5 Year Residency Rule

So with the change from 3 to 5 years in terms of the residency rule I've been interested to see how at a club level recruitment policies have changed.

The thing that has stood out for me in the Top14 is that their Academies have stepped up their overseas recruitment in the U22 bracket. Part of the reason this was happening prior was around their JIFF qualification rules. If a player serves 3 years in France at Academy level he becomes JIFF qualified and thus no longer part overseas recruitment count which currently sits at 14 I think for each club in France. But given the extensions of time they appear to be really targeting this now and they have stepped this up.

What has been interesting is how the other leagues have been dealing with the change to residency rules. One of the issues around recruiting players for national sides is that if you are looking to bring them it almost has to be done early enough to allow that player time in a international shirt to really gain the experience at that level.

But if France keep doing the above and pick off the major talents at youth level does the residency rule benefit any of the other nations in the long term? My other question was around the JIFF system. If a player become JIFF qualified but then gets capped by another player is he still JIFF qualified even though he cannot represent France?

Looking at a lot of squads for various leagues outside of France (once you remove the qualified players with parents, grandparents) there seem to be a distinct lack of new residency based project players since the rule has come in.

That seems like a positive change in terms of nations retaining their own talent pools does that mean if the Top 14 continue this trend they will actually be the only ones using this rule to qualify players for international rugby?

I don't think there will be too many Prem clubs bothered at all with the increase. It only benefits them to meet the minimum eligibility numbers to secure their payment from the RFU. Probably much better if those players never get close to an England game.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't think there will be too many Prem clubs bothered at all with the increase. It only benefits them to meet the minimum eligibility numbers to secure their payment from the RFU. Probably much better if those players never get close to an England game.

That would seem to suggest that the residency rule in terms of the premiership will affect the amount of players available to England at a international level moving forward.  Which would be a change from the previous 3 year rule where a lot of players ended up being able to represent England.

It's interesting as there are obvious clear benefits at club level to this way of thinking but do you think this results in a better England team if other nations continue to use these loopholes to improve weaknesses in their squads?

Aside from France and New Zealand who are still targeting youth players to qualify through residency I don't see many other nations continue with this.  I wonder how in the long term that affects the international landscape in rugby?

It's a nice accident if England get some players from it. Doesn't happen very often and tends to be the later developers. England's issue is always the aspect of too many players to choose from.

The IRFU abandoned its "1 special project player" quota rule at the end of 2017 after WR announced the changes. Instead they set up IQ Rugby inMay 2017 to identify already Irish qualified players who might be brought into the Irish system at some point.

At this point, there are only 13 players who are ineligible to be selected for Ireland test team. 95% of the 235 senior and academy players are Irish-qualified, after bringing through over 120 players through their academies since then. Only 5 or 6 players qualify based on residency since 2017 or earlier, and 17 are qualified via parent or grandparent.