ARU say no to increased residency rule

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

With Bill Pulver saying Australia and many of the SH unions don't want change.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...ule-for-test-eligibility-20161007-grxfgh.html

I do like the standard it's all English and French clubs fault though.

I don't mind the idea of allowing a player to be picked for his birth country (Should it be a tier 2 nation) If they haven't got a cap for their current International team in say 2 years.

Could see some Older international players maybe playing for the likes of Germany, Hong Kong (thinking of UK players here mainly) if they wanted to do so in their semi retirement years.

Personally I would accept
If moved prior 18 with parents residency doesn't matter.
3 years residency if moved between 18-20, but can't play age grade rugby for said country at all. (So no Protheroe situation).
4 years residency @ 20+.

I also allow Players to be able to play for birth country if it is a tier 2 or lower country if they have
1 not been capped or selected by the current country for 2 years.
2 Only played Age Grade rugby.

I would be happy with that compromise. (I would prefer a 5 year rule to completely rule out 1 RWC cycle though.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I did think that according to some on here it was the RFU holding this back though.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I fail to see how it is the clubs fault or how increasing the rule to 5 years would hit the SH worse... On the one hand the SH accuse us of poaching and then a rule that would make poaching harder would somehow benefit us? Can the SH be consistant in what they are accusing us of because it seems we get accused of everything, even if it contradicts another accusation.

 

[Peat]

I fail to see how it is the clubs fault or how increasing the rule to 5 years would hit the SH worse... On the one hand the SH accuse us of poaching and then a rule that would make poaching harder would somehow benefit us? Can the SH be consistant in what they are accusing us of because it seems we get accused of everything, even if it contradicts another accusation.

The Southern Hemisphere is not one monolithic bloc with one voice and one mind. Expecting consistency is like asking 10 random people in the street and expecting them to be consistent in their replies. Australia lose very few players to other teams through residency but pick up a couple. It shouldn't be that surprising if they weren't that bothered.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The Southern Hemisphere is not one monolithic bloc with one voice and one mind. Expecting consistency is like asking 10 random people in the street and expecting them to be consistent in their replies. Australia lose very few players to other teams through residency but pick up a couple. It shouldn't be that surprising if they weren't that bothered.

I'm not saying they are but it does beg the question how much substance can be in the accusations if they aren't consistant. Surely if an accusation has merit then everyone would make the same one? As it is we get simultaneously accused of poaching and for attempting to introduce a rule to make poaching harder...

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

This Pulver lad seems a bit of an eedjit, throwing out the complete red herring of a Rugby League eligibility rule that is useful to them because only three countries on the planet really play that code - then saying that is something he'd like to pursue.

He makes a fair point on Australian residency being granted after 4 years. I'd make it that once you are officially resident of a country (in UK it is 5-6 years depending on how quickly you are processed) then you are eligible for that country. In the case of Australia it'd be 4 years. I'd have no problem with variations like that.

 

[Peat]

This Pulver lad seems a bit of an eedjit, throwing out the complete red herring of a Rugby League eligibility rule that is useful to them because only three countries on the planet really play that code - then saying that is something he'd like to pursue.

He makes a fair point on Australian residency being granted after 4 years. I'd make it that once you are officially resident of a country (in UK it is 5-6 years depending on how quickly you are processed) then you are eligible for that country. In the case of Australia it'd be 4 years. I'd have no problem with variations like that.

I don't think its much of a red herring if you're trying to persuade an Australo-Fijian that he wants to play Union rather than League and he's weighing up his options. I can't imagine they lose many that way, but I can see how they'd worry. And I think there is a fair degree of desire in some parts of SH rugby to see Islands guys who get a couple of caps for New Zealand or Australia and go no further to get a second chance representing the country of their ancestors. Or at least I get that impression online.

 

[Immenso]

Disappointing attitude from Pulver. Just because there is currently shed loads of Fijian wingers in the NRL who are serving Aussie eligibility criteria while being paid by a completely different sport. Very short term thinking.

The ARU are a shambles currently with awful administration.

You can only actually play 2 wingers at a time anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

I fail to see how it is the clubs fault or how increasing the rule to 5 years would hit the SH worse... On the one hand the SH accuse us of poaching and then a rule that would make poaching harder would somehow benefit us? Can the SH be consistant in what they are accusing us of because it seems we get accused of everything, even if it contradicts another accusation.

What are you talking about?

 

[Brigantine]

I think there is a fair degree of desire in some parts of SH rugby to see Islands guys who get a couple of caps for New Zealand or Australia and go no further to get a second chance representing the country of their ancestors.

That makes sense. The context for these pacific countries, is that a majority of Tongan / Samoan / Cook Is. nationals (or at least ethnics) are ex-pats living in Australia, Hawaii/California etc. but primarily New Zealand. Many of them keep up family ties and spend a lot of time in both countries. A pacific island country (together with their main ex-pat communities) is kind of like a small town - where everyone knows someone who knows someone. Not like a distant country.

Tongans: NZ 60,000, Australia 25,000, USA 37,000, Tonga 103,000
Samoans: NZ 145,000, Australia 55,000, Samoa 195,000 (NZ colonial history until 1962)
Cook Island Maori: NZ 60,000, Australia 16,000, Cook Islands 15,000 (Voluntarily a self-governing territory of NZ)
American Samoa: 55,000 in American Samoa, 130,000 people elsewhere in USA are either American Samoan or (Western) Samoan.

For comparison the Maori All Blacks have a population base of 600,000 NZ Maori and (some of?) the 130,000 Maori in Australia

Fiji not so much. Ex-pats are only ~20% of the total, similar to kiwis.
(Indigenous) Fijians: NZ 15,000, Australia 25,000, USA 30,000, Fiji 500,000
Fijian Indians: NZ 40,000, Australia 50,000, USA 30,000, Fiji 310,000

Sources: NZ Aus USA Fiji

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

What are you talking about?

The fact he was blaming English and French clubs "And to me a far bigger issue that World Rugby should be collectively dealing with is that the French and English clubs are raiding all of our countries of our players, which is having an incredibly disruptive impact on domestic competitions around the world." World rugby wants to introduce changes to reisdency and yet somehow he is able to bring English and French clubs into it and start blaming them? The implication beyond that is that the clubs pinch the players who then become eligible to play for England or France provided they haven't played for another country. If that isn't the implication then the point he made has absolutely nothing to do with residency rules nor world rugby at all and it little more than a cheap deflection tactic.

 

[Immenso]

The fact he was blaming English and French clubs "And to me a far bigger issue that World Rugby should be collectively dealing with is that the French and English clubs are raiding all of our countries of our players, which is having an incredibly disruptive impact on domestic competitions around the world." World rugby wants to introduce changes to reisdency and yet somehow he is able to bring English and French clubs into it and start blaming them? The implication beyond that is that the clubs pinch the players who then become eligible to play for England or France provided they haven't played for another country. If that isn't the implication then the point he made has absolutely nothing to do with residency rules nor world rugby at all and it little more than a cheap deflection tactic.

Yep Pulver is an idiot. Gives you a peak into why ARU and the wallabies are plummeting.

Throwing multiple red herrings to distract from his own half-arsed short cut strategies.

ARU can't populate 5 SR quality teams in face of NH club exodus with out recruiting from PIs, or PIs via NRL, or NZ.
Don't see much relevance to the 3 year residency rules.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I don't think its much of a red herring if you're trying to persuade an Australo-Fijian that he wants to play Union rather than League and he's weighing up his options. I can't imagine they lose many that way, but I can see how they'd worry. And I think there is a fair degree of desire in some parts of SH rugby to see Islands guys who get a couple of caps for New Zealand or Australia and go no further to get a second chance representing the country of their ancestors. Or at least I get that impression online.

Yes, I think I was naive and reading his remarks on that suggestion as trying to counter opposition to current residency rules and make out that his proposal would help the PIs. I think he is actually pushing for more lax rules to make it even easier to buy players who have had age group coaching in a foreign country. Far easier to buy talent if you can give a player a plan B in the international game if it doesn't work out in Australia. He neglects to mention of course that the consequence is that far more PI born players would become project players across the world under such rules.

 

[Car]

If moved prior 18 with parents residency doesn't matter.

In football, you have the problem that clubs offer the parents (usually just the father, I think) a job in their city so that the youth player can move on a free transfer. I could see this being abused in rugby as well.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I fail to see how it is the clubs fault or how increasing the rule to 5 years would hit the SH worse... On the one hand the SH accuse us of poaching and then a rule that would make poaching harder would somehow benefit us? Can the SH be consistant in what they are accusing us of because it seems we get accused of everything, even if it contradicts another accusation.

Well, I think we should look at SA's situation differently even though we sing the same kind of tune as SH unions.

My view is that if they extend the residency period to a longer time than what it is currently, it will have no effect on the amount of South African players being poached by France and England and Ireland. Our players will continue to be lured to the NH due to the poor exchange rate of the SA currency.

It will however have an effect on eligibility. But then again, What we are seeing this year is that we will focus more on local players than players abroad, and hardly ever pick someone to make his debut for the Springboks. So the situation could be that there will be a lot of Saffas in the NH not being selected for any national team during the prime of their rugby careers...

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Another article pretty much echoing my thoughts on the matter. Interestingly says some in the English RFU support extending the period and that it is 7 and 5 years respectively in English cricket and football. Players born in 20+ countries played in the last 6N. Pretty farcical.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/the-...-as-project-players-flood-european-game-70957

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I don't get most people on this issue.
The entire point of countries competing against each other is, precisely, that you do not get to buy/sell players. That's the entire point.
You need to use the cards mother nature gave you and do your best with them.
Clubs buy and sell players, but the idea of nations doing it beats the entire purpose. And i mean this in any sport.

We Argentines pride ourselves of that, and one of the very few exceptions i can think of is Higuain in our soccer team, which is kinda tricky.
He was born in France while his father, also a pro soccer player, was playing there. Still, under Argentine law you are Argentine is either parent is too.

 

[Peat]

I think most people agree with you Cruz, until you get to the people whose jobs rest on their countries doing well and therefore are seeking every possible edge. I've got a lot of sympathy for those people, and the rugby players trying to make the most of a career in a world where international rugby is the biggest game in town, but that doesn't mean I think the situation should stay the same.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

well for players of tier two nations there is a huge financial incentive to having your nationality switched to a tier one nation

not only are their gamechecks higher but a lot of them try to restrict the amount of non-nationals in their club team, I completely understand why a Fijian would try to become eligible for another nation

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I think most people agree with you Cruz, until you get to the people whose jobs rest on their countries doing well and therefore are seeking every possible edge. I've got a lot of sympathy for those people, and the rugby players trying to make the most of a career in a world where international rugby is the biggest game in town, but that doesn't mean I think the situation should stay the same.

Sorry, i do not understand. Could you elaborate? Is it a money issue?
If they are very good, like the people i think you and i have in mind, why can't they make money playing for a club, but still play for their country (and make no extra money out of that)?

To be crystal clear, i wouldn't mind, at all, if a player picked club over country. His choice and i am fine with that. What i do have a problem with is players getting to cherry pick which country they can play for.

 

[Immenso]

Another article pretty much echoing my thoughts on the matter. Interestingly says some in the English RFU support extending the period and that it is 7 and 5 years respectively in English cricket and football. Players born in 20+ countries played in the last 6N. Pretty farcical.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/the-...-as-project-players-flood-european-game-70957

Can I just point out though with regards to English cricket - that their new regulations have perverse side effects.
They have limited the number of 'foreigners' in their domestic league and introduced a 7 year qualification period.

But that has resulted in players from other countries, with euro links, using their English domestic credentials. Which removes them from eligibility for international cricket from their home nations. This is to meet ECB rules, not ICC.

NZ, Saf, Zim have players in county cricket with UK links who lose their right to play county cricket as a local if they start or resume playing international cricket for other nations.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, i do not understand. Could you elaborate? Is it a money issue?
If they are very good, like the people i think you and i have in mind, why can't they make money playing for a club, but still play for their country (and make no extra money out of that)?

To be crystal clear, i wouldn't mind, at all, if a player picked club over country. His choice and i am fine with that. What i do have a problem with is players getting to cherry pick which country they can play for.

Argentina are possibly about to face the 'conundrums' of some of the other nations with central contracting model.

Now that there is a professional team in Argentina, what are the rules used to grant contracts? As there is only a single team are the UAR reluctant to waste space by giving contracts to non-Pumas qualified players?

What if there is a young Uruguayan abdolutely tearing it up in Arg amateur club rugby, if he wants to play pro rugby would his chances be better if he doesn't declare for Uruguay? Wil that open up a chance to play pro with the Jaguares?

That is a side effect of the central contracting model.

The non-central model like France and England also produced its fair share of unintended consequences. With rules trying to ensure more local players in the leagues meaning foreigners not already tied to a nation have an incentive to qualify for their new host - even if no realistic chance to play for them.