Brett Gosper: 3 Year Residency Rule to be changed?

[Groundhog]

The grandparent rule is in theory a lot less contentious in my view, but when a guy like Mike Bent is allowed to walk into the national team of a country with which he has very little actual connection, it really rubs me up the wrong way, moreso than a guy who we've at least put time into developing like Stander, although that's still wrong.
Kind of beside the point, but for Ireland a good system of sifting out the guys who actually want to play for Ireland due to an inherited national identity is the exiles system in Britain which guys like the Easterby's, Ruddock, Marmion and Tuohy came through. I have absolutely no problem with guys like these making their way into national sides as they've expressed their desire to play for Ireland through preferance and not convenience.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Isn't that what Cmac is saying though?

---

My own views on the subject aren't very simple. While I am all for the principle of willing buyer(employer) / willing seller (player) as it applies to the case of "import" players in national teams the unions and selectors that pick these players up have to accept the fact that the supporters have some form of ownership of their national sides and I fully get the fact people prefer their sides to be representative of their nations. I don't really have a problem with many of these that have come up in the past though where there is some link between the "import" and the country he plays for like for instance Mtawarira for SA- neighboring country (porous boundaries) with a lot of similarities culturally/historically, played his pro rugby here, has been a resident for ages, Barrett for England as he is an "English" South African and as the cliche saying goes (from us 'Boere') 'they' ('Anglo Africans') have one foot in SA and one in England in any case. So too Pocock for Aussie as he would fit in culturally and there were political/social factors at play in Zimbabwe which means the move to Aussie (with his family) wasn't a purely financial one if at all which for me is a big 'mitigating factor' for allowing "imports"- acknowledging that the move is the person adopting a new nation/nationality as much as that is possible due to.. maybe even physical threat in his home country. This is almost based on the notion that white people don't belong in Africa to which I don't subscribe BUT at the same time it is difficult to deal with those that try to push that agenda and do so with violence and intimidation on a daily basis. This brings me to South Africans and while it's not all bad I'll admit there is any number of reasons for a white man to take his family and move off and that I've looked at what can only be called escape routes myself. We are of North Western European descent (mainly Dutch and French but people tend to forget that there were a lot of early Scottish settlers and that the British pushed for British emmigration to SA after the Boer war to "act as a counterweight to the Boer" so it's almost 60:40% Dutch/French/Scottish(Boere):Afrikaner'ized' British/Anglo English. If we are all but forced to leave SA due to social/political circumstances it's hard to see a fit other than the countries of origin or other former colonies of said countries. I guess I'd like to imagine us as welcome as I can see myself moving as well even if not to play pro rugby.

I'm not disagreeing with Cmac.

My view is that colonization hasn't happened in the past 60 odd years now. So no current player can use that as a reason. his parents moved or immigrated for a specific reason, and believe me, their reason wasn't so that their future child could proudly wear the nation's rugby jumper and sing the national anthem.

Money is the only current motivator. Playing international rugby means that you fall in a certain class as a player, which means you have a certain value attached to you as a player. If a player feels that he will be able to play for an international team, with the idea of getting more money, then why not try any or every avenue to do that? Stander for instance feels that he may not be up to scratch if he stayed in SA. but in Ireland the competition for that spot is not that tough. Hell, Stander was at the Bulls and he would have fought for a place in his club team with Arno Botha and Pierre Spies...

 

[bw245]

While I agree with most of what has been said above, you do have to question whether or not the same rule should apply to the coaches? Coaching a team and playing for a team, when not being a national of that team, for me, should have the same rules. The coach sets out the game plan, the players orchestrate it.

Take Warren Gatland, for example. He's been coaching with Wales for god knows how many years, but will never be Welsh by nationality. However, being a Welsh citizen means that his loyalties are with Wales. Same goes for Joe Schmidt. Should the same apply for the players?

Of course, there is that matter that certain players come from the SH to NH sides because they've been rejected by their own country. While Jared Payne has been good for Ireland, I do think that rule has to be alternated. One, it makes the receiving team look desperate. Two, it gives the SH team more to be cocky about. If you have not played or tried out for your country at all (beyond u/20), then the citizenship rule should apply. However, if you've played for SA, for example, and were then dropped, you should not be able to go play for another country.

 

[Shaggy]

My thoughts are that WR should just let the various governments sort it out ... if you are deemed (insert your chosen country here) enough to receive a passport from that country by either successfully completing the immigration process to become a citizen of that country, or get a passport by the fact that your ancestors make you eligible, then it's good enough. This at least demonstrates some form of commitment to your destination country.

I'm more concerned with the closing of the Olympic Sevens loop hole, that allows players that have already played for one country, to play for another ... if you are eligible to play for more than one country, good for you, you choose the country you want to play for, but don't expect to "change sides" just because things didn't turn out the way you'd hoped, or you'd like another crack at test rugby.

 

[Peat]

I think we should just replace it all with Gladiatorial contests. If two countries want the same player, they must nominate champions to fight to the death and the winner gets the player.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I heard Iceland have been banging on about that to the IRB for years

 

[TRF_heineken]

I heard Iceland have been banging on about that to the IRB for years
View attachment 3767

Oberyn's Son will get his revenge:

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I heard Iceland have been banging on about that to the IRB for years
View attachment 3767

In real life he isn't that big TBH.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I reckon I could take him.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Look at the gut on him, he's just a fat *******.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I bet he skips leg day as well!

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

A really interesting read for residency afficianados.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40844915

Essentially, the Scottish Union is giving up on "project players" as they don't appear to consider this viable under the new 5 year term (as I anticipated).

This coincides with Scotland investing more on rearing their own domestic talent and last weeks annoucement of investing millions in a new 6 team semi-pro domestic league. All very positive to me and provides a clear incentive for them to identify and nurture young talent outside the narrow social demographics they have lazily relied upon in the past.

Gone are the days of getting a "kilted Kiwi" to plug in a gap in your international roster because the private school network haven't produced a decent outside centre in a while. Now we have stewardship of the game and the need to scour the country for promising kids no matter their parents income or their geographic location.

Of course, it can't all be good news! The Scottish Union are employing two folk to aggressively tap English players (and presumably SH players) of an increasingly young age that have a Scottish granny. But that conduct is at least more uniform across international sports so is perhaps a little easier to swallow. Still leaves a bitter taste with me personally though.

I've been amazed by the lack of movement in the transfer window this off season. This off season was the last chance to snap up "project players" under three year residency rules and only the Irish union appears to have realised that and purchased accordingly from SA, Oz and NZ. Unless I've missed transfer activity from the other 6N club sides?

 

[ncurd]

I can't remember which player it was but I remmeber years ago a 'Scottish' player being from the channel islands (where apparently you can declare for any international team) and him saying "yeah my family have Scottish roots so I always wanted to play for them" and my braing think "I'm not good enough to play for England".

But yeah they'll try to find Scottish granny's and real youngsters but its a vast improvement at least the youngsters will be identified at an age where they might have some idea to be part of the nation they've declared for now.

 

[mdaclarke]

At least the players will have some family link. It felt like the Nations were in danger of becoming glorified club sides.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Another article about the impact of residency changes.

http://www.kru.co.ke/news/future-of-hong-kong-rugby-on-display-in-nairobi/

It reads like Hong Kong take more than half their players on residency as visiting Uni students can qualify after a three year degree. Now that process will be cut off and the Hong Kong union realises it will be forced to engage with the millions of people who live in Hong Kong rather than run their own wee exclusive private club like they have been doing. Love it!