RFU pushing for 5 year residency rule

First topic message reminder :

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

GunsGermsV2 wrote:If you want to play for England you should have to be able to prove that you love fish and chips, rain, big egos, bad teeth and crap beer.

Summer teeth....

Some are white, some are black and some are missing!

Above Germany, below USA I'd say. Depends how you measure.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:If you want to play for England you should have to be able to prove that you love fish and chips, rain, big egos, bad teeth and crap beer.

Summer teeth....

Some are white, some are black and some are missing!

You racist dog!

nah, US is fine for craft IPA but I would contend that overall they don't have the same range and depth of beer that the UK has.

Just opinion though. We can all agree that French beer is pish.

screamingaddabs wrote:nah, US is fine for craft IPA but I would contend that overall they don't have the same range and depth of beer that the UK has.

Just opinion though.  We can all agree that French beer is pish.

That's wine you was tasting, gaddabs You shouldn't have put it in a beer glass.

SecretFly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:If you want to play for England you should have to be able to prove that you love fish and chips, rain, big egos, bad teeth and crap beer.

Summer teeth....

Some are white, some are black and some are missing!

You racist dog!

screamingaddabs wrote:nah, US is fine for craft IPA but I would contend that overall they don't have the same range and depth of beer that the UK has.

Just opinion though.  We can all agree that French beer is pish.

Disagree. Hit up Ratebeer and you'll find USA beers dominating in every style. There's some bias I imagine just through the nationality of users but their craft breweries produce a huge range these days. Anyway getting pretty off topic. Belgium still the kings

Scottrf wrote:Above Germany, below USA I'd say. Depends how you measure.

If its the likes of Budweiser...then England are higher...its THE most overated beer in the world.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Surely club rugby is a free for all...players can play where they want if good enough and earn the money they need.

International rugby is simply that representing your country...or country you have spent the majority of your life / have a passion for?

I would love to hear the real true feelings of people like Nathan Hughes, Rikki Flutey, Maitland, Waldrom etc on the subject...

What you have said is the ideal, but completely unmeasurable really.  Maybe Waldrom is actually a real anglophile, loves England, plans to live there forever, have a family etc. and maybe someone born and raised in England (let's say some player called Smith) actually really dislikes it and would far prefer to live in say Ireland or wherever?  Who should be allowed to play for England?  In this (imaginary) scenario it could be argued that Waldrom should and Smith shouldn't.  How do you legislate that?  

What rules would you use to get closest to your ideal?

I appreciate that's the ideal SD, but is it that difficult to achieve?

I think what I listed above would shut down quite a bit of it:

5 year rule.
Players like Flutey, Hughes would probably (not definitely) be diswayed from playing for England. IF Hughes decides to stay for the 5 years then it shows a little more desire towards that country. Personally I would have it higher than 5 years, but ill be realistic.

Stop Cross Code Nationality Changing:
If they play for Samoa / NZ etc  in League, they play for them in Union and vice versa. No Henry Paul, Vainikolo, T'eo or Sales new winger who is eligible for England despite playing for Samoa in League...its a farce.

Grandparents rule stops:
No Thomas Waldrom, Maitland etc.
Currently samoa have the most plays born out of their country...mostly NZ born. Maybe this rule could be changed so Tier 1 countries cant employ grandparents rule...but that would cause complaints probably.

The re-nationalise rule for tier 2 and under countries:
I believe this already exists...if a player has a maximum of 2 caps for a country say NZ...and then has never played or been selected again for about 3 years...they can be considered for a tier 2 nation they are eligible for...ie Samoa, etc.
The islands lose a few players to the top sides who play them once or twice and then they're dumped on the heap leaving them lost to the islands...this rule can change it.

Just a few ideas.

I don't disagree personally. I think some people would though and you will inevitably have issues like Samoa. Many NZ born Samoans (even 3rd generation NZ) have a really strong Samoan heritage and feel that that is where they are from. Personally I feel that although it is not really fair on them, someone has to lose out and so I would still back your changes. Mainly because I can't see one rule for tier one and one rule for tier two being accepted - who knows, Samoa may become tier 1.

There also needs to be financial incentive to play for the PI nations. Careers can end in a flash so is it any surprise Highs chooses England? If he got the same money to play for Fiji that may have swayed him a lot.

If im honest to myself however though SD...I don't think we really can achieve the ideal...just try to move towards it.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:If you want to play for England you should have to be able to prove that you love fish and chips, rain, big egos, bad teeth and crap beer.

Summer teeth....

Some are white, some are black and some are missing!

Haha

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Above Germany, below USA I'd say. Depends how you measure.

If its the likes of Budweiser...then England are higher...its THE most overated beer in the world.

Yes their mainstream beers are terrible, but so are the likes of Carling. I definitely wasn't referring to them!

Scottrf wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Above Germany, below USA I'd say. Depends how you measure.

If its the likes of Budweiser...then England are higher...its THE most overated beer in the world.

Yes their mainstream beers are terrible, but so are the likes of Carling. I definitely wasn't referring to them!

Yeah, im an ale drinker anyway...cant get away with many lagers...

At least noone has banged on about "warm beer". British beer is meant to be at Cellar temperature. Not as cold as a fridge but not as warm as the room.

screamingaddabs wrote:At least noone has banged on about "warm beer".  British beer is meant to be at Cellar temperature.  Not as cold as a fridge but not as warm as the room.  

Yeah warm beer is gross.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:At least noone has banged on about "warm beer".  British beer is meant to be at Cellar temperature.  Not as cold as a fridge but not as warm as the room.  

Yeah warm beer is gross.

Ha ha....oops I like mine warm

Back to the residency rule.

Perhaps we can have a rule, where a player declares his nationality as soon as he turns 18. This would stop any of the nonsense, so if like some people have said, that you get New Zealand born Somoans, Fijians, Tongans, if they are coming through the New Zealand system, then when they turn into adults, they can declare if they want to represent the country of their birth, or the country of their ancestors.

This would work well in the UK as well, if you have any person who has a different heritage to the country he lives in, then he can declare his nationality of choice on his 18th birthday. We all know how much of a grey area it is living between borders in the UK, but it would sort a lot of the mess about. All we need is a system where the 18yr old's are not swayed by the unions in which they are playing.

I think we can all agree that the nicest beer in Britain and Ireland is Guinness.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:At least noone has banged on about "warm beer".  British beer is meant to be at Cellar temperature.  Not as cold as a fridge but not as warm as the room.  

Yeah warm beer is gross.

Ha ha....oops I like mine warm

Well done you just qualified to play for England.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I think we can all agree that the nicest beer in Britain and Ireland is Guinness.

Come on Belgium does some nice larger. Also, why do the Americans call larger, beer ?

Stella Artois for me, all the way.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:At least noone has banged on about "warm beer".  British beer is meant to be at Cellar temperature.  Not as cold as a fridge but not as warm as the room.  

Yeah warm beer is gross.

Ha ha....oops I like mine warm

Well done you just qualified to play for England.

I don't have summer teeth though...

LordDowlais wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I think we can all agree that the nicest beer in Britain and Ireland is Guinness.

Come on Belgium does some nice larger. Also, why do the Americans call larger, beer ?

Stella Artois for me, all the way.

Probably because it is beer. No?

LordDowlais wrote:Back to the residency rule.

Perhaps we can have a rule, where a player declares his nationality as soon as he turns 18. This would stop any of the nonsense, so if like some people have said, that you get New Zealand born Somoans, Fijians, Tongans, if they are coming through the New Zealand system, then when they turn into adults, they can declare if they want to represent the country of their birth, or the country of their ancestors.

This would work well in the UK as well, if you have any person who has a different heritage to the country he lives in, then he can declare his nationality of choice on his 18th birthday. We all know how much of a grey area it is living between borders in the UK, but it would sort a lot of the mess about. All we need is a system where the 18yr old's are not swayed by the unions in which they are playing.

Herein lies the problem...

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I think we can all agree that the nicest beer in Britain and Ireland is Guinness.

Come on Belgium does some nice larger. Also, why do the Americans call larger, beer ?

Stella Artois for me, all the way.

Probably because it is beer. No?

Well what's larger then ?

Its just a type of beer. Beer being just a fermented drink made from grains.

screamingaddabs wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Back to the residency rule.

Perhaps we can have a rule, where a player declares his nationality as soon as he turns 18. This would stop any of the nonsense, so if like some people have said, that you get New Zealand born Somoans, Fijians, Tongans, if they are coming through the New Zealand system, then when they turn into adults, they can declare if they want to represent the country of their birth, or the country of their ancestors.

This would work well in the UK as well, if you have any person who has a different heritage to the country he lives in, then he can declare his nationality of choice on his 18th birthday. We all know how much of a grey area it is living between borders in the UK, but it would sort a lot of the mess about. All we need is a system where the 18yr old's are not swayed by the unions in which they are playing.

Herein lies the problem...

Yes, I was thinking that as I was typing. We should have an independent party present as well, perhaps along with parent/parents present.

LordDowlais wrote:Well what's larger then ?

A word used for comparative measurement.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Its just a type of beer. Beer being just a fermented drink made from grains.

Yes, I know how it's all made, I just always thought, that an ale was beer, and larger, was just that, larger.

No as far as I know ale, stout, lager etc are all types of beer. Im sure someone knows better though. They are all made differently with slightly different ingredients.

Yeah im sure they're all beer...just ones a horrible fizzy s$*t...

GeordieFalcon wrote:Yeah im sure they're all beer...just ones a horrible fizzy s$*t...

Newcastle Brown Ale man Geordie ? Drank from a half pint glass ?

Yes the old broon ale! Lovely stuff.

Just drink the stuff lads... it's all just tasty water that makes you either a jabbering idiot for a few hours (at best) or a knife wielding murderer if you're having a bad night.

Tasty water that makes you jolly or makes you grim.


Hmmm, I wonder can I sell that tagline to Heineken?

SecretFly wrote:Just drink the stuff lads... it's all just tasty water that makes you either a jabbering idiot for a few hours (at best) or a knife wielding murderer if you're having a bad night.

Tasty water that makes you jolly or makes you grim.


Hmmm, I wonder can I sell that tagline to Heineken?

 Heineken's rubbish too. wouldnt be seen dead drinking the stuff.

Stella is lunatic juice.

Im not a lager man, but had a few nights on that stuff and I become Rocky Marshmallow, chip shop champion of the world!

GeordieFalcon wrote:Stella is lunatic juice.

Im not a lager man, but had a few nights on that stuff and I become Rocky Marshmallow, chip shop champion of the world!

Ha really? Did you have a scrap in a chip shop?

In some towns in Ireland its not a night out if you dont have or at least witness a scrap in the chipper at the end of the night.

I agree re stella, winos and homeless dudes drink that in Ireland.

I gave up all booze over a year ago. Don't really miss it.

SecretFly wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:Why can you not stop the grandparent rule? The idea that a New Zealander is somehow qualified to play for Scotland because a grandparent left Scotland as a child some sixty years ago is ridiculous.

Then why a parent either?  If the parent/parents emigrated 30, 40 or 50 years ago and have become part of the furniture of their new home nation then why?

If genes don't have rights, they don't have rights.

So we're getting closer to the ideal then.  Good.  Born in the Nation or having spent at least half of your childhood (7 years out of your first 18) in the Nation you want to represent.

Glad we're getting closer to a definition we can all agree on

It all started sounding a bit fascist around this point.

The current system is pretty good. Parental lineage is quite different to a grandparent. It's a fair distinction to make.

Qualification for a country should also be fair, but 3 year residencies has seen a rise in mercenary players in all countries at different points in history, some quite current. Five years, as a reasonable chunk of a player's career, and spanning more than one World Cup 'cycle', seems like a fair option. An 18 year old would still only be 23- so very young- when they qualified, a 16 year old 21. Recruiting a 23 year old for international caps, however, would probably abate, and not be worth the possibility of loss of form, fitness, relevance etc. to the national team once those five years had passed.

My only concern would be the rise of poaching youth players increasing even more so, via school scholarships etc. to 14/15/16 year olds, and possibly a little older.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Stella is lunatic juice.

Im not a lager man, but had a few nights on that stuff and I become Rocky Marshmallow, chip shop champion of the world!

Ha really? Did you have a scrap in a chip shop?

In some towns in Ireland its not a night out if you dont have or at least witness a scrap in the chipper at the end of the night.

I agree re stella, winos and homeless dudes drink that in Ireland.

I gave up all booze over a year ago. Don't really miss it.

Aye mate , not sure what it is...but I just get uncontrollably angry and aggressive on the stuff. Its the only drink that turns me that way....so I avoid the stuff like the plague...besides the fact I think it tastes awful

miaow wrote:My only concern would be the rise of poaching youth players increasing even more so, via school scholarships etc. to 14/15/16 year olds, and possibly a little older.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but don't New Zealand do just that ?

LordDowlais wrote:

miaow wrote:My only concern would be the rise of poaching youth players increasing even more so, via school scholarships etc. to 14/15/16 year olds, and possibly a little older.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but don't New Zealand do just that ?

And England.

We on about Welsh school kids then?

It's certainly something that happens, Welsh youngsters being offered scholarships by public schools in England if they show some promise in the sport. But they are of course still able to play for Wales. Mat Protheroe being a fine example of someone benefitting personally from the English system, without being tied to it. It weakens Wales in terms of education and its rugby culture and the country generally of course.

I would imagine Englad do likewise to children of all sorts of nationalities though. Their education system is far reaching and appealing.

New Zealand and Australia presumably have a similar pull, if less grand, in their part of the world. Maybe the French as well, although they're hampered by the language gap somewhat.

But who knows what the rugby terrain will look like in 30-50 years' time, when hopefully many more countries will be playing. It's important to note the old bastions of the game- centres of Imperialism- aren't able to wield and undue and unfair pull on 'recruiting' schoolchildren via their much more established and funded education system.

So whilst we are on about Welsh kids 7.5, we're also not. In fact, mostly not.

So the English clubs (or some posh schools?) and NZ etc not Wales seek out rugby talent then move kids over here through the promise of a good education in the hope they turn out yo be good rugby players. Ok fair enough if that's true. Not really much to do with rfu.

The fact you can't see the very well institutionalised link between the public school system in England and RUGBY(!!!) displays an astonishing gulf of knowledge on your part.

The fact you're unable to grasp very obvious current and historic examples of wealthy private schools paying for a 'foreign' youngster's education in order to benefit from their rugby talents, and then subsequently that player playing for or within their adopted country due to the financial opportunities that come from it is, again, your own ignorance.

The fact you're unable to see the danger of expanding the game, and emerging nations having their best young children plucked from their countries by the wealthiest centres of Rugby power displays either your ambivalence to the game being unfairly decided by who has the most money and power rather than an on field meritocracy, or your lack of imagination.

Probably true. But RFU don't have a say in schools or clubs. Or is just all scholarship s are wrong? How many of the England team have benefitted I've no idea dont follow where players went to school.

Why are you making this about the RFU? I was talking generally, that weakening the current mercenary option- i.e. discouraging clubs and countries from colluding to recruit low 20-somethings on their potential as project players by making the qualification period five years- might see the same countries move their focus solely to the 'external recruitment' of teenagers and schoolchildren, via the private school system.

That is already very much the case. There are countless examples, and England are the 'greatest' exponents of this. The RFU- the old blazers that they are- aren't going to rock the boat as they know who their institutional support base and structure is, and would be ambivalent at worst, encouraging at best, towards the fee paying schools' attitude and behaviour within the current system.

I suppose in terms of the RFU/iRB/World Rugby, the thing to do would be tighten up the rules even further if we find ourselves in 20 years time with English or South African private schools handing out scholarships to plenty of Kenyan teenagers on the basis of their rugby potential. Or better yet, think of a way to ward against that happening. You don't build an emerging or less structurally able country by stripping it of the people who will build it up and sustain it. That's exploitation by the wealthy, success through the back door.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Probably true. But RFU don't have a say in schools or clubs. Or is just all scholarship s are wrong? How many of the England team have benefitted I've no idea dont follow where players went to school.

Ask Sam Burgess and the Premiership clubs whether that's true. Ignorance or ambivalence, 7.5.

Sam Burgess who the RFU had nothing to do with? But as you said it wasn't to do with the RFU it's moot anyway. Why would lengthening qualifying make English clubs go for younger players in greater numbers than they are already apparently doing?

miaow wrote:The fact you can't see the very well institutionalised link between the public school system in England and RUGBY(!!!) displays an astonishing gulf of knowledge on your part.

The fact you're unable to grasp very obvious current and historic examples of wealthy private schools paying for a 'foreign' youngster's education in order to benefit from their rugby talents, and then subsequently that player playing for or within their adopted country due to the financial opportunities that come from it is, again, your own ignorance.

The fact you're unable to see the danger of expanding the game, and emerging nations having their best young children plucked from their countries by the wealthiest centres of Rugby power displays either your ambivalence to the game being unfairly decided by who has the most money and power rather than an on field meritocracy, or your lack of imagination.

Who are all these obvious current examples of 'foreign' youngsters given scholarships and then playing for England?

Billy V?

Exiledinborders wrote:Who are all these obvious current examples of 'foreign' youngsters given scholarships and then playing for England?

Not solely an English problem, and doesn't mean they necessarily have to go on to play for England- or even play professional rugby at all- for it to be a practice that damages the country from where the schoolchild came. That was my point: it's much less anti-English, and pro-weaker Rugby nations, then you're making out. In short: try to see the bigger picture, it's not all about you.

The example I gave earlier, however, of Mat Protheroe is a fairly explicit example of a player being swayed by the greater education, money, and perhaps prospects generally by leaving Wales and going to Hartpury College, whilst going on to play for English representative sides despite not being English by birth or blood. He has also turned down Welsh representative sides in order to remain 'English qualified'. If he becomes a professional rugby player for Gloucester and then chooses Wales, we can debate how much damage is done, but I believe the culture and climate of Welsh development would be damaged by removing its best players when the population pool is so small to begin with. If he chooses to commit to England, then that's a big worry.

If it's happening to young Welsh boys, then there are far more vulnerable countries across the world that would be more susceptible to this practice, particularly in the future (which was the main point I was making after all).