What would be fair international qualification rules?

Ban the grandma inheritance rule would be one for me. Take that down to mum.

And an appropriate residency rule* should be dependent on age - with:

at least seven years for over 20s and

From age 15 or less - 0 years
From age 17 or less - 1 year
From age 18 or less - 2 years
From age 19 or less - 3 years
From age 20 or less - 5 years

*(all of which whilst competing as RU registered players).

I'd stick with 3 years for under 18s, then at least 5 years for over that age if not 7 years.
I think someone suggested that two grandparents should be the minimum requirement for that side of it, which seems reasonable to me.

A ban on switching if you have already represented another major rugby playing nation in another sport (ie Hape would have been tied to New Zealand for having played League for them but a guy who does the 100 metres in the Olympics for Mongolia isn't tied to them for rugby as well)

Portnoy I can't help but feel that your making it overly complicated.

I think most people are in agreement removing Grandparents as a means of qualification is a must. Apart from that I'd advocate either 5 or 7 years. Ideally I'd like 7 but I could make my peace with 5 years.

I certainly wouldn't treat 15 year olds differently to 17 year olds as different to 18 who are different to 19. Thats just a logistical nightmare.

I'd certainly take the 20+ age qual limit to seven years - just to deter countries from cynically importing talent.

Project players in other words (as well as the influx of pseudo-englishmen).

Same as the FIFA ruling.

Scrap residency rule unless the player has grown up, or was educated in that country for a period of 2 years prior to their 18th birthday.
Toby Faletau for example would still be ok for Wales as he has spent most of his life there despite not being Welsh by blood.
However players making career choices as professional couldn't just decide to play for another country.

Scrap the Grand parent rule also.

Residency is necessary IMO. Just needs to be managed better.

How about we get all the Rugby Unions together to vote on what they consider "fair" international qualification rules and all accept that if a player qualifies under those rules then they are entitled to play for any one of those countries they qualify for and, should they declare an interest in representing a country they qualify for, they should not in any way be discriminated against in terms of national selection or ridiculed for "betraying" the country they were born in/brought up in.

Personally if it were 100% up to me I would look to tweak the qualification rules, but I wouldn't completely rip up the current play-book and start again. And given the current rules I would never begrudge anyone the opportunity to represent an adopted nation, provided they qualify for the nation they wish to represent.

Scrap the grandparent rule. 6 years qualification, with time spent resident in the country under 18 years of age counting double.

You could add further rules, like treatig international appearances in rugby league the same as if they were in union, butn I wouldn't bother.

How many of the WC training squad wouldn't meet these? Waldrom, and probably Flutey and Hape?

I don't see how you could say having a Bristish citizen being unable to represent his country is fair.

And regarding the initial suggestion, so if someone lived here from the age of 2 but only started playing rugby union when he was at uni at 20 he couldn't play for England until he was 25?

Best keep it simple. The player, both parents and their parents must all be born on the mainland of their respective country. Best keep things pure.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Best keep it simple. The player, both parents and their parents must all be born on the mainland of their respective country. Best keep things pure.

Mainland?. What about those poor Chatham Islanders? Actually, since the South Island of NZ is (by land area) NZ's "Mainland", what about those poor North Islanders?

HammerofThunor wrote:I don't see how you could say having a Bristish citizen being unable to represent his country is fair.

And regarding the initial suggestion, so if someone lived here from the age of 2 but only started playing rugby union when he was at uni at 20 he couldn't play for England until he was 25?

British Citizen is a completely different case, and an important one in my mind for the legitimacy of a players qualification.

How many of England's 13 overseas born players do you suppose hold British Passports?

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I don't see how you could say having a Bristish citizen being unable to represent his country is fair.

And regarding the initial suggestion, so if someone lived here from the age of 2 but only started playing rugby union when he was at uni at 20 he couldn't play for England until he was 25?

British Citizen is a completely different case, and an important one in my mind for the legitimacy of a players qualification.

How many of England's 13 overseas born players do you suppose hold British Passports?

Quite a few of them. And why is this article suddenly about England?

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I don't see how you could say having a Bristish citizen being unable to represent his country is fair.

And regarding the initial suggestion, so if someone lived here from the age of 2 but only started playing rugby union when he was at uni at 20 he couldn't play for England until he was 25?

British Citizen is a completely different case, and an important one in my mind for the legitimacy of a players qualification.

How many of England's 13 overseas born players do you suppose hold British Passports?

Without checking (because I'm bored with the whole subject), I'd say well over half of them.

HammerofThunor wrote:

1. I don't see how you could say having a Bristish citizen being unable to represent his country is fair.

2. And regarding the initial suggestion, so if someone lived here from the age of 2 but only started playing rugby union when he was at uni at 20 he couldn't play for England until he was 25?

I don't understand any part of that.

1. It's to do with representing Nations. Not Britain.

2. That is to adopt a nation by dint of residency over birth. They would still have qualified through residency whatever age they began. Where my proviso comes into play prevents a) the likes of Waldrom to become eligible and b) the likes of Vainikolo to gain eligibility for England whilst accruing most of his residency entitlement playing RL - especially as he'd already played for the kiwis.

robbo277 wrote: And why is this article suddenly about England?

It's not all about England, but a chance for posters to agree on an appropriate compromise.

But as an Englishman I can see why there's a lot of dubiousness about the willingness of England to exploit the laxity of the qualification rules to the full. In precisely the same way a Jackie Charlton did for ROI footy.

It's an opportunity to gain a consensus of opinion...

No it's just another rehashing of a thousand other equally pointless articles. Lock it now. Move on.

maestegmafia wrote:


How many of England's 13 overseas born players do you suppose hold British Passports?

Please stay on topic, not sure why you're trying to turn it into a thread about England

Portnoy wrote:

robbo277 wrote: And why is this article suddenly about England?

It's not all about England, but a chance for posters to agree on an appropriate compromise.

But as an Englishman I can see why there's a lot of dubiousness about the willingness of England to exploit the laxity of the qualification rules to the full. In precisely the same way a Jackie Charlton did for ROI footy.

It's an opportunity to gain a consensus of opinion...

Wasn't directed at you Portnoy, it was directed at Maesteg.

England wasn't mentioned in the original post, but all of a sudden we've got to "how many of England's foreign legion hold British passports?" It was always going to happen eventually.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Best keep it simple. The player, both parents and their parents must all be born on the mainland of their respective country. Best keep things pure.

Mainland?. What about those poor Chatham Islanders? Actually, since the South Island of NZ is (by land area) NZ's "Mainland", what about those poor North Islanders?

A very good point Kiwi, the north Island should be disbanded from New Zealand for rugby purposes.

robbo277 wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

robbo277 wrote: And why is this article suddenly about England?

It's not all about England, but a chance for posters to agree on an appropriate compromise.

But as an Englishman I can see why there's a lot of dubiousness about the willingness of England to exploit the laxity of the qualification rules to the full. In precisely the same way a Jackie Charlton did for ROI footy.

It's an opportunity to gain a consensus of opinion...

Wasn't directed at you Portnoy, it was directed at Maesteg.

England wasn't mentioned in the original post, but all of a sudden we've got to "how many of England's foreign legion hold British passports?" It was always going to happen eventually.

As you can read in my post i was using the England example to explain a point that another poster was making about legitimate residency.

The fact that it is England that is so regularly discussed is because it is them who everyone feels, including England fans, that are pushing the Qualification rules to the limit. Ten years ago it was Wales. That forced the IRB to change the laws on residency, and for the better. This current scenario may do the same.

nottins wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:


How many of England's 13 overseas born players do you suppose hold British Passports?

Please stay on topic, not sure why you're trying to turn it into a thread about England

Stick to the topic and dont comment on other posters when you could comment on the theme of this thread....!

Portnoy,
1. Yes
2. Yes - 5 years min

Portnoy wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

1. I don't see how you could say having a Bristish citizen being unable to represent his country is fair.

2. And regarding the initial suggestion, so if someone lived here from the age of 2 but only started playing rugby union when he was at uni at 20 he couldn't play for England until he was 25?

I don't understand any part of that.

1. It's to do with representing Nations. Not Britain.

2. That is to adopt a nation by dint of residency over birth. They would still have qualified through residency whatever age they began. Where my proviso comes into play prevents a) the likes of Waldrom to become eligible and b) the likes of Vainikolo to gain eligibility for England whilst accruing most of his residency entitlement playing RL - especially as he'd already played for the kiwis.

Portnoy, If someone moved here (to England) and gained British citizenship should he not be allowed the country he gained citizenship through? You get that after 5 years or 3 years through marriage. If it makes it easier, if someone moved to Ireland and gained Irish citizenship should they not be able to represent Ireland? Or are the second class citizens?

The second point was refering to the idea they must be playing union for the residency years. I don't understand the point of that. My point was of someone who moved to the country but didn't play union until he was 20. Does he need to play union for 5 years before qualifying even though he was here for 18 years already.

In response to the change

1. Get rid of of grandparent rule (or at the very least make it 2 grandparents from the same country).

2. Yes, I'd make it 5 years but that's based on British Citizenship and I don't know what they have around the world. It's would have to be based on internation dialogue (kind of like has already happened)

maestegmafia wrote:

Stick to the topic and dont comment on other posters when you could comment on the theme of this thread....!

Actually, I will comment on other posters comments as that's what message boards are all about.


I'd remove grandparents from the qualifications and keep it to a parent or 3 years residency.

This place is beginning to be over moderated.

This subject is always going to raise the heat, but it is worth discussing if websites like Walesonline are publishing tripe like they have been.

Matt Banahan qualifies as an overseas player because his from Jersey!!!! Don'th they play in the NL1? which is in England!

People get a grip.

Portnoy wrote:
1. The grandma rule - should it be scrapped?

Yes, absolutely.

Portnoy wrote:2. Residency rules - should they be made tighter (and how)?

I think the simplest way to qualify for residency is when someone becomes legal passport holder of the nation they wish to represent. Though unfortunately it is difficult to make that fair between differing countries as there is a difference in the length of time served between nations.

I would like to see that a player has resided in a country for at least five years and is not solely living legally on a work permit.

I would also like, though not raised in your questions, please allow me to stay a touch, that a player can not compete at sport for one nation in one sport and a different nation in a different sport.

Good point BTGOG.

If any the Channel Islands clubs are associated with the RFU rather than the FRFU then there should be no question.

And if they are associated with both (like (apparently) London Welsh and the RFU and WRU), then that offers a version of dual nationality.

nottins wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Stick to the topic and dont comment on other posters when you could comment on the theme of this thread....!

Actually, I will comment on other posters comments as that's what message boards are all about.


I'd remove grandparents from the qualifications and keep it to a parent or 3 years residency.

you comment on other posters. Not on the content of there posts there is a difference.

The passport solution would create its own probelms as N. Irish players would hold a British passport and not an Irish Passport

maestegmafia wrote:

you comment on other posters. Not on the content of there posts there is a difference.

I commented on your comment, get over it.

Kiwireddevil wrote:
Well said Portnoy.

No-one's said anything new about specific countries' residency (be it England, New Zealand, Wales, Ireland, Scotland or anyone else in a while). And a lot of people are getting tired of it, including me.

So keep the debate to the main issue please, and cut down on the individual examples, they're just leading to rancour at the moment.

Perhaps you need to go and unlock that other thread, so people can keep all comments about the England team in one place and get it out their system?

Calm it Nottins anf Maesteg.

Please don't spoil it for the rest of us.

Let it lie on this article at least. Have a pop elsewhere if you must.

To be more serious, I think that the rules for playing international should be aligned with the rules for getting a passport. If you are entitled to an Irish passport, you can play for Ireland. What I would say is the only previso would be if you receive an international cap for a country, you are then forever tied to that country.

G2 wrote:
The passport solution would create its own probelms as N. Irish players would hold a British passport and not an Irish Passport

True. And it'd become easy for a country who wanted to boost their team to make citizenship easier to get for likely prospects.

I'd like to see residency at 5 years, with years in-country below the age of 18 counting double. If someone's entitled to a passport by virtue of a grandparent they should have to get the passport 1st - in the UK that takes 5 years residency, I think (haven't checked) that similar applies in NZ and Aus.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:To be more serious, I think that the rules for playing international should be aligned with the rules for getting a passport. If you are entitled to an Irish passport, you can play for Ireland. What I would say is the only previso would be if you receive an international cap for a country, you are then forever tied to that country.

The toruble with applying that across the board is where different countries have different rules on it - I think for Ireland you can get the passport straightaway if you have an Irish grandparent? For the UK they have to live here for 5 years first, I believe.

I like the idea of it being tied to citizenship but I think it is more important that it must be consistent across all nations, to avoid a situation where someone from Australia who might prefer to play for their paternal grandparents' country of Scotland over their maternal grandmother's country of Ireland opts for Ireland because they'd face a wait of over 5 years to play for Scotland but can play for Ireland staight away.

The Passport issue goes a bit further as a British Passport covers England, Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland.

Technically therefore holding a British Passport would qualify you to play for any of England, Wales & Scotland and maybe even Ireland.

The only way to differentiate is by where the person was born or now lives or by parentage.

However I would hazard a guess that there are thousands of Scots, Irish & Welsh who have “emigrated” to England and have had children in England, the question is if someone’s parents “emigrated” to England as young adults or children say 30 – 40 years ago have they “lost” their Scottish / Welsh / Irishness and can no longer claim to be Scottish / Welsh / Irish because of course their parents do not have a Scottish / Welsh / Irish Passport.
(I use the emigrating to England as an example but of course it is a 2 way process)

I think that one thing that needs clarifying is what is meant by "Fair".

HammerofThunor wrote:I think that one thing that needs clarifying is what is meant by "Fair".

An agreement which is mutually agreed as the best tolerable to sign up to.

No doubt loopholes will appear in the marginal circumstances, but I think that the current rules are just too blunt.

We've got that now. I don't think the IRB made it up on a whim. They discussed it and came up with the "best" one from their point of view at the time.

I'll try a different tack, what is the point of the eligibility regulations? Why have them at all? What do we want internation rugby to be?

Portnoy wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I think that one thing that needs clarifying is what is meant by "Fair".

An agreement which is mutually agreed as the best tolerable to sign up to.

Which is exactly what happened for the current regulations.

Kiwireddevil wrote:True. And it'd become easy for a country who wanted to boost their team to make citizenship easier to get for likely prospects.

Do you think this is a real possibility?
It is something I think it extremely unlikely - I'd think New Zealand is the only country who is rugby focused enough for it to be possible (though still not probable - it would I think require a massive loss of form for a prolonged period) and even then pride is likely to get in the way, as it would be admitting that they can't produce enough good players on their own and need to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the rugby world.

nottins wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I think that one thing that needs clarifying is what is meant by "Fair".

An agreement which is mutually agreed as the best tolerable to sign up to.

Which is exactly what happened for the current regulations.

But the current rules are not written in tablets of stone Nottins.

Time for a review?

I am preference the IRB stated that no laws would be changed prior to the RWC 2011.

But I imagine that many aspect of the game will be put under close scrutiny after.

I hope that the residency laws are up for re classification then.

I'd just be happy if guys who've represented one country professionally can't represent another one a couple of years later.

Also think that playing for team other than the national squad should count. For example, the NZ Maori, Junior AB's.

Actually personally, I think once you've represented a province, or region you should be bound to that country indefinitely. Note that I say province or region and not club or franchise.

How about these

1 - You play for the country you are born in or your parents are born in.
2 - If you have played any sport at an international level (including schools, U18, colts whatever) for a country thats your country for all sports end of.
3 - If you have not been capped at any level by the country of your/parents birth by the age of 18 you can play for another country providing you become an active citizen of that country,(i.e pay your taxes there, take an appropriate passport, etc.) and have established a pemanent residency there for a least 7 years - this can include a period prior to your 18th birthday e.g. if you move to your new country aged 14 you are eligible at 21.

IL

P.S. Hello everyone