• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Brett Gosper: 3 Year Residency Rule to be changed?

IMO rules should be:
- 5 year residency rule,
- 2/3 years if your Grandparents are from said country. (It means if you are that influenced by your grandparents you would have most likely lived in said country anyway)
- If you have played for a country age group team when you have turned 18 you are ineligible to play for someone else. IMO @ 18 you are an adult and should therefore make a decision.
 
I think increasing the eligibilty period from 3 years to 5 years unbroken over the age of 18 is the way to go. Players will think twice if they have to sit out a World Cup. As it stands an uncapped player from New Zealand with aspirations of making the World Cup could miss out on selection. He takes a lucrative deal in Ireland, qualifies to play internationally in 3 years, gets selected in 2018 for the first time and makes the 2019 World Cup squad. That's wrong.

Perhaps it's because I grew up in the early 90s and the Ireland soccer team was filled with second and third generation Irish that the grandparent rule doesn't really bother me. If World Rugby wish to tighten it up, how about changing it to a parentage rule?
 
For me residency should be 6 years, with every day under the age of 18 being counted as double. So 15 -> 18 = resident, 17 -> 22 = resident, 18 -> 24 = resident
 
@Raggs that double counting seems over complicated, and somewhat arbitrary I get that adolescents is a time were identity is formed but it seems pointless, its not like just because you're under 18 you experience double the time as everybody else.

In broader terms, I agree 3 years is too short. Having lived out of Ireland for 9 years now I think I can safely say that I've been influenced and shaped by my adopted nation. 5 sounds like a good compromise to me, once again relating it to personal matters after about 5 years ones view on their nationality will justifiable shift, its an inevitability. Grandparents is a bit more complicated, how much they influence ones relationship with their nationhood is variable. For certain families that will be greatly, I know somebody who was born here in Singapore, has lived here all their life and is as Irish as they come because he's spent a lot of time with their grandparents. But to make broad rules I do think maybe 2 or 3 grandparents from that country would suffice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tigs Man said:
IMO rules should be:
- 5 year residency rule,
- 2/3 years if your Grandparents are from said country. (It means if you are that influenced by your grandparents you would have most likely lived in said country anyway)
- If you have played for a country age group team when you have turned 18 you are ineligible to play for someone else. IMO @ 18 you are an adult and should therefore make a decision.
Click to expand...

That sounds god to me.

The problem with the grandparents rule is that you have players who identify strongly or only with their grandparents' country while others just decide to play for it because they aren't good enough for their birth country. We definitely have (or had) examples of the latter in the German national team as well and not every German rugby fan is in favour of them, despite the poor level of our team.
 
Personally I would change it so that you must have lived in the country for 5 years under the ages of 21, and the Grandparent rule to having to have 2 grandparents bon in said country.
 
We will have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure how you make a 'fact' to quantify white NZ national identity...

My argument have been less arbitrary than yours. Legally if I don't meet the requirements of citizenship (or even residency for that matter) why should I be allowed to play for that nation? I could accept that in the UK national identity for a guy who lives 100m on the English side of the Scottish border may feel Scottish, because legally he is afforded 99% of the same rights as if he were in Scotland and probably has invested years of his life in the area. Its just ridiculous that some criteria of a guy 'feeling' he's Irish enough based on grandparents can be considered for a national team without any legal basis of them being Irish. I 'feel' very Irish, sign me up for the Irish pension - why shouldn't I be eligable just because I am not from Ireland and haven't contributed to the nation at all?!

I have more sympathy for guys who stay for 3 years (which is still too short) like Payne, who will still have invested an 8th of his life in Ireland - than I do for Maitland who invested basically to be eligable for Scotland.
 
TRF_nickdnz said:
We will have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure how you make a 'fact' to quantify white NZ national identity...

My argument have been less arbitrary than yours. Legally if I don't meet the requirements of citizenship (or even residency for that matter) why should I be allowed to play for that nation? I could accept that in the UK national identity for a guy who lives 100m on the English side of the Scottish border may feel Scottish, because legally he is afforded 99% of the same rights as if he were in Scotland and probably has invested years of his life in the area. Its just ridiculous that some criteria of a guy 'feeling' he's Irish enough based on grandparents can be considered for a national team without any legal basis of them being Irish. I 'feel' very Irish, sign me up for the Irish pension - why shouldn't I be eligable just because I am not from Ireland and haven't contributed to the nation at all?!

I have more sympathy for guys who stay for 3 years (which is still too short) like Payne, who will still have invested an 8th of his life in Ireland - than I do for Maitland who invested basically to be eligable for Scotland.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, we're singing off different hymn sheets.

My last point will be Citizenship and Nationality aren't the same thing, citizenship is the status of being a citizen of a particular country while nationality is belonging to a particular country. If it were to benefit me I could become a British citizen because I'm eligible and I'd hold duel citizenship but it wouldn't change my nationality. Likewise my father grew up in England and was an English citizen, he had an Irish passport though and always stated that his nationality was Irish and never English same as the Scottish mentioned by Raggs. I'd disagree on Payne v Maitland by the way. Payne may as well be playing club rugby, he chose to come here because he had failed at home like Maitland but then went to whomever would pay the most money to get him to play for them it's club rugby and he's not representing anyone. Maitland isn't Scottish but he's still representing some of his family's country, he didn't have to wait three years getting paid the biggest money available to him but that doesn't make him less Scottish just like it doesn't make Payne more Irish. I'm not even going to approach that pension statement, it ignores everything I have said and is obvious **** taking.

As for the national identity comment it was probably a poor choice of wording read culture, tradition and history which, apart from the language, the British didn't spread very well, unlike almost every other European country who experienced emmigration, Dutch in SA, French in Canada, Spanish and Portuguese in South America etc...
 
cmac95 said:
Fair enough, we're singing off different hymn sheets.

My last point will be Citizenship and Nationality aren't the same thing, citizenship is the status of being a citizen of a particular country while nationality is belonging to a particular country. If it were to benefit me I could become a British citizen because I'm eligible and I'd hold duel citizenship but it wouldn't change my nationality. Likewise my father grew up in England and was an English citizen, he had an Irish passport though and always stated that his nationality was Irish and never English same as the Scottish mentioned by Raggs. I'd disagree on Payne v Maitland by the way. Payne may as well be playing club rugby, he chose to come here because he had failed at home like Maitland but then went to whomever would pay the most money to get him to play for them it's club rugby and he's not representing anyone. Maitland isn't Scottish but he's still representing some of his family's country, he didn't have to wait three years getting paid the biggest money available to him but that doesn't make him less Scottish just like it doesn't make Payne more Irish. I'm not even going to approach that pension statement, it ignores everything I have said and is obvious **** taking.

As for the national identity comment it was probably a poor choice of wording read culture, tradition and history which, apart from the language, the British didn't spread very well, unlike almost every other European country who experienced emmigration, Dutch in SA, French in Canada, Spanish and Portuguese in South America etc...
Click to expand...

I have to interject here with regards Nationality and Citizenship. Let's take CJ Stander for instance. He will always be a South African by nationality, no matter for which team he runs out on the international circuit. If he gets Citizenship and becomes eligible to play for Ireland, like Richardt Strauss, he will still be seen as a South African. If you look at his passport/ID it will still indicate his nationality as South African.

CJ will never be able to say he's Irish. And it will be even harder to sway the general rugby public of that view too. Just because you drink Guiness, doesn't make you Irish, just as eating biltong doesn't make you South African. A person who grows up in a country, goes through school and traditions and cultural events, will in my view only qualify as a nationality of that country. CJ's kids for instance, if they are born there and grows up in Ireland and then run out for Ireland will be in my view an Irish national.
 
heineken said:
I have to interject here with regards Nationality and Citizenship. Let's take CJ Stander for instance. He will always be a South African by nationality, no matter for which team he runs out on the international circuit. If he gets Citizenship and becomes eligible to play for Ireland, like Richardt Strauss, he will still be seen as a South African. If you look at his passport/ID it will still indicate his nationality as South African.

CJ will never be able to say he's Irish. And it will be even harder to sway the general rugby public of that view too. Just because you drink Guiness, doesn't make you Irish, just as eating biltong doesn't make you South African. A person who grows up in a country, goes through school and traditions and cultural events, will in my view only qualify as a nationality of that country. CJ's kids for instance, if they are born there and grows up in Ireland and then run out for Ireland will be in my view an Irish national.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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_stormer2010 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 said:
I heard Iceland have been banging on about that to the IRB for years
View attachment 3767
Click to expand...

Oberyn's Son will get his revenge:
11182190_10152920574137734_2654071018686747041_n.jpg
 

Similar threads

K
The ruck rule needs to be modified
Replies
4
Views
336
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
R
Should substitutions be banned.
2
Replies
24
Views
542
Scotty
Scotty
B
RWC 2027 - Players likely to be absent
Replies
2
Views
472
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
MaxEddy
Walk for Doddie - Cornwall to Kent - 330 miles in 3 weeks - Can you help please?
Replies
4
Views
510
MaxEddy
MaxEddy
4
"Ten simple and effective law changes that should be made to rugby refereeing"
2
Replies
24
Views
944
Reiser99
R

Latest posts

Top