Eligibility

First topic message reminder :

Sorry is this has been posted already but I can't see it. The vote on this comes today. Lots of noise on twitter (or at least the accounts I follow) on players going back to their real countries after chasing the money and it being really positive (Pacific Island commentators mainly, and now the inevitable SAs saying World Rugby (England) are racist. I know there are plenty of people on here who don't like residency qualification in particular, any thoughts on this and anyone who you feel should be capped again just in case (Mercer etc).



BBC: 'International players will be able to switch nationality if revolutionary changes to eligibility rules are voted through by World Rugby later this month.

Under the new proposals, players will be able to represent the country of their or their ancestors' birth after a three-year stand-down period.

The likes of All Blacks superstar Charles Piutau could represent Tonga as soon as next year in what would be a major boost to Pacific Island nations before the 2023 Rugby World Cup.

The World Rugby council will discuss the proposals at the next meeting on 24 November, with a 75% majority, or 39 of 52 votes, required for the ruling to pass.

What are the current rules?
Under the current rules, a player is "captured" once they have won a senior cap - a nation's 2nd XV and sevens team can also capture players - and are thereafter tied to that country and unable to play for another nation.

Rugby sevens' inclusion in the Olympic Games from 2016 has provided an eligibility loophole, with former All Blacks centre Malakai Fekitoa an example of a player who has successfully switched nationality after representing Tonga in Olympic qualifying events.

Fekitoa, who won 24 New Zealand caps between 2014 and 2017 and played against the British and Irish Lions, became eligible for the country of his birth earlier this year. He would be playing for Tonga against England on Saturday were it not for injury.

However, securing release from club employers has proved difficult for other players, while the prospect of playing sevens is weighted towards backs as opposed to tight-five forwards - the locks, hooker and props who are normally the biggest and heaviest players on the team.

What is being proposed?
Under the new plans, a player would be eligible for a nationality switch once they have not played international rugby for three years.

If they then have a "close and credible link" to another country - through birth or the birthplace of parents or grandparents - then they would be able to change nationality. Players would only be able to switch once in their careers.

In theory, it means players like Mako and Billy Vunipola would be eligible to play for Tonga, through their father, if they aren't capped by England between now and 2024, although Billy Vunipola last year ruled this prospect out.

Nathan Hughes
Nathan Hughes, right, made his second England appearance against Fiji, the land of his birth, in 2016
The Fijian-born Bristol number eight Nathan Hughes, who won the last of his 22 England caps in 2019, would then be able to switch to his home country in 2022.

While the changes are likely to be supported by the Pacific Island countries, especially given the high proportion of players with Pacific Island ancestry representing other nations, there are concerns about the unintended consequence of allowing players to switch, as well as fears it could discriminate against other Tier Two countries who base their systems on home-grown players.

World Rugby has already extended the residency qualification period from three years to five years, with this ruling set to take effect from 31 December 2021.'

The Oracle wrote:

Old Man wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I still find it hard to understand how some one can play for a country like NZ, AUS, SA, Sing that country's national anthem with pride(having tears in your )eyes when you sing it. then when that country stops selecting you, you say i will go and play for the country of my birth/parents and then sing that country's national anthem the same way you did before.

Just baffles me.

not much different than someone moving from SAm OZ or NZ and then qualify for residency somewhere in Europe to represent their adopted nation. When opportunity knocks, people take it.

Let’s not forget that SA rugby has reaped the benefits of European settlers for decades! Just more recently the movement has been in the other direction.

I think the Europeans got more than there fair share from colonising Africa, and then some

Old Man wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Old Man wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I still find it hard to understand how some one can play for a country like NZ, AUS, SA, Sing that country's national anthem with pride(having tears in your )eyes when you sing it. then when that country stops selecting you, you say i will go and play for the country of my birth/parents and then sing that country's national anthem the same way you did before.

Just baffles me.

not much different than someone moving from SAm OZ or NZ and then qualify for residency somewhere in Europe to represent their adopted nation. When opportunity knocks, people take it.

Let’s not forget that SA rugby has reaped the benefits of European settlers for decades! Just more recently the movement has been in the other direction.

I think the Europeans got more than there fair share from colonising Africa, and then some

And what about the South African rugby players colonising Europe these days?!

The Oracle wrote:

Old Man wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Old Man wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I still find it hard to understand how some one can play for a country like NZ, AUS, SA, Sing that country's national anthem with pride(having tears in your )eyes when you sing it. then when that country stops selecting you, you say i will go and play for the country of my birth/parents and then sing that country's national anthem the same way you did before.

Just baffles me.

not much different than someone moving from SAm OZ or NZ and then qualify for residency somewhere in Europe to represent their adopted nation. When opportunity knocks, people take it.

Let’s not forget that SA rugby has reaped the benefits of European settlers for decades! Just more recently the movement has been in the other direction.

I think the Europeans got more than there fair share from colonising Africa, and then some

And what about the South African rugby players colonising Europe these days?!

not sure I would call it colonising

formerly known as Sam wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Fekitoa
Piutau
Folau
Coleman
Timani
Moala
(Sekope Kepu - will be eligible in the autumn but not commented)

It's a serious list of players either already eligible or due to be.

Shame they don't have a quality 10 that can change over.

9. Takalua
10.
11. Vieanu
12. Moala
13. Fekitoa
14. Folau
15. Piatau

So close to an awesome backline. Perhaps they will try Piatau at 10, move Folau to 15 and then bring in another of the quality wings.

William Havilli looks a talented pivot to me to be fair!

king_carlos wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Fekitoa
Piutau
Folau
Coleman
Timani
Moala
(Sekope Kepu - will be eligible in the autumn but not commented)

It's a serious list of players either already eligible or due to be.

Shame they don't have a quality 10 that can change over.

9. Takalua
10.
11. Vieanu
12. Moala
13. Fekitoa
14. Folau
15. Piatau

So close to an awesome backline. Perhaps they will try Piatau at 10, move Folau to 15 and then bring in another of the quality wings.

William Havilli looks a talented pivot to me to be fair!

Not seen him play but his brother is pretty handy across the backline. Often seems to be the issue with the PI teams, sensational backline but average playmakers. Might be a bit different going forward if Havilli is going to be mustard, Fiji have Volavola and now Samoa have gained the option of Sapoaga.

I see Samoa are looking to bring in Lima Sopoaga and Sreve Luatua for the world Cup...

Looks like Castrogiavani didn't qualify for Italy, he only apparently hada great grandfather who was Italian. WR (or would it be another organisation?) really seem awful at checking these things. Seems not much more than a slap on the wrist or disapproving look when you're caught at the top end of the game too.

Yes but thats the agreed Eligibilty rules for Italy and Wales...so no probs

No 7&1/2 wrote:You must have a better tight head. And Billy is better.

Not sure Billy is better. Not sure either are really international level to be honest so it's somewhat of a moot point as neither should be going to the RWC.

I'd love to see Brookes try and keep up with the Irish intensity. He used to a one in three phase player in his Prem days.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looks like Castrogiavani didn't qualify for Italy, he only apparently hada great grandfather who was Italian. WR (or would it be another organisation?) really seem awful at checking these things. Seems not much more than a slap on the wrist or disapproving look when you're caught at the top end of the game too.

He played for Cavisano between 01 and 06, so qualified for Italy in 04. I know he was called up in 02 but I'll give world rugby a pass here as professionalism was still so young, so mistakes will have been made.

They could have easily just turned a blind eye on the Spain case as getting Spain to a world rugby could be a game changer for the growth of rugby in that region, but chose to bring down the hammer. They are clearly tightening things up there.

Assuming that's about the Burns brothers. Decent enough cover you wouldn't want either as your starting fly half.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looks like Castrogiavani didn't qualify for Italy, he only apparently hada great grandfather who was Italian. WR (or would it be another organisation?) really seem awful at checking these things. Seems not much more than a slap on the wrist or disapproving look when you're caught at the top end of the game too.

He played for Cavisano between 01 and 06, so qualified for Italy in 04. I know he was called up in 02 but I'll give world rugby a pass here as professionalism was still so young, so mistakes will have been made.

They could have easily just turned a blind eye on the Spain case as getting Spain to a world rugby could be a game changer for the growth of rugby in that region, but chose to bring down the hammer. They are clearly tightening things up there.

Probably because it was two world cups in a row they have done this...the irony being they didnt even need the ineligible player...they could have just put an U23 player or something on the bench. Hopefully they will get their administration sorted.

But on the grander scheme...yes Spain in the World Cup but have been great for Rugby around Europe.

Eligibility has been a messy affair for as long as international sport has existed it's important to remember. It's sometimes construed as a purely modern problem but isn't at all.

Test cricket is one of the oldest international sports for instance and early Tests have plenty of players that played for more than one nation in a brief period. Similar with early international rugby.

Residency moving to 5 years was a necessary change. I would do away with the grandparent rule as well. Doing away with the one-country-for-life rule I like in theory to avoid Nacewa type situations but I'd probably have put a cap limit on it.

Italy I think qualified for the 03 world cup over Spain through this cheating too.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Italy I think qualified for the 03 world cup over Spain through this cheating too.

i wonder if we'll hear some additional protest from Spain now?

If there was a deep dive into distant eligibility I reckon there'd be an absolute ton of this stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if pretty much all countries have been at it for years. Sport has a big issue with players lying about their birth age in certain nations for instance. It isn't a stretch to me to think players/clubs/boards might have turned a trick with a grandparents birth place.

One of those situations where a hypothetical amnesty on historic cases might benefit a sport going forward as it would allow an open discussion that could then allow the holes these things fall through to be plugged. It'd never happen though as no one would own up.

I've long felt cricket desperately needs that sort of amnesty with ball tampering for instance. It's against the rules but in various forms has been a part of the game forever. Sometimes it's accepted, sometimes not largely dependent on arbitrary factors such as allegiance to a certain team or liking a certain player. Cricket could benefit massively from being able to have a frank discussion about why all teams have always cheated with the ball and how to improve the game so cheating isn't necessary for an even contest in certain conditions. No one will own up to it though.

Basically all professional sport could benefit from similar discussions around PEDs. Anti doping is so underfunded and unfit to fulfil the role it needs to perform that it's laughable. Drugs are everywhere. The desire to not discuss banned substances being used also leads to not discussing legal drugs being used as well which is a massive issue. Pain killer abuse in rugby is horrendous in many cases as well. A good friend is a doctor who always wanted to be a sports doctor. He got a job with a Premiership rugby team and left in 3 months as in his words the practices could get you struck off in most other settings. Sport could benefit massively from a frank and open discussion but it just won't happen.

king_carlos wrote:If there was a deep dive into distant eligibility I reckon there'd be an absolute ton of this stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if pretty much all countries have been at it for years. Sport has a big issue with players lying about their birth age in certain nations for instance. It isn't a stretch to me to think players/clubs/boards might have turned a trick with a grandparents birth place.

One of those situations where a hypothetical amnesty on historic cases might benefit a sport going forward as it would allow an open discussion that could then allow the holes these things fall through to be plugged. It'd never happen though as no one would own up.

I've long felt cricket desperately needs that sort of amnesty with ball tampering for instance. It's against the rules but in various forms has been a part of the game forever. Sometimes it's accepted, sometimes not largely dependent on arbitrary factors such as allegiance to a certain team or liking a certain player. Cricket could benefit massively from being able to have a frank discussion about why all teams have always cheated with the ball and how to improve the game so cheating isn't necessary for an even contest in certain conditions. No one will own up to it though.

Basically all professional sport could benefit from similar discussions around PEDs. Anti doping is so underfunded and unfit to fulfil the role it needs to perform that it's laughable. Drugs are everywhere. The desire to not discuss banned substances being used also leads to not discussing legal drugs being used as well which is a massive issue. Pain killer abuse in rugby is horrendous in many cases as well. A good friend is a doctor who always wanted to be a sports doctor. He got a job with a Premiership rugby team and left in 3 months as in his words the practices could get you struck off in most other settings. Sport could benefit massively from a frank and open discussion but it just won't happen.

Or the huge proportion of otherwise amazingly fit cyclists who appear to have "asthma"

Irish Londoner wrote:

king_carlos wrote:If there was a deep dive into distant eligibility I reckon there'd be an absolute ton of this stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if pretty much all countries have been at it for years. Sport has a big issue with players lying about their birth age in certain nations for instance. It isn't a stretch to me to think players/clubs/boards might have turned a trick with a grandparents birth place.

One of those situations where a hypothetical amnesty on historic cases might benefit a sport going forward as it would allow an open discussion that could then allow the holes these things fall through to be plugged. It'd never happen though as no one would own up.

I've long felt cricket desperately needs that sort of amnesty with ball tampering for instance. It's against the rules but in various forms has been a part of the game forever. Sometimes it's accepted, sometimes not largely dependent on arbitrary factors such as allegiance to a certain team or liking a certain player. Cricket could benefit massively from being able to have a frank discussion about why all teams have always cheated with the ball and how to improve the game so cheating isn't necessary for an even contest in certain conditions. No one will own up to it though.

Basically all professional sport could benefit from similar discussions around PEDs. Anti doping is so underfunded and unfit to fulfil the role it needs to perform that it's laughable. Drugs are everywhere. The desire to not discuss banned substances being used also leads to not discussing legal drugs being used as well which is a massive issue. Pain killer abuse in rugby is horrendous in many cases as well. A good friend is a doctor who always wanted to be a sports doctor. He got a job with a Premiership rugby team and left in 3 months as in his words the practices could get you struck off in most other settings. Sport could benefit massively from a frank and open discussion but it just won't happen.

Or the huge proportion of otherwise amazingly fit cyclists who appear to have "asthma"

That is more than partly explained by the rapid breathing required over prolonged period in dry and often polluted air (following camera bikes and team cars). Far more likely to trigger an inflammatory response. Then there's also the close knit teams and bunch of riders at big races all of whom are pushed to the limit over an extended period which is likely to weaken their immune systems which you then get cold or chest related ailments etc etc etc

It isn't just doping. Much like rugby or any other sport it's often about getting the athlete through. Some teams are more ethical than others re risking long term health and some athletes are more risk averse than others when it comes to what they do to compete. It's not necessarily black and white.

We could simplify it at a stroke by getting ready of the Grandparent rule.
Treat as Residency only qualifiers

geoff999rugby wrote:We could simplify it at a stroke by getting ready of the Grandparent rule.
Treat as Residency only qualifiers

Even better, we should make it a hard and fast requirement to sing GSTQ out loud in a very public place and keep singing it until they are judged as really meaning every word!  That's how we will discern the keepers from the pretenders...

Sorry but you will not find players claiming to be Irish singing GSTQ.
Infact it instantly would disbar them !

Granny qualification is a joke !

Kerr-Barlow throwing his hat in with Australia.

Honestly thought that said Ken Barlow...

Cripe, I qualify for England by parents, Wales by grandparent, Hong Kong by birth, and New Jersey by residency.  That just doesn't seem right.  

Also doesn't seem right that none of those teams could use a 1000 year old man who can cheat with virtual impunity in their teams.

That's alright doc that also automatically makes you eligible for Japan,  Italy, Ireland ....

I see on twitter that Big Bill Mata now eligible for Scotland :O.

Highland Shaun wrote:I see on twitter that Big Bill Mata now eligible for Scotland :O.

Really? You can't qualify for a second nation through residency, I don't believe he has any Scottish (or Scottish born) ancestors and he played for Fiji in November 2021. Unless I'm missing something that might just be twitter spinning some yarns!

king_carlos wrote:

Highland Shaun wrote:I see on twitter that Big Bill Mata now eligible for Scotland :O.

Really? You can't qualify for a second nation through residency, I don't believe he has any Scottish (or Scottish born) ancestors and he played for Fiji in November 2021. Unless I'm missing something that might just be twitter spinning some yarns!

Thanks for correcting me lol. Yes, I got it wrong, it is indeed young Bill Mata (who's only 8 now I think) because Bill has been in Edinburgh for 6yrs.

https://www.theoffsideline.com/jack-dempsey-close-to-decision-on-potential-scotland-switch/

What we thinking fellow Scots ?

I'm thinking he's going to switch because if he wasn't then I doubt he'd wait a month, especially if there's a chance he gets a late call up to the Bledisloe team if an injury occurs plus, he's not played since 2019 and won't find it easy to get in anyway, especially if he keeps missing out despite being in excellent form for his club.

I could be way off the mark though but if I'm right then I'll be extatic because he's a top player that would make us stronger .