Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Change in Residency Eligibility

Posts: 1208
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 16 May 2017, 07:29

Suiram wrote:the cumulative residency thing could be quite interesting with situations where children lived in a certain country or went to school somewhere. In the past, people that moved on for work or study reset their residency clock, but there may be some corner cases especially places where parents might be spending years for work. And since its cumulative, that means if you spent 8 years as child in a country, you will only take 2 years to achieve full qualification on residency.


Very good and interesting point. I actually know a lot of this cases. I.e. one of my kids was born in Asia with an European passport and an African father. They live in Germany since he's about 8. If he went away for uni, he would have been never eligible to play for the country he was raised and played all of his rugby in.
On the downside, the introduction of this will complicate things a lot. How do you actually prove it?
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: 73
Joined: Tue, 18 Nov 2014, 15:06
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby honestly_united » Tue, 16 May 2017, 12:00

RugbyLiebe wrote:
honestly_united wrote:I wonder how much this will impact the Tier 3 and below countries?
Just asking as I noticed by coincidence today (reading the Nacra thread), that a lad I played with many years ago (nearly 20) was recalled to Bermuda squad for last weekends game. He will have qualified through residency many years ago having moved their for work in his mid 20's. Will the rule changes impact this situation where someone who is a good amateur player who moves to another country for work, wants to still play rugby in his new country, and finds himself as one of the top players in his adopted country?

Most players in this situation will then be getting close to "over the hill" after 5 years, and may decide not to represent their adopted country as they may think they are holding back a native player, whereas after 3 they may still feel they have something to give and contribute to their new home.


We definitely see less of this players. Just a matter of math and as you stated age. Who studies i.e. for 5 years? Within 3 year a lot of uni students become eligible - probably a really important source for lower t3 countries...


This was more had studied in the UK, then worked in the UK for a few years before deciding to move to another country, then being qualified under residency. Its a bit different qualifying at 28 to say 30.

Posts: 1208
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 16 May 2017, 12:51

honestly_united wrote:This was more had studied in the UK, then worked in the UK for a few years before deciding to move to another country, then being qualified under residency. Its a bit different qualifying at 28 to say 30.


Yeah? While there might be some or actually a lot of cases who studied in the UK, then came back to their home-country and then played for it. Your example seems a little too far-fetched to be usual. There are probably some cases, but it is still very unlikely.
I think about a player I know who now plays for the country he studied in after residing there for three years.
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: 73
Joined: Tue, 18 Nov 2014, 15:06
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby honestly_united » Tue, 16 May 2017, 16:41

RugbyLiebe wrote:
honestly_united wrote:This was more had studied in the UK, then worked in the UK for a few years before deciding to move to another country, then being qualified under residency. Its a bit different qualifying at 28 to say 30.


Yeah? While there might be some or actually a lot of cases who studied in the UK, then came back to their home-country and then played for it. Your example seems a little too far-fetched to be usual. There are probably some cases, but it is still very unlikely.
I think about a player I know who now plays for the country he studied in after residing there for three years.


I would think there must be quite a few people from the UK, NZ, Aus, SA etc who have moved to another country through work, have played rugby for a club, then after the residency period played internationals.
I suppose on the one hand you probably have the situation in Hong Kong for example (gulf is another example) where the team is majority expats and obviously the change may help the locals get more chances, to the situation where there is maybe one of two who are helping to raise the standard of the locals.

Im not sure how much of an issue it is, just new of a case and wondered if there would be an effect going forward.

Online
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Bogdan_DC » Wed, 24 May 2017, 15:17


Posts: 472
Joined: Thu, 28 Jul 2016, 19:33
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Bruce_ma_goose » Wed, 24 May 2017, 16:26

I hope other Tier 3 nations do similar. You know for sure the Tier 1s will aggressively be pursuing this now that residency is becoming a less viable option.

Czech authorities should pay for lots of attractive young Czech men and women to relocate to NZ. Then it'd be Czechs for RWC 2059!

Posts: 9
Joined: Wed, 25 May 2016, 21:36
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby ARHS » Wed, 24 May 2017, 21:49

What am I missing here? A lot of the posts on this topic treat it as a joke, or look for ways to take advantage.

To me this new policy is a disgraceful rort that benefits rich clubs. My point of view is that of a supporter of tier 2 and tier 3 rugby, who wants to see increased depth within the top 30 or so nations - and less 'protection' for the 8 founder members. Isn't that what this forum is all about?

In increasing the eligibility period to 5 years and excluding under 20 teams and young sevens players from capturing eligibility I see the ruination of Pacific Island rugby, and possibly second tier European rugby. The rich European clubs and Super rugby franchises are already attracting players at a younger age - raiding from schoolboy and under 20 ranks and sevens. Now they are being rewarded for this by being able to recruit players from overseas who will be devoid of international commitments for FIVE years now - not 3. The availability of tier 2 players for tests matches is already a major issue, with so many of those in better clubs or franchises crying off.

Yes, I think the rich clubs will be attracted to getting 100% 5-year commitment from talented young players who may harbour tier 1 international aspirations, and tier 2 and 3 nations will suffer as a result. And, I believe they will be looking to attract them even younger than they currently do!

In my view each nation should make its own decisions in respect to picking players, subject to minimum eligibility rules (like 3 years). If a player shows great commitment to a country to earn a place - fair enough. If they get picked for tenuous reasons, the local public players and public spit the dummy about it, and so they should. The Jason Woodward / Willie Heinz situation was fairly damning I feel.

I wish that SANZAAR would drop the idea of cutting 3 teams and seek instead to recruit players from Pacific Islands to embellish them - perhaps offering subsidies to do so. Until the Pacific Islands can have their best players employed in the southern hemisphere, and always available for national squads, they are not going to challenge the top 10 nations again in my opinion. I feel this is the only thing that could mitigate the potential damage of the new eligibility rules.

No doubt everyone sees this differently......

User avatar
Posts: 1830
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby iul » Thu, 25 May 2017, 05:19

I don't see what the problem is with tier 1 clubs picking up more tier 2 and 3 clubs players earlier. Heck, I hope they pick all our U18 national team players and put them in their academies.

User avatar
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat, 19 Apr 2014, 14:41
National Flag:
NetherlandsNetherlands

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby NedRugby » Thu, 25 May 2017, 22:10

Then they will end up five years later in a French shirt, not a Romanian one. And it will be a player that the club will not need to release on international weekends, at least for five years.

Posts: 164
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby carbonero » Thu, 25 May 2017, 23:21

NedRugby wrote:Then they will end up five years later in a French shirt, not a Romanian one. And it will be a player that the club will not need to release on international weekends, at least for five years.


More than 50 Georgians have passed through the French academies. Not even one played for France. The only tier 2 players called were 3-year residency Fijians. So it’s hard to see how this is worse than the previous regulation. Plus, the FFR has already stated that they won’t use the residency rule anymore.

User avatar
Posts: 1830
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby iul » Fri, 26 May 2017, 04:48

NedRugby wrote:Then they will end up five years later in a French shirt, not a Romanian one. And it will be a player that the club will not need to release on international weekends, at least for five years.

How is the threat of ending in a French shirt 5 years later worse than the threat of ending in a French shirt 3 years later? Also, what carbonero said

User avatar
Posts: 459
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby NaBUru38 » Fri, 02 Jun 2017, 17:29

What's the supposed benefit of removing the under 20 team rule?

Posts: 1394
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby sk 88 » Fri, 02 Jun 2017, 18:14

More players should be willing to commit to U-20s if it won't tie them. Also with so may nations practicing protectionist quotas getting cap tied at 18 or 19 can have long lasting consequences.

Previous

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BigG, Bing [Bot], Bogdan_DC, Canadian_Rugger, Google Adsense [Bot] and 5 guests