Residency Rules

I was thinking about the following scenario last night:

SA player comes to Ireland and plays there for 2 seasons. He goes very well and decides actually he wants to give another crack to playing international Rugby for his home nation. He returns to SA. Things don't pan out and after 2/3 seasons he returns to the club he played for in Ireland. Having already been there for 2 seasons, would he be eligible after 1 year or does the residency clock reset itself?

REGULATION 8. ELIGIBILITY TO PLAY FOR NATIONAL
REPRESENTATIVE TEAMS
8.1 Subject to Regulation 8.2, a Player may only play for the senior fifteen-aside
National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team and the senior National Representative Sevens Team
of the Union of the country in which:
(a) he was born; or
(b) one parent or grandparent was born; or
(c) he has completed thirty six consecutive months of Residence
immediately preceding the time of playing.

The residency Rule IMO is making a mockery of International Rugby - I've said it before and I'll say it again, If you don't know what nationality you are by the time you're 12 then you have a serious identity crisis. This is a huge bug bear for me as nations look to groom and seduce foreigners into their set up at the expense of home grown players. It also plays into the hands of larger country's who have more financial inducements to entice players away. Like I said it makes a mockery of it and if we get to a stage where Wales has 6-7 foreign players then frankly for me, its not Wales and it will be a very hollow victory. I appreciate others have different views but these are mine. I believe this is the thin end of the wedge and I have strong views.

Ruby, money buys success, that is the way of the world mate, those that have can always outbid those that have less.

Yeah look at the Leviathans of the Pacific Islands luring away all those Kiwis with their pots of gold. Its horrendous.
Italy fielded 10 foreign born players in a starting 15 last year. Are they one of the big boys?


Wasn't the residency rule set as it is to match the rules of gaining citizenship for several key rugby nations?

We're currently trying to entice Halfpenny to be Irish instead of Welsh to offer cover for Kearney.

It's a long process..... we have him learning Field of Athenry at the moment but it's tough - he keeps crying when he listens to the lyrics.  "Don't feel it, just sing the f**king thing!" says his lecturer.

[quote="SecretFly"]We're currently trying to entice Halfpenny to be Irish instead of Welsh to offer cover for Kearney.

How about a Halfpenny Sexton exchange then

Yeah...yeah................. maybe. If you threw in Biggar as an offer of good faith (for free like) it'd probably be a deal..

How about Priestland instead please no really please

South Africa should entice some Kiwis over to fill their quota of All Blacks, they are the only major test nation without any in the set up.

Birth or childhood is not the be all and end all.

I have no problem with someone like Andy Ward coming over in his early 20's playing amateur rugby, marrying a local girl and subsequently making it professionally here in Ireland.

Went on to play for Ireland and even after retirement has stayed her and is now 45.

Happy to call him an Irishman.

It is players moving when already at the professional level prior to the move who are the problem.

And to have the British Lions filled with such mercenary's makes a mockery of the lot of us. Soon we'll have a Saffa or Kiwi scoring the winning try against the country of their birth. I will be embarrassed and the Saffas and Kiwis will be laughing all the way. We put ourselves in a lose lose situation. I would take that further and suggest that we should always have B&I coaches as well, but that's just my personal view. How the feck players like Barritt etc. buy into the B&I concept is beyond me

All joking aside.  It is an issue.  I do want it controlled more.  International is NOT club... and shouldn't be forced to accede to the drifting maverick nature of Club.  It's fine for Club.  But as I've said before, why have International rugby at all if it's becoming increasingly seen as 'fine' no matter who shows up and wants to play? All we need to do is ban the idea of International rugby completely and create a Grand travelling World Club circuit.

Of course there are people out there in places who would like that exact solution to transpire - world domination of the club game and no great need for a silly flags and bunting International side-show.

But my country isn't a Club.  It's when you supposedly get to put your money is where your mouth is as a player and stand against another nation with the limitations you have and the limitations they have - and see who is best at utilising them.  

I don't mind a player coming early in a career and finding an emotional or even a professional attachment, doing his years at club (more than three), never feeling the urge to move on any try elsewhere, determined it's the Nation he wants to represent even if it means ultimate failure at becoming an International at all - that's the guy I don't mind, and welcome. He's sacrificed a lot to get there and therefore his commitment is unquestionable.  

But we have to closely control the systems that get us those guys rather than prospective soulless players who simply want to play on any International side to further their careers and add to their personal value.

Yeah then you get the likes of Geordan Murphy who came over here as a student and got discovered, trained up, lived here the rest of his life...and played for Ireland. Hes a Tiger and therefor as English as the Tuilagis *cough* regardless of whether or not he can pronounce three.
Ireland cheat anyway, they cover two countries.

"I don't mind a player coming early in a career and finding an emotional or even a professional attachment, doing his years at club (more than three), never feeling the urge to move on any try elsewhere, determined it's the Nation he wants to represent even if it means ultimate failure at becoming an International at all - that's the guy I don't mind, and welcome. He's sacrificed a lot to get there and therefore his commitment is unquestionable."


Whilst I respect your sentiments here I would even disagree with that statement - Nationality is not something you have a choice with like the colour of a shirt. Indeed, If we had choice, do you really think I would have chosen to be fecking welsh!!!!!  

RubyGuby wrote:How the feck  players like Barritt etc. buy into the B&I concept is beyond me

I know!  Even I can't buy into it and I'm one of 'us'....  

Have to say The Lions to me is almost as much anti-International as the topic we're discussing.  Let's take a Nation's top coach away from that Nation for virtually a full year (is it more?) and let's all use his expertise so that there'll be no secrets next time we challenge his side in a 6N or *gulp* World Cup. Meanwhile f**k that Nation that has to engage in contests without him.

I think the world has now grown up.  Professionalism - like it or lump it - is now wearing long trousers and thinking of girlfriends.  I think International edges are too important and involve big money commitments - the amateur idea of share and share alike............................... not for me.  We take on these SH sides alone, as distinct nations in our own right or not at all, is my view.

RubyGuby wrote:"I don't mind a player coming early in a career and finding an emotional or even a professional attachment, doing his years at club (more than three), never feeling the urge to move on any try elsewhere, determined it's the Nation he wants to represent even if it means ultimate failure at becoming an International at all - that's the guy I don't mind, and welcome. He's sacrificed a lot to get there and therefore his commitment is unquestionable."


Whilst I respect your sentiments here I would even disagree with that statement - Nationality is not something you have a choice with like the colour of a shirt. Indeed, If we had choice, do you really think I would have chosen to be fecking welsh!!!!!  

But Ruby......... some of your players chose Wales. They didn't have to. They had a choice.

anyone called Murphy should be entitled to play for Ireland without further justification

the corollary is that anyone called Jones could play for Wales, Le Roux for France or McCaw for Scotland

Gooseberry wrote:Yeah then you get the likes of Geordan Murphy who came over here as a student and got discovered, trained up, lived here the rest of his life...and played for Ireland. Hes a Tiger and therefor as English as the Tuilagis *cough*  regardless of whether or not he can pronounce three.
Ireland cheat anyway, they cover two countries.

What did Geordan think?

Are we talking conscription here? No, I'm not discussing conscription...yet.

SecretFly wrote:All joking aside.  It is an issue.  
But we have to closely control the systems that get us those guys rather than prospective soulless players who simply want to play on any International side to further their careers and add to their personal value.

To be fair I think that is a problem for everyone, including many players.
The issues I have stem from the perception its just England who do it, or in the north that its just the all blacks who do it. Or indeed that its purely driven by who has the most cash. Its not, South Africa are pretty much the only top 12 nation without a large number of "qualified" players in their recent history.
The other big issue is that you couldn't realistically set up a rule that stops citizens from playing for the country of their passport, but citizenship is very easy to come by in some countries compared to others. Blanket taking away the residency rule or extending it to 5 years might well reduce the total number of plastic caps, but might actually create a stronger market for it in certain nations and see an increased player drain from others.

Maybe they should get Nigel Farrage in to vet any applicants for the England side. Avoid all those immigrants like Burgess who came over here for the money.

whocares wrote:anyone called Murphy should be entitled to play for Ireland without further justification

the corollary is that anyone called Jones could play for Wales, Le Roux for France or McCaw for Scotland

What about the Evans chap who went through the English youth systems, lived in France and played for Scotland on the grounds that he had "had been there and knew all about it".

RubyGuby wrote:If you don't know what nationality you are by the time you're 12 then you have a serious identity crisis.

Think you underestimate the diversity of life experiences, not to mention legal systems.

Gooseberry wrote:
The issues I have stem from the perception its just England who do it,

I don't think I've ever been involved in this debate on 606 - and there have been a bundle over the years - I don't think once was it ever the assumption that "just England do it" Gooseberry.

So if you're coming at the subject from a defensive mindset, I don't think it's needed. It's something that is increasingly becoming an issue for many sides.

SecretFly wrote:All joking aside.  It is an issue.  I do want it controlled more.  International is NOT club... and shouldn't be forced to accede to the drifting maverick nature of Club.  It's fine for Club.  But as I've said before, why have International rugby at all if it's becoming increasingly seen as 'fine' no matter who shows up and wants to play?  All we need to do is ban the idea of International rugby completely and create a Grand travelling World Club circuit.

You are SO wrong Fly, international rugby is turning into club rugby. You just have to look at the various types of "projects" and recruitment drives around the world to realise it has become club rugby.

The only real difference is you have a "residence" ruling to comply with before you can have these players play for.

Rugby Fan wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:If you don't know what nationality you are by the time you're 12 then you have a serious identity crisis.

Think you underestimate the diversity of life experiences, not to mention legal systems.

I see where you're going here but I will maintain my stance - What we are talking about in rugby terms are those players and country's where it is quite obvious that for example a South African is playing for England and/or a New Zealander is playing for Scotland. When these guys retire they remain South Africans and Kiwis, not English or Scottish. That for me makes a mockery of the international game.

I would also argue that diversity of life and legal systems should not define nationality but that debate is not for this site.

What muddies the water are the examples of the Vunipolas and Faletau though.

Is this thread going to run over the same ground as all the others now that the OP has had his querry answered?

Ok, might as well chuck my bit in again. First off, I prefer residency 100% more than place of birth. The benefit in place of birth is that is simple to check. But it's basically meaningless. It should probably be 5 years and require citizenship (although this is a lot harder to get in some countries than others).

I'd much prefer someone who moved to the country, lived there, etc, for several years than someone who's grandparent or parent happened to be born somewhere.

HammerofThunor wrote:Is this thread going to run over the same ground as all the others now that the OP has had his querry answered?

Ok, might as well chuck my bit in again.  First off, I prefer residency 100% more than place of birth.  The benefit in place of birth is that is simple to check. But it's basically meaningless.  It should probably be 5 years and require citizenship (although this is a lot harder to get in some countries than others).

I'd much prefer someone who moved to the country, lived there, etc, for several years than someone who's grandparent or parent happened to be born somewhere.

Shut it Hammer. We're over it now. We ain't annoyed no more. Everything is cool again. We're eating our packed lunches.... always more important in the big scheme of things

I hope Jared Payne enjoys being Irish. I also hope he buys a nice house and a nice car when he returns to live in NZ as a kiwi. I can't wait for him to share his story about what it's like to be Irish for a couple of years.

ebop wrote:I hope Jared Payne enjoys being Irish. I also hope he buys a nice house and a nice car when he returns to live in NZ as a kiwi. I can't wait for him to share his story about what it's like to be Irish for a couple of years.

????? Pity nobody asked the first All Blacks captain what it was like to be a Kiwi.

SecretFly wrote:

ebop wrote:I hope Jared Payne enjoys being Irish. I also hope he buys a nice house and a nice car when he returns to live in NZ as a kiwi. I can't wait for him to share his story about what it's like to be Irish for a couple of years.

?????  Pity nobody asked the first All Blacks captain what it was like to be a Kiwi.

Dave Gallaher emigrated to NZ as a child didn't he? You let one slip through the net there mate

Thing is, I'm just thinking about Jared Payne. I hope he doesn't get sweaty palms or choke on the words when he hears God Defend NZ when he inevitably returns home.

RubyGuby wrote:Whilst I respect your sentiments here I would even disagree with that statement - Nationality is not something you have a choice with like the colour of a shirt. Indeed, If we had choice, do you really think I would have chosen to be fecking welsh!!!!!  

Thats a big oversimplification. Many people quite literally do have a choice on a very basic legal level. I've held both British and Irish passports in my life, I exercise a very clear choice about what nationality I am. There are other examples. Even amongst my own friends I can think of other dual nationals even discounting the Northern Irish dual nationals. Sure it's all very straight forward if you're born in a country, both parents are from there, you live there your whole life etc. But the world is full of travelers, immigrants, emigrants, children born overseas and raised somewhere else, kids whose mum is from one country and dad is from another, people who are members of diasporas etc. People move around. Nationality exists in shades of gray, it's a very fluid cultural and legal concept we've developed mainly for the purpose of governing large numbers of people.

As a bit of a romantic, I like the stories of players who move for non rugby reasons, play for some amateur club and then end up playing internationally. I also understand that many players are qualified to play for more than one country.

But that said the rebranded IRB does need to look at the residency rules and the 'project player' idea which does undermine international rugby I think. Having say Josh Strauss line up against Rory Kockott is not good for the sport I think.

RubyGuby wrote:If you don't know what nationality you are by the time you're 12 then you have a serious identity crisis.

I may have a crisis then.

Born in Germany to an English dad and a Yorkie Mum (whose parents were Irish).

At 12 I would have called myself British. I supported England in sport, but would always support Scotland/Wales/Ireland against anyone else.

By 22 I had very little interest in nationality - only sex

By 32 my experience of living/working in France saw me viewing myself as more English than British and supporting France againstthe other home nations.

42 my experience of the internet and the hatred directed towards me for supporting England (by a very vocal minority), had led me to become most definitely English, and supporting not only France but most countries against the other home nations.

As I rapidly approach 52 my experiences of certain nationalistic political parties has led me to despair at the concept of nations. I still support England, but Leicester are far more important to me. In other international matches I tend to be supporting the under-dog.

LondonTiger wrote:

42 my experience of the internet and the hatred directed towards me for supporting England (by a very vocal minority), had led me to become most definitely English, and supporting not only France but most countries against the other home nations.

You could have supported Ireland...most of us ain't British

SecretFly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

42 my experience of the internet and the hatred directed towards me for supporting England (by a very vocal minority), had led me to become most definitely English, and supporting not only France but most countries against the other home nations.

You could have supported Ireland...most of us ain't British

Strauss for example....

Yeah, he's one. You're missing a cricket score full of them though, aren't you

World Rugby to review three year residency rule. Gosper admits now is a good time as more and more players are being sucked into certain competitions than ever before.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/71248517/World-Rugby-to-review-three-year-international-residency-rule

I thin they'll change it because there are too many people complaining about it and its actually benefiting the countries who can afford to bring in the best imports.

Yeah it's something that is being exploited. In the past, a player may move to a country for family or personal reasons other than rugby but now pro players are being targeted. That's not in the spirit of what such a law should be about. Good to see World Rugby are acknowledging it.

I don't see how those with money will vote to change it, why vote to change a law that firstly have not hurt you, and secondly you can or have benefitted from?

Also the players who form part of the Uak, many of them have links via parents, grandparents, residency etc that will exclude them from this law anyway.

You can literally have a Scottish Father, a Welsh mother, an Irish grandfather and English grandmother, so you can pick and choose anyway.

Why would the European nations bother to protect Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, South Africa, Australia or New Zealand?

Minor aside, but for South Africa what are the residency or visa requirements for Zimbabweans coming to South Africa like Mtawarira or Mujati? I read some where that they went to the same school in Zimbabwe before moving to SA.

I think it is five years if you had a work permit

Unless this is sorted, the more money that comes into the game, the more international sides are going to look like Barbarian sides. Look at France, they are already capping non French players right left and center. Before long because of the money their clubs throw at players, even the lesser clubs spend a fortune, you will see a French national side made up of players from all around the world.

When you look at the clubs in France, a lot of them are filled with non French players, the pool of French players in the top flight is getting less and less, France will have no choice before long, to either cap time serving players, or cap players from the bottom end of their top flight or the next division down.

Don't get me wrong, there will always be the exception to the rule, where few stand out French players start at clubs like Toulon, Racing Metro ect, but there will not be enough superstar French players and time serving players will take over.

Nothing will change, until the voting structure is changed, with the big 8 (Australia, England, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa and Wales) having 2 votes each, Argentina, Canada and Italy having 1 each and then 3 separate areas also having one each, the countries that benefit most are in the first group. There is the anomaly of this years WC having a country not in the top group of seeds that still has 2 votes under that system.
Personally I would like a 5 year residency if you come here after the age of 18. We (Ospreys) signed a South African De Kock Steenkamp just over a year ago, and in his first utterance in an interview he said he wanted to play for Wales after his 3 year residency was up, that horrified me. This is much too soon and it should not have been a priority for him.

Represnting an "adopted" country should not even be part of any contract negotiations. What is horrifying as wayne suggests is that players who have not yet even proved they are amongst the top players in a position for their "adopted" country already discusses represnting their new nation.

It almost hints towards "yeah it was under discussion when I intially came here"

That is why I have all the respect in the world for a player like Mauritz Botha, he left SA as a no name, had to work hard to get a professional contract and after a good number of years earned the right to play for England.

Scott Spedding is another example.

Great news....

Make it 5 years minimum (id prefer longer)
Scrap the Grandparents rule

That would stop half of it straight away

I find it hard to get as worked up about this as some people do. Humans like putting things in definite boxes but the truth is that in the real world things are fuzzier.

I regard myself as English; I was born here and I've lived here nearly all my life. But I'm descended from Scots - although my children are Welsh qualified because my grandfather was working in Cardiff when my father (who also regards himself as English) was born. My wife is descended from Irish Catholics, so it's equally possible that my kids could find Irish qualification if they wanted it.

As an Englishman, I live in a country whose ruling monarchs for much of the past thousand years have been variously either Franco-Scandiavian, Welsh, Scots, Dutch and German aristocracy or recently descended from it. Our folk heroes are a Roman (or possibly Welsh) war chief who fought against Scandinavian invaders and a man descended from those same Scandinavian invaders who fought against a ruling class who came over with the Franco-Scandinavian kings I mentioned above. Even our patron saint is a Palestinian of Greek descent.

And it's not as if rugby has somehow eschewed the British cultural melting pot. It's been there from the very beginning. Adrian Stoop's parents were Dutch and Scots/Irish. Prince Alexander Sergeevich Obolensky scored two tries in England's first victory over the All Blacks. Simples.

All of which said, there are things that I think are worth worrying about.

I'd say the most important one is that as players follow the money, Tier 2 nations - especially the Pacific Islands - suffer from players migrating away and either qualifying for other countries or being held back from tournaments by their clubs. I would welcome measures to make those players more available for the country of their birth, including if necessary allowing them to play for that country after winning caps for a higher ranked nation. And certainly a hard line on clubs who persuade players to "retire" from international rugby just before RWC year.

I don't like "project" players, but I am not sure what to do about it. 3 years is one third of a typical senior playing career, so it feels draconian to extend that. Perhaps you could add something about putting down roots - e.g. gaining or beginning the process of gaining citizenship.

But I do also take the view that unions can make their own choices about how they recruit players. The RFU have made some really positive moves to encourage the development of English talent with the EQP bonus and investment in academies. Out of the XXIII named for Saturday it's only the Vunipolas that any other nation has a strong claim on.

It saddens me a little that France will probably field a team with many more foreign born players, but that's their problem, not mine.

I like the idea of 5yr rules but wouldn't scrap the grandparent rule. Lots of "English to the core" South Africans who have English born grandparents too, probably more English than most living there at the moment.

Anyhow for me its more to do with respect for national colours... not just a desire to experience test rugby.

Take Riki Flutey for instance. Lived in England as a pro, passed residency and got into the side, even the Lions.  As soon as he retired, he moved back to NZ. Had he not got paid to play I wonder if he would have bothered? Rugby players are well paid, but they're not that well paid to a point that the extra money wouldn't be a definitive bonus. I read that England players get 10k per game and 3k for a win. Play in all the games in a season and that's an extra 120k even if you lose every one. Hell for that I'd even agree to turn out for Wales! (well 150k and we've got a deal )

For me thats wrong.

Then again you could say the same about many of the kilted kiwis etc. Contracts end and off they go back home asap. That's what gets to people, players in it for the cash, personal glory etc.

In the end they're mercenaries. It doesn't matter if they're superior players... I'd rather go for the kid who is willing to go that extra mile but perhaps less obvious skill... one a hired gun will not.

Then you have guys who moved to a country, married a local girl, learnt the language, raised their kids in the respected nation and stayed. No problem with that at all (maybe a little bit of personal bias there but hey).

Fa
Increasing the residency whould stop a lot of what you said there. I'd like longer, but I think 5 yrs would have the desired affect. Certainly the likes of Flutey etc wouldn't have played probably.

As for the grandparent rule, I just think it offers nothing.

Take Thomas Waldrom for example. He qualified on that rule...had never been to the country and suddenly was playing for England. Now that can happen under the parents rule, but I just think Grandparents is one step too far.
Just my opinion of course.

But those two steps would sort a lot of the issues out.

I'd also like to add the cross nationality changing. If you play for one country in League, you play for the same in Union and vice versa. No chopping and changing like Henry Paul, Brad Thorn etc.