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:

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

Could make a XV for every team though using that method though.

GeordieFalcon wrote:...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!...

Listen to the Rugby Dungeon podcast with Dan Leo. The administration of Pacific Island teams is so shambolic that it's not clear players would make that choice.

They may not have been born in England Welly, but some of them may have English parentage.

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:...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!...

Listen to the Rugby Dungeon podcast with Dan Leo. The administration of Pacific Island teams is so shambolic that it's not clear players would make that choice.

Ok yes that's fair to say...it needs to be taken by the scruff off the neck by the World Rugby and sorted out.

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.

Understand your passion but errr that's not how qualification works. For example, there is no representing the North of Ireland. Qualification is to do with being born on the island of Ireland. A Fijian working for the British Army doesn't exactly match that. Unless, of course, he was employed as a player by IRFU and played on the island for 3 years. Same rule as for everyone else.

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

It's somewhat amusing that the UK media have taken this comment from Ritchie and turned it into England leading the way and as the OP puts it - Pichot is in agreement.

Pichot set this as one of his key objectives when he was appointed as VP of World Rugby.

However, his reasons for doing so are a bit confusing. He has used the example of a PI player pulling on the jersey for Ireland and that extending residency will help halt the talent drain from the islands. Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France are the countries being put in the stocks for this offence in a lot of media reports, particularly in SH media articles.

Strauss, Stander, Payne, White, Nel, Maitland, Roux, Hardie all hail from SA or NZ. So I don't see how slowing down or preventing these players is going to help the PI Nations.

This is what concerns me the most, and this is what needs to be stopped:-

http://rugbywrapup.com/2014/07/brive-and-fiji-partnership-biggest-threat-to-test-rugby-since-going-pro/


http://intheloose.com/2014/07/16/international-player-poaching-continues-brive-open-academy-fiji/

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/brive-set-up-academy-in-fiji/

http://www.rugby.com.au/en/news/2016/09/23/05/10/pacific-poaching-ryan

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20161116/282948154813349

There are lot's more there. They way the Australians and French treat these players if they do not make it is despicable.

Pot Hale 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

It's somewhat amusing that the UK media have taken this comment from Ritchie and turned it into England leading the way and as the OP puts it - Pichot is in agreement.  

Pichot set this as one of his key objectives when he was appointed as VP of World Rugby.  

However, his reasons for doing so are a bit confusing. He has used the example of a PI player pulling on the jersey for Ireland and that extending residency will help halt the talent drain from the islands.  Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France are the countries being put in the stocks for this offence in a lot of media reports, particularly in SH media articles.  

Strauss, Stander, Payne, White, Nel, Maitland, Roux, Hardie all hail from SA or NZ.  So I don't see how slowing down or preventing these players is going to help the PI Nations.

Maitland and Hardie have Scottish Grandparents so they have as much right to play for Scotland as anybody else. It's the selective picking that Ireland and Scotland do that irritates me, in picking players from other nations to boost their playing numbers.

If must be so disheartening for POM or Conan e.t.c to see a South African put on an Irish Jersey when they have no ties whatsoever to the country except they were cherry picked three years ago for that jersey.

What will become clear is that the number of players who it effects isn't as high as many imagine.

For Ireland Payne and Stander are the only significant ones in recent years.
There have been other with a handful of caps but none of them did anything of note and Ireland would not have been weaker without them.

geoff999rugby wrote:What will become clear is that the number of players who it effects isn't as high as many imagine.

For Ireland Payne and Stander are the only significant ones in recent years.
There have been other with a handful of caps but none of them did anything of note and Ireland would not have been weaker without them.

Tyler Bleyendaal and Thomas Du Toit are going to be two more significant one's as well before long, and they are just one's playing at Munster. But no rules are being broken, so each to their own.

LordDowlais wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:What will become clear is that the number of players who it effects isn't as high as many imagine.

For Ireland Payne and Stander are the only significant ones in recent years.
There have been other with a handful of caps but none of them did anything of note and Ireland would not have been weaker without them.

Tyler Bleyendaal and Thomas Du Toit are going to be two more significant one's as well before long, and they are just one's playing at Munster. But no rules are being broken, so each to their own.  

Dont think either of them will get Ireland caps. Tyler Bleyendaal is older than Paddy Jackson and Joey Carbery who are better players.

Thomas Du Toit probably wont because prop is an area of strength at the moment but you never know.

True Raven wrote:

Pot Hale 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

It's somewhat amusing that the UK media have taken this comment from Ritchie and turned it into England leading the way and as the OP puts it - Pichot is in agreement.  

Pichot set this as one of his key objectives when he was appointed as VP of World Rugby.  

However, his reasons for doing so are a bit confusing. He has used the example of a PI player pulling on the jersey for Ireland and that extending residency will help halt the talent drain from the islands.  Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France are the countries being put in the stocks for this offence in a lot of media reports, particularly in SH media articles.  

Strauss, Stander, Payne, White, Nel, Maitland, Roux, Hardie all hail from SA or NZ.  So I don't see how slowing down or preventing these players is going to help the PI Nations.

Maitland and Hardie have Scottish Grandparents so they have as much right to play for Scotland as anybody else.  It's the selective picking that Ireland and Scotland do that irritates me, in picking players from other nations to boost their playing numbers.

If must be so disheartening for POM or Conan e.t.c to see a South African put on an Irish Jersey when they have no ties whatsoever to the country except they were cherry picked three years ago for that jersey.

Selective picking? What does this mean? By the provincial team? Or by IRFU? Or what?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:What will become clear is that the number of players who it effects isn't as high as many imagine.

For Ireland Payne and Stander are the only significant ones in recent years.
There have been other with a handful of caps but none of them did anything of note and Ireland would not have been weaker without them.

Tyler Bleyendaal and Thomas Du Toit are going to be two more significant one's as well before long, and they are just one's playing at Munster. But no rules are being broken, so each to their own.  

Dont think either of them will get Ireland caps. Tyler Bleyendaal is older than Paddy Jackson and Joey Carbery who are better players.

Thomas Du Toit probably wont because prop is an area of strength at the moment but you never know.

I thought du Toit was a short term injury cover?  There's reports saying he extended his contract with the Sharks before he arrived at Munster in Oct/Nov last year.

From Munster rugby.ie:
"Additionally Sharks prop Thomas du Toit (pictured right) will join the province on a three month loan agreement, subject to being granted a valid work permit. The 21-year-old, who can play both loose and tight-head, has represented the Barbarians and South Africa "A", and played in two U20s World Championships. The Cape Town native is currently involved in the Currie Cup and is expected to arrive in mid-October."

So I reckon he has covered the European games and his last game is this weekend?

True Raven wrote:

Pot Hale 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

It's somewhat amusing that the UK media have taken this comment from Ritchie and turned it into England leading the way and as the OP puts it - Pichot is in agreement.  

Pichot set this as one of his key objectives when he was appointed as VP of World Rugby.  

However, his reasons for doing so are a bit confusing. He has used the example of a PI player pulling on the jersey for Ireland and that extending residency will help halt the talent drain from the islands.  Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France are the countries being put in the stocks for this offence in a lot of media reports, particularly in SH media articles.  

Strauss, Stander, Payne, White, Nel, Maitland, Roux, Hardie all hail from SA or NZ.  So I don't see how slowing down or preventing these players is going to help the PI Nations.

Maitland and Hardie have Scottish Grandparents so they have as much right to play for Scotland as anybody else.  It's the selective picking that Ireland and Scotland do that irritates me, in picking players from other nations to boost their playing numbers.

If must be so disheartening for POM or Conan e.t.c to see a South African put on an Irish Jersey when they have no ties whatsoever to the country except they were cherry picked three years ago for that jersey.

Whilst your correct for me its still not great.

For example Thomas Waldrom played for England under that rule...and im not sure he had ever been in the country before that. I just don't like that at all.

Pot Hale wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:What will become clear is that the number of players who it effects isn't as high as many imagine.

For Ireland Payne and Stander are the only significant ones in recent years.
There have been other with a handful of caps but none of them did anything of note and Ireland would not have been weaker without them.

Tyler Bleyendaal and Thomas Du Toit are going to be two more significant one's as well before long, and they are just one's playing at Munster. But no rules are being broken, so each to their own.  

Dont think either of them will get Ireland caps. Tyler Bleyendaal is older than Paddy Jackson and Joey Carbery who are better players.

Thomas Du Toit probably wont because prop is an area of strength at the moment but you never know.

I thought du Toit was a short term injury cover?  There's reports saying he extended his contract with the Sharks before he arrived at Munster in Oct/Nov last year.

Yeah thats true I think though wasnt his contract extended.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:What will become clear is that the number of players who it effects isn't as high as many imagine.

For Ireland Payne and Stander are the only significant ones in recent years.
There have been other with a handful of caps but none of them did anything of note and Ireland would not have been weaker without them.

Tyler Bleyendaal and Thomas Du Toit are going to be two more significant one's as well before long, and they are just one's playing at Munster. But no rules are being broken, so each to their own.  

Dont think either of them will get Ireland caps. Tyler Bleyendaal is older than Paddy Jackson and Joey Carbery who are better players.

Thomas Du Toit probably wont because prop is an area of strength at the moment but you never know.

I thought du Toit was a short term injury cover?  There's reports saying he extended his contract with the Sharks before he arrived at Munster in Oct/Nov last year.

Yeah thats true I think though wasnt his contract extended.

From SA website:

Durban - The Sharks have announced that talented young prop, Thomas du Toit, has committed his immediate future to the union by signing a three-year contract extension.

On the back of this signing, Du Toit will spend three-months with Irish club Munster on a loan agreement.

He will re-join the Sharks Super Rugby training squad in January 2017.

Yes Du Toit is heading home in a week or two. Toma is heading home in march.

On thing about the IRFU is its trying to limit foreign signings as much as possible and give young Irish a chance.

LordDowlais wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:What will become clear is that the number of players who it effects isn't as high as many imagine.

For Ireland Payne and Stander are the only significant ones in recent years.
There have been other with a handful of caps but none of them did anything of note and Ireland would not have been weaker without them.

Tyler Bleyendaal and Thomas Du Toit are going to be two more significant one's as well before long, and they are just one's playing at Munster. But no rules are being broken, so each to their own.  

As stated Du Toit short term cover.

Bleyendaal is a decent player and better than Keatley but behind Sexton, Jackson and Carbery so no he is not a significant player in terms of the national side.

Pot Hale wrote:

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.

Understand your passion but errr that's not how qualification works.  For example, there is no representing the North of Ireland.  Qualification is to do with being born on the island of Ireland.  A Fijian working for the British Army doesn't exactly match that.  Unless, of course, he was employed as a player by IRFU and played on the island for 3 years. Same rule as for everyone else.  

PH, I didn't state he can, I said he SHOULD be able to, if he became a British citizen due to his military service, he should be able to pick any of the British nations to represent as if born there, residency would not be part of the equation. Someone who serves their time in any of the British armed forces should have the same rights as the Ghurkhas now have, plus in my opinion full citizenship, not just the right of residence. As such they would be able to pick allegiance to any of the home countries including Northern Ireland if that was their wish, they may have served in an Irish regiment for example and feel allegiance through that. I can see where that might have a few issues with the South, but no one would be forcing them to pick them although should they shun players who qualified that way and still pick players who have no allegiance other than their wallet, I would begin to look hard at the reasons why.

I would much rather have a player that chose my country to represent because he wanted to represent my country when he had a choice of 4, than one who regards my country as a meal ticket.

How did he qualify for England? Was it residency with a club?

Residency before and after joining Bath.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

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.

Understand your passion but errr that's not how qualification works.  For example, there is no representing the North of Ireland.  Qualification is to do with being born on the island of Ireland.  A Fijian working for the British Army doesn't exactly match that.  Unless, of course, he was employed as a player by IRFU and played on the island for 3 years. Same rule as for everyone else.  

PH, I didn't state he can, I said he SHOULD be able to, if he became a British citizen due to his military service, he should be able to pick any of the British nations to represent as if born there, residency would not be part of the equation. Someone who serves their time in any of the British armed forces should have the same rights as the Ghurkhas now have, plus in my opinion full citizenship, not just the right of residence. As such they would be able to pick allegiance to any of the home countries including Northern Ireland if that was their wish, they may have served in an Irish regiment for example and feel allegiance through that. I can see where that might have a few issues with the South, but no one would be forcing them to pick them although should they shun players who qualified that way and still pick players who have no allegiance other than their wallet, I would begin to look hard at the reasons why.

I would much rather have a player that chose my country to represent because he wanted to represent my country  when he had a choice of 4, than one who regards my country as a meal ticket.

Ok. But the IRFU rules for qualifying for Ireland are either born on the island of Ireland, or parentage or residency. Besides all that, if he's not even playing in Ireland why would he be considered?

If someone is in the Irish Army, and serve/risk their life in UN peacekeeping forces, should they be entitled to qualify for any UN nation? I'm being somewhat facetious, but where do you draw the lines on what you're suggesting?

Why do people trot out the comment "They have Scottish grandparents" "They have Irish grandparents"? To me most people hardly know their grandparents rather than them making a life affirming decision as to which country you represent at international level. A player should play for the country he is born in, or the country he spends the majority of his life in between the ages of 0-18. Why do we have this wishy washy attitude that players have a god given right to play for any country that waves an international cap under their nose.

Forgive me for being cynical but Nathan Hughes turned out for England because he got paid £22,000 whereas if he had turned out for Fiji he would have been paid £400. I have not the slightest hesitation that Nathan Hughes is a good player and will give 100% when playing for England as he does for Wasps.

I hope the rules are tightened to stop players picking and choosing who they play for.

nlpnlp.................. hmmm...not so sure about that.  I'd say your childhood and growing-up days were unconventional rather than the norm if you didn't have much experience of your grandparents.

I knew my grandparents well enough to have them seared into my brain now.  And that arguably has only intensified in today's world where more parents are away working as a twosome and in order to cut those child minding costs often the grandparents do a lot of the rearing instead.  Many kids are being virtually brought up by their grandparents and spent many hours in their homes through many years.

nlpnlp wrote:...most people hardly know their grandparents rather than them making a life affirming decision...

In the rugby world, Pacific Islanders and Japanese would be astonished anyone thought that.

LordDowlais wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:What will become clear is that the number of players who it effects isn't as high as many imagine.

For Ireland Payne and Stander are the only significant ones in recent years.
There have been other with a handful of caps but none of them did anything of note and Ireland would not have been weaker without them.

Tyler Bleyendaal and Thomas Du Toit are going to be two more significant one's as well before long, and they are just one's playing at Munster. But no rules are being broken, so each to their own.  

 Would Tom McCartney be out of scope?

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:...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!...

Listen to the Rugby Dungeon podcast with Dan Leo. The administration of Pacific Island teams is so shambolic that it's not clear players would make that choice.

 I found Dan Leo enlightening, got to admit I didnt listen to the last 15 minutes though. Thanx RF.

I would like the qualification tightened but not to a blanket 5 years - how about 3 years if under 16. 4 if 16-18, 5 if over 18. I would also like more than one grandparent - ie no Leslie brothers whose dad was an allblack!

Its not a straightforward issue tho because there will allways be exceptions for who tougher qualification would be unfair

TJ wrote:I would like the qualification tightened but not to a blanket 5 years - how about 3 years if under 16. 4 if 16-18, 5 if over 18.  I would also like more than one grandparent - ie no Leslie brothers whose dad was an allblack!

Its not a straightforward issue tho because there will allways be exceptions for who tougher qualification would be unfair

I think that's a very valid point TJ. There will be exceptions. I guess people just want a majority of the whole situation shored up.

For me that means...

A five year rule.
No cross code nationality swapping
No Grandparent rule.
Stop all these NH academies being set up in Fiji, Tonga etc! (Or World rugby to control it properly!)
Get World Rugby to sort out the whole administrative side of the Islanders...

That should help a lot.

I dont think you can prevent the grandparent rule can you? Britain is an odd case as it contains 4 countries but if you hold a French or Irish passport you cant really implement a rule to prevent such a player from playing for Ireland/France can you?

The granparent rule is a joke, and we have Graham Henry to thank for that one, when he brought a load of sketchy qualified SH players north to represent Wales to fill the void left when all our best players were playing league.

That rule should be scrapped. That should be the first thing to happen.

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.

I am not sure what passports have to do with it. The rules have nothing to do with citizenship. Nathan Hughes for instance is qualified under the three year residence rule. As far as I know he is not a UK Citizen. On the other hand if the UK Government gave him a passport after he had been here just two years he would still not have been qualified to play for England until the three years were up.

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.

I am not sure what passports have to do with it. The rules have nothing to do with citizenship. Nathan Hughes for instance is qualified under the three year residence rule. As far as I know he is not a UK Citizen. On the other hand if the UK Government gave him a passport after he had been here just two years he would still not have been qualified to play for England until the three years were up.

because anyone who holds a passport is free to play for the country that they hold the passport for. The rules have everything to do with citizenship. the residency rule is an exception to the rule.

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

The whole thing really shows how nationality is a very strange thing. Your nationality is simply (to me) where you feel you are from. Now that may be different for different people. I had a friend born and raised in England to Irish parents who identified as Irish. I have had other friends with English and Welsh parents raised in Scotland who feel Scottish.

For this reason I don't think you will ever find an ideal solution, especially when the pay differential is so stark as well.

I live in Scotland and have done for the past seven years. I'm English and should probably represent England (and would love to!), but I have a strong affinity for Scotland, so should I be able to play for them? I think that no I shouldn't, but that is because I identify primarily as English. That is a feeling though, not a quantifiable fact.

So, in short, we are trying to legislate for something that is a qualitative, unquantifiable feeling through a logical and quantitative law. As such, you will not get a perfect answer.

Maybe, if the financial rewards were even for all nations, we could just say "represent whomever you like"?

screamingaddabs wrote:

Maybe, if the financial rewards were even for all nations, we could just say "represent whomever you like"?

So all top 10 teams would be full of Pacific Island Nation/New Zealand/South African players?
I guess the true question is always, in any International sport; - what - is - the - point?

What is the point of International sport? What is it meant to represent? - and believe me, given the hush hush sanctioned drug taking in many of the individual sports over many decades now - it Does represent something more than the result on the day.

GunsGermsV2 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.

I am not sure what passports have to do with it. The rules have nothing to do with citizenship. Nathan Hughes for instance is qualified under the three year residence rule. As far as I know he is not a UK Citizen. On the other hand if the UK Government gave him a passport after he had been here just two years he would still not have been qualified to play for England until the three years were up.

because anyone who holds a passport is free to play for the country that they hold the passport for. The rules have everything to do with citizenship. the residency rule is an exception to the rule.

That is incorrect. The nationality has absolutely nothing to do with it.

A player cannot automatically play for the country just because they have citizenship. They can only play if they are qualified under World Rugby Regulation 8. These are summarised in the Explanatory Notes from which I have included an extract below:

World Rugby - Explanatory Notes to Regulation 8 wrote:
What is the eligibility criteria in Rugby Union?

The existing World Rugby eligibility criteria set out in Regulation 8.1 will be maintained. This is based on the following:

1. The country in which the Player was born; or
   
2. The country in which one parent or grandparent of the Player was born; or      
   
3. The country in which the Player has completed thirty-six consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing.  Residence means the place or location in which a Player has his primary and permanent home and Resident shall be construed accordingly; and
   
4. For Olympic Event participation, the nationality of the Union / country the Player wishes to represent is also required.
   

The only relevance that nationality has is that to play in the Olympics a player must have nationality AND be qualified under Regulation 8.

Exiledinborders wrote:

GunsGermsV2 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.

I am not sure what passports have to do with it. The rules have nothing to do with citizenship. Nathan Hughes for instance is qualified under the three year residence rule. As far as I know he is not a UK Citizen. On the other hand if the UK Government gave him a passport after he had been here just two years he would still not have been qualified to play for England until the three years were up.

because anyone who holds a passport is free to play for the country that they hold the passport for. The rules have everything to do with citizenship. the residency rule is an exception to the rule.

That is incorrect. The nationality has absolutely nothing to do with it.

A player cannot automatically play for the country just because they have citizenship. They can only play if they are qualified under World Rugby Regulation 8. These are summarised in the Explanatory Notes from which I have included an extract below:

World Rugby - Explanatory Notes to Regulation 8 wrote:
What is the eligibility criteria in Rugby Union?

The existing World Rugby eligibility criteria set out in Regulation 8.1 will be maintained. This is based on the following:

1. The country in which the Player was born; or
   
2. The country in which one parent or grandparent of the Player was born; or      
   
3. The country in which the Player has completed thirty-six consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing.  Residence means the place or location in which a Player has his primary and permanent home and Resident shall be construed accordingly; and
   
4. For Olympic Event participation, the nationality of the Union / country the Player wishes to represent is also required.
   

The only relevance that nationality has is that to play in the Olympics a player must have nationality AND be qualified under Regulation 8.

Wasn't the Olympic loophole how Steffon Armitage was keen to use so he could play for France? Only he needed to complete 3 tournaments first before playing in the Olympics and couldn't be bothered with that

SecretFly wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:

Maybe, if the financial rewards were even for all nations, we could just say "represent whomever you like"?

So all top 10 teams would be full of Pacific Island Nation/New Zealand/South African players?  
I guess the true question is always, in any International sport; -  what - is - the - point?

What is the point of International sport?  What is it meant to represent? - and believe me, given the hush hush sanctioned drug taking in many of the individual sports over many decades now - it Does represent something more than the result on the day.

Yup, that's what it really boils down to. What is the point? I support England because I am English but what does the English (or any other team) represent? It's the same for club rugby. I support Tigers because I grew up near Leicester (for the most part). But why is that important?

Many, many years ago it was the case that Leicester were a team of players from the Leicester area, so the point of the team was to say "people from Leicester are better at rugby than people from (say) Northampton".

What does it say now really? The players and coaches aren't necessarily from Leicester, why support them? Especially as I now live no where near Leicester and haven't lived near it for a good 16 years.

Why support England? I live in Edinburgh - it is much easier to get to Murrayfield. Do I have anything more in common with the English players than the Scottish ones? When you start to really think about it the idea of supporting a given club or country is fairly arbitrary. I guess one would say that you should support (and play for) the team you have the most in common with. But how does one quantify that in any way? That is the question that the authorities have to try to answer, but it isn't a black and white, easily definable question, so any answer will be a fudge.

The question then is do you make the fudge such that it excludes some who *should* be able to play for one country from doing so or do you do the fudge such that someone who *shouldn't* be able to play for a country can do so? (Note that *should* and *shouldn't* are unquantifiable opinions rather than quantifiable facts and will vary from person to person). Either way the rules will be either too harsh or not harsh enough.

At the moment I think it is clear that most people think the rules are not harsh enough. So when are they too harsh? Are they better being too harsh or not harsh enough? They simply CANNOT be perfect. It is impossible - especially as it is the case (as you rightly say) "What is the point of International sport?  What is it meant to represent?" and that question doesn't have an agreed answer.

Exiledinborders wrote:

GunsGermsV2 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.

I am not sure what passports have to do with it. The rules have nothing to do with citizenship. Nathan Hughes for instance is qualified under the three year residence rule. As far as I know he is not a UK Citizen. On the other hand if the UK Government gave him a passport after he had been here just two years he would still not have been qualified to play for England until the three years were up.

because anyone who holds a passport is free to play for the country that they hold the passport for. The rules have everything to do with citizenship. the residency rule is an exception to the rule.

That is incorrect. The nationality has absolutely nothing to do with it.

A player cannot automatically play for the country just because they have citizenship. They can only play if they are qualified under World Rugby Regulation 8. These are summarised in the Explanatory Notes from which I have included an extract below:

World Rugby - Explanatory Notes to Regulation 8 wrote:
What is the eligibility criteria in Rugby Union?

The existing World Rugby eligibility criteria set out in Regulation 8.1 will be maintained. This is based on the following:

1. The country in which the Player was born; or
   
2. The country in which one parent or grandparent of the Player was born; or      
   
3. The country in which the Player has completed thirty-six consecutive months of Residence immediately preceding the time of playing.  Residence means the place or location in which a Player has his primary and permanent home and Resident shall be construed accordingly; and
   
4. For Olympic Event participation, the nationality of the Union / country the Player wishes to represent is also required.
   

The only relevance that nationality has is that to play in the Olympics a player must have nationality AND be qualified under Regulation 8.

Points 1-3 are more or less all requirements for citizenship so its pretty much the same thing. The only reason as far as I can tell that it is broken down like that is because you can be born in Ireland and hold a British passport only. As everyone knows the Irish team represents the whole of Ireland so if it went on citizenship alone then many Irish players would be in limbo. In fact some of them satisfy none of the criteria set out above.

Similar logic applies for all the British countries in so far as its one passport for 4 countries so they had to break it down more.  

Another possible reason is they dont want countries to just hand out passports to anyone just to cap them. However, the way I see it is that it relates to citizenship with extra conditions.

I doubt there would be a scenario where someone was a passport holder but wasn't allowed play for a country because they didn't satisfy the above.

screamingaddabs wrote:

At the moment I think it is clear that most people think the rules are not harsh enough.  So when are they too harsh?  Are they better being too harsh or not harsh enough?  They simply CANNOT be perfect.  It is impossible - especially as it is the case (as you rightly say) "What is the point of International sport?  What is it meant to represent?" and that question doesn't have an agreed answer.

I personally like to spread the idea of Involvement.  I think sport should always seek to help give pride - for thus is the reason for 'International' - to Nations.

Now by involvement, I'm not saying each and every Nation should by right be involved in every sport on the planet at the highest levels.  It can't be so in reality and I don't think it even should be so.  Sameness is killing the planet.  The more populations mimic each other in brands, in sports, in fashion, in music etc...the more dangerously bland all of it becomes.  Humans don't like bland and always want to strike out for difference.

So I like the idea that the rugby Nations in the Pacific have certain qualities that allow them to compete at a reasonably high rate with the big Nations of the world in a certain sport.  I like it that Kenya and Ethiopia have athletes of a certain quality that allow them to fly their flag high at the Olympics and track and field events across the world.

So only using those two as examples; in the idea of transporting those qualities into bigger Nations through systems designed to get them their qualifications to play for other Nations besides their own - I think that's an unfair practice in practice if not in intention.
It strips these Nations not only of their good athletes but, also, potentially cuts them out of the few sports that might actually see their flag flying on a winning post or have their anthems sung when medals are being awarded.

There is something greedy about the concept of wealthy nations sucking away talent from other parts of the world and taking all the kudos when cups are given and medals are counted.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:[I doubt there would be a scenario where someone was a passport holder but wasn't allowed play for a country because they didn't satisfy the above.

Yes, if you have citizenship, then the residency qualification is no longer relevant.

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...

Rugby Fan wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:[I doubt there would be a scenario where someone was a passport holder but wasn't allowed play for a country because they didn't satisfy the above.

Yes, if you have citizenship, then the residency qualification is no longer relevant.

That was the point I was making but apparently according to the rules above that's not the case.

SecretFly wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:

At the moment I think it is clear that most people think the rules are not harsh enough.  So when are they too harsh?  Are they better being too harsh or not harsh enough?  They simply CANNOT be perfect.  It is impossible - especially as it is the case (as you rightly say) "What is the point of International sport?  What is it meant to represent?" and that question doesn't have an agreed answer.

I personally like to spread the idea of Involvement.  I think sport should always seek to help give pride - for thus is the reason for 'International' - to Nations.

Now by involvement, I'm not saying each and every Nation should by right be involved in every sport on the planet at the highest levels.  It can't be so in reality and I don't think it even should be so.  Sameness is killing the planet.  The more populations mimic each other in brands, in sports, in fashion, in music etc...the more dangerously bland all of it becomes.  Humans don't like bland and always want to strike out for difference.

So I like the idea that the rugby Nations in the Pacific have certain qualities that allow them to compete at a reasonably high rate with the big Nations of the world in a certain sport.  I like it that Kenya and Ethiopia have athletes of a certain quality that allow them to fly their flag high at the Olympics and track and field events across the world.

So only using those two as examples; in the idea of transporting those qualities into bigger Nations through systems designed to get them their qualifications to play for other Nations besides their own - I think that's an unfair practice in practice if not in intention.
It strips these Nations not only of their good athletes but, also, potentially cuts them out of the few sports that might actually see their flag flying on a winning post or have their anthems sung when medals are being awarded.

There is something greedy about the concept of wealthy nations sucking away talent from other parts of the world and taking all the kudos when cups are given and medals are counted.

I completely agree with you. Two issues present themselves though:

1) Do the majority of other people agree (if not then who gives a fig what we think)

and, assuming there is a general consensus that your opinion is the "right" one:

2) How do you achieve that in practice without preventing legitimate inter-country migrants representing what they consider their home (not the only issue but a large one)

For example, to allow the pacific islands to be fully involved in rugby, the rules could be made that it only matters where you were born or your parents were born. Nothing else. This would help the PI nations one would assume. However, what about the case of say four Tongans (two couples) who move to NZ. Each couple has a child born in NZ and raised. They have a choice between NZ and Tonga, one of which is rich and better at the sport than the other. If the children have children together then their child can only play for NZ with the proposed rules. Tonga lose out leading to decreased involvement, despite the heritage of the grandchildren being entirely Tongan. So we could bring in a grandparent rule (for the sake of better involvement of the PI nations).

Even these simple rules though will inevitably lead to players being able to play for richer nations and they will probably do so because these nations are richer (e.g. Hartley, Vunipola (though they would have been able to choose NZ or Aus, not Eng))

What I'm basically saying is that the rules one would bring in to increase involvement of smaller nations can then be abused by larger, richer nations. So do you have a different system for different nations? Some people wouldn't be happy with that. How else can you increase the involvement of small nations without large nations abusing the power?

In the case of the PI then making the fee to represent them higher would help, but that doesn't solve many of the other problems.

How would you propose to increase involvement of smaller nations without allowing big nations to benefit from the rules?

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?

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.

Crap beer

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.

Scottrf wrote:Crap beer

Clearly doesn't know what ggod beer tastes like eh?!

Britain is probably only behind Germany and Belgium in beer, and for some styles Britain is miles ahead of anyone else.

The other points he made are valid though.