the recent caps but that actually helps my case.Not one of the caps you have mentioned will be anywhere near the team when we have a full squad available,herring might break through in a few years but it would be a surprise to me.

My point was that Ireland have not relied on the rule since professionalism as you seem to suggest,in fact it's very recent that we have used the rule at all and even then the players we have used have been shirt fillers.That might change with Payne but we'll just have to wait and see.Stander,Bleyendaal and van der Heever don't look up to it imo (Stander might get a few caps in Lions years and the like but that's it ).

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:It will never be changed... why because there are 2-3 tier 1 nations which rely heavily on it.

Scotland, Italy and to a lesser respect Ireland & Wales would suffer big time if the residency rule changes.
These nations collectively have a strong hold over rule changes and are not going to hit themselves hardest are they. It's not about what is right, its about what they must do to be competitive.

I would increase it to 5 years easily but its not going to happen anytime soon.

In terms of grandparents. Its different for all and I too would prefer to see it go. I mean my da is half Italian, spoke only Italian until he was 5 when he finally went to school, went to Italy every year for his holidays as a kid and almost moved there as a teenager to take over the family business... yet he's as Italian as Ronald Macdonald let alone me.

I would not say that Wales or Ireland would suufer that badly, if you looked at things as they are now, England have more Southern Hemisphere players than both Wales and Ireland.

One off snapshot LD perhaps not you're right but since professionalism certainly and if you look at Ireland they are a big worry in terms of their notable recent recruitments.

Not Ireland (don't know about Wales),you're totally wrong there.

Totally wrong?

so the recent recruits such as CJ Stander, Jared Payne, Tyler Bleyendaal, Gerhard van der Heever are not?

As well as 2 recent caps Diack, Herring and then Strauss???

Thats all in this RWC cycle no?

These recent recruits are just that,recent.We certainly haven't used the rule very much since professionalism as you said.

You also forgot to mention Rodney Ah You in the recent caps but that actually helps my case.Not one of the caps you have mentioned will be anywhere near the team when we have a full squad available,herring might break through in a few years but it would be a surprise to me.

My point was that Ireland have not relied on the rule since professionalism as you seem to suggest,in fact it's very recent that we have used the rule at all and even then the players we have used have been shirt fillers.That might change with Payne but we'll just have to wait and see.Stander,Bleyendaal and van der Heever don't look up to it imo (Stander might get a few caps in Lions years and the like but that's it ).

Why I mentioned Ireland as a worry going forward i.e. with their recent signings.

fa0019 wrote:
Why I mentioned Ireland as a worry going forward i.e. with their recent signings.

Okay fair enough,it's just the way the conversation went it looked like you were saying that Ireland have relied on the rule since professionalism began,,that's the point I was arguing against.We have hardly used the rule at all until the last 2 years.

Jake Heenan and Bundee Aki are another two recent Connacht signings who have openly spoken about wanting to play for Ireland. Both young and very promising Kiwi players who are just short of that world class level you need to break into the All Blacks at their age. Hence why Steve Hansen is accusing players of taking the easy way out- a guy like Bundee Aki who is a very talented player takes a look at SBW, Nonu, Conrad Smith, Fekitoa, Crotty etc. and thinks right, well, I want to play international rugby and I could waste a decade paying my dues and still not get ahead of those blokes.

Now I don't think they've been signed with the express intention of qualifying them to play for Ireland, but it's a damn nice carrot to dangle in front of players who might otherwise have doubts about whether they can really achieve things with Connacht. They'll have one eye already on playing test rugby and the IRFU is able to whisper sweet, empty promises in their ear and then when their three years is up for a lot of them those promises will evaporate. What I'm saying is that most of these guys will not make the grade for Ireland, and the IRFU know it, but at the same time the IRFU aren't slow to use it as a bargaining chip in negotiations... and that rubs me up the wrong way.

I don't want the IRFU to unilaterally stop doing it, one Union alone will only disadvantage itself at best and open itself up to legal challenges at worst, I want the IRB to seriously review the rules here. I've said it again and again and it seems they never, ever will.

Can't see how it applies to Wales either, majority of our players or home grown products. You might have had a point some years ago when we had a bare 15 players capable of international rugby (boy those days were dark). There's only Jake Ball, who is now 3rd choice with Ian Evans and Ryan Jones out of favour. Maybe we'll see Anscombe on the list too, but I don't expect it to be a trend.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/29151343

Steenkamp now says he wants to represent Wales

But the part that REALLY bothers me is

South African lock De Kock Steenkamp has set his sights on playing for Wales after signing for Ospreys.

As part of the recent £60m deal between the Welsh Rugby Union and four regions, each region can have up to eight overseas players but two must be "time-serving" for international duty.

Thats not a good read.

And the time serving should be 5yrs, but De Kock Steenkamp sounds as Welsh as Brains Bitter and daffodils doesn't it.

I'm just glad I am not trying to make it as a rugby player, not only would I have to be the best in my position in my own country to represent my OWN COUNTRY, I would have to be the best in South Africa as well by the looks of it.

Just my tuppence worth but you could seperate the wheat from the chaff in all this by making it a rule that a player must be a citizen of the country (either by birth or naturalisation) and passport holder of the country they have declared for and also that they are domiciled in that country for tax purposes - i.e. that they are paid in the local currency and it is paid into an account in that country.
You'd soon see who geniunely wanted to play for reasons of either family attachment or a genuine desire to make a permanent home in the country and who was there to get caps and make a few quid to be shipped back home.

Irish Londoner wrote:Just my tuppence worth but you could seperate the wheat from the chaff in all this by making it a rule that a player must be a citizen of the country (either by birth or naturalisation) and passport holder of the country they have declared for and also that they are domiciled in that country for tax purposes - i.e. that they are paid in the local currency and it is paid into an account in that country.
You'd soon see who geniunely wanted to play for reasons of either family attachment or a genuine desire to make a permanent home in the country and who was there to get caps and make a few quid to be shipped back home.

So no more pro-Samoan players playing international rugby? (regarding the domiciled bit). I'd be up for resident and citizen. But for those countries without a pro structure would be shafted.