Eligibility back on the agenda
-
Just in case this discussion comes up during the RWC again, I'm posting this article here.
Note: It's not an opinion piece.Foreign-Born / Raised Players at RWC 2019
20 teams will compete at RWC 2019 in Japan. Of them 17 have selected players from other countries. How then did they come to qualify for the country they are representing? The following article is aimed at explaining who they are and how they qualify. It is not an opinion piece but instead sets out to be informative, giving the reader a greater understanding of how the eligibility process functions. Eligibility must be obtained by meeting Regulation 8 as outlined by World Rugby. Doing so requires a player to (a) be born in the country; (b) have one parent or grandparent from the country; or (c) complete 3 years consecutive residency immediately before representative duty. Changes since RWC 2015 have seen a tightening of the residency qualifying with it having been extended from 3 to 5 years. While this will not begin until the end of 2020 it must be clarified that the change was motivated precisely as a response to the number of foreign-born players at RWC 2015 and the subsequent qualifying of players in 2016 and 2017.The RWC 2019 edition has been compiled to ask and answer the question as to which players were and were not produced by a union. This is connected to the use of a new column which outlines other representative duty to document the comparative history of the players. The events of 2018 which began in Brussels, Belgium, underline why the point from the above paragraph is fundamental for RWC 2019. The aftermath would see Belgium, Romania, and Spain all disqualified for breaching Regulation 8. Russia replaced Romania as Europe 1 after center Sione Faka’osilea was confirmed as having already been captured by Tonga; while Mathieu Bélie and Bastien Fuster were deemed to be captured by France. The punishment was the same though the policy which saw Bélie and Fuster captured no longer exists as countries can no longer nominate their u20 side as their ‘next senior XV’.New Zealand (3) New Zealand has three players from abroad, all of whom qualify via residency. Of them Sevu Reece moved to play rugby in New Zealand on a high school scholarship aged 17. The two others moved in their early teens. Ofa Tu’ungafasi moved to New Zealand aged 14. His father, Mofuike Tu’ungafasi, played for Tonga at RWC 1987.
@Stargazer I'm not saying this is 100% accurate but someone posted this up, I have ne reason to doubt it otherwise
**At WRC19, the number of foreign born players per team is:
13: Samoa; 12: Tonga; 11: Wales, Scotland and Japan; 10: France; 6: Australia, Italy, USA; 5: Canada, Ireland, New Zealand; 4: Romania; 3: England, Fiji; 2: Namibia; 1: Georgia, South Africa, Uruguay; 0: Argentina.Meanwhile, 39 NZ born players will be playing for other countries. Including all 13 of Samoa’s foreign contingent**
Not exactly daming for South Sea Island poaching.
-
@Stargazer I'm not saying this is 100% accurate but someone posted this up, I have ne reason to doubt it otherwise
**At WRC19, the number of foreign born players per team is:
13: Samoa; 12: Tonga; 11: Wales, Scotland and Japan; 10: France; 6: Australia, Italy, USA; 5: Canada, Ireland, New Zealand; 4: Romania; 3: England, Fiji; 2: Namibia; 1: Georgia, South Africa, Uruguay; 0: Argentina.Meanwhile, 39 NZ born players will be playing for other countries. Including all 13 of Samoa’s foreign contingent**
Not exactly daming for South Sea Island poaching.
@Machpants I think that number of 5 non-NZ born players in the ABs was correct for the initial 41-men squad that still included Shannon Frizell and Vaea Fifita, but the RWC squad only has the 3 players mentioned in the article that I posted.
-
@Machpants I think that number of 5 non-NZ born players in the ABs was correct for the initial 41-men squad that still included Shannon Frizell and Vaea Fifita, but the RWC squad only has the 3 players mentioned in the article that I posted.
-
@Stargazer good catch
-
@Machpants So if anyone is actually poaching, it is the PI's from us (and maybe a few from Aus).
That whole argument as asinine anyway. Which is no surprise as Stephen Jones perpetuated it - the king of asinine.
@Snowy said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Machpants So if anyone is actually poaching, it is the PI's from us (and maybe a few from Aus).
That whole argument as asinine anyway. Which is no surprise as Stephen Jones perpetuated it - the king of asinine.
Which was very much the case at the height of the poaching hysteria anyway.
-
This is from the article below.
Edinburgh prop Pierre Schoeman will be able to represent Scotland next year - rather than in 2023 - after World Rugby extended the three-year residency period window.
The governing body said in 2017 any player not qualified by 2020 must serve five years before becoming eligible.
\
Why has the change been made?
World Rugby's Regulation 8 (eligibility) states that players must have served the requisite residency "immediately prior to the date of playing".
However, because of the pandemic and the suspension of international rugby, the "date of playing" opportunities have been significantly affected - especially for the developing rugby nations.
Some eligible players have potentially been prevented from representing their adopted country by the scheduled cut-off date, either because of cancelled matches or complications caused by the virus.
"In light of these exceptional circumstances, the executive committee, having consulted with unions and international rugby players, determined it was appropriate to extend the 36-month residency requirement set out in Regulation 8 to 31 December 2021," the governing body said.
"The executive committee also confirmed that a player must meet both the 36-months residency requirement and have represented the union on or before 31 December, 2021, otherwise the player will fall under the 60-month rule."
The home nations have regularly benefited from the residency rule, with the likes of England's Nathan Hughes, Wales' Hadleigh Parkes, Scotland's WP Nel and Ireland's CJ Stander among those capped after serving the three years required.
Meanwhile, Leinster wing James Lowe is now eligible for Ireland after joining the Dublin province from his native New Zealand in 2017.
-
This is from the article below.
Edinburgh prop Pierre Schoeman will be able to represent Scotland next year - rather than in 2023 - after World Rugby extended the three-year residency period window.
The governing body said in 2017 any player not qualified by 2020 must serve five years before becoming eligible.
\
Why has the change been made?
World Rugby's Regulation 8 (eligibility) states that players must have served the requisite residency "immediately prior to the date of playing".
However, because of the pandemic and the suspension of international rugby, the "date of playing" opportunities have been significantly affected - especially for the developing rugby nations.
Some eligible players have potentially been prevented from representing their adopted country by the scheduled cut-off date, either because of cancelled matches or complications caused by the virus.
"In light of these exceptional circumstances, the executive committee, having consulted with unions and international rugby players, determined it was appropriate to extend the 36-month residency requirement set out in Regulation 8 to 31 December 2021," the governing body said.
"The executive committee also confirmed that a player must meet both the 36-months residency requirement and have represented the union on or before 31 December, 2021, otherwise the player will fall under the 60-month rule."
The home nations have regularly benefited from the residency rule, with the likes of England's Nathan Hughes, Wales' Hadleigh Parkes, Scotland's WP Nel and Ireland's CJ Stander among those capped after serving the three years required.
Meanwhile, Leinster wing James Lowe is now eligible for Ireland after joining the Dublin province from his native New Zealand in 2017.
@Stargazer
Absolute joke. -
World Rugby's official media release about the extension of the three-year residency period window:
The World Rugby Executive Committee approved an adjustment to Regulation 8 (eligibility) in July to combat the exceptional disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic on the necessary residency criteria for players wishing to qualify for a national union. The residency criteria outlined in the regulation is due to increase from 36 consecutive months to 60 consecutive months on 31 December, 2020. In order to be eligible on that basis, players must meet the residency requirement and have represented their union before the cut-off date. Due to the disruption to the international calendar caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, playing opportunities have been significantly affected across the sport’s 127 member unions and eligible players may have been prevented from representing a union on the basis of 36 months residency by the scheduled cut-off date and would therefore automatically move into the 60-month requirement. In light of these exceptional circumstances, the Executive Committee, having consulted with unions and International Rugby Players, determined it was appropriate to extend the extend the 36 month residency requirement set out in Regulation 8 to 31 December, 2021. The Executive Committee also confirmed that a player must meet both the 36 months residency requirement and have represented the union on or before 31 December, 2021, otherwise the player will fall under the 60-month rule. -
World Rugby's official media release about the extension of the three-year residency period window:
The World Rugby Executive Committee approved an adjustment to Regulation 8 (eligibility) in July to combat the exceptional disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic on the necessary residency criteria for players wishing to qualify for a national union. The residency criteria outlined in the regulation is due to increase from 36 consecutive months to 60 consecutive months on 31 December, 2020. In order to be eligible on that basis, players must meet the residency requirement and have represented their union before the cut-off date. Due to the disruption to the international calendar caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, playing opportunities have been significantly affected across the sport’s 127 member unions and eligible players may have been prevented from representing a union on the basis of 36 months residency by the scheduled cut-off date and would therefore automatically move into the 60-month requirement. In light of these exceptional circumstances, the Executive Committee, having consulted with unions and International Rugby Players, determined it was appropriate to extend the extend the 36 month residency requirement set out in Regulation 8 to 31 December, 2021. The Executive Committee also confirmed that a player must meet both the 36 months residency requirement and have represented the union on or before 31 December, 2021, otherwise the player will fall under the 60-month rule. -
@Stargazer sweeak, fuck the splitters, I say. Make it ten years (or 5 years before first rep rugby), birth, and parents only
@Machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Stargazer sweeak, fuck the splitters, I say. Make it ten years (or 5 years before first rep rugby), birth, and parents only
I'm sooooooo in the other camp.
Why make sport the only profession where if you move to a different country you can't operate at the pinnacle of your profession?
People don't always jump ship just for the fun of it, And if you make your home somewhere, I have no idea why you shouldn't be able to represent them.
-
@Machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Stargazer sweeak, fuck the splitters, I say. Make it ten years (or 5 years before first rep rugby), birth, and parents only
I'm sooooooo in the other camp.
Why make sport the only profession where if you move to a different country you can't operate at the pinnacle of your profession?
People don't always jump ship just for the fun of it, And if you make your home somewhere, I have no idea why you shouldn't be able to represent them.
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Stargazer sweeak, fuck the splitters, I say. Make it ten years (or 5 years before first rep rugby), birth, and parents only
I'm sooooooo in the other camp.
Why make sport the only profession where if you move to a different country you can't operate at the pinnacle of your profession?
People don't always jump ship just for the fun of it, And if you make your home somewhere, I have no idea why you shouldn't be able to represent them.
Depends whether you like the idea of nations competing with each other, or nations competing on buying people to represent them against each other. Saudi Arabia could be really good at the traditional Saudi snow sports
-
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Stargazer sweeak, fuck the splitters, I say. Make it ten years (or 5 years before first rep rugby), birth, and parents only
I'm sooooooo in the other camp.
Why make sport the only profession where if you move to a different country you can't operate at the pinnacle of your profession?
People don't always jump ship just for the fun of it, And if you make your home somewhere, I have no idea why you shouldn't be able to represent them.
Depends whether you like the idea of nations competing with each other, or nations competing on buying people to represent them against each other. Saudi Arabia could be really good at the traditional Saudi snow sports
@nzzp said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Stargazer sweeak, fuck the splitters, I say. Make it ten years (or 5 years before first rep rugby), birth, and parents only
I'm sooooooo in the other camp.
Why make sport the only profession where if you move to a different country you can't operate at the pinnacle of your profession?
People don't always jump ship just for the fun of it, And if you make your home somewhere, I have no idea why you shouldn't be able to represent them.
Depends whether you like the idea of nations competing with each other, or nations competing on buying people to represent them against each other. Saudi Arabia could be really good at the traditional Saudi snow sports
Shit man, if Beauden wants to commit to a 3yr stand down period to live in and eventually represent Saudo Arabian, I'm ok with that. Key for me is if you've made your life somewhere - stand down period, pay taxes, rent/buy a place, establish roots etc. The criteria should capture that in some way, as the stand down does. And thats enough for me
-
@nzzp said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Stargazer sweeak, fuck the splitters, I say. Make it ten years (or 5 years before first rep rugby), birth, and parents only
I'm sooooooo in the other camp.
Why make sport the only profession where if you move to a different country you can't operate at the pinnacle of your profession?
People don't always jump ship just for the fun of it, And if you make your home somewhere, I have no idea why you shouldn't be able to represent them.
Depends whether you like the idea of nations competing with each other, or nations competing on buying people to represent them against each other. Saudi Arabia could be really good at the traditional Saudi snow sports
Shit man, if Beauden wants to commit to a 3yr stand down period to live in and eventually represent Saudo Arabian, I'm ok with that. Key for me is if you've made your life somewhere - stand down period, pay taxes, rent/buy a place, establish roots etc. The criteria should capture that in some way, as the stand down does. And thats enough for me
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@nzzp said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Stargazer sweeak, fuck the splitters, I say. Make it ten years (or 5 years before first rep rugby), birth, and parents only
I'm sooooooo in the other camp.
Why make sport the only profession where if you move to a different country you can't operate at the pinnacle of your profession?
People don't always jump ship just for the fun of it, And if you make your home somewhere, I have no idea why you shouldn't be able to represent them.
Depends whether you like the idea of nations competing with each other, or nations competing on buying people to represent them against each other. Saudi Arabia could be really good at the traditional Saudi snow sports
Shit man, if Beauden wants to commit to a 3yr stand down period to live in and eventually represent Saudo Arabian,
So, just to check the effect, you'd be happy with Luatua, Piutau, Faumauina, Sopoaga etc all playing for the
ABsEdit:England against NZ, and wouldn't consider a team dominated by foreigners to be non-representative?I get your comment in theory - just for me there is a difference between representing your country and doing your job. Go be a pro player anywhere you want - but if you want to represent a country, limit that.
Edit - fixed typo ABs/England
-
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@nzzp said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Stargazer sweeak, fuck the splitters, I say. Make it ten years (or 5 years before first rep rugby), birth, and parents only
I'm sooooooo in the other camp.
Why make sport the only profession where if you move to a different country you can't operate at the pinnacle of your profession?
People don't always jump ship just for the fun of it, And if you make your home somewhere, I have no idea why you shouldn't be able to represent them.
Depends whether you like the idea of nations competing with each other, or nations competing on buying people to represent them against each other. Saudi Arabia could be really good at the traditional Saudi snow sports
Shit man, if Beauden wants to commit to a 3yr stand down period to live in and eventually represent Saudo Arabian,
So, just to check the effect, you'd be happy with Luatua, Piutau, Faumauina, Sopoaga etc all playing for the
ABsEdit:England against NZ, and wouldn't consider a team dominated by foreigners to be non-representative?I get your comment in theory - just for me there is a difference between representing your country and doing your job. Go be a pro player anywhere you want - but if you want to represent a country, limit that.
Edit - fixed typo ABs/England
@nzzp said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@nzzp said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@voodoo said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Machpants said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Stargazer sweeak, fuck the splitters, I say. Make it ten years (or 5 years before first rep rugby), birth, and parents only
I'm sooooooo in the other camp.
Why make sport the only profession where if you move to a different country you can't operate at the pinnacle of your profession?
People don't always jump ship just for the fun of it, And if you make your home somewhere, I have no idea why you shouldn't be able to represent them.
Depends whether you like the idea of nations competing with each other, or nations competing on buying people to represent them against each other. Saudi Arabia could be really good at the traditional Saudi snow sports
Shit man, if Beauden wants to commit to a 3yr stand down period to live in and eventually represent Saudo Arabian,
So, just to check the effect, you'd be happy with Luatua, Piutau, Faumauina, Sopoaga etc all playing for the
ABsEdit:England against NZ, and wouldn't consider a team dominated by foreigners to be non-representative?I get your comment in theory - just for me there is a difference between representing your country and doing your job. Go be a pro player anywhere you want - but if you want to represent a country, limit that.
Edit - fixed typo ABs/England
I hear you, but I jusy think we can find a way to accommodate people making genuine life moves rather than chasing $. Guess going to 5yrs helps that.
As for fringe AB's playing for England after a stand down, fuck em, line up and take your beatings like the rest of the filthy poms.
-
-
@stargazer said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Make it 5 years, and seriously consider not adopting the parent rule and ditch the grandparents for any sort of eligibility.
-
@stargazer also, who is proposing thus change?
Didn't it get voted down within the last year or two?
-
Maybe a change to this proposal to make it country of birth only, or parents but not grandparents could appease some of the other tier 2 countries?
The dynamic of PI 'heritage' players that have been brought up in NZ/Aus/UK then bolstering PI teams based on a grandparent link probably stretches things a bit far IMO.
Fair enough for those that aren't looking to change but maybe to much of a convenience for those wanting to extend careers.That way PI born players that have represented other countries through scholarships can 'go back' to their home country but those born and bred in a tier one country get their eligibility shot once the same as, say an Argentinian.
The parent rule is probably valid for those born overseas while their parents were working in a different country, but not if you are two generations in.
