Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Potential change in residency rule

Posts: 53
Joined: Sun, 20 Mar 2016, 22:28
National Flag:
IrelandIreland

Potential change in residency rule

Postby kearnc25 » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 11:22

With the English and Welsh unions pledging to back an increase to 5 years and Scotland pledging to fight it how do you feel a change like this would effect tier 2 nations?

Posts: 1464
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby RugbyLiebe » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 11:47

kearnc25 wrote:With the English and Welsh unions pledging to back an increase to 5 years and Scotland pledging to fight it how do you feel a change like this would effect tier 2 nations?


Divided. Not sure about the exporting nations. Maybe less players will go abroad and therefore some knowledge might be lost. On the other hand some great athletes might chose to play for their country.

For importing nations with a pro league like Italy, Japan there could be some problems.

Importing nations like Samoa and Tonga do import anyway based on ancestors, maybe they export some less players.

Not that much for tier3 nations like Germany. Really top athletes won't move to tier2 nations to play rugby there and then qualify through residency (although Germany does have some cases).
Scouting for grandparents will become a little bit more important.

So I think Japan might actually have the biggest problems.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 1537
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby sk 88 » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 13:03

It will benefit Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and Georgia by relatively weakening those above them whilst leaving them unaffected.

Romania are a mixed bag. They pick a few residency players and with their pro league should be able to generate a continuous supply in future. But they have few of them and they are very new so the concept is presumably not so ingrained as elsewhere. I'd guess they'd be n favour.

USA and Canada naturalise players, but at the moment only people who emigrated to America and happened to play rugby to a decent level. They generally have an open attitude towards immigration and naturalisation (not Trump blah blah blah). No pro league to naturalise pros quickly though so I think in favour.

It will weaken Scotland as they use it a lot. Ireland will just have to pick their own players, they have more than enough good ones anyway and I swear most of the their 3 year players are no better than their home grown ones anyway.

On one level would harm Japan but how many of those guys actually came over at 18 or younger and have been in Japan 5 years easily?

User avatar
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 11:27

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby ihateblazers » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 13:36

Vote rundown?

Change
New Zealand 3
England 3
France 3
Wales 3
South Africa 3
Argentina 2
Georgia 1
South America 2
Africa 2
Oceania 2
Chairman 1, Beaumont
Vice Chairman 1, Pichot

26

Status Quo
Scotland 3
Australia 3
Italy 2
Ireland 3
Japan 1

12

Swing votes, mostly leaning towards status quo i would say
Canada 2
Romania 1
USA 1
Europe 2
Americas North 2
Asia 2

10

*In bold pretty much locked in
Last edited by ihateblazers on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 14:26, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 11:27

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby ihateblazers » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 14:00

Echo the thoughts above on Georgia and the pacific islands. I would say that the affect on the French academies in the PI's could be interesting. They could just end up recruiting players younger, however that isn't really done in rugby as academies aren't that well financed and don't offer contracts for young players and players aren't ready for senior pro rugby until at least 18, more like 20 unlike football. Could bypass this by following footballs over 18 rule.

Only ones who i think would really be in favour of the status quo are nations who actively recruit players for the national team directly, or who have a strict foreign restriction policy, or who have a semi/full centralised contracting system for their pro sides like Italy, Scotland, Australia and Ireland.

Japan i think you would see a large drop off in quality. The whole structure of the game is a shambles over there. A lot of foreign players in the top league play for Japan after a few years and bolster the national teams depth, also might change the dynamic of foreign signings with the strict game day restrictions for foreign players.

Shouldn't affect USA and Canada too much. In the USA's case it could hurt flyhalf and scrumhalf but there seems to be a few prospects coming through and the development keeps improving across the board in the country with the overall growth of the sport.

I think it could have a slight impact on lower T3 nations. There are a lot of nations far down the regional competitions who rely on mid to long term expats, changing that would be a good thing though. Nations like Korea, Kazachstan and others with their home grown players could compete more. Hong Kong will have to up the ante on local development for example instead of relying on expat suits and rugby rejects from the commonwealth.

Overall i think only nations with a financial stake in the status quo would be in favour of keeping it. If it changes it should balance out the international field.

Posts: 1537
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby sk 88 » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 14:33

I've read they need 75% majority, if true that means they would need all of your swing votes to change the rules.

On Japan I looked at their RWC2015 squad and all the residency qualified players had played in Japan for 5 years prior to RWC. Obviously would delay their caps but don't think it would stop that many, most them came as Uni or school students.

Don't think it would affect french clubs as they don't recruit them for the national teams but for themselves. Toulon still want Tuisova even though he is not French eligible, Clermont would want Nakataci whether he played for France or not.

Posts: 53
Joined: Sun, 20 Mar 2016, 22:28
National Flag:
IrelandIreland

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby kearnc25 » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 14:46

sk 88 wrote:Don't think it would affect french clubs as they don't recruit them for the national teams but for themselves. Toulon still want Tuisova even though he is not French eligible, Clermont would want Nakataci whether he played for France or not.


Did the french not come out and say they weren't going to pick residency players anymore?

User avatar
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 11:27

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby ihateblazers » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 14:50

sk 88 wrote:I've read they need 75% majority, if true that means they would need all of your swing votes to change the rules.

On Japan I looked at their RWC2015 squad and all the residency qualified players had played in Japan for 5 years prior to RWC. Obviously would delay their caps but don't think it would stop that many, most them came as Uni or school students.

Don't think it would affect french clubs as they don't recruit them for the national teams but for themselves. Toulon still want Tuisova even though he is not French eligible, Clermont would want Nakataci whether he played for France or not.


I think Eddie Jones changed the policy slightly with Japan, a few years before that or at least in the 2011 RWC there were a ridiculous amount. Also would disrupt planning i guess. There's still quite a lot of guys who come over from NZ and the PI's who are over 18 pros in the top league.

Like you said above Romania, USA and Canada could be in favour, if you get them then you probably get the regional federations as well. Asia would be a bit of trouble as their chairman is the ex chairman of Hong Kong, but i imagine there are a lot of Asian nations who would like change. Possibly could see Ireland in favour of change, like you said the've got quality home grown players and to be honest they would be better of spending the expensive salaries elsewhere.

For the French clubs I mean for recruiting players to the academies younger to bypass the JIFF foreign rules in France. They can count as a french player and are thus exempt from foreign restrictions and can potentially receive extra funding? (not sure if they have a similar relationship like the PRL does with the RFU). But yeah nothing to with the FFR just dynamics of signing young pacific islanders and possibly south africans (im slightly suprised they haven't set up academies in SA, probably because they aren't that cheap compared to PI's).

Posts: 53
Joined: Sun, 20 Mar 2016, 22:28
National Flag:
IrelandIreland

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby kearnc25 » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 15:04

ihateblazers wrote: Possibly could see Ireland in favour of change, like you said the've got quality home grown players and to be honest they would be better of spending the expensive salaries elsewhere.


I dont know whether they would tbh the only imports that play with any regularity for Ireland are Payne and Stander and they can't be on that much money.

User avatar
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 11:27

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby ihateblazers » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 15:11

kearnc25 wrote:
ihateblazers wrote: Possibly could see Ireland in favour of change, like you said the've got quality home grown players and to be honest they would be better of spending the expensive salaries elsewhere.


I dont know whether they would tbh the only imports that play with any regularity for Ireland are Payne and Stander and they can't be on that much money.


They chose to play in Ireland instead of France or England and are now starters for the Irish national team. They must be on healthy salaries.

Posts: 53
Joined: Sun, 20 Mar 2016, 22:28
National Flag:
IrelandIreland

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby kearnc25 » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 15:36

ihateblazers wrote:
kearnc25 wrote:
ihateblazers wrote: Possibly could see Ireland in favour of change, like you said the've got quality home grown players and to be honest they would be better of spending the expensive salaries elsewhere.


I dont know whether they would tbh the only imports that play with any regularity for Ireland are Payne and Stander and they can't be on that much money.


They chose to play in Ireland instead of France or England and are now starters for the Irish national team. They must be on healthy salaries.


Aye but I doubt its significant enough to impact grassroots development.

Posts: 1464
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby RugbyLiebe » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 16:51

ihateblazers wrote:I think it could have a slight impact on lower T3 nations. There are a lot of nations far down the regional competitions who rely on mid to long term expats, changing that would be a good thing though


That's an interesting point. Will we have less national teams in thè lowest ranks?
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 309
Joined: Tue, 29 Apr 2014, 14:51
National Flag:
Sri LankaSri Lanka

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby gibbs » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 21:09

Main impact would be on Asian unions as far as tier 2/3 go, Japan the obvious one and then Hong Kong, Philippines, UAE that play exclusively with expats, Even Malaysia that seem to play a majority of Fijians lately will need to rethink that strategy

This imho would be a great boost to the game and real potential on real grass root development

Posts: 1589
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby 4N » Sat, 21 Jan 2017, 23:37

Philippines have very few residency-qualified players. Their players with Anglo names tend to qualify through ancestry.

Luxembourg and Sweden are two more who could have a hard time with this.

Posts: 309
Joined: Tue, 29 Apr 2014, 14:51
National Flag:
Sri LankaSri Lanka

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby gibbs » Wed, 25 Jan 2017, 06:37

4N wrote:Philippines have very few residency-qualified players. Their players with Anglo names tend to qualify through ancestry.

Luxembourg and Sweden are two more who could have a hard time with this.


True, And that makes it even a bigger farce

Online
Posts: 1814
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby Coloradoan » Wed, 25 Jan 2017, 19:17

It's hard to say how the US will vote but I think most in the US rugby community would be in favor of the change. But it would have some impact on the national team. AJ Macginty would only be eligible starting now if the 5 year rule were in place, and that assumes that he would have stayed in the US an extra 2 years.

Posts: 557
Joined: Thu, 28 Jul 2016, 19:33
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby Bruce_ma_goose » Wed, 09 Aug 2017, 16:11

The Scottish union have effectively announced that they will not try to qualify "project players" through residency due to the change from three to five years.

So no more poaching Tier 2 players like Dutchman Tim Visser. If the ruthless Scottish union is abandoning this then I expect Tier2 sides that have professional (or semi pro) leagues to also forget about residency and focus on ancestry (and hopefully developing youth talent).

I'd imagine this will slightly help Tier2 nations that don't have such domestic leagues.

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

"With World Rugby extending its residency qualification period from three to five years, Tait says Scotland can no longer rely on overseas imports with no Scottish heritage - such as South African-born WP Nel, Josh Strauss and Cornell du Preez - to prop up its Test pool.

"We've had some great players in the last few years come over from South Africa and New Zealand, get residency and play for us," he said. "If it hadn't been for WP Nel at tight-head, we'd have probably struggled a lot more.

"That avenue may close now - it's the Scottish-qualified players we're after now."

Posts: 1464
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 10 Aug 2017, 06:37

If I remember right (correct me if I'm wrong) this is the last season where the 3-years-rule apply. Did t1 (or t2 nations for that matter) have more prospect signings than usual?
Last edited by RugbyLiebe on Thu, 10 Aug 2017, 12:15, edited 1 time in total.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 557
Joined: Thu, 28 Jul 2016, 19:33
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby Bruce_ma_goose » Thu, 10 Aug 2017, 08:50

You are right RugbyLiebe. I found that really surprising that there haven't been more signings before the 3 year window closes. I think nations with professional leagues have really missed a trick here.

France had already given up on residency players out of principle. Scotland and maybe Wales probably don't have the money for signings. Only Ireland appear to have made an effort signing top class SH players like James Lowe; Chris Cloete and an Aussie backrow forward whose name escapes me. It is debatable if Cloete can be made a project player though (all very complicated).

I don't know about England, Japan, Romania or Russia. Although some good SH players continue to join the Japanese Top League.

Posts: 476
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby Figaro » Thu, 10 Aug 2017, 10:36

Bruce_ma_goose wrote:You are right RugbyLiebe. I found that really surprising that there haven't been more signings before the 3 year window closes. I think nations with professional leagues have really missed a trick here.

France had already given up on residency players out of principle. Scotland and maybe Wales probably don't have the money for signings. Only Ireland appear to have made an effort signing top class SH players like James Lowe; Chris Cloete and an Aussie backrow forward whose name escapes me. It is debatable if Cloete can be made a project player though (all very complicated).

I don't know about England, Japan, Romania or Russia. Although some good SH players continue to join the Japanese Top League.


Actually, Wales have never really had "project players" in the same sense as Jarrad Payne, CJ Stander or WP Nel, or at least not for some years (I'm not so familiar with Rugby before about 2012).

There are plenty of non-Welsh born players in the squad but they have generally qualified either through ancestry (Alex Cuthbert, Jake Ball, Tom Francis, Gareth Anscombe) and/or have been resident in Wales since their childhood ( Taulupe Faletau, Hallam Amos). Both of those groups would still be selectable after the change. As far as I'm aware there are no examples of players capped by Wales in recent years who qualified based purely on a 3-year residency obtained entirely during a professional rugby career.

Some foreign signings have come to Wales and explicitly stated that it is their ambition to obtain qualification through residency and then play for the Welsh national team - De Kock Steenkamp, David Bulbring and Willis Halaholo all come to mind - but this hasn't yet actually happened (Bulbring and Halaholo haven't yet served out their 3 years, and Steenkamp went back to SA). It may be a policy with the current management at least to avoid picking such players, as there are at least two examples I can thnk of (the Scarlets' Hadleigh Parkes and the Dragons' Brok Harries) who probably deserve to be picked, and could have been, but weren't.

Foreign players have been considered "Welsh" based on residency for the purposes of the Welsh qualified players quotas at the regions, but that's something very different.

In short I don't think the change to 5-year residency will effect Wales at all. I think they were actually one of the countries agitating for it - it isn't fair to lump them in with Ireland and Scotland just because they're another Celtic country.

Posts: 557
Joined: Thu, 28 Jul 2016, 19:33
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby Bruce_ma_goose » Thu, 10 Aug 2017, 10:45

Yes, it is fair to say Wales have not cynically exploited this like Ireland, England and Scotland. Hopefully Wales are rewarded on the field for having concentrated almost solely on rearing their own talent over the years.

I thought they had a few SH players back in the 90s or early 00s though?

Posts: 1464
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 10 Aug 2017, 12:34

Maybe somebody can say something about Romania or Russia. I mean those are the next two countries out of the big leagues I could think off.
Actually a really bad timing as well from the USA that Pro Rugby failed. Was actually perfect timed for this.

In Germany I don't think anybody has the potential to really do such signings apart from Heidelberger RK and maybe Pforzheim. HRK signed Kiwi-born fly-half Hagen Schulte (Glasgow Warriors) and SA-born Ayron Schramm (Jersey FC). Schulte is apparently already German-qualified, Schramm might be (just looking at his very German sir-name, which literally means bruise or scar).
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 476
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby Figaro » Thu, 10 Aug 2017, 14:24

Bruce_ma_goose wrote:Yes, it is fair to say Wales have not cynically exploited this like Ireland, England and Scotland. Hopefully Wales are rewarded on the field for having concentrated almost solely on rearing their own talent over the years.

I thought they had a few SH players back in the 90s or early 00s though?


After doing a little research, you're right, Dale McIntosh was not qualified from ancestry and won 2 caps in the 90s, Sonny Parker moved to Wales and was capped in the late 90s and early 2000s but I'm not sure if he had any Welsh ancestry (I don't see anything suggesting he did), Brent Cockbain was an australian who won some Welsh caps, most recently in 2007, and there were actually a few eligibility scandals in the 1990s, the most famous of which was English-born future B&I Lion Colin Charvis, who was capped for Wales before he should have been but got away with it later after he had served the full three years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grannygate

These are all a fairly long time ago though. I think Brent Cockbain *might* be the last player to gain a Welsh cap on the basis of residency after moving when already a professional player.

Apparently Brok Harris and Hadleigh Parkes have only just become eligible, so they aren't necessarily evidence of a policy not to select timeservers. It will be interesting to see whether they are selected given our recent troubles at tighthead and centre (I'd certainly say Parkes is the 3rd best, or even better, Welsh qualified centre playing anywhere). I suspect they won't though, and the management will put their trust in younger players produced from the Welsh system.

Wales actually has more of a record of producing players for other countries. The Vunipolas grew up in Gwent but headed off to England. I think one of the German national side's players is from Bridgend.

Posts: 617
Joined: Tue, 27 May 2014, 20:40
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby Thomas » Thu, 10 Aug 2017, 15:39

Wales also had Jason Jones-Hughes for the World Cup of 1999 and he was allowed to play almost immediately as it was deemed that he had not played a full international for Australia.

User avatar
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 11:27

Re: Potential change in residency rule

Postby ihateblazers » Fri, 11 Aug 2017, 05:18

Only the central contract union pro system can have project players. For example The Welsh teams were all privately owned and so the wru can't mandate project players like Ireland and Scotland. Same with England, France and all other privatley owned pro clubs. Maybe in England some clubs would sign players with the goal of taking them off their foreign player quota or rather on to their England qualified pay out system. But no where as ridiculous as Scotland and Ireland the abusers of the system

Next

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Coloradoan, Google Adsense [Bot], SallesNeto_BR and 8 guests