World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules
-
@kiwiwomble I wasn't implying that you think the rule is good. I'm just pointing out that they should change the rule because it's stupid (so not specifically for Fakatava, but for anybody in his position. Before they moved the date to 1 January 2022, it affected - for example - Willis Halaholo, who would have played for Wales in 2020, if he hadn't been injured, just after completing the 36 months period and before the original date of 1 January 2021.)
-
@stargazer all good, read it like you were asking my to defend it, which i cant
-
@stargazer said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@kiwiwomble said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
makes me worry a bit if we're that worried about halfback we're asking for rules to be changed
It's a stupid, illogical rule. It doesn't make sense at all.
The rule is that a player has completed 36/sixty consecutive months of residence immediately preceding the time of playing.
This is the reason for the rule:
The consideration should be whether a player - after meeting the residency requirement - has (or has not) stopped or interrupted his residence in his new country; whether he has still relinquished his ties with his previous country of residence, or has re-established them by going back for longer periods than permitted for short visits.Tell me, how does someone like Fakatava suddenly stop having a "contemporary, permanent, national link with" New Zealand by getting injured? He hasn't been back in Tonga after meeting the residency requirement. He has maintained his contemporary national link with NZ.
I agree it is stupid. It is stupid that they made this stupid concession to Scotland & Ireland and therefore Lowe and Schoeman should be stripped of eligibilty until the same date as Fakatava. (and any others who benefitted from WR caving into SRU and IRFU rather than being the impartial layer off the land that they are supposed to be)
But, not the other way around IMO.
-
@rapido We clearly disagree about what is stupid in this situation. You seem to agree with the rule, but disagree with the decision to delay the new 60-day period taking effect.
I disagree with the rule itself, where it requires the player to complete the residency period immediately before playing.
-
@stargazer said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@rapido said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
But, anyway.
Fakatava was never going to meet the original 3 year deadline (May 2020) before the 5 year rule came in.
Not sure where you get the May 2020 deadline from. He was born on 16 December 1999, so turned 18 on 16 December 2017 (just after he left school) and met the 36 months residency period on 16 December 2020. So before the original date that the new 60 month residency rule would have taken effect (1 January 2021).
The 3 year to 5 year change was to occur May 2020.
The original cut off of the three year residency period – the date a player had to have been in residence in the said country from – was effectively May 2017, meaning players would have need to be capped by that date in May 2020.
However, World Rugby have been forced to delay the cut off as the coronavirus pandemic, and resulting disruption to rugby seasons, has meant many players will not have had opportunities to be capped. The governing body have now decided to extend that cut-off until the end of 2021, which means players who signed in 2018 can now qualify in 2021 rather than two years later 2023.
Fakatava wasn't going to meet the 3 year mark until 6 months after it was supposed to change to 5 years.
-
-
@stargazer said in World Rugby Change Eligibigilty Rules:
@rapido No. The original date for the 60-month residency requirement to take effect was 1 January 2021. That's now 1 January 2022.
Yes. You are right. But .... That date I have taken from here (But, I am still trying to work out the significance of what "players signed after May 2017 but prior to December 31st, 2018" and "effectively" actually means.
The original cut off of the three year residency period – the date a player had to have been in residence in the said country from – was effectively May 2017, meaning players would have need to be capped by that date in May 2020.
However, World Rugby have been forced to delay the cut off as the coronavirus pandemic, and resulting disruption to rugby seasons, has meant many players will not have had opportunities to be capped. The governing body have now decided to extend that cut-off until the end of 2021, which means players who signed in 2018 can now qualify in 2021 rather than two years later 2023.
It means players signed after May 2017 but prior to December 31st, 2018 to clubs in their respective territories could be captured if they get capped prior to the new cut off date at the end of 2021. That has defacto opened the door to the unions looking at uncapped foreign players heretofore not considered to be project players, who have been plying their trade in their territories, to be capped.
World Rugby extension of eligibility could open door to fresh player captures
The decision by World Rugby to extend the date of the ending of their three-year eligibility rule could open the door to more 'cap and captures'..
-
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..
