The Residency Rule Thread

[Leinster Fan]

@rugga658

The place to come if you want to talk about the residency rule, project players etc.

I made this practically as a joke, but at the same time I do actually think this is needed.

I'm not a mod but given that this in my experience comes up a lot in places that it's not relevant to and ends up getting in the way of the topic that people are trying to discuss, it could be a good idea just to direct people who bring it up in the wrong place here?

 

[rugga658]

@rugga658

The place to come if you want to talk about the residency rule, project players etc.

I made this practically as a joke, but at the same time I do actually think this is needed.

I'm not a mod but given that this in my experience comes up a lot in places that it's not relevant to and ends up getting in the way of the topic that people are trying to discuss, it could be a good idea just to direct people who bring it up in the wrong place here?

You weren't joking....

We'll see how much traffic this thread gets

 

[Leinster Fan]

You weren't joking....

We'll see how much traffic this thread gets

Gotten sick the same repetitive discussion being brought up in places I want to talk about rugby.

It's the most boring debate online ever.

And it's not just for you either, don't worry.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Christ, this place is going to be carnage ...

I'm up for it though. Let's put it all in here and try and keep it out of the other threads as much as possible.

My view is - it happens. The rules are what they are, they're never going to satisfy everyone and every country takes advantage of the loopholes as much as they are able, basically, and whining at other teams because they've got some borderline cases in their squad is pointless and petty and gets in the way of much more interesting discussions. It brings out the most one-eyed and parochial in people unfortunately.

Having said that - if it were down to me, I would tighten the rules up slightly. Parentage or spending a decent portion of your youth (ie under 18) in a country is legit qualification for me. 1 grandparent, place of birth (without growing up there at all) or residency in adulthood, in my opinion, should not qualify.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ooh... what do we have here... this is gonna be fun.

What is interesting thought is how the players are starting to speak up about it and how it's being abused...

Good to have a thread to thin the herd...

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Christ, this place is going to be carnage ...

I'm up for it though. Let's put it all in here and try and keep it out of the other threads as much as possible.

My view is - it happens. The rules are what they are, they're never going to satisfy everyone and every country takes advantage of the loopholes as much as they are able, basically, and whining at other teams because they've got some borderline cases in their squad is pointless and petty and gets in the way of much more interesting discussions. It brings out the most one-eyed and parochial in people unfortunately.

Having said that - if it were down to me, I would tighten the rules up slightly. Parentage or spending a decent portion of your youth (ie under 18) in a country is legit qualification for me. 1 grandparent, place of birth (without growing up there at all) or residency in adulthood, in my opinion, should not qualify.

An interesting perspective, especially given you have no choice in where you live before you are 18. On the other hand, it's not as though we have free choice of where to live anyway. To the extent that we do though, shouldn't we be allowed to represent that country?

Imagine you were born in New Zealand but your parents came from Samoa not long before you were born. They tel you stories of your Samoan culture your whole life and you regularly visit family in Samoa. During your childhood in New Zealand, on the other hand, you have a very hard time because you are a bit different, which you work out around age 9 is because you are gay, but there are a lot of fundamentalist Christian children at the schools you go to and living down the same street as you. You don't really have friends, and you grow up hating New Zealand as a country, dreaming of the prospect of living as fa'afafine in Samoa. Once you are 18 you move to Samoa and really embed yourself in the community, feeling like you are home for the first time. Should you be allowed to play rugby for Samoa?

 

[Every Time Ref]

An interesting perspective, especially given you have no choice in where you live before you are 18. On the other hand, it's not as though we have free choice of where to live anyway. To the extent that we do though, shouldn't we be allowed to represent that country?

Imagine you were born in New Zealand but your parents came from Samoa not long before you were born. They tel you stories of your Samoan culture your whole life and you regularly visit family in Samoa. During your childhood in New Zealand, on the other hand, you have a very hard time because you are a bit different, which you work out around age 9 is because you are gay, but there are a lot of fundamentalist Christian children at the schools you go to and living down the same street as you. You don't really have friends, and you grow up hating New Zealand as a country, dreaming of the prospect of living as fa'afine in Samoa. Once you are 18 you move to Samoa and really embed yourself in the community, feeling like you are home for the first time. Should you be allowed to play rugby for Samoa?

Yeah absolutely - if you re-read, I said that parentage definitely counts for me. So in my opinion that hypothetical individual is qualified for Samoa from the moment they are born.

From what I hear I'm not sure this fella is going to find less Christian fundamentalism in Samoa though, but that's another debate!

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Yeah absolutely - if you re-read, I said that parentage definitely counts for me. So in my opinion that hypothetical individual is qualified for Samoa from the moment they are born.

From what I hear I'm not sure this fella is going to find less Christian fundamentalism in Samoa though, but that's another debate!

Aah. Misread an or as an and. sorry.

 

[Reiser99]

An interesting perspective, especially given you have no choice in where you live before you are 18. On the other hand, it's not as though we have free choice of where to live anyway. To the extent that we do though, shouldn't we be allowed to represent that country?

Imagine you were born in New Zealand but your parents came from Samoa not long before you were born. They tel you stories of your Samoan culture your whole life and you regularly visit family in Samoa. During your childhood in New Zealand, on the other hand, you have a very hard time because you are a bit different, which you work out around age 9 is because you are gay, but there are a lot of fundamentalist Christian children at the schools you go to and living down the same street as you. You don't really have friends, and you grow up hating New Zealand as a country, dreaming of the prospect of living as fa'afafine in Samoa. Once you are 18 you move to Samoa and really embed yourself in the community, feeling like you are home for the first time. Should you be allowed to play rugby for Samoa?

I would add that at 18 you commit to a country at 18 if you wish to change, once you are free to choose. An example being Brad Shields. Raised in NZ, played for NZ and almost played for NZ, then decided to switch in his mid 20's as he felt he would have a better chance with England. That for me is not ok and is abusing the system.

Another question though, how about if you play for one country at under 18/20 level and then go to another country at 18? Based on your example above a young player may be forced to play for NZ at age grade, but then choose to change after. However can you show that they genuinely didn't feel part of the culture and were forced to play when under 18?

 

[TRF_heineken]

This is an interesting article:

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2019/09/09/foreign-born-raised-players-at-rwc-2019/

It shows every nation at the RWC, and how many players each team has who weren't born in the country they represent. Now it doesn't show the whole picture and in it doesn't represent anything surrounding poaching, as I'm pretty sure many of these guys moved to the country they represent when they were younger than 18. But it does make it interesting. If anything, it shows exactly what the misconception is with regards to the AB's and their pacific island neighbours...

 

[donmcdazzle]

This is an interesting article:

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2019/09/09/foreign-born-raised-players-at-rwc-2019/

It shows every nation at the RWC, and how many players each team has who weren't born in the country they represent. Now it doesn't show the whole picture and in it doesn't represent anything surrounding poaching, as I'm pretty sure many of these guys moved to the country they represent when they were younger than 18. But it does make it interesting. If anything, it shows exactly what the misconception is with regards to the AB's and their pacific island neighbours...

Which is what NZers have been saying forever, nobody seems to care about the truth though. NZ does so much for Samoa and Tonga in terms of supplying the bulk of their national sides with NZ born and trained players. And yes the odd player like Sevu Reece comes to NZ as a schoolboy on a scholarship and makes it to the top, but this pales in comparison to the amount of guys in the opposite situation.

Ah well, I don't expect the tired old narrative to change anytime soon either.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Which is what NZers have been saying forever, nobody seems to care about the truth though. NZ does so much for Samoa and Tonga in terms of supplying the bulk of their national sides with NZ born and trained players. And yes the odd player like Sevu Reece comes to NZ as a schoolboy on a scholarship and makes it to the top, but this pales in comparison to the amount of guys in the opposite situation.

Ah well, I don't expect the tired old narrative to change anytime soon either.

Indeed.

But based on this article, it appears that Scotland and the USA are the real poachers if you look at the guys in their squad and how many of them represented other countries when they were a bit younger.

It's interesting that South America doesn't have any foreigners in their 2 squads. And based on Geographics, it's looking like this:

Europe:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 7
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 46

Australasia:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 5
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 56

Asia:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 18

North America:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 17

Africa:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 1

South America:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 0

 

[saulan]

Indeed.

But based on this article, it appears that Scotland and the USA are the real poachers if you look at the guys in their squad and how many of them represented other countries when they were a bit younger.

It's interesting that South America doesn't have any foreigners in their 2 squads. And based on Geographics, it's looking like this:

Europe:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 7
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 46

Australasia:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 5
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 56

Asia:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 18

North America:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 17

Africa:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 1

South America:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 0

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Consider all the salty salty tears you'd have thought the number of poached players in the Springboks would be a bit fat zero.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

This is an interesting article:

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2019/09/09/foreign-born-raised-players-at-rwc-2019/

It shows every nation at the RWC, and how many players each team has who weren't born in the country they represent. Now it doesn't show the whole picture and in it doesn't represent anything surrounding poaching, as I'm pretty sure many of these guys moved to the country they represent when they were younger than 18. But it does make it interesting. If anything, it shows exactly what the misconception is with regards to the AB's and their pacific island neighbours...

There are 81 players born in New Zealand playing in the World Cup. Still, I don't like the poaching we do. It's like we have first pick of nz, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, then everyone else picks up the scraps. It's hard though, because the players want to play for the all blacks, and doing so makes them hugely more marketable overseas. It often comes down to money unfortunately, and unsurprisingly when you come from a relatively poor country and have the expectation of supporting your family.

 

[donmcdazzle]

There are 81 players born in New Zealand playing in the World Cup. Still, I don't like the poaching we do. It's like we have first pick of nz, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, then everyone else picks up the scraps. It's hard though, because the players want to play for the all blacks, and doing so makes them hugely more marketable overseas. It often comes down to money unfortunately, and unsurprisingly when you come from a relatively poor country and have the expectation of supporting your family.

Well that isn't even remotely true? We have one player like that, Reece.

 

[MarkyH]

The only England player on the list who shouldn't be there is Heinz, Grandmother really shouldn't count. Residency for the rest is fine, they were here as very young kids and grew up in England.

England don't have what I would class as project players in their squad.

I have nothing against any nation using the current laws in their favour. Its the same rules for all.... however..... I would tighten up the rules on grandparents/great aunts etc and I would also suggest (what @Every Time Ref) suggests which is residency above a certain age shouldn't count.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Well that isn't even remotely true? We have one player like that, Reece.

How many in the Fijian, Samoan, and Tongan do you think would make the all blacks if eligible?
Ofa and laulala came as teenagers, no doubt to seek a rugby career.
Fifita, frizell, fekitoa, tamanivalu. Not in our squad, but we've prevented them from being in other squads. Guys like sivivatu in the past.

It doesn't take many to make a difference.

 

[Paulo]

Indeed.

But based on this article, it appears that Scotland and the USA are the real poachers if you look at the guys in their squad and how many of them represented other countries when they were a bit younger.

It's interesting that South America doesn't have any foreigners in their 2 squads. And based on Geographics, it's looking like this:

Europe:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 7
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 46

Australasia:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 5
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 56

Asia:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 18

North America:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 17

Africa:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 1

South America:

No. of Teams at RWC2019: 2
No. of Foreign-born players in the squads: 0

Could you run the same grouping, but see how many were born outside said region, as in how many playing for an Australasian team were born outside Australasia?

 

[MikeTheNative]

I don't think you can blame countries for playing by the rules, you have to blame the rule makers. I do think grand parents is a step too far, and while 5 years is an improvement, my ideal would be residency qualification on the player becoming a citizen/getting a passport.