Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Change in Residency Eligibility

User avatar
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby NaBUru38 » Wed, 10 May 2017, 14:24

The grandparent rule should have been removed.

By the way, now Japan has more votes than Italy?

Posts: 117
Joined: Tue, 08 Mar 2016, 17:29
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby The Captain's Run » Wed, 10 May 2017, 16:31

I guess I'll need an explanation of why people want the ancestry rules changed or removed because I don't get why that's an issue. Residency rules have an honest-to-god issue concerning the integrity of the "nationality" concept. You can pay someone to be a resident in your country for long enough and play rugby while they're doing it - you can't pay someone to have a grandma from your country.

It's strange to me because I feel a strong enough connection to my Mexican heritage that I would be willing to suit up for los Serpientes and I'm not even eligible - the last generation born in Mexico was actually my great-grandparents. So I'm not going to question why someone would be willing to play for a nation they are connected to through heritage and I don't see what the issue is with players doing so.

Posts: 1803
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Coloradoan » Wed, 10 May 2017, 17:35

The Captain's Run wrote:I guess I'll need an explanation of why people want the ancestry rules changed or removed because I don't get why that's an issue. Residency rules have an honest-to-god issue concerning the integrity of the "nationality" concept. You can pay someone to be a resident in your country for long enough and play rugby while they're doing it - you can't pay someone to have a grandma from your country.

It's strange to me because I feel a strong enough connection to my Mexican heritage that I would be willing to suit up for los Serpientes and I'm not even eligible - the last generation born in Mexico was actually my great-grandparents. So I'm not going to question why someone would be willing to play for a nation they are connected to through heritage and I don't see what the issue is with players doing so.


Honestly I think there should be some sort of review board for the ancestry claims. For example, someone with a single grandparent from a country, who has never been to that country is what people are against. But someone with all great-grandparents born in a given country, who has current family connections in that country and frequently visited that country growing up could be given consideration.

Posts: 1525
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby 4N » Wed, 10 May 2017, 21:10

Daniel Leo:

"I think this particular rule probably most benefits teams like Argentina, Japan, that don't have as much non-home grown talent," said Leo.

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/ne ... -leo-warns

Surely he misspoke and meant NZ, South Africa or Georgia, Fiji, Canada etc.

Posts: 419
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby TheStroBro » Wed, 10 May 2017, 22:26

The Captain's Run wrote:I guess I'll need an explanation of why people want the ancestry rules changed or removed because I don't get why that's an issue. Residency rules have an honest-to-god issue concerning the integrity of the "nationality" concept. You can pay someone to be a resident in your country for long enough and play rugby while they're doing it - you can't pay someone to have a grandma from your country.

It's strange to me because I feel a strong enough connection to my Mexican heritage that I would be willing to suit up for los Serpientes and I'm not even eligible - the last generation born in Mexico was actually my great-grandparents. So I'm not going to question why someone would be willing to play for a nation they are connected to through heritage and I don't see what the issue is with players doing so.


I'm hardcore Guero as much as the next, but Mexico is not my country. So I don't get those feels. And I have family that I know in Guadalajara. But like you, the last to be born there were my great-grandparents.

I also think the biggest thing will effect us is this
Unions may no longer nominate their U20s team as their next senior national representative team (effective 1 January, 2018) (majority)


When Tolkin was coach he led both the Eagles and the Selects. But Ray Egan led the Selects. They don't even have their own page on the website so it appears to be an ad-hoc organization.

Posts: 117
Joined: Tue, 08 Mar 2016, 17:29
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby The Captain's Run » Thu, 11 May 2017, 03:52

TheStroBro wrote:I'm hardcore Guero as much as the next, but Mexico is not my country. So I don't get those feels. And I have family that I know in Guadalajara. But like you, the last to be born there were my great-grandparents.


And that's the point I'm getting at, more or less, that even people in relatively similar situations can feel differently in regards to nationality. Although I think we only differ slightly - I wouldn't call Mexico my country either and refer to my ethnicity as Latino or Chicano rather than Mexican; just saying I wouldn't turn down a call if there were some loophole and I knew I had no shot at ever making the Eagles (I'm pretty sure I have that second part down). I wouldn't advocate for expanding the rules past the grandparent level, but I don't think the current rules are letting too many players represent nations that they shouldn't be representing.

The "review board" that Coloradoan suggested is an intriguing idea, maybe a good compromise for those who feel this rule needs to be reformed, although I have a feeling that more often than not it will just become an extra step of bureaucracy that these players will have to go through with few players actually getting rejected.

Posts: 296
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Bogdan_DC » Thu, 11 May 2017, 06:42

Ok i give you 2 scenarios:
1.I am born&raised in Romania, I learn my rugby here and just because i have a grand parent in Vanuatu, country that i never been, don't speak their language, don't know their culture, i can jump in their national side just because of that.
2.I am born&raised in Romania, I learn my rugby here and go to play in Vanuatu liga. For 5 years,i play rugby and LIVE THERE. I start representing their national side.
1.&2. are equal? 1st scenario looks normal to you?
For example US&Canada, Australia, NZ and few other countries are build by immigrants. So they can be poached just because of this ancestry rule?
But just like i said before this is a more complicated problem,for example the Basque region or countries where their population have close ties or double citizenship's.

Posts: 1401
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 11 May 2017, 07:20

Bogdan_DC wrote:Ok i give you 2 scenarios:
1.I am born&raised in Romania, I learn my rugby here and just because i have a grand parent in Vanuatu, country that i never been, don't speak their language, don't know their culture, i can jump in their national side just because of that.
2.I am born&raised in Romania, I learn my rugby here and go to play in Vanuatu liga. For 5 years,i play rugby and LIVE THERE. I start representing their national side.
1.&2. are equal? 1st scenario looks normal to you?
For example US&Canada, Australia, NZ and few other countries are build by immigrants. So they can be poached just because of this ancestry rule?
But just like i said before this is a more complicated problem,for example the Basque region or countries where their population have close ties or double citizenship's.


Actually my family has this scenario. My mother was born in the Czech Republic in the 1940ies . I was born in Germany in the 1980ies and I am eligible to play for Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic. My kids born in the 2010s are eligible for Germany and the Czech Republic. And no, nobody in my family does speak Czech including my mum who stopped speaking it after they where thrown out of the country in 1946, because her father was a Czech German.
Yeah, that is strange. But this can be very different in other families. But still: would I be proud to represent the Czech Republic, a place half of my family lived in documented at least since 1648? Absolutely. And if my kids would get the call-up from them, I would advice them to play for the Czech Republic (behind Germany).

Now lets move a little bit to the future. Millions of young Romanians are moving to other European countries. Their kids will still be eligible to play for Romania.
I think minor nations and especially the ones with not a strong economy and a lot of people moving abroad will benefit heavily, that there still is the grand-parent-rule in the next 20-60 years.
Last edited by RugbyLiebe on Thu, 11 May 2017, 08:10, 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: 296
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Bogdan_DC » Thu, 11 May 2017, 07:33

RugbyLiebe wrote:
Bogdan_DC wrote:Ok i give you 2 scenarios:
1.I am born&raised in Romania, I learn my rugby here and just because i have a grand parent in Vanuatu, country that i never been, don't speak their language, don't know their culture, i can jump in their national side just because of that.
2.I am born&raised in Romania, I learn my rugby here and go to play in Vanuatu liga. For 5 years,i play rugby and LIVE THERE. I start representing their national side.
1.&2. are equal? 1st scenario looks normal to you?
For example US&Canada, Australia, NZ and few other countries are build by immigrants. So they can be poached just because of this ancestry rule?
But just like i said before this is a more complicated problem,for example the Basque region or countries where their population have close ties or double citizenship's.


Actually my family has this scenario. My mother was born in the Czech Republic in the 1940ies . I was born in Germany in the 1980ies and I am eligible to play for Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic. My kids born in the 2010s are eligible for Germany and the Czech Republic. And no, nobody in my family does speak Czech including my mum who stopped speaking it after they where thrown out of the country in 1946, because her father was a Czech German.
Yeah, that is strange. But this can be very different in other families. But still: would I be proud to represent the Czech Republic a place half of my family lived in documented at least since 1648? Absolutely. And if my kids would get the call-up from them, I would advice them to play for the Czech Republic (behind Germany).

Now lets move a little bit to the future. Millions of young Romanians are moving to other European countries. Their kids will still be eligible to play for Romania.
I think minor nations and especially the ones with not a strong economy and a lot of people moving abroad will benefit heavily, that there is still the grand-parent-rule from this in the next 20-60 years.


On the Romanian forum i already said that we will benefit from this rule in 20-30 years but i still don't think is ok.

Posts: 1303
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby amz » Thu, 11 May 2017, 07:47

Problem is that not looking in to ancestry at all leaves an exploit for emigration countries, especially the richest ones in Europe. Ireland, Scotland, Wales will still be able to get project players like Maitland, Anscombe, Hardie the next day even if didn't played 1 minute in the local championship.

Posts: 1401
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 11 May 2017, 08:12

amz wrote:Problem is that not looking in to ancestry at all leaves an exploit for emigration countries, especially the richest ones in Europe. Ireland, Scotland, Wales will still be able to get project players like Maitland, Anscombe, Hardie the next day even if didn't played 1 minute in the local championship.


Which scenario do you actually mean? I'm not 100% sure.
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: 1303
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby amz » Thu, 11 May 2017, 08:34

RugbyLiebe wrote:
amz wrote:Problem is that not looking in to ancestry at all leaves an exploit for emigration countries, especially the richest ones in Europe. Ireland, Scotland, Wales will still be able to get project players like Maitland, Anscombe, Hardie the next day even if didn't played 1 minute in the local championship.

Which scenario do you actually mean? I'm not 100% sure.


What don't you understand?

Posts: 1401
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 11 May 2017, 09:05

amz wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:
amz wrote:Problem is that not looking in to ancestry at all leaves an exploit for emigration countries, especially the richest ones in Europe. Ireland, Scotland, Wales will still be able to get project players like Maitland, Anscombe, Hardie the next day even if didn't played 1 minute in the local championship.

Which scenario do you actually mean? I'm not 100% sure.


What don't you understand?


You are kind of contradicting yourself with first talking about ancestry and than about project players which by definiton have nothing to do with ancestry.
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: 1303
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby amz » Thu, 11 May 2017, 09:22

RugbyLiebe wrote:
amz wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:
amz wrote:Problem is that not looking in to ancestry at all leaves an exploit for emigration countries, especially the richest ones in Europe. Ireland, Scotland, Wales will still be able to get project players like Maitland, Anscombe, Hardie the next day even if didn't played 1 minute in the local championship.

Which scenario do you actually mean? I'm not 100% sure.


What don't you understand?


You are kind of contradicting yourself with first talking about ancestry and than about project players which by definiton have nothing to do with ancestry.


uhmm, yes indeed, forgot project players refers mostly to those signed for 3 years rule yet the respective players also were signed for the same scope, but based on ancestry. Yet, it is a loophole who favors only certain nations.

Posts: 1401
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 11 May 2017, 10:09

amz wrote:
uhmm, yes indeed, forgot project players refers mostly to those signed for 3 years rule yet the respective players also were signed for the same scope, but based on ancestry. Yet, it is a loophole who favors only certain nations.


Are there any of those anywhere? I know players who first played for the national team through ancestry and then were signed by a team of this nation, but not the other way round (signed with the intention to let them play for the national team, when they are already available anyway).
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: 296
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Bogdan_DC » Thu, 11 May 2017, 10:28

Dude you understand what i mean.

Allan Dell case for example. Honours: South Africa Schools, South Africa U16, U18, U20 (2012 Junior World Championship winner).
They signed him to play for Edinburgh and he is available for national team by ancestry (grand mother born in Scotland) .If that is not poaching what it is?He is obviously a 100% south african rugby product.
Sean Maitland - Maitland spent 2005 and 2006 in the New Zealand Schools team and was a member of New Zealand under-19 World Cup winning side in 2007 and the New Zealand under-20 side in 2008 winning the IRB Junior World Championship.
They signed him to Glasgow and play him by ancestry rule in Scotland team.

Just digging in family DNA of every rugby player on earth to find an grandpa born in your country to grab him.Even McCaw had some relatives from Scotland, that MC from his name is a clue :).

PS. i got nothing against Scots but i remember this players

Posts: 1401
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 11 May 2017, 12:30

Fair enough. Honestly I've never realized one of those cases before. But yeah, that's true.

One question remains. Are all of those "special project players" already rejected players and is that poaching?
I mean Sean Maitland probably knew at 24 when he moved to Scotland, that he will probably never become an All Black - so he moved away to Scotland to see something from the world and than by coincidence happened to be eligible. (Okay he probably gave Glasgow a hint, that his grand-parent is Scottish :D ).


About Alan Dell I found this: http://www.edinburghrugby.org/news/14/0 ... -trio-sign
Which actually verifies your argument but would also answer my question to. "They are not poached, but actually without a chance of ever playing for their home nations, because they are not good enough to make it there".
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: 3094
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 11 May 2017, 12:30

As far as I'm concerned ancestry should be limited to parents only. My grandparents were Polish but it wouldn't feel right for me to pull on a Poland jersey because as far as I'm concerned I'm too far removed from that culture.

Posts: 1303
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby amz » Thu, 11 May 2017, 12:42

RugbyLiebe wrote:Fair enough. Honestly I've never realized one of those cases before. But yeah, that's true.

One question remains. Are all of those "special project players" already rejected players and is that poaching?
I mean Sean Maitland probably knew at 24 when he moved to Scotland, that he will probably never become an All Black - so he moved away to Scotland to see something from the world and than by coincidence happened to be eligible. (Okay he probably gave Glasgow a hint, that his grand-parent is Scottish :D ).

About Alan Dell I found this: http://www.edinburghrugby.org/news/14/0 ... -trio-sign
Which actually verifies your argument but would also answer my question to. "They are not poached, but actually without a chance of ever playing for their home nations, because they are not good enough to make it there".


But than again, if one realizes that he doesn't have chances to play test rugby and moves to another country, why should instantly obtain the right to play based on a distant ancestry while other players, with same issue, not playing test rugby, should wait for 5 years even if, let's say he's married there and applied for citizenship (cases of Turashvili and Sheenan and I know others have this intention).

I think this is also a type project player too. Maitland could have very well move to France, Dell could have moved in Aviva and so on but they signed certain clubs because it is a project going on.

Again, I don't blame Scots, they played by the rule, but the rule is creating an unfair advantage for certain teams who can possible pick players based on ancestry.

I think the limitation in ancestry mentioned by thatrugbyguy it's fine , obviously you can't completely rule it out but should be limited somehow.

Posts: 296
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby Bogdan_DC » Thu, 11 May 2017, 13:41

RugbyLiebe wrote:"They are not poached, but actually without a chance of ever playing for their home nations, because they are not good enough to make it there".

I don't now what to say because Scotland aren't to far away from Bocks right now. Also NZ had a short period of crisis on the wing and Maitland could have his chances.You never know...:)

Posts: 117
Joined: Tue, 08 Mar 2016, 17:29
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby The Captain's Run » Thu, 11 May 2017, 17:40

Bogdan_DC wrote:Ok i give you 2 scenarios:
1.I am born&raised in Romania, I learn my rugby here and just because i have a grand parent in Vanuatu, country that i never been, don't speak their language, don't know their culture, i can jump in their national side just because of that.
2.I am born&raised in Romania, I learn my rugby here and go to play in Vanuatu liga. For 5 years,i play rugby and LIVE THERE. I start representing their national side.
1.&2. are equal? 1st scenario looks normal to you?
For example US&Canada, Australia, NZ and few other countries are build by immigrants. So they can be poached just because of this ancestry rule?
But just like i said before this is a more complicated problem,for example the Basque region or countries where their population have close ties or double citizenship's.


Scenario 1 sounds like it would be a fairly unusual case for the heritage issue - most people with grandparents from another country are going to have some impact from that culture on their lives. Whether or not that's enough for them to feel comfortable representing that nation depends largely on the circumstances of their upbringing. That's why I'm comfortable with leaving the grandparent rule as a grey area where the player gets to make the decision rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater over a few players who are perceived to be using this rule cynically.

As for scenario 2, I'm fine with the five year rule and I think it should again be up to the player on if they feel comfortable representing the nation on those grounds. Given that there isn't an intrinsic connection to the nation here, there is probably a higher chance in this scenario of a player opting to represent a nation solely for the purposes of ensuring the well-being of their playing career.

User avatar
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 17:46
Location: Electoral Palatinate

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby ultravioletu » Thu, 11 May 2017, 20:12

"Ancestry" rule is the nastiest. Remember, lads, that it literally has nothing to do with "nationality", but merely with the place of birth.

Bogdan_DC wrote:1.I am born&raised in Romania, I learn my rugby here and just because i have a grand parent in Vanuatu, country that i never been, don't speak their language, don't know their culture, I can jump in their national side just because of that.

It would be enough that your grandfather was born in Vanuatu, from great-greatparents - Romanian nationals since generations - who happened to temporarily work there at the time of their child's birth. The ridiculousness of the "born in" rule would truly shine if some inventive and ressourceful DRV official started compiling a list of all children fathered in Bundesrepublik by NATO-military-serving British, French and US parents and then cross-checking which of them took up rugby in their real home countries. Or which of their children. Or grand-children. All of those would be - as per current rule - perfectly eligible for Germany.

"Ancestry" and "country-based eligibility", as defined by WR, have NOTHING to do with language, culture and other aspects that are dictated by common sense, when speaking of a "national". Of course, by chance there is an overlap for 90% of the subjects, but the letter of the law does not require them.

The closest to those aspects would be passport-holding. The citizenship is inherited from parents and usually can be gained by "foreigners" only after passing some sort of "language" and "culture" barriers. So for me personally the rules should be very simple: passport, or a decent residency (36 was probably too short, I kinda feel that 60 is too long, anywhere in the middle is fine with me).

However, this won't happen to rugby for two reasons: (1) the conditions to grant citizenship to foreigners vary greatly from country to country, and (2) home unions problem - well, as long as United Kingdom exists. Regarding (2): I really don't see the WR-puppets pushing RFU, SRU and WRU to merge into a GBRU (Olympics-like) to get rid of this mess. The mere thought hadn't even begun to speculate about crossing their minds. And while Scots are pondering about leaving UK, the Welsh don't and won't for a long time.

Posts: 49
Joined: Wed, 23 Jul 2014, 00:30
National Flag:
Vatican StateVatican State

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby MikeN » Thu, 11 May 2017, 21:58

Aren't you all getting a little overexcited here? You could come up with all sorts of situations with his grandma, and your grandad who got with his grandma who then adopted their mum who was born in Australian airspace in an Lufthansa plane that had left from Italy but spent 5 years in the French Foreign Legion undercover in Uganda. Or his grandad was born in Spain and he was like a dad to him and he owes him everything vs the grandad who he never met but apparently was an asshole.
You can't expect that every situation needs to be taken on case by case so there is one simple rule for ancestry. If a few odd cases slip through then so be it. It's not that important.

The passport thing shouldn't come into it as different countries have different requirements for getting one.

Posts: 1303
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby amz » Thu, 11 May 2017, 22:13

MikeN wrote:Aren't you all getting a little overexcited here? You could come up with all sorts of situations with his grandma, and your grandad who got with his grandma who then adopted their mum who was born in Australian airspace in an Lufthansa plane that had left from Italy but spent 5 years in the French Foreign Legion undercover in Uganda. Or his grandad was born in Spain and he was like a dad to him and he owes him everything vs the grandad who he never met but apparently was an asshole.
You can't expect that every situation needs to be taken on case by case so there is one simple rule for ancestry. If a few odd cases slip through then so be it. It's not that important.

The passport thing shouldn't come into it as different countries have different requirements for getting one.


Making a mockery from this trying to hide Home Unions obvious advantage into this change means really poor sportsmanship. You can't overlook that respective Unions are spared partly from this new rule. Obviously they won't be as interested as before to sign Islanders but surely the tons of immigration they had in SA/NZ/Aus might get them project players who don't need residency rules but they need test games regardless the fact they never thought to move up here before realizing they're rejects down there. And by doing this you are closing the door to natural immigrants in countries which can offer things that aren't quite common down there.

LE: and stating your position with a flag that means nothing in this sport is also a big sign of your moral ambiguity ; most of posters from here state their country and those no flag have often so dodgy opinions. Mind you, this come from a "half - Catholic".

Posts: 49
Joined: Wed, 23 Jul 2014, 00:30
National Flag:
Vatican StateVatican State

Re: Change in Residency Eligibility

Postby MikeN » Thu, 11 May 2017, 22:59

I don't quite understand you. I thought project players were guys lured to foreign shores and if they stay there long enough they qualify under the residency rule? As opposed to ancestry players who qualify through parent or grandparent.
How do only the Home Unions benefit from ancestry players?
I find it hard to pick a flag because my four biological grandparents and 2 stepones were all born in different countries, as were my parents and stepmother. Plus as my parents were diplomats I was constantly moving from country to country.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 9 guests