Who loves the three year residency rule?

So a majority must have voted for this in the IRB but since it's come in all I read either in the press or forums are criticisms of this. The criticisms are coming both from countries feeling the player drain (South Africa's press conference in Ireland) or the countries that are supposedly benefiting. (Ireland today) So here's a serious question: who proposed this rule and who voted for it? And amongst you all who loves it?

I think its due to European laws on nationality, if your resadent in a counrty for 3 years you can claim nationality of it. However i don't know if rugby has to comply to this, as it does sto you playing for another country after you have represented one. Which i'm sure could be challanged.

Well im fairly sure it doesnt comply in football....so i wouldnt have thought Rugby would have to go by it either....

residency rule also applies in wendyball

I think its a UN charter thing! Human rights stuff for someone to be free to choose thier own nationality rather than being forced into one just because you were born there.

Put it this way. Your parents and grandparents are Welsh. Your parents lived in wales when you were conceived. You were born in England coz you popped out a month early while your mother was in london to watch the 6N's. 20 years later you are the next Dan Carter but because you were born in England, you are forced to play for England (if you want to play international rugby)

Ok, its a bit extreme, but its just to illustrate a point

whats wendyball

I'd like to see it stretched to 5 years.

Id like it stretched to 7+ years

I didnt realise football followed it. I thought it had stretched it out.

I guess we just have to hope that our international coaches see sense and decline to select these players.

I think 3 years is reasonable. You have to strike a balance between the player committing to their new country, and the fact that this is their livelihood. Imagine, for whatever reason, you went abroad for work and were told "We'd like to promote you, but there's a residency qualification that you have to meet before we can." How long would it be fair to wait?

A typical senior sporting career might start at 21 and finish at 33. That's 12 years. An international career would typically start later, say 24, and end at about the same time. 9 years, then.

As a reasonableness check, Jason Leonard - whose international career was long-lived by anyone's standards - started in 90 or 91 and finished in 2003. So the extreme outside is about 12 years.

So it currently works out that a player who wants to move countries as a senior and qualify on residency would be giving up one third of their potential international career to play for their chosen country. I think that's a pretty fair sacrifice and commitment. If that player had moved over earlier, they sacrifice less. That's also fair.

I have no problem with people moving countries to earn a living...if they are good players they will benefit our young players and teams - great.

That doesnt mean they have to come and straight away declare they want to play for our national teams...nor does it give them the right to....

7+ years will sort that out....

GeordieFalcon wrote:I didnt realise football followed it. I thought it had stretched it out.

There is a gentlemans agreement between the home nations that they don't use the three year residency rule. Not followed football for a while but think a few eastern European countries took advantage of it, i.e Eduardo for Croatia.

Put it this way, seven years should be a minimum. But even then I find even the very thought of the presence of Mourtitz Botha in an England shirt sticks in the craw.

Even though he he came over as a second/third rate prospect via Bedford and developed into a good player for Sarries, it still makes my skin creep somehow in the knowledge that he learned his rugby in South Africa.

Maybe ten years residency with a year's allowance for every year before their 21st birthday?

Three years is the farce enjoyed in many sports bodies.

Remember that just that because a player can be selected is not the same as actually being selected.

Having said that, if anyone proposed such a policy on the general population for voting etc., I'd be supporting the anti-fascist factions who would be rightfully be putting the government, security services, police to task.

Funny how being a rugby fan and a member (well, technically an ex-member) of Amnesty International can be so bi-polar.

So, in all of this, I keep coming back to Mike Catt. Current England coach, 75 caps, 2 RWC Finals, 1 Winner's medal. Has lived in England for 20+ years.

Came to England in the early 1990s. Bath debut in 92, England debut in 94. Qualified through his mother.

A 7 year residency rule would probably have put paid to his England career, because by the time he'd qualified he could have been playing for the Boks for 3 or 4 years.

Ok, different era, different situation (apartheid-era exclusion, amateurism shading to shamateurism to professionalism) and you shouldn't argue from the particular to the general.

But I still don't like the thought that a player who has brought a lot to the English game might have been excluded from it because of an arbitrary "it doesn't feel right."

If I have an issue with the likes of Mouritz Botha or Manu Tuilagi, it's one of skills not jingoism.

Doesn't football follow citizenship? It's a minimum 5 years for UK citizenship isn't it? So 5 years would be fine with me. I personally would like to do away with blood and birth qualification but that really would screw over the PI nations.

Poorfour wrote:So, in all of this, I keep coming back to Mike Catt. Current England coach, 75 caps, 2 RWC Finals, 1 Winner's medal. Has lived in England for 20+ years.

Came to England in the early 1990s. Bath debut in 92, England debut in 94. Qualified through his mother.

A 7 year residency rule would probably have put paid to his England career, because by the time he'd qualified he could have been playing for the Boks for 3 or 4 years.

Ok, different era, different situation (apartheid-era exclusion, amateurism shading to shamateurism to professionalism) and you shouldn't argue from the particular to the general.

But I still don't like the thought that a player who has brought a lot to the English game might have been excluded from it because of an arbitrary "it doesn't feel right."

If I have an issue with the likes of Mouritz Botha or Manu Tuilagi, it's one of skills not jingoism.

I can't decide how much of a problem I have with the residency rule. I would like to see it increased I guess and don't think I would have a problem with it being extended to 5 years, or perhaps even 7. But then there is always the argument that if 3 years gets you a passport then you sould be allowed to represent that country.

However, whatever the residency rule is, as far as I'm concerned it should not override you being able to represent your country if your mother or father is from that country. That should override any residency rule and you should be allowed to opt for that country at any time if your mother or father is from that country, even if you've never lived there. In fact I'd go as far to say it should stay that way for grandparent's too. Well that's my opinion anyway.

And just as an afterthought, I was always under the impression that the residency rule has never overruled parentage etc anyway? Or am I completely off the mark on that?

Nothing over-rules anything else.

Irishhoneymonster, so you think it's ok for Waldrum (someone who didn't even know he HAD an English grandma) to represent England? He's basically the hypothetical situation used to show how daft the grandparent rule is.

Was it Budge Pountney who only discovered after he'd captained Scotland that his Grandad wasn't, in fact, born in Scotland - and had to then wait out the rest of the residency period? It definitely happened to someone!

Now that is ridiculous.

That was David Hilton, his grandfather was actually from bristol! To be fair when he found out he moved up to Glasgow to qualify via residency.

Poutney was a strange one, his grandmother was born in the channel islands, which makes you eligible for any British team. So no Scottish connection at all!

Intotouch wrote:So a majority must have voted for this in the IRB but since it's come in all I read either in the press or forums are criticisms of this. The criticisms are coming both from countries feeling the player drain (South Africa's press conference in Ireland) or the countries that are supposedly benefiting. (Ireland today) So here's a serious question: who proposed this rule and who voted for it? And amongst you all who loves it?

I wouldn't say Ireland are benefiting from the residency rule. Benefiting from overseas players 'working' in the country as rugby players, but not the residency rule. I can't think of many (any?) Irish international players who have got in on residency recently? Maybe my memory is failing, but can't think of any off the top of my head, so I wouldn't say the residency rule is benefiting Ireland.

Poorfour wrote:Was it Budge Pountney who only discovered after he'd captained Scotland that his Grandad wasn't, in fact, born in Scotland - and had to then wait out the rest of the residency period? It definitely happened to someone!

Now that is ridiculous.

Howarth for Wales was the famous Grannygate incident - claimed his grand father was Welsh but proof was never obtained. Turned out his grandfather was from NZ where Howarth was from too!

HammerofThunor wrote:Nothing over-rules anything else.

Irishhoneymonster, so you think it's ok for Waldrum (someone who didn't even know he HAD an English grandma) to represent England? He's basically the hypothetical situation used to show how daft the grandparent rule is.

Ok but in my view it is more legitimate than living in a country for 3 years, but yes fair enough, I could accept the grandparent rule going perhaps but def not the parent rule. The point i was making about one rule overruling another was that I have always assumed that the parentage rule always stood regardless of what a residency rule might be. For example, if you have a parent from a country then u didn't have to reside in that country at all before you play for them. I was responding to a suggestion that Mike Cat, who has an english mother, couldn't have played for England until 7 years after arriving in England if a 7 year residency rule had been in place. I would have thought that if he had an English mother then that fact would overrule the residency rule! Does that make sense or have I been drinking too much again?

Irishhoneymonster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Nothing over-rules anything else.

Irishhoneymonster, so you think it's ok for Waldrum (someone who didn't even know he HAD an English grandma) to represent England? He's basically the hypothetical situation used to show how daft the grandparent rule is.

Ok but in my view it is more legitimate than living in a country for 3 years, but yes fair enough, I could accept the grandparent rule going perhaps but def not the parent rule. The point i was making about one rule overruling another was that I have always assumed that the parentage rule always stood regardless of what a residency rule might be. For example, if you have a parent from a country then u didn't have to reside in that country at all before you play for them. I was responding to a suggestion that Mike Cat, who has an english mother, couldn't have played for England until 7 years after arriving in England if a 7 year residency rule had been in place. I would have thought that if he had an English mother then that fact would overrule the residency rule! Does that make sense or have I been drinking too much again?

Sorry - I should have explained. If he had had to qualify via a long residency, I don't think he would have. But I suppose he might have been less keen to play for England if he'd not been half-English. I don't know. Too long at work today.

Poorfour wrote:

Irishhoneymonster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Nothing over-rules anything else.

Irishhoneymonster, so you think it's ok for Waldrum (someone who didn't even know he HAD an English grandma) to represent England? He's basically the hypothetical situation used to show how daft the grandparent rule is.

Ok but in my view it is more legitimate than living in a country for 3 years, but yes fair enough, I could accept the grandparent rule going perhaps but def not the parent rule. The point i was making about one rule overruling another was that I have always assumed that the parentage rule always stood regardless of what a residency rule might be. For example, if you have a parent from a country then u didn't have to reside in that country at all before you play for them. I was responding to a suggestion that Mike Cat, who has an english mother, couldn't have played for England until 7 years after arriving in England if a 7 year residency rule had been in place. I would have thought that if he had an English mother then that fact would overrule the residency rule! Does that make sense or have I been drinking too much again?

Sorry - I should have explained. If he had had to qualify via a long residency, I don't think he would have. But I suppose he might have been less keen to play for England if he'd not been half-English. I don't know. Too long at work today.

No problem Poorfour no need to apologise

But my point is, if he has an english mother then surely any residency rule wouldn't have applied? (and wouldn't now either?) Meaning he could have played for England anytime he chose/was picked?

Yes i do agree though that if he didn't have any English parentage and had to wait 7 years to qualify then he may not have ever played for England.

Different strokes for different folks. I personally couldn;t give a toss who someone's father was or who their grandparents were. I'd much prefer someone who chose to come over here to someone who's only link was that their grandparent happened to be born here.

Ideally each would be done on an independent basis. There would be some sort of cultural measure that allowed an IRB board to determine whether someone should be allowed to play for a team. This may be how they how brought up (e.g. an Irish family in England) or their personal choices as an adult (usual immigration). Unfortunately there is no way they can do this with set rules.

So we instead have a situation where someone with a grandparent that was born somewhere on holiday can play for that country.

Yeah whilst I think the granny rule needs scrapping you should be available for your parents country...

Look, my main objection to the three year rule is about money and disadvantaging poorer countries. Obviously the most money players can get to play rugby is in clubs in Europe, France in particular. This means that they attract the best players which means that the best young players too. Which means that soon the residency rule will mean that France and to a lesser extent other European countries will have the greatest depth and quality of players in the world. Not because they've raised them or trained them but because they've bought them! This defeats the whole notion of a national team. We should just have club sides play each other and let the wealthiest dominate. There would be no difference.

Conversely it's harder for young local players to get a place playing in the country where they grew up and are from when the national team can be drawn from any country and where (like the IRFU recently) they actively search for young talent from abroad.

I'm also a member of amnesty international but I think that if there were a seven year residency rule it would allow those who genuinely want to become a citizen of a different country to play for that country and hopefully cut money out of the equation.

Is it really only three years now to become an EU citizen?

It's 5 years for the UK isn't it? I wouldn't have and issue with 7 years or citizenship (or just citizenship). Of course some places might be easier to become a citizen of that others.

I don't think anyone would have had any issues with a 5 year residency. This wouldn't have blocked Waldrum who the only guy I have an issue with. I would mind 7 years if you can't be a UK citizen and not be able to represent a UK country. That is just wrong to me (will the RFU be arranging marriages then? Some would probably try and claim it).

To a certain extent, I think this will settle down if the professional club game reaches a sustainable point.

England seem to be beginning to get their academy player development working properly and there's beginning to be a bit of a pipeline of players coming through who have real potential. I hope it's more than symbolic that Launchbury has leapfrogged Botha. Of the likely starting XV on Saturday, I think only Waldrom and Barritt won't have come up through the clubs' development system.

Someone who's been playing rugby in a country since they were a teenager - like Manu Tuilagi - is much less likely to raise hackles than a player who's switched countries as an adult. The more of them that the clubs can grow for themselves, the better.

westisbest wrote:whats wendyball

I'd like to see it stretched to 5 years.

Its the same as kissball.

Poorfour wrote:To a certain extent, I think this will settle down if the professional club game reaches a sustainable point.

England seem to be beginning to get their academy player development working properly and there's beginning to be a bit of a pipeline of players coming through who have real potential. I hope it's more than symbolic that Launchbury has leapfrogged Botha. Of the likely starting XV on Saturday, I think only Waldrom and Barritt won't have come up through the clubs' development system.

Someone who's been playing rugby in a country since they were a teenager - like Manu Tuilagi - is much less likely to raise hackles than a player who's switched countries as an adult. The more of them that the clubs can grow for themselves, the better.

Your right there, but a bad example seeing as he was named after the National side that all of his brothers have played for.

Being serious I think the residency rule should only realistically apply up until a certain age anyway, after all if your a 25 year old man and you are unsure of our nationality to the point that you feel you can change it after living somewhere for only 3 years, there must be something very wrong with you.

The residency rule is effectively discrimatory against all those rugby playing nations who don't have professional leagues. How can a player qualify for say Samoa through residency when they can't play professional rugby there? Yet a Samoan player can qualify for France, England, NZ etc. while earning his crust in their leagues.

The key qualifier should simply be that a player must hold a passport for the country selecting him. If a player holds more than one passport then he can make the choice.

Jimpy wrote:

westisbest wrote:whats wendyball

I'd like to see it stretched to 5 years.

Its the same as kissball.

So Netball

seen a few of them have a good kiss.

certainly seen netballers getting carried away with each other, but that was at the 7's

The Great Aukster wrote:The residency rule is effectively discrimatory against all those rugby playing nations who don't have professional leagues. How can a player qualify for say Samoa through residency when they can't play professional rugby there? Yet a Samoan player can qualify for France, England, NZ etc. while earning his crust in their leagues.

That's a brilliant point.

Most sensible debate I've seen on this topic in a while.

I think the biggest problem is how to legally enforce a limit that is higher than the current one, as I believe it is a legal rather than a "rugby rule" that leads to the three year limit.

I think the broad consensus from these debates tends to lead to:

- Scrap the Grandfather/mother bit but keep the parents bit
- Make the residency period longer (typically 7 years is suggested but there is variation)


Sometimes people think this should depend on if you moved before 16 or some similar rule and there are other quibbles, but I would ask how many people are against raising the time limit for residency and scrapping the grand parents rule?

The Great Aukster raises a very good point too - the current rules benefit the bigger nations at the expense of the smaller. They are regressive and need changing.

The biggest question of all however, remains:

Can the IRB legally increase the residency period or will they end up getting sued rather a lot?

I dont love the rule but Im not as opposed to it as most posters. I trust the IRFU to use it only in acceptional circumstances and where Irish players are available they take preference. I am not overjoyed by the Michael Bent and in particular Brian Smith examples because they were/are both FOB pseudo Irish however, provided they really are an exception rather than the norm then I can digest these exceptions. I do not have a issue with Strauss. I would if there were more than a couple of Strausses in the playing squad which there are not.

You don't need the residency rule if you qualify through eg a parent.

The thing is, the concept of qualifying through residency comes from the days when people couldn't travel as easily, so if, say, an Aussie was living in London, he couldn't realistically represent Australia. It's harder to justify in this day and age. People trying their luck as an England or Wales player because they reckon they've not much chance of getting into the SA team or whatever is not inthe spirit of sport, for me. On the other hand, if someone genuinely changes their allegiance, there should be a way for them to act on that - thinking of cases like Dale McIntosh or Rupert Moon who settled and stayed long-term.

Obviously you have to have a rough-and-ready criterion, it has realistically to be X number of years. In my view it should be enough to make it not worth the while of someone who is using it to get into an international team cos they wouldn't get in their own. Maybe 5 years would be enough for that?

It needs to be changed to 3 weeks. A boatload of Tuilagi's just got into Dover. We can't keep them waiting forever.

Poorfour wrote:I think 3 years is reasonable. You have to strike a balance between the player committing to their new country, and the fact that this is their livelihood. Imagine, for whatever reason, you went abroad for work and were told "We'd like to promote you, but there's a residency qualification that you have to meet before we can." How long would it be fair to

The residency rule does not prevent you from earning a living.

Yeah there's always club rugby. Make more money there anyway.

I'm against it. If Strauss wanted to become a citizen of Ireland then fair enough. He should be entitled to represent us. That's a big commitment to a new nation and presumably it means you want to live and raise your family here beyond rugby. Can't really argue with that if that's how he feels.

If Strauss wants to remain a citizen of RSA that's totally fair enough too. It's where he's from. But he shouldn't really be able to represent Ireland just because he lived here for three years and probably intends to go home when his playing days are over. It should be based on your citizenship or that of your parents.

At the same time its totally pointless criticizing Strauss or the IRFU or any other union or player in this situation. They're acting entirely within the rules. And if a player is really good and is eligible under the rules and makes himself available, the coach wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't select him.

Our criticisms should be directed at the rule and the irb. Because like the OP, I find almost nobody who like this rule and pretty much everybody is against it. So why is it the rule?

Well we don't want to compare football laws because they are quite stupid for example anyone qualified to play for Northern Ireland can also play for the Republic of Ireland whether they have lived there, have a grandparent or any relation at all.
As for Rugby I'd much prefer if we play with players born here however if they are good enough and they do want to play for us then there is no problem in my eyes if they are committed.
Lets also say lads this has been around for years New Zealand have been taking islanders as their own for years.

neilthom7 wrote:Well we don't want to compare football laws because they are quite stupid for example anyone qualified to play for Northern Ireland can also play for the Republic of Ireland whether they have lived there, have a grandparent or any relation at all.
As for Rugby I'd much prefer if we play with players born here however if they are good enough and they do want to play for us then there is no problem in my eyes if they are committed.
Lets also say lads this has been around for years New Zealand have been taking islanders as their own for years.

I really don't want to get into a political discussion about this Neil so please do not feel compelled to reply to this, but IMO that's actually not stupid. But anyway I am only voicing an opinion.

The main reason I wanted to post here was to quickly clarify something. What does the 3 year residency actually mean under EU law? Does it actually mean you become a citizen of that country after being residence for 3 years? And therefore you get a passport? Or is it some sort of right to permanent residency after 3 years or right to work or what? I'm assuming it is not a right to work thing because said player is likely to be already working. So what is it exactly? do you actually get full citizenship?

I'm not going to reply we all have our own opinion Irishhoneymonster and I respect that, I certainly have no want to get involved in any political debates as I couldn't care less about politics. As for the citizenship etc I'm not sure I think you need to live in UK for 5 years before you are a citizen but not sure on that. I think this may be a rugby residency rule, but we must remember this has been happening for years places like Ireland are just catching up to the likes of New Zealand who have been doing this for years.

No worries Neilthom.

With regards to the 3 year residency thing, I'm pretty sure people have mentioned that it's related to an EU law and if that's the case I just want to find out what that law is exactly. Anyway hopefully someone will come along soon and shed some light on it Is just that if it means that under EU law someone gets a passport after 3 years residence then I am finding it difficult to object to that someone who holds a passport also playing for that country. Guess I need all the facts before I can properly make my mind up on the 3 year residency rule.

I think if they are good enough, and they want to play for a country and they are eligable, why not it's their choice after all, I mean they have had to live there for 3 years its not like they can just decide one day I want to play for a different country one day, you don't move across the world for 3 years if you aren't committed.

Irishhoneymonster wrote:No worries Neilthom.

With regards to the 3 year residency thing, I'm pretty sure people have mentioned that it's related to an EU law and if that's the case I just want to find out what that law is exactly. Anyway hopefully someone will come along soon and shed some light on it Is just that if it means that under EU law someone gets a passport after 3 years residence then I am finding it difficult to object to that someone who holds a passport also playing for that country. Guess I need all the facts before I can properly make my mind up on the 3 year residency rule.

The IRB regulations are completely independent to any national or collective citizenships. There was a mention of UN law early saying there must be a system in place for someone to attain citizenship of a country they don't have ties to at birth (no idea if that's true or not). This would then be backed up by residency qualification with the IRB (since citizenship is not counted for their regulations).

Was great to see Strauss singing the Irish national anthem yesterday which Sexton who is Irish looked like he was not doing.

Manu did sing the anthem yesterday. Mako didn't. The camera swung to the coaches with Farrel and Lancaster singing the anthem. Rowntree just let out a bored sigh. I'm not one for anthems, players should just use the time to think about what they're about to do and the country they're about to represent. If that involves singing, fine. If not, fine.

was Strauss vs Strauss in Ireland vs SA the first time two cousins or brothers have faced each other on opposite international teams?

I think the three year rule is joke.

tigertattie wrote:was Strauss vs Strauss in Ireland vs SA the first time two cousins or brothers have faced each other on opposite international teams?

Nope.
Graeme Bachop (Japan) vs Stephen Bachop (Samoa) RWC 99
Graeme played for NZ 1988-1991, 1995, Stephen for NZ 1994

The So'ialo and Umaga brothers played against each other for NZ vs Samoa, and the Tagicakibau brothers for Fiji vs Samoa (they have one parent from each country)

I don't think the Tuilagis have played each other yet