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.'

This is going to work one way even though it is expected to work another.

All PI players will take Oz & NZ caps until the WC when they are about 26-29.  After the WC we will see a massive exodus of these players to Europe after the WC to get a massive contract in their prime on a 3 year deal as they sit out.  Then into their 30s they roll up at the final WC of their career representing the PI team turning them into a bunch of old barbarian teams.

Player makes massive money in their 3 year sit out as the Club and player both agree no internationals.  Because they are NZ/Oz capped they become prime value players.

Poor boys who come straight to Europe or take pennies with Mona or Dura fill in during WCs while all everyone talks about is the ex T1 players who are going to take their place.

Those Tongan back 3s who paid their flights around the world doing the hard games now may miss out on a WC because Folau and Piatua were robbed of playing for Tonga forced to represent Oz and NZ (though neither would play 7s to quailify)will stroll in on massive commercial deals now they will be at the WC building up an already exploding wallet but it will help rugby in the OZ/NZ I mean PIs.

NZ and Oz work on WC cycles and once deemed not going to be the holder of a squad spot at WC you are pushed aside never to return.  Players know once they are out in their late 20s it's over.

Piutau - was meant to be 2015 age 24, NZRU weren't happy he wouldn't stay till 2019
Moala - 2018 age 28
Fifita - 2021 age 29
Sopoaga - 2018 age 27
Luatua - 2017 age 26
J Savea - 2018 age 28
Vito - 2016 age 28

I only did these names as they are the ones most mentioned

So most of these players would be in their 30s going to the WC for their PI nation.  Does it boost the team or just a swan song for has beens.

It may surprise Irish people but Aki is in some people's eyes is Samoan because of his heritage though all we hear is he is NZ and never wanted to be capped by Samoa

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

Of course we do - Furlong and Sexton are quite good  

However a World Cup squad is not just the starters.
Tight Head seems to be Furlong, Bealham, O'Toole in that order as far as Farrell is concerned.
Brookes would be a credible contender to the other two.
Similar scrummager standard to Bealham, O'Toole is still learning but is far better than Brookes in open play.
Sexton, Carbery, Billy Burns seems to be the pecking order at 10.
Freddie could challenge his brother. As an Ulster supporter I have never seen Billy put in a performance that equals the best performances I've seen by Freddie.
A poll of Ulster supporters would, I believe, not get a majority stating Billy is the best 10 here.
Lowry and Madigan would get more than 50% of the votes between them.

However it goes deeper than that - for Irish Provinces and Welsh teams (are they clubs or provinces?) player like this could be signed because they would no longer be
NIQ or NWQ respectively.
Some unintended consequences of an ill thought out rule change.
At the very least the 2nd international team should not be allowed to be a 1st tier nation

geoff999rugby wrote:

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

Of course we do - Furlong and Sexton are quite good  

However a World Cup squad is not just the starters.
Tight Head seems to be Furlong, Bealham, O'Toole in that order as far as Farrell is concerned.
Brookes would be a credible contender to the other two.
Similar scrummager standard to Bealham, O'Toole is still learning but is far better than Brookes in open play.
Sexton, Carbery, Billy Burns seems to be the pecking order at 10.
Freddie could challenge his brother. As an Ulster supporter I have never seen Billy put in a performance that equals the best performances I've seen by Freddie.
A poll of Ulster supporters would, I believe, not get a majority stating Billy is the best 10 here.
Lowry and Madigan would get more than 50% of the votes between them.

However it goes deeper than that - for Irish Provinces and Welsh teams (are they clubs or provinces?) player like this could be signed because they would no longer be
NIQ or NWQ respectively.
Some unintended consequences of an ill thought out rule change.
At the very least the 2nd international team should not be allowed to be a 1st tier nation

How do you figure that exactly, given Burns wasn't even in the squad for the AIs? Seems like Farrell is looking to other options to me, could be wrong though.

Burns was injured during the AI - that's the only reason he wasn't picked

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

Keiran Brookes was very lucky to get an England cap, there's no way he'd be able to keep up with the work rate of the Irish front row. I suppose he could be a 10 minute impact option at the end of the game but if he needed to come in early there would be a massive step down from Furlong.

Billy probably edges it now but at his peak Freddie all day long. Freddie now in his early 30s is a great second choice option not first choice if you're aiming for top of the league. Given the Irish options at flyhalf there's no need for him internationally though there could be good options for the Provinces who are struggling with their NIQ limits. Brookes might get nowhere near the Irish team but if say Ulster needed a tighthead and weren't allowed a NIQ one they could claim Brookes was making himself available to Ireland and hence be IQ.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

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

Keiran Brookes was very lucky to get an England cap, there's no way he'd be able to keep up with the work rate of the Irish front row. I suppose he could be a 10 minute impact option at the end of the game but if he needed to come in early there would be a massive step down from Furlong.

I disagree with that Sam, you never saw the player we did at Falcons.

I'm far from a Brookes fan after he dumped us twice but he was excellent at Falcons and well deserving of an England cap, if only being a 50min prop. When he left for Tigers in 2011ish...he was a prop of huge potential, he had it all but needed some work in the set piece. He went to Tigers and you ruined him to put him plainly (not a pop at the club but the whole situation/set-up obviously didn't work for him).

He came back to us and he was an absolute mess physically. He took a year or so and he was transformed, he became quite a monster. He was a dominant scrummager, high work rate and was carrying superbly. He justifiably got called up to England and was arguably the best all round tighthead in the country at the time.

Shoot forward another 6 months or so and the wee bugger signs for Northampton (now this got me wound me up!)......he then goes off the rails yet again, piles on the weight and struggles for form.

I'm in no way suggesting that we have better coaching set-ups, but the big fish/small pond environment seemed to help fatty Brookes, he was an outstanding prop when he was with us (for 50mins at max!), probably the best in my time....bar the best prop to ever walk this earth of course.....Mr Hayman.

Anyway......he'd be a good backup option for Ireland if he can get in some sort of shape.

To be clear I am not saying Freddie Burns or Brookes can expect a call up any time soon.
The chances are zero why they play in England.
However the point about Provinces signing players like them because a real possibility now, and by extension the same applies to teams of other nations.
If Ulster, say, lost Marty Moore or Ian Madigan to career ending injuries they could become players of interest.

Likewise, maybe Jodi Murphy fancies a year in the sun at the end of his career.

As I say unintended consequences

Wouldn't it be a laugh if CJ Stander run out for the Boks against Ireland in the 2023 RWC.

If he is a proud Saffer, and I am sure he is, you have to wonder if it could tempt him back to the game and give it a go.

unintended consequences

Personally I would prefer him not consider the option though. He played for Ireland and that should be his legacy.

I think Geoff makes a good point above. There are countries that have limits on non-qualified players in their pro clubs sides. So for example, Non-Irish qualified or Non-Welsh qualified. So when does a player now become eligible to be signed by one of these clubs as a ‘qualified’ player? Let’s say an NZ player who has 1 NZ cap but has a Welsh father. Could he be signed as a Welsh Qualified player by a Welsh club before the 3 years of not featuring for NZ is up? Or do they wait 3 years and sign him as a WQ player even if he isn’t (yet) on the Welsh national team radar.

As has been said, unintended consequences. However, I can’t off the top of my head think of anyone from a tier one nation who this would apply to for Wales. Must be someone out there

Another hypothetical in the 'unintended consequences' bracket might be someone like Jake Polledri. He's already not played for Italy in over a year due to injury. If that stretches to 2 years could someone Polledri start thinking, "I'm close to being EQP again which at the very least will boost my worth to Premiership sides and if I can stay fit and get into the England squad their appearances fees are huge".

It feels like a change that can create more problems than solutions.

As others have mentioned I think a cap limit before players can switch could be a better system. It would avoid situations such as Isa Nacewa being lost to international rugby without as many potential 'unintended consequences'.

Lozowski for Italy?

Bit from the BBC, essentially demonstrating to start that the world isn't a black and white place in terms of nationality. Piutau is phenomenal so clearly it's good more people get to see him in internationals. For me I'm struggling to think of a better full back in the game, if he had continued with NZ he'd be going down as a legend.

The second part of the article, well there's bound to be examples which crop up fairly shortly and make you scratch your head. I really could see Billy Vunipola trundle out for Australia in a few years and make them a better team. Not too sure who the players are that are going to start turning out for Portugal, Spain, Germany, Romania, Uruguay and Namibia are though. Think it's a bit of a pretence to suggest that this isn't there to help our the PIs.

'New Zealand's Charles Piutau says he has "two countries close to his heart" after confirming his intention to switch nationality to represent Tonga.

Piutau, who was born in Auckland and won 17 caps for the All Blacks, is a high-profile beneficiary of a major change to rugby union's international eligibility rules.

And the Bristol back hopes it starts a revolution in Pacific Island rugby.

"I'm really happy for the Pacific nations," Piutau said.

The 30-year-old told the BBC's Sports Desk podcast: "It's not the answer to everything - it's just the start.

"Having more scheduled games, more games against Tier One nations, the two teams that have joined the Super Rugby competition will add more depth, [while] the experienced players [switching nationality] will be able to add into the Pacific nations."

After the eligibility changes were approved by World Rugby's council meeting last month, from January 2022 a player will now be able to represent a different country after a stand-down period of three years.

A player can move to a nation of their, their parents' or grandparents' birth, but can only switch allegiance once.

Piutau, who won his All Blacks caps between 2013 and 2015, denies the concept of switching nationality threatens the integrity of the international game, and explains how he has strong familial and emotional ties to both New Zealand and Tonga.

"I can see that perspective but I think for myself, like many other people, when you've grown up and you've got two cultures that are close to your heart, how can you just say that this one's going to be the only one?" he said.

"Both my parents were born in Tonga, then migrated to New Zealand. Two of my older siblings were born in Tonga and the rest of us were born in New Zealand.

"Obviously my parents' first language is Tongan so at home, I would communicate in Tongan and having my brother playing for Tonga, captaining Tonga, there's always a close connection.

"Our family would always be supporting when I play for New Zealand, and [if] Tonga were playing, our family would be extremely proud and cheering both teams on."

Piutau is one of a handful of players who will likely bolster Tonga's resources at the next Rugby World Cup, while Samoa are the other Pacific nation most likely to prosper from the ruling.

But many other emerging nations, such as Uruguay, Chile, Russia and Georgia, are not set to benefit in the same way, given their onus on picking home-grown players, while there are fears the new laws could be exploited by players moving to, or between, tier one countries.

The chief executive of World Rugby, Alan Gilpin, admits there may be unintended consequences, but is convinced the regulation will boost the global game and lead to a more competitive international scene.

"There's definitely that view that this is a Pacific Island measure," Gilpin told the Sports Desk.

"It's not, although there is no doubt that because they've produced this incredible rugby talent over a long period of time they are going to benefit from players going back and being eligible to play for those nations; we are not shying away from the fact there will be a benefit to the Pacific Islands.

"I think the important thing with the work we've done over the last year, and the reason why it's been a massive consultation process, is this is ultimately something that the game as a whole has supported.

"Portugal, Spain, Germany, Romania, some of the countries in South America, so into Uruguay, certainly, Namibia, all those countries can benefit. They've all produced players that may have been captured.

"There are clearly going to be some moves that people are going to look at and say, 'well, is that what really you were looking to achieve when you set out?'

"I don't think there is any particular unintended consequence we are concerned about, we've just got to be very careful and thoughtful as we move forward in trying to make sure we're being consistent in the way we apply it."'

The Oracle wrote:I think Geoff makes a good point above.  There are countries that have limits on non-qualified players in their pro clubs sides.  So for example, Non-Irish qualified or Non-Welsh qualified.  So when does a player now become eligible to be signed by one of these clubs as a ‘qualified’ player?  Let’s say an NZ player who has 1 NZ cap but has a Welsh father.  Could he be signed as a Welsh Qualified player by a Welsh club before the 3 years of not featuring for NZ is up?  Or do they wait 3 years and sign him as a WQ player even if he isn’t (yet) on the Welsh national team radar.  

As has been said, unintended consequences.  However, I can’t off the top of my head think of anyone from a tier one nation who this would apply to for Wales.  Must be someone out there  

Alex Goode? I think he has a Welsh grandparent so could in theory sign as Welsh Qualified as he's not played for England in the last three years.

I wonder how many top players were born on Germany Army bases...

Kvesic etc.

I wonder how many players are in the same situation as Piutau. And if they start playing internationally again whether that would limit their value to European/UK based clubs simply because they will no longer be available for their club during international windows, unlike now.

doctor_grey wrote:I wonder how many players are in the same situation as Piutau.  And if they start playing internationally again whether that would limit their value to European/UK based clubs simply because they will no longer be available for their club during international windows, unlike now.      

i think this will definitely change things...

Re Kvesic of course. Forgot Germany had produced him! There will be some oddities like that. Portugal will be scouring cases of holiday births etc.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Re Kvesic of course. Forgot Germany had produced him! There will be some oddities like that. Portugal will be scouring cases of holiday births etc.

Yeah im sure theres a host of potentials...

Wasnt Sam Underhill born in Singapore or something? EDIT - Born in Ohio USA

Yeah, quite. Still doesn't sit quite right with me on the rules, which is the problem for writing them with the PIs in mind. Based on everything but residency almost like saying that's the part which doesn't really represent nationality. Means that the current rules see Underhill as More American than it sees Tshiunza as Welsh.

Jordi Murphy might fancy a year in the Spanish sun before retiring

Given how high a percentage of Argentinians have Italian heritage it wouldn't surprise me if we see Argentina players that have fallen out of favour turn out for Italy.

In 2016 for instance Argentina capped 19 new players in a single game against Uruguay. 14 of them haven't played since 2016.

No 7&1/2 wrote:...Based on everything but residency almost like saying that's the part which doesn't really represent nationality....

It's more a recognition that residency is a situational qualification, available to anyone, anytime. Allowing that as a means to qualify for another international side would mean players could plan to engineer a second international career, which is not a desirable outcome. Imagine the team Japan could put out, with a 34 year old George Kruis at lock. Then again, Charles Piutau would be eligible for England. Hey, wait a minute...

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:...Based on everything but residency almost like saying that's the part which doesn't really represent nationality....

It's more a recognition that residency is a situational qualification, available to anyone, anytime. Allowing that as a means to qualify for another international side would mean players could plan to engineer a second international career, which is not a desirable outcome. Imagine the team Japan could put out, with a 34 year old George Kruis at lock. Then again, Charles Piutau would be eligible for England. Hey, wait a minute...

The things Nick Evans could have done for England with Shontayne Hape outside him.

I get why they've done it. They see residency as a dirty word. It just throws up anomalies though.

With residency at 5 years if they were to drop the grandparent rule from qualification I'd be pretty happy with the rules, even these changes. I'd prefer these changes if there was a cap limit after which players couldn't switch. But overall I think increasing residency to 5 years was the right move and removing the grandparent rule would be progress as well.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:...Based on everything but residency almost like saying that's the part which doesn't really represent nationality....

It's more a recognition that residency is a situational qualification, available to anyone, anytime. Allowing that as a means to qualify for another international side would mean players could plan to engineer a second international career, which is not a desirable outcome. Imagine the team Japan could put out, with a 34 year old George Kruis at lock. Then again, Charles Piutau would be eligible for England. Hey, wait a minute...

Would he be happy being back up to Freddie...?

In serious though...this is a clear issue with the rules...

Would Piutau really be eligible for England? Or was Rugby Fan just having a bit of fun?! I thought the eligibility thing and ‘swapping’ nationality was only to the country of birth/parent’s birth/grandparent’s birth. Piutau wasn’t born in England, but has he got parents or grandparents who were? If not.......he’s got no chance of an England cap (if I’ve got it right)! You can’t rescind an international cap (NZ in Piutau’s case) for residency based qualification. Tonga is his only other option now I think.

Ah, I’ve read the thread again and can see that he was responding to 7.5. Yes, being able to swap being capped for one country with being eligible for another based on residency would not be good. That would create a real bun fight!

The Oracle wrote:Ah, I’ve read the thread again and can see that he was responding to 7.5.  Yes, being able to swap being capped for one country with being eligible for another based on residency would not be good.  That would create a real bun fight!

But that's my point they brought in the 10 year residency as they realised that there was a gap but its been taken away here. For instance should Randall now go 3 years without being picked for England he couldnt be picked for Wales. Yet as pointed out above Kvesic can play for Germany. I know Randall thinks of himself as English and not Welsh from his previous quotes but he's got shed loads more connection to them than Kvesic has to Germany. There will be others and it just feels written to try and benefit specific countries despite not quite fitting with the rest of the rules around this.

I do agree with what you're saying 7.5. But, whether right or wrong, being born somewhere and holding a passport there will always trump ‘connections’. Kvesic is German by birth. It’s his blood, as they say. He’s 100% German, legally.

What doesn’t help matters here is the odd nature of the UK and our complicated history and makeup. There’s no such thing as a Welsh or English passport. Just a UK one. But you can’t play for the UK (well, olympics sort of)! But for Randall I guess he was just ‘passing through’ in Wales. Lots of connections, like you say, but neither born there nor currently residing there. And as far as I know no parental or grandparent Welsh connections. So the link, from a rugby point of view, is a bit tenuous.

And that's the stupid bit. It's a very old fashioned thing to look at. But there we go they don't thinkTshiunza should really be playing for Wales.

Well, they do. Or they would have stopped it.

The Oracle wrote:Well, they do.  Or they would have stopped it.

They don't under this section of the rule though. It doesn't match and mirror.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Well, they do.  Or they would have stopped it.

They don't under this section of the rule though. It doesn't match and mirror.

Really? Show your workings for us.

I guess your next step, if you think Wales are breaking the laws, is to raise it with World Rugby and tell them they’ve missed something. You clearly feel strongly that Wales have broken the eligibility rules with Tahiunza as you’ve mentioned it many times. Perhaps WR have missed it somehow?

https://twitter.com/thistlerugbypod/status/1466763809981440003?t=Sljg7-9vDJb5R4kuedmQtQ&s=19

A very interesting tweet from these guys :O.

What are England/Scotland fans opinion on this one.

As a Scotland fan, I am torn on this because, on one hand I wouldn't say no but on the other hand, I don't want youngsters like Ewan Ashman and Jake Kerr to fall down the pecking order.

No 7&1/2 wrote:...They see residency as a dirty word...

It's not a dirty word. It's an eligibility status which differs from the others in that you have to acquire it. Place of birth and nationality all come when you are born. It is also informally the last test of eligibility. We don't say Ben Youngs qualifies for England through residency, although he does, because he satisfies other criteria which we tend to consider first. By and large, World Rugby are prioritizing eligibility standards a player satisfies before becoming a professional rugby player.

While you can acquire another citizenship, that requires the active co-operation of the state, as Quade Cooper found out when Australia twice turned down his application. It can often take considerable effort, and, in the case of Japan, which requires you to renounce other citizenships, some sacrifice. While it certainly could happen, the chances of a player having a second international rugby career through gaining citizenship are slim. If five years of residency entitled players to claim a new allegiance, then chances of players going that route would probably be high. At the very least, it would start costing the RFU more money. Even if players were never chosen to represent England, they would start to qualify for EQP status payments to the clubs.

Personally, I'd have favoured a panel similar to one which was considered for players hoping to use the Olympic Sevens to switch allegiance. Rather than a hard set of rules, you could have set up some guidlelines, and let a panel of rugby peers judge how genuine a connection might be. That way, you could allow certain fringe cases, without creating a route for others to exploit for more mercenary reasons.

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Well, they do.  Or they would have stopped it.

They don't under this section of the rule though. It doesn't match and mirror.

Really?  Show your workings for us.

I guess your next step, if you think Wales are breaking the laws, is to raise it with World Rugby and tell them they’ve missed something. You clearly feel strongly that Wales have broken the eligibility rules with Tahiunza as you’ve mentioned it many times.  Perhaps WR have missed it somehow?  

You're not getting the point. Wr brought in the 10 tear residency qualification as they realised you can be basically English Welsh Scottish whatever when you spend an extended period in a place even if you then move away. This steps that back and says an accident of birth (the example of being born on an airfield while your parents are stationed there) is more important. It's an anomaly and 1 they should close if they keep this.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:...They see residency as a dirty word...

It's not a dirty word. It's an eligibility status which differs from the others in that you have to acquire it. Place of birth and nationality all come when you are born. It is also informally the last test of eligibility. We don't say Ben Youngs qualifies for England through residency, although he does, because he satisfies other criteria which we tend to consider first. By and large, World Rugby are prioritizing eligibility standards a player satisfies before becoming a professional rugby player.

While you can acquire another citizenship, that requires the active co-operation of the state, as Quade Cooper found out when Australia twice turned down his application. It can often take considerable effort, and, in the case of Japan, which requires you to renounce other citizenships, some sacrifice. While it certainly could happen, the chances of a player having a second international rugby career through gaining citizenship are slim. If five years of residency entitled players to claim a new allegiance, then chances of players going that route would probably be high. At the very least, it would start costing the RFU more money. Even if players were never chosen to represent England, they would start to qualify for EQP status payments to the clubs.

Personally, I'd have favoured a panel similar to one which was considered for players hoping to use the Olympic Sevens to switch allegiance. Rather than a hard set of rules, you could have set up some guidlelines, and let a panel of rugby peers judge how genuine a connection might be. That way, you could allow certain fringe cases, without creating a route for others to exploit for more mercenary reasons.

It's all a bit mercenary anyway given they're all playing for their 2nd country!

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Well, they do.  Or they would have stopped it.

They don't under this section of the rule though. It doesn't match and mirror.

Really?  Show your workings for us.

I guess your next step, if you think Wales are breaking the laws, is to raise it with World Rugby and tell them they’ve missed something. You clearly feel strongly that Wales have broken the eligibility rules with Tahiunza as you’ve mentioned it many times.  Perhaps WR have missed it somehow?  

You're not getting the point. Wr brought in the 10 tear residency qualification as they realised you can be basically English Welsh Scottish whatever when you spend an extended period in a place even if you then move away. This steps that back and says an accident of birth (the example of being born on an airfield while your parents are stationed there) is more important. It's an anomaly and 1 they should close if they keep this.

Ok, but you specifically mentioned Christ Tshiunza. He hasn’t ‘moved away’ as he is away from his home in Wales for education purposes. That’s a specific caveat and rule that WR has that does not change eligibility. He’s playing for a local team while he’s studying, but as it’s education that he’s in Exeter for then he’s still classed as Welsh domiciled. Just not a good example I think of what you’re talking about above. It’s a similar thing with Taulupe Faletau. Both of them moved to Wales at a relatively young age. Both then attended post-16 education in England. The only difference is that Faletau then signed for a Welsh based team while he studied, while Christ has signed for an English one. But they were still both Welsh domiciled. Their homes addresses on the uni records will be Wales.

Wasn’t Sam Underhill similar too? Born in the USA, moved to England at the age of 10, but went to uni in Wales and signed for Bridgend while he did his economics degree at Cardiff uni, then signed for Ospreys while he studied. But that didn’t alter his England qualification even though he’d been in England less than 10 years. He was still English domiciled as he was only ‘away at uni’ and not moving to wales permanently for work.

Yes I specifically mentioned 2 people who would qualify under the 10 year rule, the only 2 I know off the top of my head. Yes I do doubt that Tshiunza actually qualified to play for Wales but that's another discussion. My issue is that they brought that rule in for players to demonstrate a close tie to the country who wouldn't qualify to play for them as they moved away. This new rule does away with that and has guys like Kvesic qualify instead. The uni thing is a nice coincidence for me but like I said its a completely different point to this one. And underhill qualified through parents anyway.

Why do you doubt that Tshiunza actually qualified to play for Wales? That’s the bit I’m really interested in.

The uni/education thing is something I like to discuss too as I work in university so I find the discussion about nationality and studying away from home an interesting topic.

Different discussion where I've set out my thought previously. The point being here if he'd gone with the DRoC he wouldn't now be able to play for Wales despite being Welsh over someone like Kvesic who happened to be in Germany at birth.

Why not keep it simple - play for your country of birth or the country where you have lived for the majority of your live (ie more than 50%).  Once you have plalyed for a country you can only play for another country by living there (and being tax resident there - sorry I am an accountant and ex HMRC) for a period of 5 years plus.

I am struggling to see who these rules would disadvantrage other than those who are economic/not good enoughh to play for their home country.

nlpnlp wrote:Why not keep it simple - play for your country of birth or the country where you have lived for the majority of your live (ie more than 50%).

That would have made the Vunipola brothers ineligible to play for Tonga from the start, which seems a bit odd for the children of Tongan parents, who probably also hold Tongan passports. It would also mean someone Ali Price couldn't play for Scotland.

The Oracle wrote:Why do you doubt that Tshiunza actually qualified to play for Wales? That’s the bit I’m really interested in.

The uni/education thing is something I like to discuss too as I work in university so I find the discussion about nationality and studying away from home an interesting topic.

I'd never heard of this guy and just googled him out of curiosity......in very simple terms looking at his movement history/lineage......how have Wales managed to cap him??? It seems quite bizarre.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Why do you doubt that Tshiunza actually qualified to play for Wales? That’s the bit I’m really interested in.

The uni/education thing is something I like to discuss too as I work in university so I find the discussion about nationality and studying away from home an interesting topic.

I'd never heard of this guy and just googled him out of curiosity......in very simple terms looking at his movement history/lineage......how have Wales managed to cap him??? It seems quite bizarre.

Are you being serious? He moved to Wales at 10. He’s now 19. So 9 years living, schooling and playing in Wales. He’s now gone to university in England but his home address is still in Wales (like when I went to uni). Why do you think he shouldn’t be able to play for wales? 9 year residency. How on earth is that bizarre???? 5 year residency is ok for others but 9 years for this guy is not?!

If you question this then you have to question Faletau (moved to Wales at 6) and the Vunipola brothers too, surely?

So if he'd decided to play for the DRoC surely this rule should be available for him too. Why isn't it.