International qualifications based on residency

[omartheturk]

Is it not time that residency was eliminated from the qualification for a national team.
Much is being said, at the moment, about the selection of players playing outside their home nation. Surely if they are good enough they should play a part. Some nations are more concerned with where players are playing, than where they were born. The All Black's have done it for years and now more and more countries are jumping on the bandwagon, even those with a huge player base. Time for home grown talent to be given a chance.

 

[smartcooky]

At first thought, I wanted to say, "Please God, not another poaching thread", however, I want to take you up on your point.

I was born in England and emigrated to NZ with my parents when I was 5 years old, and started playing rugby when I was about 10. I eventually ended up playing Senior club rugby in two difference cities over the course of about 8 years but I never made it to representative or international level. However, under your scheme of not allowing players with residency to represent the country where they live and work, I would not have even been eligible to play for New Zealand. The only country I could have represented would be England; a country which I don't remember, have no emotional attachment to, and never even visited until after my playing days were over.

Do you still think your scheme is fair?

 

[nickdnz]

I think residency is far more relevant than heritage, personally.

5 years I think is a good amount of time. In five years of living in a country you're probably very invested in the country (not to mention you have generally met most countries qualifications for citizenship). We've hashed it out a million times before - but I still think that rules on heritage are more exploited and less legitimate. Grandparents especially. It's an argument that ancestors ties to a country are more tangible to identifying as a person of that nation, than your own experiences formed with a country.

 

[JayBlaze]

I think it should move from 3yrs to 5yrs.

 

[omartheturk]

My heart bleeds for you, but not as much as for those players born and bred in a country, and who are overlooked in favour of foreign players, who have entered the country, as adults, only to play rugby, and become eligible after only three years residency. I believe anyone born in a country, and have grown up in the county, irrespective of parents nationality, or, as in your case, moved at a very young age, should be eligible.

 

[smartcooky]

My heart bleeds for you, but not as much as for those players born and bred in a country, and who are overlooked in favour of foreign players, who have entered the country, as adults, only to play rugby, and become eligible after only three years residency. I believe anyone born in a country, and have grown up in the county, irrespective of parents nationality, or, as in your case, moved at a very young age, should be eligible.

Happy to see that you have now qualified your original post. I agree with you to a certain extent, but is still don't think that an adult migrant should be ruled out entirely. If I had my way, the criteria for international selection would be

#1. Country of birth
#2. Country of parent's birth
#3. If under 16, a resident of new/adoptive country for at least five years and must be a citizen of that country
#4. If over 16, a resident of new/adoptive country for at least eight years and must be a citizen of that country
#5. Once played for a country at any level in Under 20 or above, cannot play for another country without satisfying #3 or #4

No grandparent clause
No fast-tracking citizenship (i.e we don't want a Zola Budd controversy in rugby)

This would allow people who emigrate with their family up to the age of 16 (age of majority in most countries) to become eligible for international selection by the time of their 21st birthday.

Either do away with the Sevens Olympic loophole or have separate eligibility for Sevens that does not apply to 15s...

 

[RedruthRFC]

I would be slightly more lenient about the number of years residence, say five years and consider an increase if unions continue to recruit foreign nationals / players move in the hope of international rugby, but other than that, you have it spot on IMO smartcooky.

 

[Five Meters Out]

Is it not time that residency was eliminated from the qualification for a national team.
Much is being said, at the moment, about the selection of players playing outside their home nation. Surely if they are good enough they should play a part. Some nations are more concerned with where players are playing, than where they were born. The All Black's have done it for years and now more and more countries are jumping on the bandwagon, even those with a huge player base. Time for home grown talent to be given a chance.

Great idea Omar, but lets not stop there. We want to see it extended to cricket, so we to watch born and bred, Ben Stokes smashing his countrymen to the boundary.