Qualification

Not sure if this thread is a good idea but I'll go for it and let the mods decide!

Everything in some small way within rugby seems to be tied into 'foreign' players qualifying for other countries whether it be gaps in quality for certain positions luring unions to plug the gap or lack of resource meaning it's hard keep players in your own league; or not even having a professional league whatsoever.

The subject comes up again for me in the negotiations of world rugby to potentially close up shop for Pacific Islands in terms of this world league and the case in cricket of a hit called Archer who qualifies for England in a month or so. It's a bit tougher in cricket to qualify he needs to live here for 3 years despite having an English father. As most people on here know I'm a little more relaxed than some on players representing 'other' countries but in the overall climate I can see why people get their nose bent out of shape.

I guess this thread is to gauge feelings on the current state of representation whether you think it's good bad or indifferent. Whether you feel it's up to unions to hold their own lines or everyone's welcome. Do the laws need tightening or only to some countries? And do we follow crickets example of saying despite your English etc heritage we don't want you...yet.

Cricket World Cup 2019: Jofra Archer in contention for England call-up - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/47435883

Personal opinion but so long as people are willing to accept that there are no good guys among the leading nations we are fine. If this descends into a spewing of data to show XXX is worse than YYY then the thread will go rapidly down hill.

As far as I am concerned the current system is a mess. I strongly disliked the 3 year residency rule, yet we are told that longer residencies will just see talented kids being poached and then if they fail to kick on dumped (arguably a few countries already do this with school scholarships).

I strongly dislike that you can play for a country based purely on a single grandparent.

All in I do not like the current rules, but see no point any country setting higher standards. World Rugby are meant to be the guardians of the game and should look to set appropriate standards to ensure that the international game maintains it's relevance. We have to admit that there is something farcical when the 4 home nations can start a 6Ns campaign with their 12s all being qualified via residency.

Should be a 15 year residency rule. That would stop the professional ‘pretend to be whatever you say I am as long as you pay me more money’ kind of player.

ebop wrote:Should be a 15 year residency rule. That would stop the professional ‘pretend to be whatever you say I am as long as you pay me more money’ kind of player.

With the corollary that years in the country before age 18 count double (maybe treble). It would be wrong to say that (for example) Marland Yarde wouldn't be eligible for England until he turned 24 when he had lived in the country from the age of 9.

The residence period is definitely too short for players who move for professional contracts, but must be fair to those who move for other reasons.

Get rid of the grandparents rule - would stop cases like Thomas Waldrom, who was brought to England by Leicester as cover for international players on the grounds that he did not qualify for England, but then he discovered one of his grandparents was actually English born, even though had left when young. You can get the ridiculous situation where you have a right to represent a country based on where one person was born and had left anything up to about 70-80 years previously.

ebop wrote:Should be a 15 year residency rule. That would stop the professional ‘pretend to be whatever you say I am as long as you pay me more money’ kind of player.

No more Frizell, Fifeta, Fekitoa, Naholo etc. etc. Careful what you ask for.

RIP to the Blues prop who passed away on the weekend.

It's always a weird one for me. For every instance of a rule being used I can point to examples of me thinking it's entirely appropriate and also a little bit of a p*** take.Hughes vs Vunipolas. Waldrom vs Barritt.

There's no right way to do things, with the residency rules you get players who live in a country, are willing to settle there for life and feel a sense of belonging there whereas with the ancestry rules you get some players who might never have given that country a second thought, never set foot there and are only want to play for that country because no one else will have them or theres a few quid in it for them.

Each case is different, some are examples of how it works and others are examples of why it doesn't

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's always a weird one for me. For every instance of a rule being used I can point to examples of me thinking it's entirely appropriate and also a little bit of a p*** take.Hughes vs Vunipolas. Waldrom vs Barritt.

I understand what you are saying

Vunipolas did go to school in England (yes I know after being in Wales) and played for England at age grade. Hughes was at school in NZ and learned his rugby there coming to England as an adult. 

Pretty sure Barritt has an English mother (as does Te'o though, and I am fine with Barritt but not Te'o).


I would make the residency something like 8 years with time deducted as follows:

8 years for being born in the country
4 years for each parent born in the country
2 years for each grandparent born in the country
2 years for each year of schooling in that country



Oh and I would also require any player to hold a relevant passport - so if you wish to play for England, Wales or Scotland a UK passport, UK or Irish for Ireland.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's always a weird one for me. For every instance of a rule being used I can point to examples of me thinking it's entirely appropriate and also a little bit of a p*** take.Hughes vs Vunipolas. Waldrom vs Barritt.

I understand what you are saying

Vunipolas did go to school in England (yes I know after being in Wales) and played for England at age grade. Hughes was at school in NZ and learned his rugby there coming to England as an adult. 

Pretty sure Barritt has an English mother (as does Te'o though, and I am fine with Barritt but not Te'o).


I would make the residency something like 8 years with time deducted as follows:

8 years for being born in the country
4 years for each parent born in the country
2 years for each grandparent born in the country
2 years for each year of schooling in that country



Oh and I would also require any player to hold a relevant passport - so if you wish to play for England, Wales or Scotland a UK passport, UK or Irish for Ireland.

Except that punishes some players, such as someone whose parent is in the military and happen to be born abroad or if they happen to be working abroad. Is nationality just where you are born?

marty2086 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's always a weird one for me. For every instance of a rule being used I can point to examples of me thinking it's entirely appropriate and also a little bit of a p*** take.Hughes vs Vunipolas. Waldrom vs Barritt.

I understand what you are saying

Vunipolas did go to school in England (yes I know after being in Wales) and played for England at age grade. Hughes was at school in NZ and learned his rugby there coming to England as an adult. 

Pretty sure Barritt has an English mother (as does Te'o though, and I am fine with Barritt but not Te'o).


I would make the residency something like 8 years with time deducted as follows:

8 years for being born in the country
4 years for each parent born in the country
2 years for each grandparent born in the country
2 years for each year of schooling in that country



Oh and I would also require any player to hold a relevant passport - so if you wish to play for England, Wales or Scotland a UK passport, UK or Irish for Ireland.

Except that punishes some players, such as someone whose parent is in the military and happen to be born abroad or if they happen to be working abroad. Is nationality just where you are born?

I was born abroad with a father in the Army. However I would qualify based on the fact that each parent was born in England. Even if they were not I had over 4 years of schooling in England.

Rhodesian parents apparently but yes the Te'o Barritt thing works one way or another. I do think a bit of the push factor is generally ignored in this though. If there was some way to financially benefit from representing Fiji at al it would stop some having their heads turned. I credibly hard to do though hence the issues that world rugby are having.

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's always a weird one for me. For every instance of a rule being used I can point to examples of me thinking it's entirely appropriate and also a little bit of a p*** take.Hughes vs Vunipolas. Waldrom vs Barritt.

I understand what you are saying

Vunipolas did go to school in England (yes I know after being in Wales) and played for England at age grade. Hughes was at school in NZ and learned his rugby there coming to England as an adult. 

Pretty sure Barritt has an English mother (as does Te'o though, and I am fine with Barritt but not Te'o).


I would make the residency something like 8 years with time deducted as follows:

8 years for being born in the country
4 years for each parent born in the country
2 years for each grandparent born in the country
2 years for each year of schooling in that country



Oh and I would also require any player to hold a relevant passport - so if you wish to play for England, Wales or Scotland a UK passport, UK or Irish for Ireland.

Except that punishes some players, such as someone whose parent is in the military and happen to be born abroad or if they happen to be working abroad. Is nationality just where you are born?

I was born abroad with a father in the Army. However I would qualify based on the fact that each parent was born in England. Even if they were not I had over 4 years of schooling in England.

The point I was tryingto make was, why should they have to go through a process rather than just be qualified

marty2086 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's always a weird one for me. For every instance of a rule being used I can point to examples of me thinking it's entirely appropriate and also a little bit of a p*** take.Hughes vs Vunipolas. Waldrom vs Barritt.

I understand what you are saying

Vunipolas did go to school in England (yes I know after being in Wales) and played for England at age grade. Hughes was at school in NZ and learned his rugby there coming to England as an adult. 

Pretty sure Barritt has an English mother (as does Te'o though, and I am fine with Barritt but not Te'o).


I would make the residency something like 8 years with time deducted as follows:

8 years for being born in the country
4 years for each parent born in the country
2 years for each grandparent born in the country
2 years for each year of schooling in that country



Oh and I would also require any player to hold a relevant passport - so if you wish to play for England, Wales or Scotland a UK passport, UK or Irish for Ireland.

Except that punishes some players, such as someone whose parent is in the military and happen to be born abroad or if they happen to be working abroad. Is nationality just where you are born?

I was born abroad with a father in the Army. However I would qualify based on the fact that each parent was born in England. Even if they were not I had over 4 years of schooling in England.

The point I was tryingto make was, why should they have to go through a process rather than just be qualified

But they are not going through a process. If both parents are qualified they qualify, if they have just one parent qualified they may have to have actually lived in the country for a bit, but possibly not with also maybe having two grandparents qualified. The only process if you do not have to serve residency is ticking some boxes to show why.

If you can show me an example of someone who would be unfairly punished by this I am happy to rethink my thoughts - though as it is a plan that would only come to fruition if I was Emperor of the World, we are pretty safe.

Why not just wait for the five year rule to become operational and bed down before all of us going off again on new qualification proposals........ so now people want eight years?

Why Always the drive to always and always constantly seek new rules, new regulations, new hoops to get through. Could rugby admin people all over the world just relax for a decade and keep their minds away from new ideas, new systems, new rules, new conditions, new opportunities..... This has got to be the most neurotic generation in .... in....well, in generations!

We could wait 5 years then talk, but that would be far too silent.

Wait ten years would be a nicer silence even...silence is golden.

SecretFly wrote:Wait ten years would be a nicer silence even...silence is golden.

 Is that the Saracens motto?

The qualification rules are way too slack and way too tight at the same time - especially residency.

Countries that have professional leagues attract professional players whereas countries that do not have a professional league will not attract professional players!
The current system is patently unfair as those already rugby rich countries increase their player pools naturally through residence, while the PIs end up losing players through economic migration. If World Rugby had the first clue about anything they would address these market forces, which in turn would make the lower tier teams more competitive, and in turn open up a more natural pathway to the promotion/relegation they seem to crave so much.

If WR truly want to help the 'rugby poor' nations they need to have different rules for them than the rich tier-ones.
I'd have residency qualification for the nations with pro-leagues based on what I call the 'Majority Rule'. This is simply that a player must have spent the majority of his life in that country. So a 20 year old would have to have spent over 10 years living in say Scotland to represent them.
For tier two nations without professional rugby, the majority rule could be extended to parents. For example if a Pro-player's parent had lived the majority of their life in a Canada (but not born there etc.) then the player could qualify for that country.

The Great Aukster wrote: the PIs end up losing players through economic migration. If World Rugby had the first clue about anything they would address these market forces, which in turn would make the lower tier teams more competitive, and in turn open up a more natural pathway to the promotion/relegation they seem to crave so much.

Surely that's the point of qualifying through parents and grandparents?

About half of the Tongan and Samoan squads in November were made up of players born outside the respective countries and produced in academies and programs in other countries

marty2086 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: the PIs end up losing players through economic migration. If World Rugby had the first clue about anything they would address these market forces, which in turn would make the lower tier teams more competitive, and in turn open up a more natural pathway to the promotion/relegation they seem to crave so much.

Surely that's the point of qualifying through parents and grandparents?

About half of the Tongan and Samoan squads in November were made up of players born outside the respective countries and produced in academies and programs in other countries

Not saying to give up parents and grandparents rule for Tier two countries, but rather make a difference with Tier one nations. So ancestry could go back to grandparents for Samoa but no further than parents for New Zealand.

Not a bad suggestion I guess it comes down to fairness over equality, would laxer residency rules also be beneficial outside of the top teams if it drove players to other countries?

If teams like Germany, Spain, Brazil, Uruguay could pick up some Kiwis, Aussies, English men etc it could be beneficial long term to developing the game in those countries if they could become more competitive

Oh dear me.....its my favourite topic.

Have you been waiting for me 7.5??

Set up the rod ages ago.
My next is for our other Geordie friend titled is it time to give tom youngs another chance.

Marty, and let's try reciprocating that generosity of spirit in football.... Rep of Ireland or Northern Ireland to pick up German, Spanish, Uruguayan and Brazilian players to help develop the game and make them more competitive.

Good idea

No 7&1/2 wrote:Set up the rod ages ago.
My next is for our other Geordie friend titled is it time to give tom youngs another chance.

I guess in reality its a difficult one.

I think the move to 5 years will knock out most of them now, as 3 years is reachable, but 5 is quite a bit more now, so will probably put a lot of people off.

Theres still a few grey areas.

Im not and never have been happy about the cross code nationality change.
Ie play for NZ in league and then England in Union.
I appreciate they are different games but I just don't like that fact.

Also.....if a player has played league in England for many years, that ALSO seemingly qualifies as his 3 years / 5 years in Union. Erm nope! Solomana should not have played for England. He should have had to re-do his residency playing Union! If playing league assists your union residency...then playing league for a nation should also go against eligibility for the Union code nationality.

The grandparent rule should be abolished today. Simple as that.

There are other grey ones, but gain I think most will be covered now with 5 years...and the main ones are above.