Foreign legion encamps at No.8

First topic message reminder :

Interesting article here from the rugby paper, and it shows just how much of a joke the residency rule is, interestingly though, with the biggest player pool in the world England seem to be the worst for exploiting this nonsense rule:-

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/peter-jackson/24662/peter-jackson-column-foreign-legion-encamps-at-no-8/

Something needs to be seriously looked at as this is getting beyond the joke. England have capped 16 different players from South Africa and New Zealand in the past ten years, Ireland have capped 8 players from the same two countries, Scotland 7 players and France 6, Wales have been the least reliant on capping players from New Zealand and South Africa with only 4 capped players from the two countries.

This is all without considering time serving players currently serving their time in the Pro12 and Avivia, this is all what is wrong with rugby at the moment, and it really puts things into perspective.

For what ever reason, Australian, Fijian, Somoan, and Tongan born players are not on that list, so I bet that the amount of players "poached" will go up ten fold if they were.

The amount of young players being tempted by the riches of the NH is getting ridiculous now, this needs to stop. Something needs to be done about it. If the clubs want to use these players, then fine, but the pathway to the international team needs to be different.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And we simply pointed out that Wales have more.

Your also accusing me of targeting England which I am not. Who ever is the worst for it, the system is wrong, and it is a massive problem what ever slant you try and put on it. Every tier one country in the NH has one of a Samoan/Fijian/Tongan/Australian/New Zealander and South African playing for them, some have more than others, and most countries have time serving one's which make a mockery out of the system.

No, I accused you of misleading stats.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No, I accused you of misleading stats.

Good God, grow up man.

Ok. So what can we do about Wales picking so many players who weren't born there?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ok. So what can we do about Wales picking so many players who weren't born there?

Blame Roger Lewis that seems to be how it works in Welsh Rugby

Or as I asked earlier, which young players in the last 10 years do you feel England poached and why?

Or Nigel owens marty.

lostinwales wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:... England have capped 16 different players from South Africa and New Zealand in the past ten years, Ireland have capped 8 players from the same two countries, Scotland 7 players and France 6, Wales have been the least reliant on capping players from New Zealand and South Africa with only 4 capped players from the two countries...

This statement stretches the stats in a way which suits someones standard agenda. What it really tells us is that English (and Scottish) people like to try life in different countries

Revised list for England based on my earlier list is
Mark Van Gisbergen
Mouritz Botha
Lesley Vainikolo
Shontane Hape
Ricky Flutey
Henry Paul
Thomas Waldrom (who had a granny anyway)
Hendre Fourie

Paterson only played vs the Barbarians as far as I can see so I would assume that isn't a full cap

So that is actually 7 or 8 depending on your view of Waldrom

And 3 of those were in this country playing league, so they didn't intend to play international union when they came here..

Cant check everyone. Scotland have Nel and Strauss through residency and Hart through a granny. Not sure about the rest of the kilted kiwis

To my knowledge the only residency players in the current Scotland 23 are Nel, Strauss and Visser. Hardie and Maitland have Scottish relatives, as does Blair Cowan, Tommy Seymour and David Denton.

To be clear, despite Scotland's clever policy and practice to maximise opportunities within the rules, I am against the 3 year residency rule. It should be 5 years prior to the age of 23 (i.e. 18 is the latest age you can turn up at a country and still be able to qualify on that basis, but you have to wait until you are 23 to do so). I would also ignore the Granny rule as well, and simply look to place of birth for the parents or the individual.

If you weren't born in Scotland, Mum and Dad weren't born in Scotland, and you haven't lived in Scotland for 5 years (and the clock stops in that regard on your 23rd birthday), you can't play for Scotland.

Until fES' law comes into force, I suggest that Scotland continue to send scouting parties around the world and pluck the best possible a talent, all within the rules of course. I wouldn't want a repeat of that Shane Howarth business.....

No 7&1/2 wrote:Or as I asked earlier, which young players in the last 10 years do you feel England poached and why?

I have not said England poached anybody, but why let that get in the way of a good attack for you to have on me.

Stop dodging questions. How can we stop Wales picking players who were born outside Wales? which young players in the last 10 years do you feel England 'poached' (as you say in your original post) and why?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Stop dodging questions. How can we stop Wales picking players who were born outside Wales? which young players in the last 10 years do you feel England 'poached' (as you say in your original post) and why?

Show me where I have accused England of doing this then we can go on. Until then, please stop this propaganda circus you have with me, it is getting tiresome.

England have time serving players, but they do not have "poached" players. That is an issue to be taken up with the French, as I have said earlier. I have not said England have poached anybody, I have read my "original post" and the only poaching line in there was put in to make YOU happy.

'First topic message reminder :

Interesting article here from the rugby paper, and it shows just how much of a joke the residency rule is, interestingly though, with the biggest player pool in the world England seem to be the worst for exploiting this nonsense rule:-

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/peter-jackson/24662/peter-jackson-column-foreign-legion-encamps-at-no-8/

Something needs to be seriously looked at as this is getting beyond the joke. England have capped 16 different players from South Africa and New Zealand in the past ten years, Ireland have capped 8 players from the same two countries, Scotland 7 players and France 6, Wales have been the least reliant on capping players from New Zealand and South Africa with only 4 capped players from the two countries.

This is all without considering time serving players currently serving their time in the Pro12 and Avivia, this is all what is wrong with rugby at the moment, and it really puts things into perspective.

For what ever reason, Australian, Fijian, Somoan, and Tongan born players are not on that list, so I bet that the amount of players "poached" will go up ten fold if they were.

The amount of young players being tempted by the riches of the NH is getting ridiculous now, this needs to stop. Something needs to be done about it. If the clubs want to use these players, then fine, but the pathway to the international team needs to be different.'

So you now take back the 'poached' bit. fair enough. And you admit you're quoting the amount of players incorrectly as not all 16 of the England players mentioned are time serving. The change I requested you to make wasn't ie incorrect numbers in relation to time serving players.

So care to answer the 2 questions.

And the poaching bit was on there to start with.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And the poaching bit was on there to start with.

BUT IT DOES NOT SAY ENGLAND HAVE BEEN POACHING ANYONE.

Please stop trying to fabricate arguments, you are a liar, and I have pointed this out to you. So PLEASE, give it a rest.

I have said, and will say again, the French are the guilty party when it comes to "poaching" the rest of us take advantage of the crappy time serving nonsense rule.

No, it says everyone has been 'poaching', which would include England. Let me reword that one for you then, which young players have been tempted over by England to play for the national teams and why do you feel that's the case in each incidence?

and How can we stop Wales picking players who were born outside Wales?

This entire debate is a pointless waste of internet space.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
No, it says everyone has been 'poaching', which would include England. Let me reword that one for you then, which young players have been tempted over by England to play for the national teams and why do you feel that's the case in each incidence?

Semesa Rokoduguni

No 7&1/2 wrote:and How can we stop Wales picking players who were born outside Wales?

You cannot, as the ones we picked have either been here for over three years or they have Welsh parents. I know it stinks, but they are the rules and I do not like it anymore than most people.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:This entire debate is a pointless waste of internet space.

Funny you say that, I was thinking similar about the Pro12 having too few international players thread .....

So 1 player. And how and why do you think England tempted him over here to play rugby?

Interesting so you do believe that players such as Lydiate should only be able to play for their country of birth. Fair enough, though I'd completely disagree with that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So 1 player. And how and why do you think England tempted him over here to play rugby?

Interesting so you do believe that players such as Lydiate should only be able to play for their country of birth. Fair enough, though I'd completely disagree with that.

Sorry and Nathan Hughes.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
No, it says everyone has been 'poaching', which would include England. Let me reword that one for you then, which young players have been tempted over by England to play for the national teams and why do you feel that's the case in each incidence?

Semesa Rokoduguni

Standing in front of Taliban bullets must have been an excellent selling point, wonder who else thats worked on      

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
No, it says everyone has been 'poaching', which would include England. Let me reword that one for you then, which young players have been tempted over by England to play for the national teams and why do you feel that's the case in each incidence?

Semesa Rokoduguni

Are you seriously suggesting that Rokoduguni was tempted to this country in order to play for England? What did the RFU say to him? Please come to England on the off-chance that you might play one day for England. Oh and by the way you will need to join the Army and risk your life for a few years in order to come here.

What a ludicrous suggestion!

So why have you changed your mind on Rokoduguni?

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Neither was he lured here for money through rugby to be poached by England though. Which goes back to what your overall point is here. Confused points.

Yes I know. I just do not like people taking the moral high ground and using sensitive circumstances to aid their point. He should be playing for Fiji anyway not England. Or is using the British armed forces another loophole ?

And how was Huges tempted over by England?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Interesting so you do believe that players such as Lydiate should only be able to play for their country of birth

Sorry, but can you please direct me to where I have said that, or is that another lie from you ?

More twisting and wriggling, to try and support your agenda against me on here.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So 1 player. And how and why do you think England tempted him over here to play rugby?

Interesting so you do believe that players such as Lydiate should only be able to play for their country of birth. Fair enough, though I'd completely disagree with that.

Sorry and Nathan Hughes.

Would that be the currently uncapped and not in any squads Nathan Hughes?

My formatting is poor there. Your quote was 'Yes I know. I just do not like people taking the moral high ground and using sensitive circumstances to aid their point. He should be playing for Fiji anyway not England. Or is using the British armed forces another loophole ?' that bit.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So why have you changed your mind on Rokoduguni?

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Neither was he lured here for money through rugby to be poached by England though. Which goes back to what your overall point is here. Confused points.

Yes I know. I just do not like people taking the moral high ground and using sensitive circumstances to aid their point. He should be playing for Fiji anyway not England. Or is using the British armed forces another loophole ?

And how was Huges tempted over by England?

I have not changed my mind on Roko. Again, you are fabricating bullshiote to suit your agenda.

Hughes was tempted over by ££££££££££££££ most likely.

On the Lydiate bit you just said 'You cannot, as the ones we picked have either been here for over three years or they have Welsh parents. I know it stinks, but they are the rules and I do not like it anymore than most people.'

You don't like players like Lydiate qualifying under their parents.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So 1 player. And how and why do you think England tempted him over here to play rugby?

Interesting so you do believe that players such as Lydiate should only be able to play for their country of birth. Fair enough, though I'd completely disagree with that.

Sorry and Nathan Hughes.

Hughes wasn't brought over with a view to him playing for England though, it was only once his performances picked up and he decided to forego playing for Fiji or Samoa and try to make the England squad

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Neither was he lured here for money through rugby to be poached by England though. Which goes back to what your overall point is here. Confused points.

Yes I know. I just do not like people taking the moral high ground and using sensitive circumstances to aid their point. He should be playing for Fiji anyway not England. Or is using the British armed forces another loophole ?

That reads to me as if you were agreeing that Rokoduguni wasn't lured here for money?

No 7&1/2 wrote:My formatting is poor there. Your quote was 'Yes I know. I just do not like people taking the moral high ground and using sensitive circumstances to aid their point. He should be playing for Fiji anyway not England. Or is using the British armed forces another loophole ?' that bit.

Yes he should be playing for Fiji, but he isn't, he is playing for England, because he has lived there for more than three years, he is not doing anything wrong either. Still you are fabricating stuff up to suit your agenda. The person who wrote that used the fact that he served in the armed forces as extra credence to play for England, which is bollox.

Please stop trying to twist things to get yourself out of a hole.

No hole for me. You're struggling a bit though!

No 7&1/2 wrote:On the Lydiate bit you just said 'You cannot, as the ones we picked have either been here for over three years or they have Welsh parents. I know it stinks, but they are the rules and I do not like it anymore than most people.'

You don't like players like Lydiate qualifying under their parents.

Lydiate did not just qualify through parents.... FFS this is getting boring now. Grow up. Lydiate has lived in Wales for almost his whole life.

Please stop pick, pick, picking. Stop quoting things I have not said, if you think everything to do with qualifying for a national team is ok then fine, I do not, so please stop trying to pick a fight.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No hole for me. You're struggling a bit though!

With what ?

Got yourself in a bit of a tizz here LD

So Lydiate is fine qualifying through parents but Hartley isn't?  You're struggling keeping on top of your points.

BamBam wrote:Got yourself in a bit of a tizz here LD

Yes you are right. I just get a bit hacked off, especially when being accused of something that is not true. Anyway I'll have a.
for biting.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So Lydiate is fine qualifying through parents but Hartley isn't?  You're struggling keeping on top of your points.

Again you are lying. I have said in this very thread there is nothing wrong with Hartley's qualification. STOP TELLING PORKIES. You'll only end up making yourself look even stupider than you re currently doing.

So then why have you included Hartley in your first post and used it as evidence that England are the worst offenders?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So then why have you included Hartley in your first post and used it as evidence that England are the worst offenders?

Worst offenders of having players playing for them who have been born outside of their current country. What part of that did you not understand, AGAIN I will say, I was surprised and interested by this. I did not accuse England of doing anything wrong, i did not accuse England of poaching, I was just surprised and interested. THAT'S ALL.

To be honest I would have thought Scotland and Italy would have had the most, not England.

Wales though are worse currently than England for having players playing for them who have been born outside of their current country. Don't get so touchy, wales are just the worst offenders. I'm not surprised though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wales though are worse currently than England for having players playing for them who have been born outside of their current country. Don't get so touchy, wales are just the worst offenders. I'm not surprised though.

I am only getting touchy because you keep spinning yarns, and making stuff up that I have not even said.

I've not made up anything here. All backed up after you've accused me though. Wales are the worst offenders.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wales are the worst offenders.

So England have 16 on that list, and Wales have 4 so Wales need another 12 players playing for them in the last 10 years born outside of Wales before we start, I await your list.

Is this guy for real?

TightHEAD wrote:Is this guy for real?

You think the situation with poaching and the residency rules are OK ?

I do, people have moved around for Centuries.

No one forces them to sign on the dotted line, so what's the problem?

TightHEAD wrote:I do, people have moved around for Centuries.

No one forces them to sign on the dotted line, so what's the problem?

I am not telling you what you should do or think, that is your prerogative but I would suggest you read this article, it might make you think again:-


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/fiji/11854929/Rugby-uncovered-Despicable-abuse-of-young-Pacific-talent-is-huge-stain-on-game.html

And I would also suggest that No. 71/2 and his mates read this I found on the interweb:-

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/feb/24/rugby-eligibility-england-france

Whatever you feel about the rights and wrongs of international eligibility, closing the three-year residency rule would be seen as a disaster by most Pacific Islands players

From the article.

I don't see how the case studies cited are in anyway unique to overseas players. Shady goings on from dodgy clubs, clubs going bust. Any player in that scenario is going to be screwed, import or not.