Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Change in Residency Eligibility

Posts: 260
Joined: Thu, 19 Jun 2014, 03:34
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby rampage » Thu, 15 Oct 2015, 21:49

The Australian has posted a story today, saying that WR are looking at increasing the residency eligibility requirement to be eligible to play for a new country from 3 years to 5 or 6 years.

This could have big changes to a lot of countries, who use their professional teams to gain new players for the national team. The story focuses on Australia, and gaining Henry Speight and Taqele Naiyaravoro, but it could be a factor for a lot of countries.

The only problem I see with the rule is where a child moves to a country for reasons other than rugby, it may unnecessarily delay their inclusion in the national team. For example, David Pocock, who emigrated to Australia at age 14, after his family lost their farm in Zimbabwe, would not be eligible to play for his adopted country until well after he turns 20 (for note, this was about the time he did make his debut for Australia). By that same token, you don't want countries poaching bright prospects from poorer rugby countries in the hope that they may blossom into top line players.

It's a tricky one.

Posts: 1719
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Coloradoan » Thu, 15 Oct 2015, 21:56

rampage wrote:The Australian has posted a story today, saying that WR are looking at increasing the residency eligibility requirement to be eligible to play for a new country from 3 years to 5 or 6 years.

This could have big changes to a lot of countries, who use their professional teams to gain new players for the national team. The story focuses on Australia, and gaining Henry Speight and Taqele Naiyaravoro, but it could be a factor for a lot of countries.

The only problem I see with the rule is where a child moves to a country for reasons other than rugby, it may unnecessarily delay their inclusion in the national team. For example, David Pocock, who emigrated to Australia at age 14, after his family lost their farm in Zimbabwe, would not be eligible to play for his adopted country until well after he turns 20 (for note, this was about the time he did make his debut for Australia). By that same token, you don't want countries poaching bright prospects from poorer rugby countries in the hope that they may blossom into top line players.

It's a tricky one.


No problem with Pocock not being able to represent Australia until he's 20 (still quite young of course), but you could also make each year under the age of 18 count double or 1.5x.

Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed, 25 Feb 2015, 17:54
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby ruckovercdn » Thu, 15 Oct 2015, 22:06

Or just allow for people who moved before they were 18 to be excempt.

Posts: 235
Joined: Fri, 01 Aug 2014, 10:24
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby DragonMike » Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 08:43

I would personally make everyone who moved under the age of 16 exempt, and all who moved before 19 exempt if they havent played for the national youth team. Above 18 I don't think residency should be allowed at all.

Posts: 282
Joined: Fri, 18 Apr 2014, 13:49
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby HMFCalltheway » Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 10:34

Not allowing residency at all could ruin some smaller unions. Many unions (for example in the gulf states) are set up originally by foreigners and removing the option to play for their adopted country removes a big incentive to help out. This also doesn't include rugby players that learnt their rugby after moving to their adopted country (in college for example) and owe their development to that country. Hayden Smith is surprisingly an example of this as even though he is Australian he only really picked up Rugby while he was in the U.S. on a basketball scholarship.

5 years I feel is a big enough personal investment in a country for you to represent it. National unions are also less likely to actively recruit project players because of the extra cost of having to pay their club wages for 5 years before they are eligible for national selection.

Posts: 1355
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby sk 88 » Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 13:42

rampage wrote:The Australian has posted a story today, saying that WR are looking at increasing the residency eligibility requirement to be eligible to play for a new country from 3 years to 5 or 6 years.

This could have big changes to a lot of countries, who use their professional teams to gain new players for the national team. The story focuses on Australia, and gaining Henry Speight and Taqele Naiyaravoro, but it could be a factor for a lot of countries.

The only problem I see with the rule is where a child moves to a country for reasons other than rugby, it may unnecessarily delay their inclusion in the national team. For example, David Pocock, who emigrated to Australia at age 14, after his family lost their farm in Zimbabwe, would not be eligible to play for his adopted country until well after he turns 20 (for note, this was about the time he did make his debut for Australia). By that same token, you don't want countries poaching bright prospects from poorer rugby countries in the hope that they may blossom into top line players.

It's a tricky one.


I don't really see the problem with that, Manu Tuilagi would have been in a similar position but both of them would have just had to wait.

5 years is a much better balance between allowing legitimate moves but stopping people moving simply to sit out a residency qualification. I think 5 years is the minimum residency needed to get indefinite leave to remain in the UK so it sort of fits with the UK official notion of residency too.

Posts: 235
Joined: Fri, 01 Aug 2014, 10:24
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby DragonMike » Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 14:28

HMFCalltheway wrote:Not allowing residency at all could ruin some smaller unions. Many unions (for example in the gulf states) are set up originally by foreigners and removing the option to play for their adopted country removes a big incentive to help out. This also doesn't include rugby players that learnt their rugby after moving to their adopted country (in college for example) and owe their development to that country. Hayden Smith is surprisingly an example of this as even though he is Australian he only really picked up Rugby while he was in the U.S. on a basketball scholarship.

5 years I feel is a big enough personal investment in a country for you to represent it. National unions are also less likely to actively recruit project players because of the extra cost of having to pay their club wages for 5 years before they are eligible for national selection.


I'd assumed there would be some good examples of players which would ruin my excessively bold statement :D If so I would stick to 5-6 years minimum, probably 6 years.

In terms of the gulf states I'm not convinced. I spend a lot of time trying to build rugby in my area in Germany and I have 0 chance of making the national team.... but I guess the 'native' population is actually a minority in the Gulf. Seems more like an anomaly to me, not something on which to base the whole system.

Posts: 235
Joined: Fri, 01 Aug 2014, 10:24
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby DragonMike » Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 14:35

I also think they should also tighten up the definition of A teams to include everything above u18. It annoys me that Brad Barritt plays for England, even though he has English geneaology. He played for Emerging Springboks and u23 and didn't make it, annoying that he then says I have great connections to England or whatever. There are plenty of good english centres desperate to play for England who could have picked up experience on Barritts caps and developed. If there are shortcomings in the national development system they should be addressed.

HMFCalltheway - whats your opinion on Strauss - did it bother you?

Posts: 1355
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby sk 88 » Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 14:51

DragonMike wrote:I also think they should also tighten up the definition of A teams to include everything above u18. It annoys me that Brad Barritt plays for England, even though he has English geneaology. He played for Emerging Springboks and u23 and didn't make it, annoying that he then says I have great connections to England or whatever. There are plenty of good english centres desperate to play for England who could have picked up experience on Barritts caps and developed. If there are shortcomings in the national development system they should be addressed.

HMFCalltheway - whats your opinion on Strauss - did it bother you?


I don't like the idea of U-20s tying you to a country. I think its unfair for 18/19 year olds to be making decisions that majorly affect their chances of a future professional contract especially whilst the European nations have their petty "qualified" quotas, and whilst getting a Visa to play in Europe for New Zealand/Australian Pacific islander depends on getting a national cap somewhere along the line, especially when they will be being put under pressure to declare for the bigger nation by their coaches (either local or at national level).

You'd also see much weaker youth teams as why on earth would a NZ born Samoan or Tongan play for them at U-20 and for ever give up the All Blacks? Let alone dual qualified players from the British Isles turning down calls to keep their options open (I can see that working in all directions).

Agree that "Emerging Springboks", U-23s and A teams should all count as there has to be a line somewhere.

Posts: 282
Joined: Fri, 18 Apr 2014, 13:49
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby HMFCalltheway » Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 15:09

DragonMike wrote:HMFCalltheway - whats your opinion on Strauss - did it bother you?


It didn't particularly bother me as it isn't something I personally get really hot under the collar over as those are the rules as they stand at the moment. No.8 is a position we currently don't have a great amount of depth at but it may have been nice to have a bit of self confidence and give Ashe a shot there at the RWC. 5 years residency should be the thing to do in the future though.

Our back-row is sadly fairly dominated by heritage players at the moment with surprisingly the only RWC squad member in the back-row, orignallly from Scotland, having a Polish surname (though I would point out Denton has been involved in our set up from a fairly young age).

The number of imports in the backrow not just for Scotland but also Edinburgh is starting to become a bit of a concern for me especially when we look to have some very promising youth players in Ritchie and Bradbury that might not get a chance this year. I am very divided on this though as the Edinburgh pack does look incredibly strong this year.

Posts: 343
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Figaro » Sat, 17 Oct 2015, 01:23

If it were up to me, I would change ancestry to mean parents only (rather than grandparents) and change residency to mean at least 5 years, possibly more than that.

Being Welsh (and, for the record, not born in Wales nor with any Welsh ancestry [although with 28 years residency I'd be OK under my system!]) I'm acutely sensitive to the fact that national identity is fluid, constructed and not in any way clear cut. There is obviously a world of difference between George North and WP Nel; it's not simply a case of saying that X was born in Y, therefore can only play for Y; we have to be more sensitive than that. Yet at the same time a team composed entirely of Tomas Francises would be a mockery of the whole idea of National Rugby teams (much as I appreciate TF's contributions to the Welsh side).

User avatar
Posts: 1804
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby iul » Wed, 10 May 2017, 05:00

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/245382
The change has been approved. It now takes 5 years to naturalize a foreign player.
Japan and Argentina got more voting rights as well.

Posts: 169
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Bogdan_DC » Wed, 10 May 2017, 06:17

iul wrote:http://www.worldrugby.org/news/245382
The change has been approved. It now takes 5 years to naturalize a foreign player.
Japan and Argentina got more voting rights as well.


Normality.

Posts: 426
Joined: Mon, 12 May 2014, 21:05
National Flag:
IrelandIreland

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby dropkick » Wed, 10 May 2017, 06:48

Not coming into effect until December 31st 2020! Wtf??

Posts: 42
Joined: Sun, 04 Oct 2015, 07:09
National Flag:
Sri LankaSri Lanka

World Rugby announces historic eligibility regulation reform

Postby kush123 » Wed, 10 May 2017, 06:59

An historic programme of reform of rugby’s international eligibility regulation has been approved by the World Rugby Council today at its special meeting in Kyoto, Japan.

Regulation 8 change follows detailed review and union consultation and is designed to create a framework that protects the integrity and credibility of international rugby
Residency period extended from 36 consecutive months to 60 consecutive months
Council approves expanded voting rights for Argentina and Japan
Bernard Laporte elected onto the World Rugby Executive Committee

Designed to promote and protect the integrity and sanctity of international rugby in the modern elite environment, reform of Regulation 8 follows a root-and-branch review with Council members unanimously approving the recommended increase in the required residency period to be eligible for international rugby from 36 to 60 months.

The reformed Regulation 8 ensures that a player has a genuine, close, credible and established link with the nation of representation, and the key amendments are:

The 36-month residency requirement is increased to 60 months with effect from 31 December, 2020 (unanimously approved)
The addition of a residency criteria which permits players who have 10 years of cumulative residency to be eligible (effective May 10, 2017) (unanimously approved)
Unions may no longer nominate their U20s team as their next senior national representative team (effective 1 January, 2018) (majority)
Sevens players will only be captured for the purposes of Regulation 8 where the player has represented either of (i) the senior national representative sevens team of a union where the player has reached the age of 20 on or before the date of participation; or (ii) the national representative sevens team of a union in the Olympic Games or Rugby World Cup Sevens, having reached the age of majority on or before the date of participation in such tournament (effective 1 July, 2017) (majority)

The landmark decision follows agreement on a long-term optimised global international calendar beyond 2019 and represents another major reform for World Rugby Chairman Bill Beaumont and Vice-Chairman Agustín Pichot in the first year of their four-year mandate.

Beaumont said: “This reform of Regulation 8 governing eligibility is an important and necessary step to protecting the integrity and credibility of international rugby. This extension to the residency period within a forward-thinking reform package will ensure a close, credible and established link between a union and players, which is good for rugby and good for fans.

“I would like to thank my union colleagues for their support and in particular the leadership role that Agustín Pichot played in this very important process that has delivered an outcome that is good for the global game.”

Pichot added: “This is an historic moment for the sport and a great step towards protecting the integrity, ethos and stature of international rugby.

“National team representation is the reward for devoting your career, your rugby life, to your nation and these amendments will ensure that the international arena is full of players devoted to their nation, who got there on merit.”

Council’s decision follows considerable positive and constructive discussion between member unions, initiated by Pichot, who led calls for an extension of the eligibility criteria to protect the integrity and sanctity of international rugby.

Under the leadership of Beaumont, a compact review group was established to undertake a root-and-branch review of the regulation to consider whether it was in step with the modern professional rugby landscape, with the group making the recommendations to Council following member union consultation.

The group determined that Regulation 8 was not in step with the modern game, did not provide an adequate framework to protect the integrity of the international game and does not provide a deterrent to player drain from emerging rugby nations.

Bernard Laporte elected onto World Rugby EXCO

Bernard Laporte (France) was unanimously elected on to the World Rugby Executive Committee. Laporte, who ran against Mark Alexander (South Africa), replaces Pierre Camou.

Argentina and Japan receive additional vote on Council

Council approved the recommendation from Executive Committee that Argentina and Japan receive an additional vote each (with no representative) in line with the governance criteria. Both will receive three votes on the decision-making body with immediate effect.

Bernard Laporte and Serge Simon (both France) were appointed to the Rugby and Regulations committees respectively. Alfredo Gavazzi (Italy) was appointed to the Budget Advisory Committee, Claudia Betancur (Colombia) was appointed to the Women's Advisory Committee and Trevor Gregory (Asia Rugby) was appointed Regional Advisory Chairman in accordance with the rotation policy. John O'Driscoll (Ireland) was appointed chairman of the Anti-Doping Advisory Committee. Steve Tew (New Zealand) chaired his first Audit and Risk Committee and provided that report to Council.

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/245382

Posts: 1135
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 10 May 2017, 07:00

dropkick wrote:Not coming into effect until December 31st 2020! Wtf??


Gonna be interesting how many project players will sign in september this year. They could still make it under the old rules until then...
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: 583
Joined: Thu, 16 Jul 2015, 17:26
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby RugbyPUBtbilisi » Wed, 10 May 2017, 07:19

At last. This is good change. And also its good that Playing in U20 for some country means player cannot represent another.

This is positive move and will make Unions to think about growing Under age rugby, invest more in Children's rugby and raise own generation of players rather than finding some All black players who didnt make to NZ national team.

Posts: 1063
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby amz » Wed, 10 May 2017, 07:27

RugbyPUBtbilisi wrote:This is positive move and will make Unions to think about growing Under age rugby, invest more in Children's rugby and raise own generation of players rather than finding some All black players who didnt make to NZ national team.


What about ancestry rule? :)

Posts: 406
Joined: Thu, 28 Jul 2016, 19:33
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Bruce_ma_goose » Wed, 10 May 2017, 08:35

dropkick wrote:Not coming into effect until December 31st 2020! Wtf??


I don't have a problem with that. There are players who have made decisions to leave their home country on the understanding they will be naturalised elsewhere. For example Kiwi James Lowe moving to Leinster. It wouldnt be fair to mess players like that around. The important thing is that from this day onward it has become far more important for unions to raise their own youth talent and stop stealing from economically poorer countries. A great day for the sport.

Posts: 500
Joined: Tue, 27 May 2014, 20:40
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Thomas » Wed, 10 May 2017, 08:43

Interesting, I am not sure if I agree in terms of T3 Countries. I have spent a lot of the time in Central and South America and foreign players make a big contribution to development. will this hamper the ability to develop the sport? i.e. Germany or other European countries.

Also how will this affect NZ and Australia current policy.

My first thought was the law of unintended consequences. watch this space. How will this affect the Pacific Islands in terms of their Economies remains to be seen.

Posts: 1256
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Armchair Fan » Wed, 10 May 2017, 09:23

Thomas wrote:Interesting, I am not sure if I agree in terms of T3 Countries. I have spent a lot of the time in Central and South America and foreign players make a big contribution to development. will this hamper the ability to develop the sport? i.e. Germany or other European countries.

Also how will this affect NZ and Australia current policy.

My first thought was the law of unintended consequences. watch this space. How will this affect the Pacific Islands in terms of their Economies remains to be seen.

Ancestry rules are all what we need :roll:

Posts: 2862
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby thatrugbyguy » Wed, 10 May 2017, 10:06

Timing doesn't bother me, it wouldn't be fair to players who are working under the current laws to suddenly have 2 years added to their eligibility.

Posts: 1256
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Armchair Fan » Wed, 10 May 2017, 11:11

By the way, in the specific Spanish case not only these new residency eligbility criteria not only don't affect us much but they open the door to recalling expat players that grew up in Spain and left for University or professional clubs abroad through the new 10-year cumulative residency rule.

Posts: 1135
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 10 May 2017, 12:22

Armchair Fan wrote:By the way, in the specific Spanish case not only these new residency eligbility criteria not only don't affect us much but they open the door to recalling expat players that grew up in Spain and left for University or professional clubs abroad through the new 10-year cumulative residency rule.


This new rule is a good thing. I know a lot of kids who are born abroad to non-german parents, but played all their rugby in Germany (my guess would be at least 10% of all youth players in the Munich area). In a global world this is a fair and smart move, to give them the chance to play for the country they grew up in.
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: 169
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Bogdan_DC » Wed, 10 May 2017, 12:33

The new rule is a good thing but the ancestry rule should be sorted out also. But this one is a more complicated problem to be solved.

Next

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], fullbackace, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], rey200, STMKY and 10 guests