Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The Residency Rule Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bruce_ma gooshvili" data-source="post: 960849" data-attributes="member: 74121"><p>I get animated on this topic, I simply don't see the value in international competition if a team, like many in the Rugby League world cup, have no obvious relationship to the country whose strip they are wearing. I find it embarrassing, disingenuous and, in established nations, counterproductive to incentivise taking talent from other unions over rearing your own. It allows unions to not even bother making an effort to tap into talent outside of their geographic or demographic strongholds and spread the game domestically. </p><p></p><p>However, there have been two huge developments in the past couple of years that should prevent this issue from becoming completely farcical in the years to come. </p><p></p><p>i) residency extended to five years (a huge deal given the injury rate / attrition) and should substantially curtail the amount of residency players making international 23s. 5 years is a long time and if I lived abroad for five years I'd start to think of it as a second home. If someone living in Scotland for 5 years wants to feel Scottish then I welcome them and think it is entirely reasonable. </p><p></p><p>ii) SA & Oz saying any player playing abroad is now eligible for selection. If I am from those countries playing abroad i now know the door is still open if I can perform well enough. I think that makes it a lot harder to pick another country. Prior to that you could tell yourself it was your unions fault for closing the door on you for chasing a good living. I hate that those unions have felt they have had to take that decision for financial reasons, but the silver lining may be less residency players. </p><p></p><p></p><p>For me the main outstanding issues would be resolved by the following that should be perfectly legal:</p><p></p><p>i) you are captured if representing country at u20s or 7s. No exceptions. </p><p></p><p>ii) scrap the grandparent rule. </p><p></p><p>iii) forbid unions from employing people to approach players raised / nurtured by other unions. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Ending on more hypothetical notes I'd also:</p><p></p><p>a) make the above rules apply to international coaches (side effect of encouraging unions to raise domestic coaching standards). It is a international team, why not have the same rules?</p><p></p><p>b) make any nation exempt from all of the above if they are denied access to the 6N or RC, as the above rules would assist in closing the gap if implemented at Tiers 2 & 3. If the 'big boys' want a two tier system, then I'd want World Rugby to use that disparity to the advantage of the global game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce_ma gooshvili, post: 960849, member: 74121"] I get animated on this topic, I simply don't see the value in international competition if a team, like many in the Rugby League world cup, have no obvious relationship to the country whose strip they are wearing. I find it embarrassing, disingenuous and, in established nations, counterproductive to incentivise taking talent from other unions over rearing your own. It allows unions to not even bother making an effort to tap into talent outside of their geographic or demographic strongholds and spread the game domestically. However, there have been two huge developments in the past couple of years that should prevent this issue from becoming completely farcical in the years to come. i) residency extended to five years (a huge deal given the injury rate / attrition) and should substantially curtail the amount of residency players making international 23s. 5 years is a long time and if I lived abroad for five years I'd start to think of it as a second home. If someone living in Scotland for 5 years wants to feel Scottish then I welcome them and think it is entirely reasonable. ii) SA & Oz saying any player playing abroad is now eligible for selection. If I am from those countries playing abroad i now know the door is still open if I can perform well enough. I think that makes it a lot harder to pick another country. Prior to that you could tell yourself it was your unions fault for closing the door on you for chasing a good living. I hate that those unions have felt they have had to take that decision for financial reasons, but the silver lining may be less residency players. For me the main outstanding issues would be resolved by the following that should be perfectly legal: i) you are captured if representing country at u20s or 7s. No exceptions. ii) scrap the grandparent rule. iii) forbid unions from employing people to approach players raised / nurtured by other unions. Ending on more hypothetical notes I'd also: a) make the above rules apply to international coaches (side effect of encouraging unions to raise domestic coaching standards). It is a international team, why not have the same rules? b) make any nation exempt from all of the above if they are denied access to the 6N or RC, as the above rules would assist in closing the gap if implemented at Tiers 2 & 3. If the 'big boys' want a two tier system, then I'd want World Rugby to use that disparity to the advantage of the global game. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
The Residency Rule Thread
Top