• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2024 Six Nations] Scotland vs England - 24/02/24

No issue with taking a DG (unless there's an overlap!). Gives opposition defence more to think about and keeps the scoreboard moving.

But agree with the general thrust of your comments.
Its a bit odd to complain about that DG, the attack had filtered to nothing and the Scottish defense was well set.

More odd on decision was Scotland not attempting the bonus point when 11 points ahead. sure England score a try shortly after but weird scoreboard knowledge.
My issue was less the DG itself and more the mentality it represented. For me it felt like England were rudderless and went into grab any points we can mode, rather than the DG being part of a plan to keep Scotland on their toes.
 
It was Alan Solomons who sold Duhan the move to Edinburgh. He then left Edinburgh before Duhan arrived but the SRU rubber stamped the move (I'm not sure Cockers had much say in it from memory). I think Duhan felt he still owed something to Solomons hence his decision to go to Worcester and not another English club (plus more cash obv).
 
It only fails based on your assumption that he wouldn't move for five years.

Getting into hypotheticals you have to consider the two years without international appearance fees and increased sponsorship opportunities, the initial contract offer which may have been shorter and the Boks coming calling.
He'd been there for 4 years, why not 5 if he was obliged to?
 
Although becoming eligible for Scotland in summer 20 and beetling off to Worcester in Jan 21 wasn't a good look.

Blatant case of winger envy.
Why? He stayed for 4 years, he could have left 2020 but didn't.
 
Why? He stayed for 4 years, he could have left 2020 but didn't.
I don't really understand what you're arguing? Factually, if the residency rule was 5 years he doesn't qualify. Theoretically, he has a lot of decisions to make in those 5 years and many could take him away, like re-signing in 2019 for example, I doubt he wasn't fielding offers then.

I'm not singling out VdM either. My whole point is that the 5 year rule would stamp out a lot of residency qualifiers.
 
I don't really understand what you're arguing? Factually, if the residency rule was 5 years he doesn't qualify. Theoretically, he has a lot of decisions to make in those 5 years and many could take him away, like re-signing in 2019 for example, I doubt he wasn't fielding offers then.

I'm not singling out VdM either. My whole point is that the 5 year rule would stamp out a lot of residency qualifiers.
What I'm getting at is that you implied as soon as he qualified he left Scotland, the fact is he didn't. If he needed to stay that extra year then there is no reason to suspect he wouldn't have stayed that extra year.

Note that unlike England and Ireland, Scotland has no policy of demanding players play only for club sides in Scotland. As Scotland only has 2 "premier" teams this would near enough impossible. Although at the moment a vast percentage of the Scottish squad are Scotland based
 
Last edited:
Where you're born is a bit much (Heaslip, Israel's finest rugby export) but I'd be up for strengthening the rules consideribaly

Can't remember who it was on here but they had a good points based threshold idea,
It was a while ago so I can't remember the details but it was something along the lines of:
Residence at different ages nets you different amounts of points, so if you move somewhere as a pro it takes twice as long as if you moved somewhere as a child.
Grandparents count towards eligibility but don't qualify you automatically, so you'd need a grand parent and be playing in that country for a couple of years to qualify etc.

It's pie in the sky but I'd scrap residency after you reach a certain age entirely - something like you can't become eligible for a different country after the age of 25 (so you could still join the final year of an academy at 21 and become eligible four years later)
Residency under 21 totally agree.
Birth and parents added in.
Residency upped to 5 years as well
 
I think the rule should simply be that you can only play for a country if you can do the accent.
Which accent, though?

I want to see the England side pull off a convincing Dudley accent before they're allowed to take the pitch
 
Which accent, though?

I want to see the England side pull off a convincing Dudley accent before they're allowed to take the pitch
The more outrageous the accent, the more legitimate their claim to play for that nation is. The exception being the black country accent, if they do that they are instantly barred from playing rugby for any nation ever again.
 
The more outrageous the accent, the more legitimate their claim to play for that nation is. The exception being the black country accent, if they do that they are instantly barred from playing rugby for any nation ever again.
Surely, that'd be the Gloucester accent
 
Top