RFU pushing for 5 year residency rule

Well looks like things are moving....the RFu will be pushing for a 5 year residency and Pichot as Vice chairman of World Rugby is in agreeance!

The vote will take place in May...it will be interesting to see how it goes...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/01/18/rfu-spearhead-calls-residency-rule-extended-five-years-crackdown/

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12504/10733956/rfu-to-consider-five-year-england-residency-rule

http://worldsportsnews.ddns.net/news/rfu-may-impose-fiveyear-residency-rule-for-england-representation

I saw that as well, good thing in my opinion

Yeah I agree...I think its one of the very few things we unanimously agree on, on 606v2 ...

If, as is being predicted, the motion fails to get the 75% backing it needs - I hope that teh RFU impose it unilaterally.

Strange. Arent the RFU one of the worst offenders in capping overseas players?

Should be the rule throughout world rugby

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Strange. Arent the RFU one of the worst offenders in capping overseas players?

Yes and No.

While there have been a lot of "overseas" players in the team in recent times, very few would have been caught by a switch from 3 to 5 years - with Nathan Hughes a notable exception. Certainly England Rugby have at times been rather opportunistic in capping some people, but it has been merely that rather than a planned Union run program of qualification.

Maine man wrote:Should be the rule throughout world rugby

 Problem is somewhere like Australia where you can get citizenship in four years.

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Strange. Arent the RFU one of the worst offenders in capping overseas players?

Yes and No.

While there have been a lot of "overseas" players in the team in recent times, very few would have been caught by a switch from 3 to 5 years - with Nathan Hughes a notable exception. Certainly England Rugby have at times been rather opportunistic in capping some people, but it has been merely that rather than a planned Union run program of qualification.

So in other words they have capped a lot of over seas players in a very disorganised manner? Just for fun england could easily start the following team with none of them born in England:

1. Mako Vunipola – born in Wellington, New Zealand

2. Dylan Hartley – born in Rotorua, New Zealand

3. Paul Hill – born in Aschaffenburg, Germany

4. Mike Williams – born in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

5. Nathan Hughes – born in Lautoka, Fiji

6. Jack Clifford – born in Brisbane, Australia

7. Teimana Harrison – born Opotiki, New Zealand

8. Billy Vunipola – born in Sydney, Australia

9. Joe Simpson – born in Sydney, Australia

10. Mark van Gisbergen (best I could come up with) - New Zealand

11. Semesa Rokoduguni – born in Nausori, Fiji

12. Ben Te’o – born in Auckland, New Zealand

13. Manu Tuilagi – born in Fogapoa, Savai’i, Samoa

14. Marland Yarde – born in Castries, Saint Lucia

15. Charlie Sharples – born in Hong Kong

The other side of the argument here

https://www.balls.ie/rugby/project-players-348937

I am totally in agreement with the RFU! Damn right lads!

BUT.................. it's the RFU so.................................... it's a obligatory 'No' from me. I hate the idea.

And how many of them would not be capped if residency was 3 years rather than 5?

By a rough count 8 have an English parent, 4 were at school in England, 1 first played rugby in England while 2 can count as "time-servers"


The lax residency rules allow many countries to capitalise - some perhaps more cynically than others. Not sure any country currently can claim much of a moral high ground - I am just glad that the RFU may actually do something morally correct rather than purely driven by the balance sheet.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:The other side of the argument here

https://www.balls.ie/rugby/project-players-348937

Though to be fair the author does seem to suggest that the residency period should be increased.

LondonTiger wrote:And how many of them would not be capped if residency was 3 years rather than 5?

By a rough count 8 have an English parent, 4 were at school in England, 1 first played rugby in England while 2 can count as "time-servers"


The lax residency rules allow many countries to capitalise - some perhaps more cynically than others. Not sure any country currently can claim much of a moral high ground - I am just glad that the RFU may actually do something morally correct rather than purely driven by the balance sheet.

Will it be an open vote or a secret ballot? That would make a difference I suspect.

Sadly if a secret ballot I can believe that RFU would vote it down while claiming to support it!!

“The whole ethos of international sport is the best players from one country going up the best players from another. It’s not about drafting players in from all around the world to play for you.”

Quote from Martyn Williams on the residency issue

True Raven wrote:“The whole ethos of international sport is the best players from one country going up the best players from another. It’s not about drafting players in from all around the world to play for you.”

Quote from Martyn Williams on the residency issue

 I'm a bit concerned about these players "Going up " each other.

With regards to the Project players article.

I have no problem with good players coming up north...but I don't get the argument that they should have the right to international rugby because they've been blocked in their own country.

5 years would sort a lot of that out.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

True Raven wrote:“The whole ethos of international sport is the best players from one country going up the best players from another. It’s not about drafting players in from all around the world to play for you.”

Quote from Martyn Williams on the residency issue

 I'm a bit concerned about these players "Going up " each other.

Can only be a good thing, but how many on that list above have learnt their trade in the UK?

True Raven wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

True Raven wrote:“The whole ethos of international sport is the best players from one country going up the best players from another. It’s not about drafting players in from all around the world to play for you.”

Quote from Martyn Williams on the residency issue

 I'm a bit concerned about these players "Going up " each other.

 There can be various forms of misquote, My attention was drawn to this one from the Australian Open.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/tennis/news/article.cfm?c_id=94&objectid=11785254

The one that still annoys me are the cross coders...

Henry paul
Vainkiolo
T'eo

Potantially that lad from sale now.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The one that still annoys me are the cross coders...

Henry paul
Vainkiolo
T'eo

Potantially that lad from sale now.

 What about Shontayne Hape geordie?

In their defence, they didnt come here with the intention of playing international rugby union for England. The opportunity presented itself to them when they had qualified on residency.

Its the project player situation that needs stopping. We had David Bullbring and Johnny McNicholl arriving in West Wales and immediately declaring their intention to play for Wales, is there no pride left in representing your country that you're happy to switch allegiences the moment you step off a plane.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The one that still annoys me are the cross coders...

Henry paul
Vainkiolo
T'eo

Potantially that lad from sale now.

Shontane Hape?

Five years would sort out a mercenary (money and glory) tourist from a more serious player intent on putting in a serious amount of 'prove it' time with his adopted nation.

There kind of is a downside though - there always is if you look hard enough.  
The longer a player requires to qualify, the longer they have to be allowed hang around.  That becomes a gamble, both for the player naturally but also for the Nation that feels it needs a few positions that it can't fill from natives.  The 'project' player has to be given the time frame to have the chance.  And as the process would take longer, that might mean that more of these project players might be allowed in, and at a younger age, to have them up and on the way on the five year gamble. That can have a potential impact on home grown numbers.  
The strategic projections needed on future requirements - out to five years - might also be a minefield that frustrates both the players that hung in there for five years and the Unions that invested in them. By the time five years have elapsed the project player might have become obsolete.  A young Native might come to the boil by then.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well looks like things are moving....the RFu will be pushing for a 5 year residency and Pichot as Vice chairman of World Rugby is in agreeance!

The vote will take place in May...it will be interesting to see how it goes...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/01/18/rfu-spearhead-calls-residency-rule-extended-five-years-crackdown/

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12504/10733956/rfu-to-consider-five-year-england-residency-rule

http://worldsportsnews.ddns.net/news/rfu-may-impose-fiveyear-residency-rule-for-england-representation

Thats good to see!


So what countries will be for and what countries will be against?

For the change looks like:
Argentina, France, England, SA

On the fence looks like:
NZ, Ireland, Wales

Against change looks like:
Australia, Scotland, Italy


Thers no facts to back most of those up but its the vibe I'm getting. The only country who has come out and said they want it to remain 3 years is Australia. No surprise when you look at their team and last week Cheika was in Fiji checking out the local talent (no, not the girls)!!!


The IRFU are on the fence. I'd say they don't really mind now because theres a lot of Irish players coming through and there has been criticism of the whole project player fiasco.

Wales would be for it I'd imagine. Can't think of a project player (off the top of my head) that we've had for years.

We're spending money looking for 'exiles' with a genuine link to Wales

Morgan and Underhill but when they looked good they just moved back to the prem.

SecretFly wrote:Five years would sort out a mercenary (money and glory) tourist from a more serious player intent on putting in a serious amount of 'prove it' time with his adopted nation.

There kind of is a downside though - there always is if you look hard enough.  
The longer a player requires to qualify, the longer they have to be allowed hang around.  That becomes a gamble, both for the player naturally but also for the Nation that feels it needs a few positions that it can't fill from natives.  The 'project' player has to be given the time frame to have the chance.  And as the process would take longer, that might mean that more of these project players might be allowed in, and at a younger age, to have them up and on the way on the five year gamble.  That can have a potential impact on home grown numbers.  
The strategic projections needed on future requirements - out to five years - might also be a minefield that frustrates both the players that hung in there for five years and the Unions that invested in them. By the time five years have elapsed the project player might have become obsolete.  A young Native might come to the boil by then.  

Is this not only a problem for the fully union funded pro clubs like in Ireland? The 'project' is essentially the union's. However, in a league like England's, for example, if a player comes over the union/national coach might see him as a potential project but the club who pay his wages can just get rid of the player if he's not cutting the mustard, no harm done. Like with any player that comes over and isn't quite up to scratch. But if a union sees it as a 5 year project then they'll see out the whole 5 years and will want a good return at the end which, as you suggest, is a big commitment. Much bigger than the 3 years currently.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Morgan and Underhill but when they looked good they just moved back to the prem.

They weren't signed with the intention of them playing for Wales. Nice try

Griff wrote:

Is this not only a problem for the fully union funded pro clubs like in Ireland? The 'project' is essentially the union's. However, in a league like England's, for example, if a player comes over the union/national coach might see him as a potential project but the club who pay his wages can just get rid of the player if he's not cutting the mustard, no harm done. Like with any player that comes over and isn't quite up to scratch. But if a union sees it as a 5 year project then they'll see out the whole 5 years and will want a good return at the end which, as you suggest, is a big commitment. Much bigger than the 3 years currently.

Well yes, that was mostly a thinking out loud post designed for Irish posters mostly. We all kinda have distinct structures that make a generalised common discussion on the topic difficult.

Nearest to it. Willing to do it after they signed. Same as Hughes, Roko etc.

I really hope this comes to fruition. It just doesn't sit well with me and I think Ireland have been one of the worst teams to use the 3-year rule. As much as I love Stander, for example, I find it hard to accept he is keeping one of van der Flier, O'Mahony, O'Brien, Heaslip out. Not to mention the next bunch (Conan, Leavy, SOBv2).

What are you on about!?! i mentioned project players. And for the record there never was any noted interest from the WRU in whether Underhill was an option for Wales

To be fair Wales have by and large produced homegrown players with very few exceptions compared to the other home nations.

Darn tootin' Rory. Stander is a grand man for intensity, honesty and motivation and I'm certain he's now genuine about the pride in both shirts he wears (Munster and Ireland). To me he's now one of us because he deserves that loyalty as he's given us 100% of his efforts.

But yes, the rule itself now needs to become more strict. It's too much of a ready made excuse not to do more at a native level to help native players excel.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Is this not only a problem for the fully union funded pro clubs like in Ireland? The 'project' is essentially the union's. However, in a league like England's, for example, if a player comes over the union/national coach might see him as a potential project but the club who pay his wages can just get rid of the player if he's not cutting the mustard, no harm done. Like with any player that comes over and isn't quite up to scratch. But if a union sees it as a 5 year project then they'll see out the whole 5 years and will want a good return at the end which, as you suggest, is a big commitment. Much bigger than the 3 years currently.

Well yes, that was mostly a thinking out loud post designed for Irish posters mostly.  We all kinda have distinct structures that make a generalised common discussion on the topic difficult.

Wasn't a criticism of Ireland, Fly. I was sort of thinking about your post out loud too in a way, trying to think about it from the perspective of different countries

What this could open up, which I think you're alluding to, is perhaps more 'poaching' of players at a young age. But I hope it doesn't come to that.

On about qualifying on residency raven.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nearest to it. Willing to do it after they signed. Same as Hughes, Roko etc.

I don't know Hughes intentions, but Roko signed up to the British Army, not a rugby club. Anyone willing to risk their life on behalf of Britain, should be granted automatic citizenship and the choice to represent any British country he would like to play for including Ireland as a Brit he could choose to represent the North of Ireland.

Bit passionate about this issue.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nearest to it. Willing to do it after they signed. Same as Hughes, Roko etc.

I don't know Hughes intentions, but Roko signed up to the British Army, not a rugby club. Anyone willing to risk their life on behalf of Britain, should be granted automatic citizenship and the choice to represent any British country he would like to play for including Ireland as a Brit he could choose to represent the North of Ireland.

Bit passionate about this issue.

I'm with you on this.

There isn't a special rule for this though. This topic comes up loads so I'm already on record about my willingness to accept some players like Mauritius Botha and Rokoduguni over a player like Hape, Hughes. They qualify the same. I'm also done one who thinks we should just play to the rules even though I don't like them.

True Raven wrote:Wales would be for it I'd imagine.  Can't think of a project player (off the top of my head) that we've had for years.

We're spending money looking for 'exiles' with a genuine link to Wales

George North?

So the nation with the most players are voting to make it harder for other nations to cap players from other coutnries - what a surprise.

Players will find it no harder to stay for an extra couple of years in England and France to qualify because those are the countries that pay the most anyway. Extending the residency period further skews the advantage that the richest countries already have and uncapped players will be even more attracted to go there.

OTOH If a country does not have a professional league at all then no players qualify now and any chance of any ever doing so is made even more remote.

If the RFU had any moral compunction to improve rugby then surely they would have been pushing for ZERO qualification on residency rather than extening the qualification periuod that yet again gives them an advantage over poorer rugby nations.

Exiledinborders wrote:

True Raven wrote:Wales would be for it I'd imagine.  Can't think of a project player (off the top of my head) that we've had for years.

We're spending money looking for 'exiles' with a genuine link to Wales

George North?

How is George North a project player? Unless the project was to identify him at the age of 1 and move him to Wales by the age of 2?!

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:The one that still annoys me are the cross coders...

Henry paul
Vainkiolo
T'eo

Potantially that lad from sale now.

 What about Shontayne Hape geordie?

Absolutely...anyone who has played international in one code should be made to play that in the order code aswell. Simple as that.

profitius wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well looks like things are moving....the RFu will be pushing for a 5 year residency and Pichot as Vice chairman of World Rugby is in agreeance!

The vote will take place in May...it will be interesting to see how it goes...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/01/18/rfu-spearhead-calls-residency-rule-extended-five-years-crackdown/

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12504/10733956/rfu-to-consider-five-year-england-residency-rule

http://worldsportsnews.ddns.net/news/rfu-may-impose-fiveyear-residency-rule-for-england-representation

Thats good to see!


So what countries will be for and what countries will be against?

For the change looks like:
Argentina, France, England, SA

On the fence looks like:
NZ, Ireland, Wales

Against change looks like:
Australia, Scotland, Italy


Thers no facts to back most of those up but its the vibe I'm getting. The only country who has come out and said they want it to remain 3 years is Australia. No surprise when you look at their team and last week Cheika was in Fiji checking out the local talent (no, not the girls)!!!


The IRFU are on the fence. I'd say they don't really mind now because theres a lot of Irish players coming through and there has been criticism of the whole project player fiasco.

I bet Japan are against it...they rely on a lot of the islanders on residency.

The Great Aukster wrote:So the nation with the most players are voting to make it harder for other nations to cap players from other coutnries - what a surprise.

Players will find it no harder to stay for an extra couple of years in England and France to qualify because those are the countries that pay the most anyway. Extending the residency period further skews the advantage that the richest countries already have and uncapped players will be even more attracted to go there.

OTOH If a country does not have a professional league at all then no players qualify now and any chance of any ever doing so is made even more remote.

If the RFU had any moral compunction to improve rugby then surely they would have been pushing for ZERO qualification on residency rather than extening the qualification periuod that yet again gives them an advantage over poorer rugby nations.

I don't agree. If some one like Nathan hughes known he had another 2 years till he was eligible for England do you not think he would have elected to play for Fiji in the 2015 world cup!

Many Fijians , Samoans etc can still go north to earn good money but it hopefully means they will be more inclined to play for the home nations. 3 years isn't a huge time...5 just looks that bit further to affect who a player plays for.

The only country who would really lose out is possibly Japan as they use a lot of islanders...but I would suspect many of them are over 5 years residency anyway due to the near location of each other.

I would hope this move BENEFITS the smaller nations...not enhances the larger ones!

If that goes through...then we can look at the grandparents rule and the cross coders...

Griff wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

True Raven wrote:Wales would be for it I'd imagine.  Can't think of a project player (off the top of my head) that we've had for years.

We're spending money looking for 'exiles' with a genuine link to Wales

George North?

How is George North a project player?  Unless the project was to identify him at the age of 1 and move him to Wales by the age of 2?!

And his mum is welsh........Just like Cuthbert, JD2 e.t.c