RugbyRebels

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... 117c4120b7

At present, the players who played for certain U20 teams during various times between 2008-17 (and, in some cases, only if they played against certain sides, but not if they played against others!) are considered captured by that nation, because of the dog's dinner of the eligibility laws at the time. While the IRB has changed things in 2018, so that nations can no longer capture players with an age group side, that ruling was not made retrospective, so you still remain captured.

That has led to the weird situation where Schoeman and DVDM can play for Scotland after living there for 3 years and playing multiple times for SA U20s in 2014, but Bernard Janse van Rensberg cannot qualify for England on 5 years' residency because he was captured by 2 minutes off the bench for SA U20s in 2016.

So the RFU are now applying to the IRB to get the law change made retroactive.

Personally, I would prefer that we did not cap BJvR and instead continue exploring what SAtkinson can do for us. Plus, I absolutely have no interest in either Liebenberg or Vermeulen blocking English talent, which are the other names that the media is chucking about with wild abandon (especially the Saffers at Planetrugby). However, it does seem bizarre and unfair to have the rules in the current state that they are, so I guess I'm in favour of the change we're seeking? I just wish we weren't the ones looking to use it.

Spain'll be fucked off if it does go through, considering the non-retrospectiveness of the law was the reason they got ejected from qualifying for the 2019 RWC for playing an ex-France U20 player.

Puja

TBF - U20s capturing players at all, was always wrong IMO.
And capturing only in certain circumstances was even more wrong.
The way WR went about removing that, was right IMO. Changing the rules AND applying the new ones retrospectively is never a good call.

BJVR should never play for England, and the RFU are making a howling error in asking for this.

The other suggestion I've seen, that I like, is that U20s locks you in for 3 years (as per any other representation) but you can change allegiance through residency after that time (currently not allowed otherwise).

Still shouldn't be retrospective though

Is it a requirement that all eligibility rules are explained to young players before they represent a country? I think each should have to sign some sort of 'proof of understanding'.

I'm not sure what the gain is if World Rugby do accept and make the change.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 8:13 am Is it a requirement that all eligibility rules are explained to young players before they represent a country? I think each should have to sign some sort of 'proof of understanding'.

I think it was supposed to be mandatory to inform them but, given the byzantine state of the rules over U20 capture at the time, and the fact that "explaining that if you play in this game you're captured, but not if you play in that one," is unlikely to be a priority of an U20s coach, I'd not be surprised if it got glossed over or confused.

Puja

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 8:52 am I'm not sure what the gain is if World Rugby do accept and make the change.

The "gain" for England is being able to poach BJVR.

I'd say in terms of fairness towards players, it does feel shitty that an U20s appearance from 11 years ago allows a player to play for an adopted country, but U20s from 10 years ago bars them. However, this is ameliorated by the fact that switching nationalities for ancestry/birth already exists as an option, so the only players who are disadvantaged are those qualifying on residency.

I don't know if there are any other players who are barred from international rugby by this combination of U20s capture (which is only SA, Italy, Wales, and France (and those depending on the years)) and qualifying on residency (which is likely only players in countries with pro leagues that buy in foreigners). Maybe there might be someone in Romania or Japan?

Put like that, it doesn't sound like the IRB will be too bothered about changing something just to benefit England. Unless the RFU can find a Tier 2 nation to join them in the appeal, they'll likelly get short shrift.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 11:30 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 8:13 am Is it a requirement that all eligibility rules are explained to young players before they represent a country? I think each should have to sign some sort of 'proof of understanding'.

I think it was supposed to be mandatory to inform them but, given the byzantine state of the rules over U20 capture at the time, and the fact that "explaining that if you play in this game you're captured, but not if you play in that one," is unlikely to be a priority of an U20s coach, I'd not be surprised if it got glossed over or confused.

Puja

Add to that - and I've said it before but cannot remember where so apologies if I'm repeating myself - explaining these things to a teenager that is, by nature, going to take opportunities when and where they appear, could go in one ear and out the other. They're still kids really, expecting them to grasp the potential repercussions is a little unfair.

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 11:46 am

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 11:30 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 8:13 am Is it a requirement that all eligibility rules are explained to young players before they represent a country? I think each should have to sign some sort of 'proof of understanding'.

I think it was supposed to be mandatory to inform them but, given the byzantine state of the rules over U20 capture at the time, and the fact that "explaining that if you play in this game you're captured, but not if you play in that one," is unlikely to be a priority of an U20s coach, I'd not be surprised if it got glossed over or confused.

Puja

Add to that - and I've said it before but cannot remember where so apologies if I'm repeating myself - explaining these things to a teenager that is, by nature, going to take opportunities when and where they appear, could go in one ear and out the other. They're still kids really, expecting them to grasp the potential repercussions is a little unfair.

A bit like voting at 16, you mean???

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 11:42 am

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 8:52 am I'm not sure what the gain is if World Rugby do accept and make the change.

The "gain" for England is being able to poach BJVR.

I'd say in terms of fairness towards players, it does feel shitty that an U20s appearance from 11 years ago allows a player to play for an adopted country, but U20s from 10 years ago bars them. However, this is ameliorated by the fact that switching nationalities for ancestry/birth already exists as an option, so the only players who are disadvantaged are those qualifying on residency.

I don't know if there are any other players who are barred from international rugby by this combination of U20s capture (which is only SA, Italy, Wales, and France (and those depending on the years)) and qualifying on residency (which is likely only players in countries with pro leagues that buy in foreigners). Maybe there might be someone in Romania or Japan?

Put like that, it doesn't sound like the IRB will be too bothered about changing something just to benefit England. Unless the RFU can find a Tier 2 nation to join them in the appeal, they'll likelly get short shrift.

Puja

Yeah, still struggling to see the gain

And totally. There should be a standard way of qualifying players and U20s feels wrong.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:42 pm

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 11:46 am

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 11:30 am

I think it was supposed to be mandatory to inform them but, given the byzantine state of the rules over U20 capture at the time, and the fact that "explaining that if you play in this game you're captured, but not if you play in that one," is unlikely to be a priority of an U20s coach, I'd not be surprised if it got glossed over or confused.

Puja

Add to that - and I've said it before but cannot remember where so apologies if I'm repeating myself - explaining these things to a teenager that is, by nature, going to take opportunities when and where they appear, could go in one ear and out the other. They're still kids really, expecting them to grasp the potential repercussions is a little unfair.

A bit like voting at 16, you mean???

Or paying taxes... However, there is a whole board for that kind of discussion and it should stay there.

I would tend to say that the age is probably less relevant, given they'll be 19 and 20 and generally considered competent, and more to do with the fact that a chaotic and illogical system was probably explained to them across a 2 minute, "Yeah, this may or may not be the case, not really sure myself, but it probably won't matter to you cause you wanna be a Springbok anyway, don't you, great, sign here" conversation.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 2:08 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 12:42 pm

Danno wrote: ↑Mon Aug 11, 2025 11:46 am

Add to that - and I've said it before but cannot remember where so apologies if I'm repeating myself - explaining these things to a teenager that is, by nature, going to take opportunities when and where they appear, could go in one ear and out the other. They're still kids really, expecting them to grasp the potential repercussions is a little unfair.

A bit like voting at 16, you mean???

Or paying taxes... However, there is a whole board for that kind of discussion and it should stay there.

I would tend to say that the age is probably less relevant, given they'll be 19 and 20 and generally considered competent, and more to do with the fact that a chaotic and illogical system was probably explained to them across a 2 minute, "Yeah, this may or may not be the case, not really sure myself, but it probably won't matter to you cause you wanna be a Springbok anyway, don't you, great, sign here" conversation.

Puja

Agreed. Sorry, could not resist the political quip. The few 18-21 year olds that I know would give me hell of an earful if I suggested they could not understand the full implications of commitments at the sort of complexity level that eligibility involves. Are the ones of international rugby standard (none of whom I know) less intelligent or are they starry-eyed about fame or what? I genuinely don't understand.