The residency rule might be scrapped ?

by LordDowlais Thu May 12, 2016 1:56 pm

First topic message reminder :

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.

by doctor_grey Fri May 13, 2016 12:08 pm

lostinwales wrote: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

It does seem bizarre there are different requirements for different countries/unions. I agree there needs to be one standard and requirement globally.

by The Great Aukster Fri May 13, 2016 3:32 pm

First of all LD, Pichot is calling for change, not scrapping residency altogether so the title of your thread is misleading.

Secondly this site is populated by the same types that hold sway in World Rugby - first tier rugby nations that have well established historical structures. Has anyone asked Romania, Japan or Brazil for their input into the qualification rules? What is a change in the rules really trying to achieve - fairness, protectionism, increased or lessened competition, inclusivity or elitism?

Do countries without professional leagues really want to restrict the allure of professional rugby attracting a few away but recruiting many more who want to still play for their homeland?

Make all u20s tied for life - seriously! Teams (especially those with more resources than they could ever use) might simply hand out caps for 'meaningless' games and field a new XV for every u20 game to spread the net wide. That is doing a disservice to both the game and the individuals.

In fact for those players who could play for several nations, rather than tie players with one cap, they perhaps should only be tied after a stipulated number of caps. It is unscrupulous of large nations to hoard players they can never use and stop those players being available for other countries in far greater need of them.

I am an advocate of the majority rule, in that players shouldn't be available through residency until they have spent the majority of their life in a country. However if residency is a set period of time - say five years to qualify, it should also be the same length of time to 'disqualify'. In other words if a player was given one cap to tie him to one nation and then never be picked again, he should also be able to become available for his other eligible country if he has received no more caps in the 'disqualifying' period of time.

It is fine for Pichot to advocate tighter restriction in a Slytherin pure blood kind of way, but there are Mudbloods out there with different histories and limited opportunities who still deserve to grace the rugby world with their brand of magic.

by SecretFly Fri May 13, 2016 3:59 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:First of all LD, Pichot is calling for change, not scrapping residency altogether so the title of your thread is misleading.

Secondly this site is populated by the same types that hold sway in World Rugby - first tier rugby nations that have well established historical structures. Has anyone asked Romania, Japan or Brazil for their input into the qualification rules? What is a change in the rules really trying to achieve - fairness, protectionism, increased or lessened competition, inclusivity or elitism?

Do countries without professional leagues really want to restrict the allure of professional rugby attracting a few away but recruiting many more who want to still play for their homeland?

Make all u20s tied for life - seriously! Teams (especially those with more resources than they could ever use) might simply hand out caps for 'meaningless' games and field a new XV for every u20 game to spread the net wide. That is doing a disservice to both the game and the individuals.

In fact for those players who could play for several nations, rather than tie players with one cap, they perhaps should only be tied after a stipulated number of caps. It is unscrupulous of large nations to hoard players they can never use and stop those players being available for other countries in far greater need of them.

I am an advocate of the majority rule, in that players shouldn't be available through residency until they have spent the majority of their life in a country. However if residency is a set period of time - say five years to qualify, it should also be the same length of time to 'disqualify'. In other words if a player was given one cap to tie him to one nation and then never be picked again, he should also be able to become available for his other eligible country if he has received no more caps in the 'disqualifying' period of time.

It is fine for Pichot to advocate tighter restriction in a Slytherin pure blood kind of way, but there are Mudbloods out there with different histories and limited opportunities who still deserve to grace the rugby world with their brand of magic.

You see this is why my opinion was that only simplicity will work. It might appear harsh, unjust or unkind - but believe me, being complex and having factors of A adding up to B subtracted by C, divided by D..... that's more harsh, unjust and unkind to players than anything else.
They have to know what the hell they are going to do with their careers. Careers aren't all that long. They need clear rules to know exactly their rights and privileges from basically when they start playing rugby seriously (usually around the U20 mark). Then they know where they are and whether to risk going abroad or not.

This, though, will never be solved now satisfactorily. There are too many grey areas that people seem to be comfortable with. But the simple truth is that there are not enough Rugby Union sides in the World to satisfy the number of players that have dreams of playing International. And those players - well, many of them - just have to accept the hard brutal but real fact that not all players get to play it.

"Players that WANT to play International SHOULD be allowed play International" is often the sense I get from these debates - as if it's become a Human right.

by fa0019 Fri May 13, 2016 4:38 pm

I think the issue also is that for instance NZ B team, SA B team etc would beat most teams still. What people want is the RWC to be the ultimate showcase of the game but more often than not you see Super Rugby for instance being having superior competitiveness and skill than say the KO stages of the RWC.

Its like the 100m dash at the Olympics... when countries like the USA are restricted from fielding only 3 runners its not a true reflection of the best vs. the best. Yes the very best from each country are there but guys 4-6 in the USA are often still good enough to reach a final and then who knows... its why some so choose to represent small Caribbean Islands etc that their parents came from because they know they will get an easy run to the games (i.e. Felix Sanchez of 400mH fame)... who has 4 Olympic appearances, 2 golds yet had he represented the USA he may have had 2 appearances at best and may have gassed himself to much mid season to simply qualify that he wouldn't have taken 2 golds.

Perhaps we should say... Tier 1 world rugby status i.e. 2 votes in the WR council means you cannot shop players who previously played for another nation. Tier 2 nations can however as long as they fulfill the necessarily requirements be it ancestry, birth or residency.

by TJ Fri May 13, 2016 4:41 pm

I wouold like to see qualification tightened up for sure but a residency rule is still needed. How about the person born of australian parents who moved to scotland as a babe in arms. That child will grow up a scot - but without a residency rule could never qualify to lay for scotland as neither he nor his parents were born here

by The Great Aukster Sat May 14, 2016 11:02 am

TJ - that's exactly why there has to be a residency rule. It would be patently unfair and against the spirit of the game to exclude such a player. That's why I advocate the majority rule as my particular version of qualifying on residency. If someone has resided for the majority of his life in a country then he should qualify for it.

by TJ Sat May 14, 2016 11:55 am

I also wonder if there should be an age when you have to declare and stick to it. Maybe 18?

by Guest Sat May 14, 2016 11:55 am

The Great Aukster wrote:In other words if a player was given one cap to tie him to one nation and then never be picked again, he should also be able to become available for his other eligible country if he has received no more caps in the 'disqualifying' period of time.

Why should a player be given two bites of the cherry when many aren't?

by **BigGee** Sat May 14, 2016 12:18 pm

Well I am going to stand up and say that I don't have any problems with the existing rules and as some of the above arguments are showing, there is a big risk that by trying to change them, we could make them worse.

Three years is a long time in the life of a professional rugby player. A lot of the recent players who have become Scottish Qualified have brought an awful lot to the Scottish game by playing in Scotland for that time and in my opinion thoroughly deserve their caps. They often stay on after that time as well, which shows they have a loyalty that they are often not credited with. There are no guarantees for them in these deals. They are only going to get capped at the end of three years if they are still playing consistently well and better than any other qualified player in their position. Often, because of the scrutiny on them, they have to be even better than that.

This ruling actually improves teams with fewer resources and makes the international game a lot more competitive. Scotland, nor other countries would be sourcing project players if they had a queue of home grown players who could do the same job. Their use has been measured and appropriate, has improved the team and in no way diluted its Scottishness. The players have been very proud to represent their adopted country as well. It is a win situation all round.

This has been going on in rugby and in all other sports since internationals where first played, so I don't get why people are getting so hot under the collar about it now, it is probably more transparent than ever. The only rule I am in favour of is that once you have a full cap for one country, you don't play for another.

by TJ Sat May 14, 2016 3:19 pm

I would have no issue with someone who once qualified for a tier one country to be able to ply for a teir two later - IE Visser once his Scotland career is over could play for the netherlands etc

by The Great Aukster Sat May 14, 2016 11:06 pm

ebop wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:In other words if a player was given one cap to tie him to one nation and then never be picked again, he should also be able to become available for his other eligible country if he has received no more caps in the 'disqualifying' period of time.
Why should a player be given two bites of the cherry when many aren't?

It's the use it or lose it principle. Unscrupulous countries who have no allegiance to the players they are capping are able to maximise their options while at the same time reducing opponents choices, player welfare and "sporting" principles still should carry some weight.

by The Great Aukster Sat May 14, 2016 11:18 pm

BigGee wrote:Well I am going to stand up and say that I don't have any problems with the existing rules and as some of the above arguments are showing, there is a big risk that by trying to change them, we could make them worse.

Three years is a long time in the life of a professional rugby player. A lot of the recent players who have become Scottish Qualified have brought an awful lot to the Scottish game by playing in Scotland for that time and in my opinion thoroughly deserve their caps. They often stay on after that time as well, which shows they have a loyalty that they are often not credited with. There are no guarantees for them in these deals. They are only going to get capped at the end of three years if they are still playing consistently well and better than any other qualified player in their position. Often, because of the scrutiny on them, they have to be even better than that.

This ruling actually improves teams with fewer resources and makes the international game a lot more competitive. Scotland, nor other countries would be sourcing project players if they had a queue of home grown players who could do the same job. Their use has been measured and appropriate, has improved the team and in no way diluted its Scottishness. The players have been very proud to represent their adopted country as well. It is a win situation all round.

This has been going on in rugby and in all other sports since internationals where first played, so I don't get why people are getting so hot under the collar about it now, it is probably more transparent than ever. The only rule I am in favour of is that once you have a full cap for one country, you don't play for another.

That's the thing Big Gee, the current ruling is in the favour of the big professional leagues like England and France where rugby migrants can make a good living and are the most likely to have people qualify on residency. Argentina doesn't have the same opportunity for anyone to qualify on residency so it is understandable that Pichot wants the rules changed.

by Geordie Sun May 15, 2016 9:41 am

I think people need to remember this is about representing your nation not just a glorified rugby club.

Why should someone like nathan hughes be picked for England because he has lived he for 3 years!!?? And why would he pick England over his homeland in the islands.

Got to be purely down to financial implications!! Which makes it a mockery

by Sgt_Pooly Sun May 15, 2016 11:46 am

TJ wrote:I would have no issue with someone who once qualified for a tier one country to be able to ply for a teir two later - IE Visser once his Scotland career is over could play for the netherlands etc

Isn't that tier 2 to tier 2? Wink

by The Great Aukster Sun May 15, 2016 11:47 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think people need to remember this is about representing your nation not just a glorified rugby club.

Why should someone like nathan hughes be picked for England because he has lived he for 3 years!!?? And why would he pick England over his homeland in the islands.

Got to be purely down to financial implications!! Which makes it a mockery

Hughes is Fijian but cannot play week in week out in Fiji to make a living from rugby. He has had to relocate to the other side of the world to do so and then stay for a number of years to qualify. That shows plenty of commitment and he has earned the right to play for England moreso than say Waldrom, or guys like Hardie and Maitland for Scotland.

Why would Hughes pick England over Fiji?
He's playing in England in front of English fans - maybe he thinks they would appreciate it
or
maybe Wasps have suggested he become EQ in case they have quotas introduced
or
maybe Wasps think if he is EQ with all the competition for the backrow, they are less likely to lose him in international windows
or
maybe he realises he can earn far more money, and recognition as an England player with the chance of being in a top International team that could win things
or
maybe he has made up his mind to spend the rest of his life in England and wants a legacy for his English born children to look back on
or ...

Who knows his motivations but the questions should be asked of the system rather than the individual. Even if they are eligible, players cannot select themselves. It is the countries doing the selecting that make this aberration unacceptable to a lot of fans. Eddie Jones and England should have a moral obligation not to exploit the flawed rules in a similar way they ignore English players playing overseas. There is no doubt pressure on them to cap a player as soon as he becomes available to stop anyone else having him forever. This is morally reprehensible and that pressure would be relieved if one cap wasn't a life sentence. The hordes of one-cap wonders are a far greater loss to the game than the tiny number of players who have qualified through three year residency.

Society is now pluralist and multi-cultural with migration happening between countries - trying to restrict National selection down to blood links is bordering on Aryanism.

by englandglory4ever Sun May 15, 2016 12:18 pm

Pichot's comments are typical small country, no money syndrome jealous of their bigger brothers. I'm sure the USA won't support it as they are possibly the most diverse country in the world and yet they are not top dollar when it comes to rugby.

by TJ Sun May 15, 2016 12:49 pm

That is an awful comment englands glory - verging on racist.

by Guest Sun May 15, 2016 1:29 pm

englandglory4ever wrote:Pichot's comments are typical small country, no money syndrome jealous of their bigger brothers.

So the best players should all flock to where the money is?

It's only fair.

It's 'professional' sport ain't it.

If a country has more money through population size and audience then it's only their God given right to mop up all the talent from these poor hapless struggling insignificant jealous countries.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Rolling Eyes

GeordieFalcon said it, international sport is not a glorified club competition. International sport should transcend professional sport.

by Geordie Sun May 15, 2016 2:19 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:I think people need to remember this is about representing your nation not just a glorified rugby club.

Why should someone like nathan hughes be picked for England because he has lived he for 3 years!!?? And why would he pick England over his homeland in the islands.

Got to be purely down to financial implications!! Which makes it a mockery

Hughes is Fijian but cannot play week in week out in Fiji to make a living from rugby. He has had to relocate to the other side of the world to do so and then stay for a number of years to qualify. That shows plenty of commitment and he has earned the right to play for England moreso than say Waldrom, or guys like Hardie and Maitland for Scotland.

Why would Hughes pick England over Fiji?
He's playing in England in front of English fans - maybe he thinks they would appreciate it
or
maybe Wasps have suggested he become EQ in case they have quotas introduced
or
maybe Wasps think if he is EQ with all the competition for the backrow, they are less likely to lose him in international windows
or
maybe he realises he can earn far more money, and recognition as an England player with the chance of being in a top International team that could win things
or
maybe he has made up his mind to spend the rest of his life in England and wants a legacy for his English born children to look back on
or ...

Who knows his motivations but the questions should be asked of the system rather than the individual. Even if they are eligible, players cannot select themselves. It is the countries doing the selecting that make this aberration unacceptable to a lot of fans. Eddie Jones and England should have a moral obligation not to exploit the flawed rules in a similar way they ignore English players playing overseas. There is no doubt pressure on them to cap a player as soon as he becomes available to stop anyone else having him forever. This is morally reprehensible and that pressure would be relieved if one cap wasn't a life sentence. The hordes of one-cap wonders are a far greater loss to the game than the tiny number of players who have qualified through three year residency.

Society is now pluralist and multi-cultural with migration happening between countries - trying to restrict National selection down to blood links is bordering on Aryanism.

I'm sure he earns a very good living from Wasps!! He should be desperate to represent Fiji in their games...and this is the area World Rugby should be looking to pump money into - Financing lesser nations so they can get their top players together.

Its not bordering on Aryanism. I fully agree the world is a smaller place...but you can still identify which country you are from and have a passion from. Some might not be as clear as others...but someone like Hughes (who has played for Fiji 2nd team), Henry Paul, Riki Flutey, Ross Moriarty (played for England U20 when he no intentions of playing for their seniors) etc etc etc are very clear!

I repeat....International Rugby is not about trying to pick and choose playing for the top 6 nations etc or for money.

Its about representing your nation proudly.

by **BigGee** Sun May 15, 2016 4:47 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:

I repeat....International Rugby is not about trying to pick and choose playing for the top 6 nations etc or for money.

Its about representing your nation proudly.

I think you will find that residence qualified players do represent their adopted countries very proudly, they have had to wait a long time and have had to make difficult choices in their careers to get to that point.

You are painting them purely as money grabbing mercenaries, which is not fair on them. They go out there and put the body on the line just as all the other players do. The fans appreciate that and love them for it. Hughes has added a lot to the English game in the same way that Strauss has added to Scotland. If he had played for Fiji in the last WC he could be a global star by now and his market value could be even higher than it is now. As someone else has already said, we don't know his motivations and can only speculate. He could also break his leg badly next year and his career could be over and he may then never be capped.

by The Great Aukster Sun May 15, 2016 5:28 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:I'm sure he earns a very good living from Wasps!! He should be desperate to represent Fiji in their games...and this is the area World Rugby should be looking to pump money into - Financing lesser nations so they can get their top players together.

Maybe he is deperate to represent Fiji and maybe he is just as desperate to represent his adopted country England?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its not bordering on Aryanism. I fully agree the world is a smaller place...but you can still identify which country you are from and have a passion from. Some might not be as clear as others...but someone like Hughes (who has played for Fiji 2nd team), Henry Paul, Riki Flutey, Ross Moriarty (played for England U20 when he no intentions of playing for their seniors) etc etc etc are very clear!

I repeat....International Rugby is not about trying to pick and choose playing for the top 6 nations etc or for money.

Its about representing your nation proudly.

I also repeat players don't select themselves, it is the countries they are eligible for select them. Hughes may be just as passionate to play for England as Fiji or Samoa (his other eligibility) and if he didn't represent the nation that selected him "proudly" he would have earned his last cap anyway.

by aucklandlaurie Sun May 15, 2016 6:53 pm

englandglory4ever wrote:Pichot's comments are typical small country, no money syndrome jealous of their bigger brothers. I'm sure the USA won't support it as they are possibly the most diverse country in the world and yet they are not top dollar when it comes to rugby.

Wow thats a bit tough, saying that about a country that got to fourth place in the last World Cup using only home grown players.

by englandglory4ever Sun May 15, 2016 7:26 pm

Pichots comments are really too naive to warrant column inches on this board let alone anywhere else. We live in a globalised world where money talks. People go where they can get the most and why not if the rules allow it then great. Anything else is just so much socialist luvvy hogwash.

by lostinwales Sun May 15, 2016 8:13 pm

Reminds me a little of the drop goal debate. Lots of people get up in arms about them but at the end of the day its rare that a game is decided by a drop goal.

by TJ Sun May 15, 2016 8:42 pm

englandglory4ever wrote:Pichots comments are really too naive to warrant column inches on this board let alone anywhere else. We live in a globalised world where money talks. People go where they can get the most and why not if the rules allow it then great. Anything else is just so much socialist luvvy hogwash.

So might is right, money trumps morals? You are really a bit nasty aren't you.. I think you can join the list of blocked posters on here. I can't stand bigots.

by Pot Hale Sun May 15, 2016 9:43 pm

TJ wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:Pichots comments are really too naive to warrant column inches on this board let alone anywhere else. We live in a globalised world where money talks. People go where they can get the most and why not if the rules allow it then great. Anything else is just so much socialist luvvy hogwash.

So might is right, money trumps morals? You are really a bit nasty aren't you.. I think you can join the list of blocked posters on here. I can't stand bigots.

How long is your list out of curiosity?

by SecretFly Mon May 16, 2016 1:40 am

lostinwales wrote:Reminds me a little of the drop goal debate. Lots of people get up in arms about them but at the end of the day its rare that a game is decided by a drop goal.

You give's a sh** about the games that aren't??? It's the games that Are that we DETEST and HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! mad

Why the hell did you have to bring drop goals into it?? I'm furious now and will be for the next three weeks or so!

by TJ Mon May 16, 2016 9:47 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
TJ wrote:I would have no issue with someone who once qualified for a tier one country to be able to ply for a teir two later - IE Visser once his Scotland career is over could play for the netherlands etc

Isn't that tier 2 to tier 2?

Saucer of cream sir? ;-)

by TJ Mon May 16, 2016 9:49 am

Pot Hale wrote:
TJ wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:Pichots comments are really too naive to warrant column inches on this board let alone anywhere else. We live in a globalised world where money talks. People go where they can get the most and why not if the rules allow it then great. Anything else is just so much socialist luvvy hogwash.

So might is right, money trumps morals? You are really a bit nasty aren't you.. I think you can join the list of blocked posters on here. I can't stand bigots.
How long is your list out of curiosity?

I think only a one or two active posters - the trolls I blocked seem to be banned now.

by lostinwales Mon May 16, 2016 10:08 am

SecretFly wrote:
lostinwales wrote:Reminds me a little of the drop goal debate. Lots of people get up in arms about them but at the end of the day its rare that a game is decided by a drop goal.

You give's a sh** about the games that aren't??? It's the games that Are that we DETEST and HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why the hell did you have to bring drop goals into it?? I'm furious now and will be for the next three weeks or so!

Sorry fly but lets face it, if it wasn't drop goals then it would just be something else...

by funnyExiledScot Mon May 16, 2016 12:59 pm

My view is that the residency rule does need to the changed, but it shouldn't be scrapped. The period is too short and it encourages nation shopping. The rule is, I believe, supposed to capture genuine cases of people having moved to a country (for non-rugby reasons) and ultimately having a genuine affiliation to the country and therefore having the right to represent it at sport. I'd change the 3 years to 6 years for players moving to a country after the age of 21.

I would also prohibit any player representing more than one country at international sport, including at U21 or "A" level. Once you have chosen, that's it.

Any changes should also be phased in so that players for whom the clock is already ticking aren't adversely affected (e.g. Cornell Du Preez Wink

).

by Geordie Tue May 24, 2016 4:51 pm

Personally I think the selection of Lees and Teo have just confirmed that the whole eligibility thing needs to be looked at!

Armand is another that isn't great however I can understand the circumstances of coming from Zimbabwe...however why did he not try out for SA when he played there!

Are England 3rd choice.

by HammerofThunor Tue May 24, 2016 6:11 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Personally I think the selection of Lees and Teo have just confirmed that the whole eligibility thing needs to be looked at!

Armand is another that isn't great however I can understand the circumstances of coming from Zimbabwe...however why did he not try out for SA when he played there!

Are England 3rd choice.

Although I agree that it needs to be changed (I've never been fond of the grandparent rule), it should be noted than Lees, Teo and Armand all qualify through their family and not residency. Grandparents for Lees and Armand, and I think mother for Teo.

by Not grey and not a ghost Tue May 24, 2016 10:46 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:My view is that the residency rule does need to the changed, but it shouldn't be scrapped. The period is too short and it encourages nation shopping. The rule is, I believe, supposed to capture genuine cases of people having moved to a country (for non-rugby reasons) and ultimately having a genuine affiliation to the country and therefore having the right to represent it at sport. I'd change the 3 years to 6 years for players moving to a country after the age of 21.

I would also prohibit any player representing more than one country at international sport, including at U21 or "A" level. Once you have chosen, that's it.

Any changes should also be phased in so that players for whom the clock is already ticking aren't adversely affected (e.g. Cornell Du Preez ).

I think 21 is too old. Players are moving at the age of 17. I think this is actually more of an issue.

by Geordie Wed May 25, 2016 9:11 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
GeordieFalcon wrote:Personally I think the selection of Lees and Teo have just confirmed that the whole eligibility thing needs to be looked at!

Armand is another that isn't great however I can understand the circumstances of coming from Zimbabwe...however why did he not try out for SA when he played there!

Are England 3rd choice.

Although I agree that it needs to be changed (I've never been fond of the grandparent rule), it should be noted than Lees, Teo and Armand all qualify through their family and not residency. Grandparents for Lees and Armand, and I think mother for Teo.

I agree the grandparent rule should be scrapped. But as for Teo qualifying through his mother...I question his eligibility completely,

by munkian Wed May 25, 2016 9:13 am

Didn't Teo want to play for Aus recently but was told he wasn't allowed ? How does that work ?

by No 7&1/2 Wed May 25, 2016 9:14 am

The only thing I'm bothered about T'eo is the fact he's never played here. He should be having a season with Wuss before being picked. Any change to the residency (or qualification in general talking about parents and grandparents) is never going to preclude someone like T'eo, it would have to come for the relevant Union saying no themselves.

by Geordie Wed May 25, 2016 10:21 am

Does it not flag the exceptional clause rule? As hes out of the country?

Surely if someone has already represented another country in League - which in my eyes is still rugby, they should have to play for that country in Union unless a pretty exceptional clause or approval is granted.

by aucklandlaurie Wed May 25, 2016 10:22 am

munkian wrote:Didn't Teo want to play for Aus recently but was told he wasn't allowed ? How does that work ?

I dont think he could, because he has never been a registered Rugby player in Australia (I think). Im sure he would have been allowed to play Rugby League for Australia, even though he played fopr Samoa.

by LordDowlais Wed May 25, 2016 10:32 am

I have to say, some of the 6N countries are making a mockery out of international rugby. I have no problem with players who might not come from a country but have lived there since childhood, but this three year crap is really taking the p1ss.

How many of these types of players are there in the 6N at the moment ? Wales do not have any 3yr players, not that I can think of anyway. Ireland, England, Scotland and Italy really need to take a long look at themselves though.

by munkian Wed May 25, 2016 10:34 am

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, some of the 6N countries are making a mockery out of international rugby. I have no problem with players who might not come from a country but have lived there since childhood, but this three year crap is really taking the p1ss.

How many of these types of players are there in the 6N at the moment ? Wales do not have any 3yr players, not that I can think of anyway. Ireland, England, Scotland and Italy really need to take a long look at themselves though.

They aren't making a 'mockery' of anything - they are abiding by current rules which many think are wrong. If anything it's the WRB that are making a 'mockery' of international rugby.

by munkian Wed May 25, 2016 10:35 am

munkian wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, some of the 6N countries are making a mockery out of international rugby. I have no problem with players who might not come from a country but have lived there since childhood, but this three year crap is really taking the p1ss.

How many of these types of players are there in the 6N at the moment ? Wales do not have any 3yr players, not that I can think of anyway. Ireland, England, Scotland and Italy really need to take a long look at themselves though.

They aren't making a 'mockery' of anything - they are abiding by current rules which many think are wrong. If anything it's the WRB that are making a 'mockery' of international rugby.

I'd say Italy have more of an excuse to use this current rule than England though.

by No 7&1/2 Wed May 25, 2016 10:44 am

Again Faletau is a '3 year player'.

by lostinwales Wed May 25, 2016 10:45 am

LordDowlais wrote:I have to say, some of the 6N countries are making a mockery out of international rugby. I have no problem with players who might not come from a country but have lived there since childhood, but this three year crap is really taking the p1ss.

How many of these types of players are there in the 6N at the moment ? Wales do not have any 3yr players, not that I can think of anyway. Ireland, England, Scotland and Italy really need to take a long look at themselves though.

Not that anybody ever listens but we currently have no 3 yr players and pretty soon we are going to have one, and on the fringes of the team (as in actually may get a cap) there is probably just Roko the Fijian/British army winger, but its not like he was a recognized rugby player before coming to the UK.

by Geordie Wed May 25, 2016 10:45 am

I think some of these decisions are making a mockery of international rugby...certainly from an England perspective.

I know its the rules...but its really annoying me (as you can probably tell)!

by LordDowlais Wed May 25, 2016 10:47 am

munkian wrote:If anything it's the WRB that are making a 'mockery' of international rugby.

OK fair enough, but England, Ireland, Scotland and Italy are still making it a mockery by exploiting this pathetic rule, France are not squeaky clean either.

by Geordie Wed May 25, 2016 10:48 am

LIW
Even I think Roko can be forgiven...if you are prepared to face bullets for a country I think we can make an exception in rugby Very Happy

Isnt Armand a 3 year player?
I think Ewers has both English or 1 English parent hasn't he.
What about Harrison? 3 year player? I don't know his parents nationality
What about Lees??

by LordDowlais Wed May 25, 2016 10:49 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Again Faletau is a '3 year player'.

He has lived here since he was about 6 yrs old, so I guess he is an 18yr player. Rolling Eyes

I have no problem with this kind of thing, we all have them, but we do not all have adults qualifying after 3yrs FFS.

by No 7&1/2 Wed May 25, 2016 10:56 am

So how are England taking the mick here? Because we have Rokoduguni on the outskirts?

by **LondonTiger** Wed May 25, 2016 10:58 am

Is 3 year residency really any worse than finding your granny was born in a country? Even if she left it before her first birthday and you had never visited that country?

I have no real issue with residency qualification - so long as the person also has the relevant passport.

by Sponsored content