The residency rule might be scrapped ?

Agustin Pichot, the new vice chairman of world rugby has spoken up about the residency rule, and thank god that he has, lets be honest, it is a massive joke that makes a mockery out of international rugby union. here are some of his quotes on it:-

"Somebody will kill me, but we need to change it," 

"it is very important to keep the identity of your national team; it's very important."


Apparently it is on the agenda to be looked at over the next six months.

At last World Rugby are actually realising how ridiculous a rule it is, I welcome this news and I hope they act on it. There are plenty of media types covering it so I will just give this link:-

https://www.google.co.uk/?ion=1&espv=2#q=Agustin+Pichot+residency+rules

I hope this will put the whole project player debacle to bed as well.

Completely agree with him. It should be at least 5 years. I don't like the direction Ireland are going with the current rules, and don't want to see the squad filled with players qualifying on three year residency. No matter how talented they are.

LordDowlais wrote:

I hope this will put the whole project player debacle to bed as well.

It won't - as the arguments for them won't simply disappear.  

Whether you agree and are an enthusiastic supporter of looser constraints on eligibility or whether you are very suspicious of them, the arguments will continue to exist.  The World is getting smaller - not bigger.  

A nice ideal though by Pichot.  I support it because I support the ideal of difference is good.

Munchkin wrote:Completely agree with him. It should be at least 5 years. I don't like the direction Ireland are going with the current rules, and don't want to see the squad filled with players qualifying on three year residency. No matter how talented they are.

Correct.  And neither though do I want hurting players that have dreams for themselves (either Home born players or the Foreign guys that come in and really play their places in the Provinces with heart and steel.)  

There can be no fuzzy ground of 'maybes'.  In order to respect these players a decision must be made on the issue and direct - unambiguous - rules put into place.  No taking each case as it comes, no exceptional circumstances.  
If a period exists, it exists.  Then at least players in New Zealand or Samoa or South Africa will be clear on the reasons for their decisions in coming up north.  I don't want any fuzziness about the rules making some of these players angry or feeling like they were duped or unwanted.  I respect all these foreign guys that have come and played hard.... and I don't want then having sour memories because the authorities allowed grey areas of interpretation.

But as I say, the ideal will never really happen. It's going to be a shifting platform through the decades.

I think we have to be very careful about what is done and how.

It is an emotive subject, but amidst all the cries of 'boo' and 'down with that sort of thing' it's worth considering how many player these rules actually effect, and I don't think its actually that many

It's enough in a small Nation if it gets a foothold as a habit, lost. It's enough in a small Nation to look blunt on the team sheet.

I think the number is growing all the time lost. Can't be scrapped altogether as where does that leave guys like Faletau, the Vunipolas etc but does need to be longer.

Don't have to scrap it. Just make it more draconian...i.e. 5 years instead of 3. That will ward off most if it means more than 1 contract length.

So would the aim of changing the regulations be to protect small nations (e.g. Tonga/Fiji) from loosing their best talent or is it to protect the 'character' (for want of a better term) of teams from wealthier nations?

And what would the expected (as in not the 'ideal' ) outcome of changing or ditching the residency period?

lostinwales wrote:So would the aim of changing the regulations be to protect small nations (e.g. Tonga/Fiji) from loosing their best talent or is it to protect the 'character' (for want of a better term) of teams from wealthier nations?

I'd assume both. And I'd suggest both are legitimate reasons, emotionally.

Is one of those things dirtier than the other in your eyes?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think the number is growing all the time lost. Can't be scrapped altogether as where does that leave guys like Faletau, the Vunipolas etc but does need to be longer.

I think that the apparent number is growing because we are seeing the kids of rugby playing immigrants making an impact. I believe that in theory we could see 2nd generation Tuilagi's turning out for both France and England in a few years.

There are obviously some countries which are very dependent on imported talent (Japan probably the worst). There are also countries like France who seem to be more dependent than they should, but I do wonder how the numbers have actually varied over the years.

Thank goodness!

The discussion has been done ot death on these boards, but I know of practically no-one who thinks the current rules on residency are OK. 3 years is too short.

I think 7 years if over 16 when they moved and maybe 4 years if under 16 when they moved. I'm fine with mum and dad qualifying a player but I'd also get rid of the grandparents rule.

Well England have had Flutey Hape, Botha x2, Hughes coming, Rokoduguni fairly recently. Waters muddied more by the grandparent rules as well. Both those need tightening.

Well done to the new vice president and new regime in general by the way; hope they follow through properly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well done to the new vice president and new regime in general by the way; hope they follow through properly.

Indeed. The issues that need seeing to (at the top level) are residency and the season structure, so it is nice that these have been mentioned straight away! Let's see if anything happens about it!

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:So would the aim of changing the regulations be to protect small nations (e.g. Tonga/Fiji) from loosing their best talent or is it to protect the 'character' (for want of a better term) of teams from wealthier nations?

I'd assume both.  And I'd suggest both are legitimate reasons, emotionally.  

Is one of those things dirtier than the other in your eyes?

Both are complicated. Protecting small nations is more important in my eyes, but that is ultimately linked to the ability of those countries to manage their teams in a way to support their players (ideally without corruption and 'political influences'). Given the mess that is Zimbabwe for instance, once a relatively wealthy African country, I don't have a problem with giving more leeway to its former nationals looking for new homes.

As for wealthier (e.g. 6N) countries part of me wants to see the best players playing for the best teams. Numbers and attitudes become important though, and you don't want to end up with a situation equivalent to the club thing where foreign journeyman blocks development of home grown talent. In other words the odd player here or there isn't a bad thing, but significant numbers (say 3 or more) could be.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Completely agree with him. It should be at least 5 years. I don't like the direction Ireland are going with the current rules, and don't want to see the squad filled with players qualifying on three year residency. No matter how talented they are.

Correct.  And neither though do I want hurting players that have dreams for themselves (either Home born players or the Foreign guys that come in and really play their places in the Provinces with heart and steel.)  

There can be no fuzzy ground of 'maybes'.  In order to respect these players a decision must be made on the issue and direct - unambiguous - rules put into place.  No taking each case as it comes, no exceptional circumstances.  
If a period exists, it exists.  Then at least players in New Zealand or Samoa or South Africa will be clear on the reasons for their decisions in coming up north.  I don't want any fuzziness about the rules making some of these players angry or feeling like they were duped or unwanted.  I respect all these foreign guys that have come and played hard.... and I don't want then having sour memories because the authorities allowed grey areas of interpretation.

But as I say, the ideal will never really happen.  It's going to be a shifting platform through the decades.

Agree, there shouldn't be any grey areas. I would like to see at least five years, strictly enforced.

Ludik, Herbst and Aki will all qualify on residency soon and, as talented as Aki is, I really don't want them added to the Ireland squad, in addition to the likes of Payne and Stander.

There's two issues for me; too many foreign players weakens the sense of 'team Ireland', and also that foreign players can leapfrog home grown talent. Just doesn't feel right to me.

In the end what is the point of one country vs. another if the main determinant is who has the best recruitment policy or has the best SR scouts?

International rugby isn't club rugby simply because there is a restriction on who you can pick. This stops teams buying in talent essentially. Short residency means that there is nothing to stop countries buying in talent. Hence International rugby becomes glorified club rugby.

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

I hope this will put the whole project player debacle to bed as well.

It won't - as the arguments for them won't simply disappear.  

Whether you agree and are an enthusiastic supporter of looser constraints on eligibility or whether you are very suspicious of them, the arguments will continue to exist.  The World is getting smaller - not bigger.    

A nice ideal though by Pichot.  I support it because I support the ideal of difference is good.

Bill and Agustin are also in favour of moving the 6N to April, from its traditional Feb-March slot. Summer internationals would be moved back to July and this would ease the burden on the SH season. It would require compromise from both sides though.

Jimpy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

I hope this will put the whole project player debacle to bed as well.

It won't - as the arguments for them won't simply disappear.  

Whether you agree and are an enthusiastic supporter of looser constraints on eligibility or whether you are very suspicious of them, the arguments will continue to exist.  The World is getting smaller - not bigger.    

A nice ideal though by Pichot.  I support it because I support the ideal of difference is good.

Bill and Agustin are also in favour of moving the 6N to April, from its traditional Feb-March slot. Summer internationals would be moved back to July and this would ease the burden on the SH season. It would require compromise from both sides though.

how does the SH have to compromise exactly?

Let the SH compromise our way...after all, we have most of the old-school votes!

Rowanbi will kill me!

SecretFly wrote:Let the SH compromise our way...after all, we have most of the old-school votes!  

Rowanbi will kill me!  

NZ & AUS will use their trump card.... "we'll make our U20s our 2nd designate". Ireland, Scotland, Wales all relent thereafter!

Great news that they're going to look at it.

it needs to be done properly looking at every details and potential outcome.

Players like Nathan Hughes annoy me. As ive said many a time...even though it will benefit England!

The grandparent rule...
The 3 year residency
Having already played for one country in league...then playing for another in Union.

However im open to looking at the following which I think may be in use at the moment: Should a player represent a tier 1 side for 1 cap and never again but has links to a tier 2/3 etc (Nz / Samoa or England / Germany for example) . After a 2/3 /4 year gap he can represent that nation.

fa0019 wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

I hope this will put the whole project player debacle to bed as well.

It won't - as the arguments for them won't simply disappear.  

Whether you agree and are an enthusiastic supporter of looser constraints on eligibility or whether you are very suspicious of them, the arguments will continue to exist.  The World is getting smaller - not bigger.    

A nice ideal though by Pichot.  I support it because I support the ideal of difference is good.

Bill and Agustin are also in favour of moving the 6N to April, from its traditional Feb-March slot. Summer internationals would be moved back to July and this would ease the burden on the SH season. It would require compromise from both sides though.

how does the SH have to compromise exactly?

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12321/10278656/six-nations-may-move-to-april-under-proposal-from-bill-beaumont

And U20 should set in stone who you represent.

No more Moriarty / Martin Johnson play for one U20 country then move to another scenarios.

GeordieFalcon wrote:And U20 should set in stone who you represent.

No more Moriarty / Martin Johnson play for one U20 country then move to another scenarios.  

To be fair to Jonno... 30 years ago could switch national teams automatically/represent those where you worked in without people batting an eyelid.
Moriarty was a little more cynical... although I don't doubt he was ever planning on representing England, he just wanted to get the best junior rugby education he could and that was with England.

I think that there is a case of who comes calling first. Wales have been very good at that under Gatland, hence why I'd like to see guys like Underhill tied down asap.

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:And U20 should set in stone who you represent.

No more Moriarty / Martin Johnson play for one U20 country then move to another scenarios.  

To be fair to Jonno... 30 years ago could switch national teams automatically/represent those where you worked in without people batting an eyelid.
Moriarty was a little more cynical... although I don't doubt he was ever planning on representing England, he just wanted to get the best junior rugby education he could and that was with England.

I know Johno was I was just being flippant... - its more about Moriarty and the new breed.

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Let the SH compromise our way...after all, we have most of the old-school votes!  

Rowanbi will kill me!  

NZ & AUS will use their trump card.... "we'll make our U20s our 2nd designate". Ireland, Scotland, Wales all relent thereafter!

The F**king Celts...always letting themselves be walked on when threats hit the fan.

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Let the SH compromise our way...after all, we have most of the old-school votes!  

Rowanbi will kill me!  

NZ & AUS will use their trump card.... "we'll make our U20s our 2nd designate". Ireland, Scotland, Wales all relent thereafter!

The F**king Celts...always letting themselves be walked on when threats hit the fan.

That and those famous Munster matches will go to Leinster.... What what what!

IIRC the 3 year rule is because for some countries a person can claim citizenship after that time. Personally I think That to play for a Country they should hold a passport for that country(I know a UK passport covers ENG/SCO/WA & NI). If someone is willing to have a countries passport They have made a statement about where they consider Home.
As for the Global season What compromise are the SH Unions making? At the moment I just see the NH moving the most successful comp & moving Internationals to our off season taking top players from the club game as they would need recovery time after the internationals.

Going back a bit, but I believe Wales had their own 7 year residency rule (Rupert Moon had to 'serve' the 7 year residency before 'qualifying in March 1993)
I'm not sure what other countries invoked

The flip side was Frank Bunce, played 4 times for Western Samoa in October 1991 RWC, then just 6 months later played for New Zealand and went on to earn 55 caps between April 1992 and December 1997

In the end Wales gave up and went along with everyone else

PenfroPete wrote:Going back a bit, but I believe Wales had their own 7 year residency rule (Rupert Moon had to 'serve' the 7 year residency before 'qualifying in March 1993)
I'm not sure what other countries invoked

The flip side was Frank Bunce, played 4 times for Western Samoa in October 1991 RWC, then just 6 months later played  for New Zealand and went on to earn 55 caps between April 1992 and December 1997

In the end Wales gave up and went along with everyone else

Wales did take things a little bit further than most for a few years though....

lostinwales wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:Going back a bit, but I believe Wales had their own 7 year residency rule (Rupert Moon had to 'serve' the 7 year residency before 'qualifying in March 1993)
I'm not sure what other countries invoked

The flip side was Frank Bunce, played 4 times for Western Samoa in October 1991 RWC, then just 6 months later played  for New Zealand and went on to earn 55 caps between April 1992 and December 1997

In the end Wales gave up and went along with everyone else

Wales did take things a little bit further than most for a few years though....

I assume that's Grannygate you're referring to ?

This is terrible news.

Obviously Pichot hasnt given a moments thought to all those struggling players that cant make teams like the All Blacks.

and its a strong selling point when your trying to get a Northern Hemisphere contract if your agent tells them (your prospective new principals, not to be confused with principles) that in a couple of years time you will be more than available to help out (insert name of Country) natonal team.

PenfroPete wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:Going back a bit, but I believe Wales had their own 7 year residency rule (Rupert Moon had to 'serve' the 7 year residency before 'qualifying in March 1993)
I'm not sure what other countries invoked

The flip side was Frank Bunce, played 4 times for Western Samoa in October 1991 RWC, then just 6 months later played  for New Zealand and went on to earn 55 caps between April 1992 and December 1997

In the end Wales gave up and went along with everyone else

Wales did take things a little bit further than most for a few years though....

I assume that's Grannygate you're referring to ?

Yes of course, and its worth saying that it is a long time in the past (15 years?). It's not going to be forgotten though...

Looking at the squads Wales seem to be the only country in the NH who are not constantly taking advantage of these three year residency rules to pad out the international team.

We seem to be doing it the old fashioned way.

More to do with the quality of the players moving to Welsh clubs than a higher moral standing though!

aucklandlaurie wrote: This is terrible news.

Obviously Pichot hasnt given a  moments thought to all those struggling players that cant make teams like the All Blacks.

and its a strong selling point when your trying to get a Northern Hemisphere contract if your agent tells them (your prospective new principals, not to be confused with principles) that in a couple of years time you will be more than available to help out (insert name of Country) natonal team.

Would appear your the only one on here who thinks that way.

Possibly tongue in cheek Geordie?

aucklandlaurie wrote: This is terrible news.

Obviously Pichot hasnt given a  moments thought to all those struggling players that cant make teams like the All Blacks.

and its a strong selling point when your trying to get a Northern Hemisphere contract if your agent tells them (your prospective new principals, not to be confused with principles) that in a couple of years time you will be more than available to help out (insert name of Country) natonal team.

Terrible news for everyone else you mean?

Terrible news for all those kiwi coaches too... won't be able to call up "Jimmy, Jonny and um uh Jasper??" after recalling they had a home nations granny to plug a player gap in their side that coaching, scouting and selection brilliance won't solve!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Possibly tongue in cheek Geordie?

Yes very possibly. Too early in the morning

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Possibly tongue in cheek Geordie?

Yes very possibly. Too early in the morning

Kiwi humour Geordie... not everyone gets it

Like when they told everyone in the north that Sean Maitland was forever on the cusp of AB selection when he first arrived in Scotland!

fa0019 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Possibly tongue in cheek Geordie?

Yes very possibly. Too early in the morning

Kiwi humour Geordie... not everyone gets it

Like when they told everyone in the north that Sean Maitland was forever on the cusp of AB selection when he first arrived in Scotland!

We all see that joke now

What gets me on this story is the way that Gosper says that everyone is happy with the current status quo.

theyre either happy or theyre not, he obviously didnt ask Pichot.

When it comes down to this subject there is such a whole host of variables that need to be considered.

Some of the scenarios:

Someone coming over at 14-16 (ie Manu)
Someone coming over at 14-16 with English parent (Hartley)
Someone coming over later in life but working their way up (Maurice Botha)
Someone coming over later and claiming grandparent rule (Waldrom)
Someone playing rugby league for another country but playing for a club in this country, then switching code and playing for that country under residency rules.
Someone being here over 3 years (Flutey, Nathan Hughes etc)

Have I missed any major ones out?

Should the U20 teams be the glue for that nation permanently.

As far as the U20's go all I'd really want to see is consistency. This thing about will they/won't they/depends on the union/depends on the opposition is as clear as mud

GeordieFalcon wrote:When it comes down to this subject there is such a whole host of variables that need to be considered.

Some of the scenarios:

Someone coming over at 14-16 (ie Manu)
Someone coming over at 14-16 with English parent (Hartley)
Someone coming over later in life but working their way up (Maurice Botha)
Someone coming over later and claiming grandparent rule (Waldrom)
Someone playing rugby league for another country but playing for a club in this country, then switching code and playing for that country under residency rules.
Someone being here over 3 years (Flutey, Nathan Hughes etc)

Have I missed any major ones out?

Should the U20 teams be the glue for that nation permanently.

Forgotten the old Jack Charlton test ... "do you like Guinness"?

Ah yes...I did forget that one