Beaumont wants to introduce a stand down period

[Figaro Profile]

Beaumont has said he will introduce a four year stand down period for international players, meaning they will be free to represent a second country if they have not played international rugby for four years.

T2 countries would be major beneficiaries, particularly the Pacific island countries with the likes of Piutau able to return for Tonga. Who else would benefit?

[Armchair Fan Profile]

This is not about increasing the competitiveness of Tier 2, only Pacific Islanders would benefit clearly from this. It's about keeping Samoa and Tonga artificially afloat with a quick fix. And I know my team would benefit, but it still isn't right and fair to Georgia, Uruguay...

[Pedro1 Profile]

I find it unbelievable how very few people see how this will only damage those countries in the long term.

Allowing what are essentially journeymen to represent those countries effectively blocks younger players from coming through the system. Why would a Samoan/Tongan kid bother grinding it in the islands if there is a fringe all black, getting all the training resources from a French club, just waiting for a call up?

The good young players will grab the first shit pro contract from overseas offered to them (perpetuating the cycle of Islanders representing other Nations) and the late bloomers and fringe players will simply be lost to the game.

[amz Profile]

When talking about Samoa and Tonga, we are talking about countries with 500k and 200k population and huge emigration. Alone on islands resources they'll become irrelevant in time. They benefit a lot from Australian and Kiwi junior systems even nowdays. How do you think we'll hurt them in long run?

[Figaro Profile]

They're never going to be able to maintain pro contracts I Tonga so what's the current motivation for a Tongan not to take the first pro contract they're offered?

[Chester-Donnelly Profile]

When talking about Samoa and Tonga, we are talking about countries with 500k and 200k population and huge emigration. Alone on islands resources they'll become irrelevant in time. They benefit a lot from Australian and Kiwi junior systems even nowdays. How do you think we'll hurt them in long run?

Samoa and Tonga have populations of 200k and 100k. But there are probably just as many living elsewhere.

[sk 88 Profile Website]

The problems I see:

Either this is allowed for all countries or only for "Tier 2".

If allowed for all countries:

You will see capped Fijians etc refusing call ups to re-qualify as English/Irish/Welsh so as to qualify for those nations internal quota systems regardless of whether they intend to play internationally or are desired for the national teams. This is similar to how qualified but uncapped players stay uncapped in NZ at the moment until they have decided to move overseas.

You will see movement between 6N countries, most likely from England and France to Italy but also likely other switches. Large numbers (25% maybe) of England and Wales' teams qualify for the other side, at least one will do a switch at some point.

You will see capped All Blacks play for literally every country in the 6N and likely every country in the RWC bar Argentina, South Africa and maybe someone like Georgia or Uruguay.

If it is only for "Tier 2" teams:
1) how do you define that? Japan for instance, already beat Ireland and Scotland at last RWC, but not in T1 championship.
Leads to 2) Samoa, Fiji, Tonga are all already capable of knocking off teams. What if Samoa or Tonga start with 8/9 previously All Blacks and start beating teams that are being picked on tighter eligibility rules. How is that fair?
3) Would encourage strongly for people to get capped by a T1 side first, i.e. remain uncapped if moved to Europe to try residency or take any cheap going in NZ/Aus even 7s safe in the knowledge you can re-qualify later.

Finally, you already can re-qualify for another nation using the 7s loophoole for the Olympic qualifiers. We could achieve many of the same aims by loosing the restrictions on that slightly (fewer comps needed for instance) or allowing a "prop waiver" as all other positions realistically can be included in a 7s team easily.

[amz Profile]

When talking about Samoa and Tonga, we are talking about countries with 500k and 200k population and huge emigration. Alone on islands resources they'll become irrelevant in time. They benefit a lot from Australian and Kiwi junior systems even nowdays. How do you think we'll hurt them in long run?

Samoa and Tonga have populations of 200k and 100k. But there are probably just as many living elsewhere.

Yes, my bad, I recalled the numbers corectly but I confused with actual population of the islands. Samoa have 200k and with emigration is close to 500k. Tonga have 100k and a migration of roughly 100k.

The emigration basically doubles the population and imho is a resources that cannot be ignored on the long run. Same as Spain does with its French emigration for example.

[sk 88 Profile Website]

They're never going to be able to maintain pro contracts I Tonga so what's the current motivation for a Tongan not to take the first pro contract they're offered?

Yes Tonga and Samoa are never going to develop on-island professionalism, so the goal has to be to make playing internationally for Tonga and Samoa either a monetary boost for players or at the very least not see it actively costing players to play.

You need a playing calendar with fewer internationals and no clashes to achieve that and also a different revenue split where teams that predominantly travel can generate more funds, and funds generated by the RWC are shared out on a fairer basis.

[rey200 Profile]

it's a bad idea. Very bad. Let's see how Qatar does at the World Cup 2027.

[Armchair Fan Profile]

it's a bad idea. Very bad. Let's see how Qatar does at the World Cup 2027.

Neah, that wouldn't change.

[Figaro Profile]

The problems I see:

Either this is allowed for all countries or only for "Tier 2".

If allowed for all countries:

You will see capped Fijians etc refusing call ups to re-qualify as English/Irish/Welsh so as to qualify for those nations internal quota systems regardless of whether they intend to play internationally or are desired for the national teams. This is similar to how qualified but uncapped players stay uncapped in NZ at the moment until they have decided to move overseas.

You will see movement between 6N countries, most likely from England and France to Italy but also likely other switches. Large numbers (25% maybe) of England and Wales' teams qualify for the other side, at least one will do a switch at some point.

You will see capped All Blacks play for literally every country in the 6N and likely every country in the RWC bar Argentina, South Africa and maybe someone like Georgia or Uruguay.

If it is only for "Tier 2" teams:
1) how do you define that? Japan for instance, already beat Ireland and Scotland at last RWC, but not in T1 championship.
Leads to 2) Samoa, Fiji, Tonga are all already capable of knocking off teams. What if Samoa or Tonga start with 8/9 previously All Blacks and start beating teams that are being picked on tighter eligibility rules. How is that fair?
3) Would encourage strongly for people to get capped by a T1 side first, i.e. remain uncapped if moved to Europe to try residency or take any cheap going in NZ/Aus even 7s safe in the knowledge you can re-qualify later.

Finally, you already can re-qualify for another nation using the 7s loophoole for the Olympic qualifiers. We could achieve many of the same aims by loosing the restrictions on that slightly (fewer comps needed for instance) or allowing a "prop waiver" as all other positions realistically can be included in a 7s team easily.

You could make it so that the four years has to be on top of any residency qualification. That way a capped all black would need to be in e.g. Scotland for a minimum of 9 years after their last cap before being capped for Scotland, unless they also qualified for Scotland via a parent etc. - that would effectively mean that you could only play for a second country where you were either born there or had parentage.

I don't really see how what people are worried about is all that different to the current situation. There are already New Zealanders in every world cup team, and Qatar could already build a team of tier 1 nationals, and young players all over the world are "blocked" by better foreigners who meet the eligibility criteria.

[thatrugbyguy Profile]

This is a carrot for the Pacific Islanders.

[sk 88 Profile Website]

You could make it so that the four years has to be on top of any residency qualification. That way a capped all black would need to be in e.g. Scotland for a minimum of 9 years after their last cap before being capped for Scotland, unless they also qualified for Scotland via a parent etc. - that would effectively mean that you could only play for a second country where you were either born there or had parentage.

I don't really see how what people are worried about is all that different to the current situation. There are already New Zealanders in every world cup team, and Qatar could already build a team of tier 1 nationals, and young players all over the world are "blocked" by better foreigners who meet the eligibility criteria.

While I agree with that in theory unless we want to get into "slippery slope" arguments that push us to extremes the nuance is important, it is similar to the current rules but worse/sillier. It's bad enough we have born and raised Kiwis in almost every side, but at least we aren't seeing 50 cap All Blacks tog out for a different nation in the next world cup. I'd rather be moving in the opposite direction by changing the grandparents rule, or removing it entirely.

The tweak that residency periods cannot overlap with a stand-down period is a good idea though, it does neatly tie off that worry. It would only then be used where someone had genuinely lived in a country so long it would only really be for a tiny number of cases where you'd say "fair enough".

[victorsra Profile Website]

Maybe you could solve the problem not allowing players to use the residency rule to change countries.

Players could only change countries if they qualify for the new country by family.

With this, you won't stop the All Blacks or England to have a PI. And you woudn't anyway because PIs want to play for those teams if they can. The same for SAs, NZs and etc.

But at least you could see them playing for a "minor nation" when they lose space.

I dont think it will change much the domestic rugby of PIs. Their goal with pro rugby is to offer first contracts to young players. The Fijian Drua doesnt exist to have experienced players because they'll never have money to pay higher salaries.

[Raven Profile]

He is fishing, wants to make sure the PI´s are behind him as there has been some questions around who are they backing up. This (the idea of his) also isn´t something he can decide on his own.

Also, this:

Finally, you already can re-qualify for another nation using the 7s loophoole for the Olympic qualifiers.

Beaumont is full of s***.

[Thomas Profile]

The closest example was the last Rugby League World cup when several members of the Tonga Squad switched from Australia and New Zealand. How did that help the PIs?

Seriously, Did Beaumont got the idea from RL?

[4N Profile]

You could make it so that the four years has to be on top of any residency qualification. That way a capped all black would need to be in e.g. Scotland for a minimum of 9 years after their last cap before being capped for Scotland, unless they also qualified for Scotland via a parent etc. - that would effectively mean that you could only play for a second country where you were either born there or had parentage.

Yep I would agree with this.

[TheStroBro Profile]

Beaumont has said he will introduce a four year stand down period for international players, meaning they will be free to represent a second country if they have not played international rugby for four years.

T2 countries would be major beneficiaries, particularly the Pacific island countries with the likes of Piutau able to return for Tonga. Who else would benefit?

No, there is already a process for guys to change eligibility. It requires a stand down period and olympic sport participation.

He also wants to loosen the eligibility rules on 5 years so that the US supposedly wholesale imports players from England into our collegiate system, but guess what? There's not a single D1A club program that has the resources of a DIII NCAA Football program.

[victorsra Profile Website]

It is not a bad idea, honestly. But need some adjustments:

IMO, a player could qualify for a new national team only by:

- birthplace
- parents;
- residency while under 20;

However, a player should not qualify for a new country by residency as a senior player. This is market.

And for the new national teamI would scrap the grandparents rule and keep only the parents rule, to discipline a bit more the moves. But maybe I'm wrong. I do understand why the grandparents rule exist. People live much more now, some people live their infancies much more with grandparents than with parents. Therefore the sport you play, the choices, the knowledge may come much more from your grandparents. For many people there is not much difference between parents and grandparents. And rules must see the big pictures.

About residency as U20, this means you'd protect countries that produce players. Imagine a Samoan that lives in NZ since 5 yo. He is as Samoan as he is NZs (because he grew up there) and should have the right to choose both.

In sport what is fair is who produces the players, not an abstract concept of nation. With this in mind, probably residency under 20 is much more fair to nationa teams than birthplace. National teams should be the representation of the domestic rugby. If somehow your rugby helped producing a player (before turning senior), he/she should be eligible to play for you, no matter what.

[Chester-Donnelly Profile]

It is not a bad idea, honestly. But need some adjustments:

IMO, a player could qualify for a new national team only by:

- birthplace
- parents;
- residency while under 20;

However, a player should not qualify for a new country by residency as a senior player. This is market. And for the new national teamI would scrap the grandparents rule and keep only the parents rule, to discipline a bit more the moves.

This means you'd protect countries that produce players. Imagine a Samoan that lives in NZ since 5 yo. He is as Samoan as he is NZs (because he grew up there) and should have the right to choose between them. In sport what is fair is who produces the players, not an abstract concept of nation.

But I don't see problem in choosing and switching between countries you have strong family ties or between the country you were born and the country where you learned rugby as a kid/teen.

I would scrap the grandparent rule altogether.
A player should qualify through birth, 5 years residency or a parent, and should be a citizen of that country.

[victorsra Profile Website]

Any decision should be done protecting the country that formed a player while U20. Some players lived in more than one country as U20s and any rule must understand this multiple reality. You can put a minimum residency time for U20s as well, ok. But if the country helped to form that player for like 2-3 years (more than a mere students exchange program time ), he/she should be able to choose that country at any time of his/her career. Nobody can say this isn't fair.

What matters for rugby is to make countries invest in youth rugby, in the expansion of their playing numbers.

[TheStroBro Profile]

Any decision should be done protecting the country that formed a player while U20. Some players lived in more than one country as U20s and any rule must understand this multiple reality. You can put a minimum residency time for U20s as well, ok. But if the country helped to form that player for like 2-3 years (more than a mere students exchange program time ), he/she should be able to choose that country at any time of his/her career. Nobody can say this isn't fair.

What matters for rugby is to make countries invest in youth rugby, in the expansion of their playing numbers.

All of those Wales and Ireland absconding with English 18 year olds.

[Bogdan_DC Profile]

That is a bad idea and anyway sounds like a bait for islanders. Eligibility rules are already too lax in my opinion.

[victorsra Profile Website]

It is a bait for PIs.