Thoughts on residency.

Surely the whole point of the residency rules is that there should be accommodation for players who have had a period of development in a new nation and are prepared to represent them. So long as the players have pride in the shirt then why should they not represent it, it would be like saying immigrants cannot be proud of an adopted country and therefore should not be allowed to support our teams!

When it comes to this subject there may always be a level of contention regarding origins and newly qualified players being chosen over players who have always been of one nationality such as waldrom over narraway (who tweeted his annoyance earlier). I am not sure however why people bring up players such as Shaw and say he should be playing for Kenya despite spending most of his life in england and being of english heritage or joe simpson seems to be the new 'import' despite being brought up in england and playing most of his age grade rugby in the uk.

as you can see this is mainly aimed at the england situation but has equal relevance in many countries and maybe more in countries such as new zealand!

I have no response to this!

No I actually have,

People emigrate to other countries all the time, if a player no matter what his age decides to leave his country where he grew up in or was born in, that is his perogative.

This whole residency issue as a debate is moot. The laws are there, people emigrate, players stay long enough to either develop more, or go as a developed player already. Does it matter no, becuase it is up to the individual.

What is however a reality, is that people will use it as a tool to "rag" those countries that call up players that qualified through this system.

It is only natural. I for one am quite impressed that so many south africans get to play for other countries. It just showcases our talent.

Do so many SOuth Africans play for other countires? I honestly cant think of many.. England probably have one or two but that it..

In any case, International Rugby is not Premiership Rugby. Take your example to the Olymipics....

I remeber Bahrain basically paid a Somali to become a resident so that he could stand on the podium and "sing" the Bahraini anthem.

Just wrong.

Boyne wrote:Do so many SOuth Africans play for other countires? I honestly cant think of many.. England probably have one or two but that it..

Well, the numbers are growing. Richardt Strauss is being groomed for Ireland with the "project player" system.

Having said that, the residency rules are what they are and all countries will do it as necessary. It would be silly not to.

The rules are the rules at the moment though they are IMO wrong, the residency should be 5yrs at least.

For people who emigrated at a young age with parents and have lived most of their life in a country then there is a no real problem, you mention Shaw as an example likewise the legend that is Pricey was born in Egypt and no Welsh man would say he shouldn't have played for us.

What they have to be careful about is players that move as an adult such as Flutey, Marinos, Luscombe etc etc who know they wouldn't get capped ofr their native country so go elsewhere in search of caps.

7 years I think it should be.

I think this would then pretty much rule out the mercenary moves.

But that would rule out the genuine as well - 5 years for me

Boyne wrote:Do so many SOuth Africans play for other countires? I honestly cant think of many.. England probably have one or two but that it..

In any case, International Rugby is not Premiership Rugby. Take your example to the Olymipics....

I remeber Bahrain basically paid a Somali to become a resident so that he could stand on the podium and "sing" the Bahraini anthem.

Just wrong.

you could add some south Afrcians in the Canadian and american squads, Strauss and our under 21 captain played for australia , outside center, forgot his name now. And then add some Saffers into the English cricket squad.

There are a fair few about the world Boyne

Canada? USA? Hmmm... If we dig deep enough I think we could all find some players playing in these places... there are quite a few amatures who might even push for places , so I wouldnt say they are "showcasing your talent" ....

Strauss has never played for Ireland and cricket is a completely different ballgame- literally.

doctornickolas wrote:7 years I think it should be.

I think this would then pretty much rule out the mercenary moves.

So it should take longer to represent England than it does to gain citizenship? Why?

Flutey moved away from New Zealand because of personal problems not because he couldn't get a All Black cap. He's said himself that he probably would have ended up in prison if he had stayed. He needed a fresh start and England/UK gave that to him.

The one I don't like is Waldrum and he qualifies through a long lost granny.

HELP ADMINISTRATORS. WHOEVER READS THIS PLEASE NOTIFY THE ADMINISTRATORS

I am getting an error message when I try to enter 606v2.

It kick out the following message

Template->make_filename(): Error - file adminv2/admin_message_die.tpl does not exist

I basically have to copy and paste a thread address from the notificatin emails you send me to enter an existing topic, otherwise can't get in.

Boyne wrote:Canada? USA? Hmmm... If we dig deep enough I think we could all find some players playing in these places... there are quite a few amatures who might even push for places , so I wouldnt say they are "showcasing your talent" ....

Strauss has never played for Ireland and cricket is a completely different ballgame- literally.

Tiaan Strauss the eightman played for Australia Boyne.

.......back in the 90's..... Not getting onto you, but there are hardly hoards of South Africans playing for other nations out there "showcasing" your countries talent, as you suggest....

The debate actually stems from what the fans see as legitimately qualified foreign players who were born in another country and whether the residency laws reflect a fair representation of that country at national level.

Look at three examples.

Manu Samoa Tuilagi, born in Samoa but educated in England due to his family emigrating to England because five of his brothers play rugby. Young manu has taken the colours of his adoptive country, though only after a contentious passport issue, (he didn't have one and was due to be sent back to Samoa as he was living illegally in England).

Toby Faletau, father moved from Tonga to Wales to play for Ebbw Vale in the late 90s bringing his family with him. All had the correct papers, Toby grew up from the age of nine in Wales playing rugby.

Paul Griffin, the sideburns adorned dreadlocked antipodean Italian scrum half, played pro rugby in Italy for three years and having not represented his nation of birth becomes an Italian qualified player, but is not a passport holding Italian.

All three players are within the laws, non are illegal but whether we as fans, or rival nations fans see the legitimacy of the players creditation as genuine differs.

So far as I can understand the leniency of the residency laws was designed to aid the competitiveness of emerging and the less wealthy nations. Though this is rarely acknowledged as players drift towards where the larger wages are available.

Surely Manu Tuialagi and Toby Faletau would and could have been excellent players for the nations of their birth, both nations that are at the poorer end of the rugby economic scale. Griffen was unlikely to have gained any international rugby back in NZ, but proved a useful player to Italy as they emerged into the six nations.

My opinion is that Griffen did what the IRB had intended when they wrote the laws on qualification, he was qualified for Italy and benefitted the competitiveness of an emerging nation helping them to compete at a higher level in the international game, thus encouraging a larger fan base in Italy. Faletau and Tuialagi made a decision that may benefit their wealthy, adopted nation but would have benefitted the competitiveness of their nation of birth far more.

maestegmafia thats an excellent point you raise..

Perhaps rules should be more relaxed for countries like Romania, Italy, Tonga, but tougher on supposed bigger countries like England and Wales?

I like the idea.... a project player or 2 for developing nations would be of massive benefit... unless bigger countries decide to whinge about the "inequity" of it all...

In New Zealand citizenship can be applied for 5 years after permanent residency is given (it used to be 3 years until about 6 years or so ago). So my son who was born in NZ could play for Wales, New Zealand, Samoa or Fiji the latter 2 by virtue of his mothers parents. Of course should he dislike any of those countries when older he could move to another country and become a citizen there! He knows already he will be playing for Wales.

Sonny Parker born Dargaville, NZ.

Look at the Japan team, quite a few do not look Japanese!

If you are proud of the country you live in and are adopted by them what's the problem.

This problem has stertched back for years with some seeming more lgeit than others, we had Dewi Morris from Crickhowell playing for England against Rupert Moon from Brum ( I think) playing for Wales. Copsey had made in Romford on his backside yet played for us.

Those in my opinion were wrong along with Howarth, Sinkinson, Luscombe, Marinos and Jones Hughes.

England had Ujomoh and Ubogo, Stuart barnes and Jon Callard were eductaed in Newport (Bassaleg) and played junior rugby there.

Delve was born n bred in Cardiff but has never played senior rugby for a Welsh side.

Its a very thin line which does need to be simplified by the IRB. People like Tuilagi and Faletau were brought here by the parents at a young age and done all their schooling growing up in local area so I see no problem with the likes of that.

bedfordwelsh wrote:This problem has stertched back for years with some seeming more lgeit than others, we had Dewi Morris from Crickhowell playing for England against Rupert Moon from Brum ( I think) playing for Wales. Copsey had made in Romford on his backside yet played for us.

Those in my opinion were wrong along with Howarth, Sinkinson, Luscombe, Marinos and Jones Hughes.

England had Ujomoh and Ubogo, Stuart barnes and Jon Callard were eductaed in Newport (Bassaleg) and played junior rugby there.

Delve was born n bred in Cardiff but has never played senior rugby for a Welsh side.

Its a very thin line which does need to be simplified by the IRB. People like Tuilagi and Faletau were brought here by the parents at a young age and done all their schooling growing up in local area so I see no problem with the likes of that.

Good points.

I would say that being a passport holder is a good statement of residency.

Two of my kids were born in the states, they have American Passports as well as British. They passionately support Wales but could play for the USA as well.

I do have an issue where players are representing a nation not of their birth when their only legitimate paperwork is a work permit, not a passport.

When I worked in America, I was not a green card holder, I was a guest of that country employed by Americans. I enjoyed all kinds of American sport and they still have, and always will have, part of my support on the competitive field. If they had asked me or my sons to represent them, I am sure we would have considered it, what an honour it is to be a capped international, but I, like my kids grew up dreaming of playing in a red shirt with three feathers proudly displayed over my heart.

The rules are the rules though, and every country utilises them to the best effect. I don't necessarily agree with all of them though and would like to see a bit of tightening up of the qualifications.

I have no problems with the following:
1 - Obviously, representing the country of birth
2 - Players representing the country of at least one of their parents
3 - Players representing the country where they were a permanent resident for at least some of their childhood (under 18) - probably no need for a qualification period in this context, as it is unusual for a player to make an international debut before the age of about 20, meaning a couple of years residence is almost inevitable.

I do not think that grandparents should be taken into account - they don't count for anything in citizenship, and just seem a bit far removed.

As for residency, I can see a reason to differentiate between those who come over as adults for non-rugby reasons (Botha, Fourie?) and those that come over for professional sports contracts.
For people who migrate for non-rugby reasons, I think the 3 year residency rule is quite reasonable.
However, for those who come over for a pro contract, I think eligibility should only occur on the criteria of - 5 years residence AND citizenship of the adopted nation.

I'd also tighten up rules about players representing one country in RL and another in RU, and extend what count as representative sides in RU (to include the likes of the NZ Maoris).

Boyne wrote:maestegmafia thats an excellent point you raise..

Perhaps rules should be more relaxed for countries like Romania, Italy, Tonga, but tougher on supposed bigger countries like England and Wales?

I like the idea.... a project player or 2 for developing nations would be of massive benefit... unless bigger countries decide to whinge about the "inequity" of it all...

How easy would it be for Romania to get a couple of project players though? I don't think they have a professional league, so getting a player of required quality to move over there for 3 years to play amateur rugby to qualify for Romania, get capped and moved to a professional league would be not only expensive (in paying the player), but also counter-productive as the player would get 3 years of amateur rugby and his standard will drop.

Italy, with players like Derbyshire, Gower and McClean aren't exactly "falling behind" when it comes to foreign-born qualified players, and they're also a tier 1 nations now, as they are in one of the premier International tournaments.

Tonga have several players born outside Tonga representing them as well, just checking Wiki and I've got Tonga Lea'aetoa, Steve Mafi and Eddie Paea. Developing nations are using it when they can, but we can't soften it to "I went on a stag do in Bucharest, I am now qualified for Romania".

Romainia are a very passionate rugby nation, they were excellent in the seventies and eighties. Beat Wales and France.

Professional rugby has taken the game away from them internationally. Currently ranked 18th but I remember them having a try disallowed in a contentious match where they were just a few points from toppling the all blacks.

Most of their talent drains away to France.

dummy_half

As for residency, I can see a reason to differentiate between those who come over as adults for non-rugby reasons (Botha, Fourie?) and those that come over for professional sports contracts.
For people who migrate for non-rugby reasons, I think the 3 year residency rule is quite reasonable.
However, for those who come over for a pro contract, I think eligibility should only occur on the criteria of - 5 years residence AND citizenship of the adopted nation.

I'm not sure if that is workable. The key word being 'come over for professional sports contracts'. As mentioned earlier, Flutey was a professional sportsman who came over here for personal reasons. So he didn't come over for the pro-contract, but he came over with a pro-contract.

Spain has always been my "second" European country, purely because I always used to holiday there as a kid. If myself, as an amateur rugby player, moved to Spain because I loved the country (even though I have no ties to it other than a great-great-grandmother) and managed to get a professional contract over there, would I have to wait 3 years or 5 years to qualify?

There can't be a grey area. I would have the distinction at all. Get naturalised and you can play for that country. However, a distinction would have to be put in so a player can't get a UK passport by living in say Wales and then play for Scotland.

maestegmafia wrote:Romainia are a very passionate rugby nation, they were excellent in the seventies and eighties. Beat Wales and France.

Professional rugby has taken the game away from them internationally. Currently ranked 18th but I remember them having a try disallowed in a contentious match where they were just a few points from toppling the all blacks.

Most of their talent drains away to France.

I never said they weren't.

But if all their talent is playing in France, then their domestic league must be pretty poor.

So if you have a player you want to qualify for Romania, he has to live and play in Romania for 3 years. In a poor domestic league. Where what is likely to happen is that his standard of play is going to drop closer to the standard of the league. Then Romania will have better options playing in France then this x-born qualified Romanian playing in Romania, and they won't play him.

I was just explaining why it might be hard for Romania to residency-qualify foreign players. Not having a go at Romania.

I'm pretty sure that Romania's strength was related to communism (weren't their main teams the Police and Army? The fall in communism also resulted in a fall in rugby.

I don't like the idea of 'Project Players' for anyone. A much better idea (in my opinion) is allowing capped players to play for another (tier 2) nation they qualify for by birth (or birth of parents).

Samoa had something like 50% of their world cup squad in 2007 born in New Zealand. The PI would benefit massively if ex-All blacks who were born there or had parents from there could qualify.

Regarding Stuart Barnes, didn't he grow up in England but went to School in Monmouth in Wales. That's why he represented Welsh schools (he went to one) but England youth teams (he's English and wouldn't even qualify for Wales now). Could be wrong.

If it takes 5 years to gain citizenship I don't see how you can restrict their qualification more than this.

Also, why does it matter what job they moved for? If they moved for a banking job or university or whatever, why is that 'better' than moving for a professional rugby contact independant of the union?

HammerofThunor wrote:I'm pretty sure that Romania's strength was related to communism (weren't there main teams the Police and Army? The fall in communism also resulted in a fall in rugby.

I don't like the idea of 'Project Players' for anyone. A much better idea (in my opinion) is allowing capped players to play for another (tier 2) nation they qualify for by birth (or birth of parents).

Samoa had something like 50% of their world cup squad in 2007 born in New Zealand. The PI would benefit massively if ex-All blacks who were born there or had parents from there could qualify.

If it takes 5 years to gain citizenship I don't see how you can restrict their qualification more than this.

Also, why does it matter what job they moved for? If they moved for a banking job or university or whatever, why is that 'better' than moving for a professional rugby contact independant of the union?

Quite a few Romanian test players had day jobs as Ceaucescu (spelling?)'s bodyguards. Several were executed after the revolution - the year before they were touring NZ and pushing provincial and NZA scrums backwards at a huge rate of knots.

There was a motion at the IRB last year to allow tier 1 test players to turn out for a tier 2 team that they qualified for after serving a stand down. Funnily enough the lower-ranked tier 1 unions voted it down - the PI teams are scary enough already

Hammer / Robbo

I'm not sure that the different residency qualifications could actually work in practice, but I just feel that with the modern professional game it is too easy for a pro player to move countries and qualify by residency.

And yes, from the perspective of becoming a representative international rugby player, I do see a difference between someone coming over to University (for example), settling here and developing into a good enough player to represent one of the home nations, and someone coming over as an established professional sportsman.

Why? What if someone comes over at 18/19/20 for a professional rugby contract?

Edit: I don't want different qualification relating to residency. I want the thing that was voted down recently. England voted for it as well which I like.

Hammer
I can see we aren't going to agree on this, but it's simply that I see players moving to a country as not having any particular allegience there, whereas someone who moves for other reasons is more likely to develop such an allegience.

I don't think it matters whether we are talking about a talented youngster or a 25 year old who has been close to selection for his home nation - their reason for moving is only a sporting contract.

Oh, and I absolutely detest the Irish 'Project Player' concept, as that is effectively a transfer system for international players. At least in England, with the exception of the RL converts who have been here for years, it is only the clubs that are bringing players in, not the intent of the RFU.

The 'Project player' system is the provinces bringing in players addressing their needs as Provinces it is not the IRFU bringing players targetted to address the national sides needs.

This is a common misconception. If it was all the projects would 3's and 9's. Only Borlase is and he is no better than what we already have.

It is true that the IRFU, in consulation with the Provinces, came up with the 5+1 concept (to be 4+1 in 2012/13) but the provinces drive who the players are.

It's a really tricky one.

On the one hand, I 100% believe that an immigrant should have a right to adopt a nation and then represent that nation - this is a basic principle on which Britain, and many other countries, have been founded, and our laws reflect this right: an immigrant, meeting certain criteria, can obtain the indefinite right to remain, and then full citizenship granting him the same rights as someone of indiginous birth. If it wasn't for this system, England would today be a nation of backward, inbred ginger people, rather than the richly diverse place it is.

But, the laws are also there to prevent exploitation of this right, and the professional and financial attractiveness of being an England rugby player - like being an English citizen - is prone to attract attempted exploitation.

Like Dummy Half, it doesn't sit well with me that someone coming to England for the sole purpose of pursuing their sporting profession has the same eligibility criteria as someone who has come to England for non-rugby reasons and views England as their adopted nation......but I see absolutely no way of effectively separating one from the other in terms of law, so I think we will have to put up with either overly lenient treatment of one group (the current situation), or overly harsh treatment of the other.

I think one thing that certainly could be easily implemented without too much legal wrangling is an expansion of the IRB law on having played for another union. It would be simple enough to broaden this to having played any senior representative sport for a country corresponding to another union. This is within the IRB's jurisdiction, and I can't think of a single scenario where a player might feel unjustly treated by this.

I think unfortunately most cases need to be viewed on an individual case.

The likes of Falatau / TUilgai...is not of their doing. But having learned most of their rugby in Wales/ England...it is harsh to be critical of them.

The ones that frustrate me is the likes of Waldrom - who has been here a year but then finds an English grandma....and then takes a place over a true blue passionate Englishman in Crane.

And
The likes of Hape / Vainikolo/ Henry Paul etc who HAVE REPRESENTED other nations in Rugby League....but then simply switch. Rugby is rugby to me regardless what code.

Am i right in thinking that NZ etc already have an agreement that if someone has represented them once but not made it...that person can then play for his orginial country...ie tonga, samoa or Fiji...which is a good idea..

But Geordie, that's the problem - you can't take it on an individual by individual basis, because you're talking about law. A guy needs to be either eligible or ineligible for selection and that should be that - national selectors shouldn't even think about it: they just look at the guys eligible for selection and choose the best of that bunch.

I agree with you on players who have represented other nations in RL, and think this is a simple and intuitive change that could be made to the IRB regulation which would prevent the likes of Hape, Vainikolo etc from representing multiple nations across codes.

As for Waldrom's grandma, it seems like a complete joke, but frankly I'm not sure at what level that clause exists: is it an IRB or RFU clause? Or is it law? I think it's a load of balls either way, but this would determine how easy it would be to change.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Am i right in thinking that NZ etc already have an agreement that if someone has represented them once but not made it...that person can then play for his orginial country...ie tonga, samoa or Fiji...which is a good idea..

Nope. NZ proposed it to the IRB last year. Only NZ, Aus and England voted aye.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Am i right in thinking that NZ etc already have an agreement that if someone has represented them once but not made it...that person can then play for his orginial country...ie tonga, samoa or Fiji...which is a good idea..

I think you're talking about the ruling that was voted down, whereby dual-qualfied players who have played for a tier 1 International team could have a "cool-off" period before becoming eligible for a tier 2 nation. Kind of the opposite to what cricket do where players playing for associate member nations in ODI cricket can stop playing for their nation for a year and become eligible for test cricket nations.

What if there was some kind of declaration? I'm not sure exactly how it would work, by at a certain age (let's say 20), every registered professional rugby player has to declare to the IRB what nations they will be eligible for. Players like Dylan Hartley (who we've now established was born in New Zealand to a NZ father and an English mother and moved to England at 16) could have declared himself available for England and New Zealand at 20, as at that stage he was eligible for both. If he was certain, he could just declare himself for one nation, but if he wished he could leave his options open and then he could make his decision as he gets older.

However, players like Riki Flutey, playing professional rugby at 20 in New Zealand, would have only been able to make himself available for New Zealand. He would of course be free to come over and play for London Irish and Wasps, but he wouldn't be able to qualify for England. A player like Waldrom who didn't know he had an English grandmother and had no thoughts of playing for England would have only declared himself available for New Zealand.

However, an amateur player wouldn't have to declare himself and if he moved country he still wouldn't have to declare himself until he got his first pro-contract. If an amateur player moved over and got a pro-contract after 2 years, he could then either declare himself for the nation of his birth or exclusively for his adopted nation, when his residency period finishes.

Not sure if it would work 100%, but I would be interested to hear what other people think.

I think it should be 5 years to gain residency like in football, and tier 1 countries cant benefit from this rule.

A player shouldnt be allowed to switch to a tier 1 country if they have played at ANY level for a tier 2 or lower country. This would stop player poaching.

Grand parent rule to be scraped and replaced with parent rule.

Adam i agree its the law...but there are just so many variables.

For an England example...

1) You must be English Born - Does that include if you are 23, left England at 3 months old and have never set foot in the place since? Should Shaw play for Kenya...Should O'Gara play for USA....seems farsical.

2) You must have an English Parent - Does that include that the one english parent left when he or she was 25 yr old, never came back to England the potential player is 22 and never set foot in England.

3) English Grandparent - See Waldrom....rediculious

4) 3 yr Residency...... Fourie has been here about 5/6 years playing with Rotheram etc...says he feels this is his home...and has improved since he has been here...but How English is he in many peoples eyes.

5) 3 yr residency.... But have already represented NZ at Rugby League. Farsical.

6) Family came over, and son raised in the country ie learned most of their rugby ala Manu and Faletau....Do we say nope they are Samoan / Tongan....or do we say...England /Wales put the rugby skills into that person?

7) Born in NZ (or france) to Samoan ( or Romanian) parents. Gains one NZ (French) cap...but not selected again. Should this person be then allowed to go and play for his parents country ie Samoa (or Romania) despite being capped. Breaks the rules but strengthens the weaker team...

Quite like Robbo's idea of having a pro player declare their eligibility at a young age - that could be made legally binding and would seriously limit the likelihood of the mercenary international.

It seems to be pretty much universally agreed that eligibility through grandparents takes things back too far, but that eligibility through one parent is reasonable.

Also, I think most accept the likes of Manu T and Faletau are products of the English and Welsh systems respectively, so have as much right to play for these countries as for their birth country.

I quite like the idea of players being allowed to represent a lower tier country even if they have a small number of caps for a Tri Nations / 6Ns country (put an upper limit on the number of caps? maybe between 5 and 10?). Would certainly be beneficial for the PI nations, if they could take AB-capped players of Samoan/Tongan ancestry back after say 3 years of non-selection.

"but that eligibility through one parent is reasonable. "

But Dummy half, that persons son might never have been to England and thus could be potentially considered less English,than someone like Fourie who has been here for around 5/6years and made it his home...yet he is considered "foreign".

Who has the most right to be English?

Im just trying to show the variables....

GF

You'll see if you look back in the thread that I have no problem with the likes of Fourie or Botha qualifying by residency, so you are asking the wrong person that question.

My only real objections to the current qualification rules are:
1 - grandparents
2 - residency based on moving for a professional sports contract
3 - (which would largely be covered by 2 anyway) Code swappers being able to play for one nation at one sport and a differnt one at another.

You do raise an interesting question about parental nationality, but as we are discussing rules that have to be universal, there will always be anomalies.
Personally, if I was good enough, I could only represent England/GB at any sport. However, my niece has an English father, German mother and was born and lives in Switzerland. She will grow up with some affinity for all three countries, because of visiting relatives in the UK and in Germany. Do you limit her to only being Swiss, or should the British Olympic Association tap her up to be a member of our skiing team by the 2028 winter olympics?

Again its an awkward one to answer.

My kids (if they so decided) have the choice of representing 4 countries.

Wales - Through me.

England - By birth.

Scotland - Wifes Nationality.

Ireland - Grandparent.

It's far, far, far from cut and dried, but my thoughts on your points, for what they're worth....

1. The player should have a choice between the two countries, and logically he would qualify for both (the former on birth and the latter on residency if he so wished). No problem.

2. Slightly more tenuous, but again, I find it entirely feasible that a man could live his whole life in another country, but consider himself totally English because of his English mother/father.....just as it is feasible that they have a parent who's technically English, but has washed their hands of the place and never mentioned it! I've got no issue with that person having the option to qualify for either country.

3. This is a complete farce. With the prevelance of immigration/emigration these days, half of the people in England who were currently born here would probably qualify for some other nation on the basis of this rule. Definitely one generation too far, and I can't think of a single person who's ever qualified under this clause who i've thought "yeah, actually, that's fair enough."

4. I feel very strongly that there should be a way in which players can qualify on residency and have absolutely no issue with - for example - Fourie playing for England. But I do think that 3 years is too short and leaves the door open for professional exploitation. Upping it to 5 would at least partially solve this problem.

5. Complete farce and easy to change as this law comes under IRB jurisdiction (the law prohibiting playing for multiple unions). Why they haven't just done this is completely beyond me as it is making a mockery of the game.

6. This is the scenario that annoys me, because it seems crazily simple: they are massively eligible to play for the country they live in through both birth and residence, but would also qualify for the country of their parents - if they so wished - through the parental rule. Anyone who thinks that Manu and Faletau are 'foreign mercenaries' is a complete idiot IMO.

7. Nope. Don't like it. They have the right to choose either their brith country or the country of their heritage, but when they have, they've made a choice that - as far as I'm concerned - you can only make once.

The residency rule is an odd one and may differ from country to country. I came to NZ on a 'Work to Residency' visa which stipulated that after working for 2 years I became a resident. I could have come over on a working visa and become a resident within 6 months on the points system and being employed in a job of work which NZ was lacking in. As a resident of NZ you do not have the right to a passport but can vote and are entitled to everything a citizen is entitled to apart from the travelling to and from Aussie where there is an understanding of travel. As stated it is still a 5 year wait from the date of residency to the time you can gain citizenship (Pledge alligance to the Queen and sing God defend New Zealand!!) and a passport if you want one.

Irene Van Dyk a prolific S African netball player had to wait the specified time before she could play for the Silver Ferns. I cannot think of any All Black examples as it seems as if most PI players were born in NZ or came here as kids. Ali Williams has British parents but was born here and is as Kiwi as but only through birth. There are many Brit's who were born in India before independence and I guess could have played for India! BUT there are countries that do not allow for dual citizenship, Germany for instance. SO if a German dude gets citizenship in NZ as an example and becomes a huge football player he could not play for Germany as he would not be considered German!! Rsises the question of fairness too I guess.

Look at the Boateng brothers. Both born in Germany to a German mother and a Ghanaian father. The father left them at a very early age so their entire upbringing is by a German mother. One plays football for Ghana the other the Netherlands. Go figure!

All you can do is tighten up the rules in the modern world we move about a lot.

I have dual nationality - Ireland and British (England in my case)

I have lived for an extended period in both Australia and USA.
I have ancesteral roots in the Tyrol area - Austria/Italy.

That sort of thing is becoming the norm for many.

Carpe Diem wrote:Look at the Boateng brothers. Both born in Germany to a German mother and a Ghanaian father. The father left them at a very early age so their entire upbringing is by a German mother. One plays football for Ghana the other the Netherlands. Go figure!

eh no! One plays for Germany. One for Ghana.

What I would say is that residency as a concept is fine. I can not argue with anyone playing for another country after following the rules and accept its a multicultural world we live in.

However the rules are nonsense and it allows Unions to buy players. 3 years is not much of an investment. There is nothing stopping a wealthy nation buying the cream of the crop in the U20 tournament and having a World Class team assembled within 3 years.

Extending the residency period is a must. 3 years is nowhere near long enough. 5 years I could accept but 7 would be the most practical solution IMO.

Kevin-Prince plays for Ghana, George plays for the Netherlands.

Kevin-Prince played u21s for Germany then switched to Ghana.

Carpe Diem wrote:Kevin-Prince plays for Ghana, George plays for the Netherlands.

Kevin-Prince played u21s for Germany then switched to Ghana.

Apologies. Its Germany U21 I was thinking about. carry on nothing to see here

The main difficult point that I see the current Laws allow, is that if you are living in a country on a work visa you are not a resident but as a foreigner on a work visa you are eligible to represent the country your are working in.

Hence the regularly correctly banded term of MERCENARY...!

Maybe those who are on work permits, visa waivers etc should not be eligible?

The Manu Tuilagi case is pretty dodgy, he was in the UK on a six month holiday visa that started when he was thirteen. Somehow by the intervention of a leicester MP he is allowed to stay.

It would be mere speculation to think this right honourable gentleman would be a fan of leicester Tigers and a supporter of English rugby?

There are many people in England who do not play rugby at a professional level with such skill that are ignored by their local MP whilst trying to have their case heard, some genuinely seeking asylum from horrific circumstances back in their native countries.

red_stag wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:Kevin-Prince plays for Ghana, George plays for the Netherlands.

Kevin-Prince played u21s for Germany then switched to Ghana.

Apologies. Its Germany U21 I was thinking about. carry on nothing to see here

It's such a convoluted career path i had to treble check to make sure i wasn't making it up!