RugbyRebels

World Rugby has finally got a number of things right.

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

National qualification will now take 60 consecutive months' residencey rather than 36, as from 31 December 2020.

An alternative will be 10 years cumulative residency. I haven't even heard this proposed before and I'm not sure what problem this is supposed to fix.

You can no longer trap kids by naming your U20 side as "next senior national team"

Lizard wrote:World Rugby has finally got a number of things right.

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

National qualification will now take 60 consecutive months' residencey rather than 36, as from 31 December 2020.

An alternative will be 10 years cumulative residency. I haven't even heard this proposed before and I'm not sure what problem this is supposed to fix.

You can no longer trap kids by naming your U20 side as "next senior national team"

The under 20s thing is a great step.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Lizard wrote:World Rugby has finally got a number of things right.

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

National qualification will now take 60 consecutive months' residencey rather than 36, as from 31 December 2020.

An alternative will be 10 years cumulative residency. I haven't even heard this proposed before and I'm not sure what problem this is supposed to fix.

You can no longer trap kids by naming your U20 side as "next senior national team"

The 10 years cumulative residency is a good idea - there's a player in England called Val Rapava-Ruskin, who was born in Georgia to Georgian parents, but moved to England when he was 2. He's lived there ever since, except for spending one season playing in Toulon, but that one year out of the country reset his residency qualification and he's now had to requalify for the country in which he's lived pretty much his entire life.

It's not a huge problem (and the jury's still out on whether Rapava-Ruskin is even going to be good enough to play for England!), but I think it's a good, fair amendment.

All things told, good work by the IRB. Although it is very disappointing that they're not bringing it in until December 2020. I'm assuming that's a concession so that Scotland and Ireland can quickly get in one more batch of project players for the start of the next season and they'll be qualified before the deadline.

Puja

The delay until 2020 will be to avoid any injustice to players, unions and clubs who have arranged their affairs on the assumption that a recently immigrated player will become eligible for a national team in 2020.

Puja wrote:

Lizard wrote:World Rugby has finally got a number of things right.

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

National qualification will now take 60 consecutive months' residencey rather than 36, as from 31 December 2020.

An alternative will be 10 years cumulative residency. I haven't even heard this proposed before and I'm not sure what problem this is supposed to fix.

You can no longer trap kids by naming your U20 side as "next senior national team"

The 10 years cumulative residency is a good idea - there's a player in England called Val Rapava-Ruskin, who was born in Georgia to Georgian parents, but moved to England when he was 2. He's lived there ever since, except for spending one season playing in Toulon, but that one year out of the country reset his residency qualification and he's now had to requalify for the country in which he's lived pretty much his entire life.

It's not a huge problem (and the jury's still out on whether Rapava-Ruskin is even going to be good enough to play for England!), but I think it's a good, fair amendment.

All things told, good work by the IRB. Although it is very disappointing that they're not bringing it in until December 2020. I'm assuming that's a concession so that Scotland and Ireland can quickly get in one more batch of project players for the start of the next season and they'll be qualified before the deadline.

Puja

How many more players of questionable allegiance/eligibility to do you see England selecting in that time?

Adder wrote:

Lizard wrote:World Rugby has finally got a number of things right.

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

National qualification will now take 60 consecutive months' residencey rather than 36, as from 31 December 2020.

An alternative will be 10 years cumulative residency. I haven't even heard this proposed before and I'm not sure what problem this is supposed to fix.

You can no longer trap kids by naming your U20 side as "next senior national team"

The under 20s thing is a great step.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

They should also release any player captured solely by having played for a U20 team designated as next best.

Lizard wrote:The delay until 2020 will be to avoid any injustice to players, unions and clubs who have arranged their affairs on the assumption that a recently immigrated player will become eligible for a national team in 2020.

Injustice seems a bit strong - I don't get why it's a right to magically become another nationality after seeing out a standard club contract. It's gaming the system to have project players anyway, so I'd have very little sympathy for anyone put out by a quicker turnaround.

The major cheekiness is not that it's a delay until 2020, but a delay until 31st December 2020. So it gives 7 months for anyone to scout out last minute project players before the last date.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:

Lizard wrote:World Rugby has finally got a number of things right.

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

National qualification will now take 60 consecutive months' residencey rather than 36, as from 31 December 2020.

An alternative will be 10 years cumulative residency. I haven't even heard this proposed before and I'm not sure what problem this is supposed to fix.

You can no longer trap kids by naming your U20 side as "next senior national team"

The 10 years cumulative residency is a good idea - there's a player in England called Val Rapava-Ruskin, who was born in Georgia to Georgian parents, but moved to England when he was 2. He's lived there ever since, except for spending one season playing in Toulon, but that one year out of the country reset his residency qualification and he's now had to requalify for the country in which he's lived pretty much his entire life.

It's not a huge problem (and the jury's still out on whether Rapava-Ruskin is even going to be good enough to play for England!), but I think it's a good, fair amendment.

All things told, good work by the IRB. Although it is very disappointing that they're not bringing it in until December 2020. I'm assuming that's a concession so that Scotland and Ireland can quickly get in one more batch of project players for the start of the next season and they'll be qualified before the deadline.

Puja

How many more players of questionable allegiance/eligibility to do you see England selecting in that time?

Lol

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:

Lizard wrote:World Rugby has finally got a number of things right.

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

National qualification will now take 60 consecutive months' residencey rather than 36, as from 31 December 2020.

An alternative will be 10 years cumulative residency. I haven't even heard this proposed before and I'm not sure what problem this is supposed to fix.

You can no longer trap kids by naming your U20 side as "next senior national team"

The 10 years cumulative residency is a good idea - there's a player in England called Val Rapava-Ruskin, who was born in Georgia to Georgian parents, but moved to England when he was 2. He's lived there ever since, except for spending one season playing in Toulon, but that one year out of the country reset his residency qualification and he's now had to requalify for the country in which he's lived pretty much his entire life.

It's not a huge problem (and the jury's still out on whether Rapava-Ruskin is even going to be good enough to play for England!), but I think it's a good, fair amendment.

All things told, good work by the IRB. Although it is very disappointing that they're not bringing it in until December 2020. I'm assuming that's a concession so that Scotland and Ireland can quickly get in one more batch of project players for the start of the next season and they'll be qualified before the deadline.

Puja

How many more players of questionable allegiance/eligibility to do you see England selecting in that time?

Far too bloody many, although in our mild defence, at least we're only opportunistic, rather than actively scouting and importing the sods. Either way, it's embarrassing that it will continue for another three and a half years. I can only assume that it was the only way Pichot and Beaumont felt confident that it would pass.

Puja

I meant injustice in a legal sense rather than moral.

Huzzah.

All seems pretty reasonable, now if we can get some movement on qualifying via grandparents that'd be good. I don't doubt some people should qualify via grandparents, but equally many qualify via a grandparent they've never met, even via a grandparent they didn't know granted an alternative nationality, so basically that some qualifications via consanguinity now rank above living in a country for 3 years, maybe being married to someone from that country and having a kid in that country seems utter bollocks.

I'm very happy with the changes. I'd be content to have each grandparent be worth 30 months of residence

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I'm very happy with the changes. I'd be content to have each grandparent be worth 30 months of residence

That's actually a bloody good idea, and one I have not heard before. Rather than setting an absolute ancestry requirement, provide a sliding scale discount from residency.

You could say each parent born in the target country is worth 50%, and any grandparent (of a parent not born there) is worth 25%.

Lizard wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I'm very happy with the changes. I'd be content to have each grandparent be worth 30 months of residence

That's actually a bloody good idea, and one I have not heard before. Rather than setting an absolute ancestry requirement, provide a sliding scale discount from residency.

You could say each parent born in the target country is worth 50%, and any grandparent (of a parent not born there) is worth 25%.

It's an idea I've been banging on about for ages. I was about to say that I think a single parent should be enough to qualify someone - and I probably still think it should. However if you allow a parent to be 50% and for the grandparents to count 25% then you could get a single line to get you to that 100%. I was thinking of taking it off the continuous residence but it really does make more sense to take it off the new 10 year total residence.

Wouldn't having the nationality be enough?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Adder wrote:Wouldn't having the nationality be enough?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

What do you meant by "nationality," especially in relation to the Home Nations?

Adder wrote:Wouldn't having the nationality be enough?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Definitely not. Unless you want to see Qatar win the RWC.

Lizard wrote:

Adder wrote:Wouldn't having the nationality be enough?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

What do you meant by "nationality," especially in relation to the Home Nations?

Thee home countries being a bit special (Except if you are half-Irish). If you have grown up in Australia with one parent from France and have inherited the French natitonality and Passport, wouldn't that be enough?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Adder wrote:Wouldn't having the nationality be enough?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Definitely not. Unless you want to see Qatar win the RWC.

Most countries have a 5 year residency rule.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Nationality rules vary far too much to be fair.

Adder wrote:Most countries have a 5 year residency rule.

And the ones that don't?
Whilst "most" may have 5 years (no idea if that's true or not) very very many don't; with ranges from a few hours right the way up to no residential qualification. "most" also have a reduced time frame if you're married to a national - which also isn't fair in rugby terms (again, I've no idea if "most" is actually correct).


We need one rule, that applies to everyone, regardless of where they're born, and passports is stupid every single time it's brought up for this discussion.
I've been a fan of EW's proposal for parents and grandparents offering "time off" from the residency period since I first really noticed it... about a year ago IIRC.