Eligibility back on the agenda
-
French rugby players only to be considered for international selection if they have French passports
French rugby has changed the eligibility rule for it's international team, stipulating that players must have French passports if they're to be considered for selection. The decision was announced at a meeting in Paris between the French Rugby Federation and World Rugby on Tuesday. Currently, players are deemed eligible for French international selection after living in the country for three consecutive years. However under the new changes, players must hold French passports and, under French law, they are only eligible to do so if they live in the country for over five years. "Our real desire is to promote the French sector, and play as many French players as possible," former Toulon boss Bernard Laporte told World Rugby during their meeting. France has been criticised in the past for flooding it's domestic leagues with foreign-born players which has been said to damage the international side. Former Blues and Hurricans winger David Smith was ruled ineligible for the French side earlier this year. Countries are formally bound by World Rugby regulations when it comes to eligibility laws. However Laporte said that for the good of French rugby, it was important they enforced their own regulations. "We told Rugby World that we had made a decision not to select foreign players even if the regulation allows us. "The regulations could change, but in our minds we do not want to use it, except in case of force majeure, our real will is to favor the French players, to play as many French players as possible. And be very careful about not impoverishing the Fijian federations, Georgian, Samoan, Tongan otherwise it impoverishes the international game, the interest is to have maximum competitive teams." The decision will likely cause some initial drama with current international players like Noa Nakaitaci not holding a French passport therefore ruled ineligible for France ahead of the 2017 Six Nations.I must say I find it astonishing that they seem to change the policy without a transition period. I doubt Nakaitaci is the only international affected by this rule change and they're not even given any time to consider their options. The 6 Nations already starts in 6 weeks!
Personally, I also disagree with the requirement of having/obtaining a passport of the country you represent if either that country or the country of birth doesn't allow dual citizenship. Knowing several expats, I know there can be plenty of good reasons to hold on to your original citizenship if you accept a new one.
Edit: Just read about it in the French media and, apparently, players without a French passport who have already been selected for the French team until now, will still be eligible. So, for example, Scott Spedding, Virimi Vakatawa, Noa Nakaitaci et Uini Atonio (explicitly named in an interview with Guy Novès) will still be able to play for France. Seems Newshub has missed that - not so minor - detail.
http://rmcsport.bfmtv.com/rugby/xv-de-france-fini-les-etrangers-au-sein-du-xv-de-france-1072419.html
Personally, I also disagree with the requirement of having/obtaining a passport of the country you represent if either that country or the country of birth doesn't allow dual citizenship. Knowing several expats, I know there can be plenty of good reasons to hold on to your original citizenship if you accept a new one.
Other than Japan and Georgia, do any of the top dozen or so rugby countries have an issue with dual citizenship/subject status?
To the best of my knowledge it is not an issue for Ireland, the UK, Argentina, Australia, New Zeland, Canada or the USA. I haven't a notion about Fiji, Samoa or Tonga.
-
Personally, I also disagree with the requirement of having/obtaining a passport of the country you represent if either that country or the country of birth doesn't allow dual citizenship. Knowing several expats, I know there can be plenty of good reasons to hold on to your original citizenship if you accept a new one.
Other than Japan and Georgia, do any of the top dozen or so rugby countries have an issue with dual citizenship/subject status?
To the best of my knowledge it is not an issue for Ireland, the UK, Argentina, Australia, New Zeland, Canada or the USA. I haven't a notion about Fiji, Samoa or Tonga.
-
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.
We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.
I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.
We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.
I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.
@Kirwan said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.
We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.
I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.
I'd guess that most unions would do what they feel they need to do to overcome perceived weakness. NZ are fortunate in that they have little in the way of such things. Aus less so.
We are none of us saints.
-
@Kirwan said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.
We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.
I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.
I'd guess that most unions would do what they feel they need to do to overcome perceived weakness. NZ are fortunate in that they have little in the way of such things. Aus less so.
We are none of us saints.
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kirwan said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.
We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.
I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.
I'd guess that most unions would do what they feel they need to do to overcome perceived weakness. NZ are fortunate in that they have little in the way of such things. Aus less so.
We are none of us saints.
speak for yourself...
-
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kirwan said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.
We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.
I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.
I'd guess that most unions would do what they feel they need to do to overcome perceived weakness. NZ are fortunate in that they have little in the way of such things. Aus less so.
We are none of us saints.
speak for yourself...
@mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kirwan said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.
We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.
I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.
I'd guess that most unions would do what they feel they need to do to overcome perceived weakness. NZ are fortunate in that they have little in the way of such things. Aus less so.
We are none of us saints.
speak for yourself...
Easy to say when you're top dog. Less so when you're chasing the bronze medal and have your shoe-laces tied together.
-
@mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Catogrande said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Kirwan said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
True, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to us. The vast majority of PI players selected for the ABs were either born in NZ or have been in the country since they were three.
We provide more players to the islands than we "poach" by a significant margin. And to other countries in general, like Japan and Ireland.
I'm more interested in the response from countries with stated poaching systems like Australia and Ireland.
I'd guess that most unions would do what they feel they need to do to overcome perceived weakness. NZ are fortunate in that they have little in the way of such things. Aus less so.
We are none of us saints.
speak for yourself...
Easy to say when you're top dog. Less so when you're chasing the bronze medal and have your shoe-laces tied together.
@Catogrande i was just speaking personally, but your response was equally valid
-
I'll just leave this quote here
according to Munster's director of rugby Rassie Erasmus. "One of my briefs is to get Irish-qualified players well coached and available for Joe (Schmidt). All four provinces are the same
A South African trawling the world for players who have an Irish nanna (ish) so he can sign them to play for a kiwi coach. How very cosmopolitan
-
French rugby players only to be considered for international selection if they have French passports
French rugby has changed the eligibility rule for it's international team, stipulating that players must have French passports if they're to be considered for selection. The decision was announced at a meeting in Paris between the French Rugby Federation and World Rugby on Tuesday. Currently, players are deemed eligible for French international selection after living in the country for three consecutive years. However under the new changes, players must hold French passports and, under French law, they are only eligible to do so if they live in the country for over five years. "Our real desire is to promote the French sector, and play as many French players as possible," former Toulon boss Bernard Laporte told World Rugby during their meeting. France has been criticised in the past for flooding it's domestic leagues with foreign-born players which has been said to damage the international side. Former Blues and Hurricans winger David Smith was ruled ineligible for the French side earlier this year. Countries are formally bound by World Rugby regulations when it comes to eligibility laws. However Laporte said that for the good of French rugby, it was important they enforced their own regulations. "We told Rugby World that we had made a decision not to select foreign players even if the regulation allows us. "The regulations could change, but in our minds we do not want to use it, except in case of force majeure, our real will is to favor the French players, to play as many French players as possible. And be very careful about not impoverishing the Fijian federations, Georgian, Samoan, Tongan otherwise it impoverishes the international game, the interest is to have maximum competitive teams." The decision will likely cause some initial drama with current international players like Noa Nakaitaci not holding a French passport therefore ruled ineligible for France ahead of the 2017 Six Nations.I must say I find it astonishing that they seem to change the policy without a transition period. I doubt Nakaitaci is the only international affected by this rule change and they're not even given any time to consider their options. The 6 Nations already starts in 6 weeks!
Personally, I also disagree with the requirement of having/obtaining a passport of the country you represent if either that country or the country of birth doesn't allow dual citizenship. Knowing several expats, I know there can be plenty of good reasons to hold on to your original citizenship if you accept a new one.
Edit: Just read about it in the French media and, apparently, players without a French passport who have already been selected for the French team until now, will still be eligible. So, for example, Scott Spedding, Virimi Vakatawa, Noa Nakaitaci et Uini Atonio (explicitly named in an interview with Guy Novès) will still be able to play for France. Seems Newshub has missed that - not so minor - detail.
http://rmcsport.bfmtv.com/rugby/xv-de-france-fini-les-etrangers-au-sein-du-xv-de-france-1072419.html
Personally, I also disagree with the requirement of having/obtaining a passport of the country you represent if either that country or the country of birth doesn't allow dual citizenship. Knowing several expats, I know there can be plenty of good reasons to hold on to your original citizenship if you accept a new one.
No doubt, but personally, I wouldn't have much sympathy for anyone in this dilemma.
If, for example, you're going to play for France - you should be a Frenchman. So it would be a test of commitment.
There are, in my mind, far too many people playing international rugby under flags of convenience, so things that dissuade this are all good in my opinion.
-
@semper I think South Africa used to be one passport only, but not sure about now. I think the PI's would have no issue with dual citizenship given their makeup and ties with NZ and Oz.
-
@rotated said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
That is a surprising turn of events - especially as Stargazer points out there have been a growing chunk of players in/around the team in recent years including their failed attempt to requalify David Smith.
This hopefully bodes well for Scotland too also taking a stand. Perhaps Pichot can get enough support to make serious change. England and Ireland will fight tooth an nail though!
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
Your bullishness to linking national armies to test nationality is pretty novel. By extending that logic shouldn't we be using the strictest test when it comes to what qualifies as a country in International Rugby? No national anthem, no national flag - no international rugby team. if you don't have the confidence to become your own sovereign nation then you shouldn't have a rugby team, surely?
The team now known as Ireland is a particular mess because here because you have players who theoretically could be on opposite sides of the battlefield at war. How is this allowed to happen? If you are able to join your nations army you should not play against those you may one day fight against.
As for New Zealand following in France's footsteps I'm theoretically fine with it. I would just want a common-sense rule for unique situations. For example giving the unique link between Aus/NZ, many families will not pursue Permanent Residency or Citizenship because there is no need.
As an example if Nathan Cleary for whatever reason wanted to convert and play rugby for NZ I would have no issues with that given he spent about half his life in NZ. But, unless his family completed citizenship/PR path while he was here (unlikely, but they theoretically could have) he would have to start a new 5 year continuous residency to get citizenship now - which seems unnecessary given he spent the bulk of his youth growing up in Auckland.
NZ don't need to spend too much brain power on this one. But it's something to keep an eye on. Without knowing what specific visas guys like Fekitoa, Sivivatu and Seta were on and when it's hard to say when they would have been eligible for citizenship under the French rule. At most 2 years later than they did, but likely less. Devine, Taumoepeau and Rawlinson are the only others effected in the pro era who wait approximately 2 years longer. So we are talking approximately 30 test caps, from six players, over the past 22 years. Hardly a concern.
-
I'll just leave this quote here
according to Munster's director of rugby Rassie Erasmus. "One of my briefs is to get Irish-qualified players well coached and available for Joe (Schmidt). All four provinces are the same
A South African trawling the world for players who have an Irish nanna (ish) so he can sign them to play for a kiwi coach. How very cosmopolitan
@mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I'll just leave this quote here
according to Munster's director of rugby Rassie Erasmus. "One of my briefs is to get Irish-qualified players well coached and available for Joe (Schmidt). All four provinces are the same
A South African trawling the world for players who have an Irish nanna (ish) so he can sign them to play for a kiwi coach. How very cosmopolitan
Why did he say that? And what was he referring to?
-
@mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I'll just leave this quote here
according to Munster's director of rugby Rassie Erasmus. "One of my briefs is to get Irish-qualified players well coached and available for Joe (Schmidt). All four provinces are the same
A South African trawling the world for players who have an Irish nanna (ish) so he can sign them to play for a kiwi coach. How very cosmopolitan
Why did he say that? And what was he referring to?
@Pot-Hale he was referring to poaching
-
@Pot-Hale he was referring to poaching
@mariner4life said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@Pot-Hale he was referring to poaching
Don't they call it making tacit agreements?
-
@semper I think South Africa used to be one passport only, but not sure about now. I think the PI's would have no issue with dual citizenship given their makeup and ties with NZ and Oz.
@Nepia said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@semper I think South Africa used to be one passport only, but not sure about now. I think the PI's would have no issue with dual citizenship given their makeup and ties with NZ and Oz.
South Africa allows dual.
-
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Nothing to stop New Zealand following the French stance and taking a unilateral stance in fairness either.
I like the French policy of linking it to citizenship. Makes sense to me, and if countries don't allow dual citizenship/subject status or won't grant it to individuals well then they shouldn't be allowed represent that country.
If the country is happy enough to let that person be a solider and potentially die for it but not grant them a passport, then that's probably an issue the solider should think about when risking their life for those people.
Your bullishness to linking national armies to test nationality is pretty novel. By extending that logic shouldn't we be using the strictest test when it comes to what qualifies as a country in International Rugby? No national anthem, no national flag - no international rugby team. if you don't have the confidence to become your own sovereign nation then you shouldn't have a rugby team, surely?
The team now known as Ireland is a particular mess because here because you have players who theoretically could be on opposite sides of the battlefield at war. How is this allowed to happen? If you are able to join your nations army you should not play against those you may one day fight against.
As for New Zealand following in France's footsteps I'm theoretically fine with it. I would just want a common-sense rule for unique situations. For example giving the unique link between Aus/NZ, many families will not pursue Permanent Residency or Citizenship because there is no need.
As an example if Nathan Cleary for whatever reason wanted to convert and play rugby for NZ I would have no issues with that given he spent about half his life in NZ. But, unless his family completed citizenship/PR path while he was here (unlikely, but they theoretically could have) he would have to start a new 5 year continuous residency to get citizenship now - which seems unnecessary given he spent the bulk of his youth growing up in Auckland.
NZ don't need to spend too much brain power on this one. But it's something to keep an eye on. Without knowing what specific visas guys like Fekitoa, Sivivatu and Seta were on and when it's hard to say when they would have been eligible for citizenship under the French rule. At most 2 years later than they did, but likely less. Devine, Taumoepeau and Rawlinson are the only others effected in the pro era who wait approximately 2 years longer. So we are talking approximately 30 test caps, from six players, over the past 22 years. Hardly a concern.
Your bullishness to linking national armies to test nationality is pretty novel. By extending that logic shouldn't we be using the strictest test when it comes to what qualifies as a country in International Rugby? No national anthem, no national flag - no international rugby team. if you don't have the confidence to become your own sovereign nation then you shouldn't have a rugby team, surely?
Someone else brought up the point that we are proposing a higher standard to play rugby for a country than to fight for that country. It's not a point that I care for, hence my comments which you appear to have entirely misread but well done on some further Ireland bashing. In relation to your general point, it would reduce the number of serious rugby playing nations by a third.
-
@NTA said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I think the grandparent rule probably needs retiring - with a bit of notice.
Would you prohibit a citizen of a country playing rugby for that country?
-
@NTA said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I think the grandparent rule probably needs retiring - with a bit of notice.
Would you prohibit a citizen of a country playing rugby for that country?
@semper said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@NTA said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
I think the grandparent rule probably needs retiring - with a bit of notice.
Would you prohibit a citizen of a country playing rugby for that country?
If the basis of citizenship was only that one grandparent was born in a country: yes.
