Eligibility back on the agenda
-
World Rugby's official media release about the extension of the three-year residency period window:
Regulation 8 national team representation (COVID-19 residency criteria adjustment) | World Rugby
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 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.
-
@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
-
@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. -
@stargazer said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
@booboo No idea who's proposal it is, but I'm not expecting it to be adopted this time either.
yeah, I cant see any of those countries that have to play those PI nations changing their mind any time soon, unless they suddenly have an influx of PI players wanting to play for their own teams lol
-
There is no way Ireland wales etc will support it. They will hide behind some lame excuse though.
-
@billy-tell said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
There is no way Ireland wales etc will support it. They will hide behind some lame excuse though.
And Scotland. Silly thing is if this went through and 5 or 6 teams end up at a higher standard it's good for everybody.
More competitive games is a better TV product, more revenue and for some of the teams playing more often at a higher standard will improve their results over time.
-
Yes, agreed.
The biggest issue for international rugby is the lack of meaningful rugby against teams outside the top 8 teams in the world. Go lower than that and the competitiveness falls away. We even get lopsided games of the top 1 or 2 vs 7,8 or 9.
The nature of rugby means it is impossible to compete with the top teams if you are in bottom tier 1 or tier 2.
World rugby wants to grow the game but cannot do so when the flagship event is international rugby and most of the world don’t play it.
Having the Pi’s stronger is a start and will provide better competition.
They have so many disadvantages in producing a competitive team and have provided the rugby world with a lot. This is one way to give a little back to them.
Unfortunately rugby is governed by self serving unions. Until that changes, nothing changes
-
Concern I'd have with this is that it could go the wrong way - a young player who'd represented a PI nation might get a contract in Europe, then opt out of playing international rugby for 3 years before turning up in a French / English jersey.
I saw a proposal years ago that players could switch from tier 1 to tier 2, but not the other way around. Wouldn't that be a better rule?
-
@gibbon-rib said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Concern I'd have with this is that it could go the wrong way - a young player who'd represented a PI nation might get a contract in Europe, then opt out of playing international rugby for 3 years before turning up in a French / English jersey.
I think that scenario is already covered. They'd need to have been born or have parents born in England France etc. Not residency.
It's basically the Olympic loophole, but without the bother of having to go through the loophole.
There is the contradiction that residency does allow you to choose your first country but not hop to your second. (if this passes)
-
@gibbon-rib said in Eligibility back on the agenda:
Concern I'd have with this is that it could go the wrong way - a young player who'd represented a PI nation might get a contract in Europe, then opt out of playing international rugby for 3 years before turning up in a French / English jersey.
I saw a proposal years ago that players could switch from tier 1 to tier 2, but not the other way around. Wouldn't that be a better rule?
i have t admit i had always assumed these suggestions were based on the idea of you could go from tier 1 to 2 but not the other way around
Stuff
