The Residency Rule Thread

[munstermuffin]

if you include professional rugby as paying for someone to play rugby it would address poaching at an early age since scholarships could be considered professional under that standard

Rokococko and Collins both moved when they were children and Collins is a little unclear. If you can't the difference between Rokococko/ Collins and Aki/Stander you're deliberately obtuse. If Collins move to New Zealand was rugby motivated I'd be a little more skeptical. However he was recruited by a school not by a team whose contracts have to be approved by the national union.

Well in Europe players get paid alot everywhere. Does that mean if I get 1 cent for playing I'm deemed professional?
Yes those lads moved when younger for education but why didn't they play for the country of their birth?

And while CJ and Aki have to have contracts approved it comes out of Munster budget. So not being obtruse but why reward New Zealand for being able to offer better education from poorer islands as opposed to a different dynamic here. The reason guys like Rokococko prefer New Zealand is they can't play provincial rugby in New Zealand (well chances are minimized) when your a non-NZ player and also financially it isn't as good. Isa Nacewa can preach on that and is a superb story with great insight. So You either go full hog or not.

 

[munstermuffin]

if you include professional rugby as paying for someone to play rugby it would address poaching at an early age since scholarships could be considered professional under that standard

Rokococko and Collins both moved when they were children and Collins is a little unclear. If you can't the difference between Rokococko/ Collins and Aki/Stander you're deliberately obtuse. If Collins move to New Zealand was rugby motivated I'd be a little more skeptical. However he was recruited by a school not by a team whose contracts have to be approved by the national union.

Well in Europe players get paid alot everywhere. Does that mean if I get 1 cent for playing I'm deemed professional?
Yes those lads moved when younger for education but why didn't they play for the country of their birth?

And while CJ and Aki have to have contracts approved it comes out of Munster budget. So not being obtruse but why reward New Zealand for being able to offer better education from poorer islands as opposed to a different dynamic here. The reason guys like Rokococko prefer New Zealand is they can't play provincial rugby in New Zealand (well chances are minimized) when your a non-NZ player and also financially it isn't as good. Isa Nacewa can preach on that and is a superb story with great insight. So You either go full hog or not.

 

[Paulo]

Maybe those NZ born and bred players wouldn't have a spot in PI teams if the best players from the PI weren't poached by richer countries.
Maybe.

How are the 'poached' players prevented from representing their country? And to clarify a point you are conflating, they are aren't getting poached by countries, they are getting employed by clubs. If they get selected to play for ABs from Super Rugby or Mitre 10cup, they can always say no, especially if they are good enough to play for PI team and would rather represent Tonga or Samoa etc.

If your saying clubs aren't releasing these players to play for their country, then that's why we have official test windows in the calendar. And for games outside the test window, I am completely against a player having their pay sacrificed for playing for home country. I think this is where World Rugby could step in and pay the player there lost salary so they can play for there country without penalty.

I think you are cleverly omitting that NZ born players would face the same situation and limitations from their clubs as PI players. If the PI players are unavailable, why are the Kiwi players free to play?

 

[Paulo]

Double post

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Yes but again it's said as if Ireland poached CJ. Munster did and well it had nothing to do with Ireland. It was at a time when Munster had a few not many and Leinster had about 3 backrow units ahead. Kevin McLaughlin, Domnic Ryan and a few more to name a few.

Fair point.

EDIT: it is a fair point but it could also be a very elegant way of presenting the same argument. Could be either or even both.

 

[munstermuffin]

Fair point.

EDIT: it is a fair point but it could also be a very elegant way of presenting the same argument. Could be either or even both.

But it is straight forward. If you're stamping out residential rule then it is from birth not from pro ranks. It would enable weaker teams in Pacific Islands and Europe to be more competitive and would even help grow the game. But if you do it from a Pro level or that it is a lop sided way that will create poaching worldwide at schools level and be damaging more than anything

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

How are the 'poached' players prevented from representing their country?

Not prevented but clearly incentivized financially.
I know the club is the one that moves them, but once there, they get a certain amount of money if they play for Tonga/fiji/samoa and another amount of money if the play for "INSERT 1st World countr here".

They could play for the SR club in NZ and play for Samoa/Fiji/Tonga. But they do not and the reason is very simple. They get paid more, much more.

Here's an interesting podcast between Brian Mujati and Josh Matavesi where they discuss what the monetary difference is between playing for England vs playing for Fiji. Rough figures, a bit of guessing and speculation but these guys have been around, know their stuff, so at the very least i am inclined to believe they are directionally correct.

It is not as if these players woke up one day and said, WOW, i dont feel tongan/fijean/samoan anymore, i feel the need to represent this new and adopted county.
Do you sincerely believe that? I do not.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

How are the 'poached' players prevented from representing their country? And to clarify a point you are conflating, they are aren't getting poached by countries, they are getting employed by clubs. If they get selected to play for ABs from Super Rugby or Mitre 10cup, they can always say no, especially if they are good enough to play for PI team and would rather represent Tonga or Samoa etc.

If your saying clubs aren't releasing these players to play for their country, then that's why we have official test windows in the calendar. And for games outside the test window, I am completely against a player having their pay sacrificed for playing for home country. I think this is where World Rugby could step in and pay the player there lost salary so they can play for there country without penalty.

I think you are cleverly omitting that NZ born players would face the same situation and limitations from their clubs as PI players. If the PI players are unavailable, why are the Kiwi players free to play?

You might not be aware of the regulations in New Zealand.

Super rugby teams are only allowed a couple of foreign players each. This incentivises Pi players who could choose which country to play for, to choose New Zealand, or at least choose not their pi nation. This is why we don't see many players in the Pi squads who are currently playing their club rugby in New Zealand, despite there being several ex super rugby players.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

But it is straight forward. If you're stamping out residential rule then it is from birth not from pro ranks. It would enable weaker teams in Pacific Islands and Europe to be more competitive and would even help grow the game. But if you do it from a Pro level or that it is a lop sided way that will create poaching worldwide at schools level and be damaging more than anything

I dont think it is.
I wouldn't stamp out residential rule, but i would make it very, very difficult for players and RU's to play around with it. Again, pick one, stick with it, no excuses, no exceptions after that.
You (i mean the player) could even delay the moment of picking in case you are in doubt. I dont like it but i would tolerate it.

Again, the difference is fundamental, ontological almost. For me, the most beautiful thing, by a mile, is that you don't choose your country. That is what makes this competition so alluring. All nations get a hand of cards, and they gotta play with that. This cherry-picking where those with deepest pockets can buy cards from those with thinner wallets kinda takes away all the fun. It ruins it.
If i want to watch a team purchase the best players money can buy i just watch club rugby. This is supposed to be something different.

And it's not just me or Argentines. I have no doubt, at all, that any Uruguayan would cut his veins before giving up his team and representing another country (Arg), even when that resulted in much more money or him. At club level, sure, but at a national level, not in a million years.

 

[FNS]

It´s easy. If at any given point you played for a country you can not play for another ever.

 

[Paulo]

Not prevented but clearly incentivized financially.
I know the club is the one that moves them, but once there, they get a certain amount of money if they play for Tonga/fiji/samoa and another amount of money if the play for "INSERT 1st World countr here".

They could play for the SR club in NZ and play for Samoa/Fiji/Tonga. But they do not and the reason is very simple. They get paid more, much more.

Here's an interesting podcast between Brian Mujati and Josh Matavesi where they discuss what the monetary difference is between playing for England vs playing for Fiji. Rough figures, a bit of guessing and speculation but these guys have been around, know their stuff, so at the very least i am inclined to believe they are directionally correct.

It is not as if these players woke up one day and said, WOW, i dont feel tongan/fijean/samoan anymore, i feel the need to represent this new and adopted county.
Do you sincerely believe that? I do not.

Yea, I agree the money is an incentive, so they aren't 'prevented' but incentivised not to. I agree with that and don't like it. That's where I think something like World Rugby could make either a flat fee for national representation, like $(insert figure here)k per game, regardless of country. Each nation pays World Rugby a certain fee to play, like a registration fee, and that helps fund the player wages. I'm sure there issues with that, but it's an idea to level the playing field between rich and poor countries. Which I agree there is a disparity.

 

[Paulo]

You might not be aware of the regulations in New Zealand.

Super rugby teams are only allowed a couple of foreign players each. This incentivises Pi players who could choose which country to play for, to choose New Zealand, or at least choose not their pi nation. This is why we don't see many players in the Pi squads who are currently playing their club rugby in New Zealand, despite there being several ex super rugby players.

When did they change the rules to include PI players as foreign? I thought when they put that rule in place around 2010 that PI players were not considered 'foreign' under that policy.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

When did they change the rules to include PI players as foreign? I thought when they put that rule in place around 2010 that PI players were not considered 'foreign' under that policy.

as i read it they are not exempt, there just doesn't need to be an NZRU countersignature for them to be one of the 3 foreign players in the super rugby squad. Non-PI eligible players require countersignature, and only a total of 2 (of the 3) can be included in a squad. And if you contract someone for period of time long enough for thm to become eleigible for the national team they will be exempt from the retricitions.

http://www.nzrpa.co.nz/pdf/2016-NZR-RPC-CEA-DIGITAL.pdf

 

[Paulo]

as i read it they are not exempt, there just doesn't need to be an NZRU countersignature for them to be one of the 3 foreign players in the super rugby squad. Non-PI eligible players require countersignature, and only a total of 2 (of the 3) can be included in a squad. And if you contract someone for period of time long enough for thm to become eleigible for the national team they will be exempt from the retricitions.

http://www.nzrpa.co.nz/pdf/2016-NZR-RPC-CEA-DIGITAL.pdf

Fair enough, I had always understood that PI players were not considered 'foreign'. Maybe I'm thinking of Mitre 10cup? Or maybe I'm just old.

I guess this makes it difficult for NZ SR teams to take the cream of talent from the islands to recruit into SR teams, given they are limited on how many they can have.

 

[Scotty]

Joe C moved to England when he was a couple of months old, I doubt he had a rugby career in mind.

Glad he came over to add to the traditional set of English names in this team such as Itoje, vunipola, Tuilagi

 

[petite]

Indeed.

But based on this article, it appears that Scotland and the USA are the real poachers if you look at the guys in their squad and how many of them represented other countries when they were a bit younger.

It's interesting that South America doesn't have any foreigners in their 2 squads. And based on Geographics, it's looking like this:

Europe:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 7
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 46

Australasia:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 5
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 56

Asia:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 18

North America:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 17

Africa:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 1

South America:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 0

say no more! you can clearly see how it's all about money.
I really like that Argentina does not allow foreign players. but it 's clear that there are not great player's trying to do. if there where Tongan fijean or Sout Africans living, playing here, or if we had a rich league that could atract those players, then our denial wold mean much more. as it stands it doesn't mean much. the same goes for Uruguay.
for me there should be some tighter rules. to ecualize the situation. for sure if you played for any national team at any age you should not be able to change it.

 

[rugga658]

say no more! you can clearly see how it's all about money.
I really like that Argentina does not allow foreign players. but it 's clear that there are not great player's trying to do. if there where Tongan fijean or Sout Africans living, playing here, or if we had a rich league that could atract those players, then our denial wold mean much more. as it stands it doesn't mean much. the same goes for Uruguay.
for me there should be some tighter rules. to ecualize the situation. for sure if you played for any national team at any age you should not be able to change it.

This is why I support Los Pumas
They do not degrade or disgrace their national side or rugby heritage with
Fake "Indigenous" People and Mercenaries like most other Tier 1 Rugby Nations do

 

[TRF_heineken]

I don't know if you dislike Stander, Dell, Strauss etc... as people, but anyone who does needs some perspective.

I guess the patriotism in me is stronger than in them, and I dislike them for the simple fact that they in essence turned their back on their home country. Yes their home country had a part to play in them being disappointed and "forcing" them to look for another opportunity abroad.

But I need to stress this more than ever. I have no issue with them playing abroad. But to make that decision of playing for another country, based on residency, seems to me like a consolation prize.

I would be very curious to see how a national team's board discuss matters with clubs, when they talk about foreigners coming to play for a local club and when they talk about guys potentially playing for the country. And don't tell me those talks don't happen.

We see the scouts during the Craven Week in the stands.

 

[Paulo]

This is why I support Los Pumas
They do not degrade or disgrace their national side or rugby heritage with
Fake "Indigenous" People and Mercenaries like most other Tier 1 Rugby Nations do

So, couple points, as was pointed out they probably don't have a lot of top quality players lining up to be eligible for them, if they did, maybe the policy changes. You would be surprised what temptation can do.

And if I understand you comment about supporting Los Pumas, it sounds like that is a choice? That your country is not Argentina. Apologies if it is, and disregard my comments below. If you are not Argentinian and are choosing to support them, do you see the double standard where you are allowed the opportunity to choose your allegiance but a player cannot? You should only be 'allowed' to support your country of birth, even if you moved as a little baby and have no affiliation or tangible connection with that country.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I guess the patriotism in me is stronger than in them, and I dislike them for the simple fact that they in essence turned their back on their home country. Yes their home country had a part to play in them being disappointed and "forcing" them to look for another opportunity abroad.

But I need to stress this more than ever. I have no issue with them playing abroad. But to make that decision of playing for another country, based on residency, seems to me like a consolation prize.

I would be very curious to see how a national team's board discuss matters with clubs, when they talk about foreigners coming to play for a local club and when they talk about guys potentially playing for the country. And don't tell me those talks don't happen.

We see the scouts during the Craven Week in the stands.

similarly, I am interested in those talks when someone come over from PI to a New Zealand high school. I'm sure these talks are happening. Especially when you had Graham Henry, a former headmaster of one of the top rugby highschools.