World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules
-
Changes to rules around eligibility should not retrospectively capture players.
-
@rapido Maybe the author of that article has confused two changes to the eligibilty rules that were made in 2017? Apart from extending the required 36 consecutive months of residency to 60 consecutive months, they also added a new residency rule about "cumulative residency", which was effective from 10 May 2017.
The reformed Regulation 8 ensures that a player has a genuine, close, credible and established link with the nation of representation, and the key amendments are:
-
The 36-month residency requirement is increased to 60 months with effect from 31 December, 2020 (unanimously approved)
-
The addition of a residency criteria which permits players who have 10 years of cumulative residency to be eligible (effective May 10, 2017) (unanimously approved)
etc
-
-
@antipodean said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
Changes to rules around eligibility should not retrospectively capture players.
Should they retrospectively uncapture players?
-
@machpants said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@antipodean said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
Changes to rules around eligibility should not retrospectively capture players.
Should they retrospectively uncapture players?
que?
-
@antipodean said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@machpants said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@antipodean said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
Changes to rules around eligibility should not retrospectively capture players.
Should they retrospectively uncapture players?
que?
That's the case of folau, eligible for NZ then not. Bizarre situation, once you're eligible you should stay that way, captured or not. Obviously it's not actually uncapturing, but that was my point. I don't like NZ picking non kiwis, but the rules as they apply to folau don't make sense
-
@machpants said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@antipodean said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@machpants said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@antipodean said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
Changes to rules around eligibility should not retrospectively capture players.
Should they retrospectively uncapture players?
que?
That's the case of folau, eligible for NZ then not. Bizarre situation, once you're eligible you should stay that way, captured or not. Obviously it's not actually uncapturing, but that was my point. I don't like NZ picking non kiwis, but the rules as they apply to folau don't make sense
Then we're in agreement. When I said capture players, I meant the rules shouldn't be changed on them when they met the criteria at a certain point. Otherwise you could just keep moving the goal posts on them.
I'm becoming more convinced that World Rugby is dominated by imbeciles.
-
@antipodean said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
I'm becoming more convinced that World Rugby is dominated by imbeciles.
how many years of incompetence does it take to fully convince you?
-
-
based on some other conversations, how is it this kid is allowed to play for Japan, 1 year out of High School, having not being born there?
-
@taniwharugby That's a fucking good question given the plight of players trying to get into the All Blacks. The only thing that I see different is where his family home was...
-
Yeah if you living there with parents it is different to being there on your own before you are 18
As far as students are concerned, particularly those that are not financially independent, being resident, as a full time student, in another country, is likely to be considered as a series of temporary absences from the parental home. It is anticipated that in the majority of cases involving students the parental home is likely to continue to constitute the student’s permanent and primary home..
