• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

What's your squad look like?

I personally don't care if a player wants to spend 5 years getting residency to play. It's a big commitment and majority do it because they won't earn a cap for their home nation. My issue is the poaching of young players with potential. I still think if a player plays at u20's levels he should be tied in for at least 3 years or players need to have 5 years residency and be over 25 etc...
 
5 years in a different country is still nothing. Shouldn't be allowed at all in my opinion on the basis they can play their club rugby wherever but should represent their home nation. I know there are a few ways to define that though but grandparent and 5 year residency are nonsense in my eyes.
 
Leonormous Boozer said:
Fair fair. I just can't back a system where playing for a rugby team has a more restricted entry threshold than gaining citizenship for most countries.

That's pretty much where my logic begins and ends.
Click to expand...
Ah but what if they can only gain citizenship because they play rugby...
 
Derpus said:
Ah but what if they can only gain citizenship because they play rugby...
Click to expand...

I still think it's fine.

My big issue would be players being lured away from their home nations at 18 - 20 but I haven't really seen that happen. The three year system was terrible and exploitable but no one is going to take the risk to bring a player in for five years just to qualify them after, it's just happenstance.

I see it as similar to someone moving countries to work as a lawyer, gaining citizenship and becoming a judge. Not common but it happens.

Tom Jordan is the only one I can think of who has moved as an adult (21) and qualified under the 5 year rule playing internationally right now and he was signed into the super 6 so probably not an SRU project, just a kid who took a chance, presumably out of college and made it work. Considering the rule change became effective in 2018, that's 2 and half years worth of evidence that the current rules aren't very exploitable.

20s excluding you from residency based moves would be a good amendment, maybe only fair to include parent / grandparents in that case too.

Like it was all a bit egregious before but now I think it's not worth changing too much. Rugby is too small to make countries less competitive and when the 12 or so competitive nations are split between countries with populations of over 25m or under 8m, it could become an even more of a closed shop.

Just looking at the lay of the land in rugby, without residency or ancestral rules, I think you'd quickly see Wales, Scotland, Japan and Italy drop off quite dramatically. Ireland less so now fortunately, we have the structures to stay top 6 or so on our own with peaks and troughs in there. So you're essentially looking at 7 countries who can sustain themselves and then a massive gap to the rest.
 
Derpus said:
Ah but what if they can only gain citizenship because they play rugby...
Click to expand...
I've never heard of playing a sport of being a condition for citizenship.

The only example of fast track citizenship I can remember offhand is Zola Budd back in the 80s, but she had a British grandfather.
 
Leonormous Boozer said:
I still think it's fine.

My big issue would be players being lured away from their home nations at 18 - 20 but I haven't really seen that happen. The three year system was terrible and exploitable but no one is going to take the risk to bring a player in for five years just to qualify them after, it's just happenstance.

I see it as similar to someone moving countries to work as a lawyer, gaining citizenship and becoming a judge. Not common but it happens.

Tom Jordan is the only one I can think of who has moved as an adult (21) and qualified under the 5 year rule playing internationally right now and he was signed into the super 6 so probably not an SRU project, just a kid who took a chance, presumably out of college and made it work. Considering the rule change became effective in 2018, that's 2 and half years worth of evidence that the current rules aren't very exploitable.

20s excluding you from residency based moves would be a good amendment, maybe only fair to include parent / grandparents in that case too.

Like it was all a bit egregious before but now I think it's not worth changing too much. Rugby is too small to make countries less competitive and when the 12 or so competitive nations are split between countries with populations of over 25m or under 8m, it could become an even more of a closed shop.

Just looking at the lay of the land in rugby, without residency or ancestral rules, I think you'd quickly see Wales, Scotland, Japan and Italy drop off quite dramatically. Ireland less so now fortunately, we have the structures to stay top 6 or so on our own with peaks and troughs in there. So you're essentially looking at 7 countries who can sustain themselves and then a massive gap to the rest.
Click to expand...
France have poached a lot our teens recently.
 
Disappointed for Williams. As someone who doesn't watch much Premiership rugby, thought he lived up to the hype regarding his recent form across the first two games.
 
Real shame for Tomos. Was looking good to be the replacement SH for the tests if JGP comes back unscathed.
 

Similar threads

J
The Next Lions Squad
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
10K
DuncTheDoodle
D
S
Springbok squad announced!
Replies
16
Views
2K
Steve-o
S
H
Lions Squad: 2009
8 9 10
Replies
180
Views
24K
An Tarbh
A
M
Brussow added to Bok squad
Replies
7
Views
2K
munross
M
D
Would you pick BOD in your squad to face South Africa
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
14K
cyRil
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Top