Residency rule changes

[sewa]

I see Ireland and Scotland are predicted to block any changes to the residency rules. Other countries want to make it 5 years before you can qualify. The IRFU need to put an end to this jokeshop 3 year rule.

[Rabb1tts Jump]

Thought 1 or both brothers had been born in wales. obv wrong...

I think Ciaran was born in Wales and Rhys in Ireland.

People comparing individuals who have a long established tie with a country, either through parentage, grandparentage and/or residency in a country over the majority of their life, with individuals who are playing for Ireland purely because that was where they got the best professional rugby contract, are trolling on debates like this.

[Cianostays]

Thought 1 or both brothers had been born in wales. obv wrong...

TBF, they spent a decent chunk of their formative years in Wales alright but Rhys and Ciarán were both born here.

[ormond lad]

Also, rather importantly, Ruddock was born in Dublin!

Thought 1 or both brothers had been born in wales. obv wrong...

[Cianostays]

But why should you be able to limit people who qualify through the regs? Selection regulations like what New Zealand do is different. Selection based on residency qualification could quite easily be taken up in court.
Why should you have to have more than 1 gp to qualify and which countries will ever vote that in/that to change?
And why would countries want to confuse the issue with different qualification periods for different players?

How can you limit players? And Ruddock isn't a residency qualified player. His mother is Irish.
Bealham has an Irish granny.

Also, rather importantly, Ruddock was born in Dublin!

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

[Point]

Oh the irony of giving out about eligibility rules, while singing a lament to enforced deportation to Botany Bay....

[ormond lad]

I'm saying I would like the current regs changed to what I described, to apply to all countries. They're pretty simple changes and we already have qualification on residency and family connections so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about it being challenged in court.

The reason for my suggestions is that they would reduce the number of lads seeking to play international rugby under a flag of convenience.

If a player comes to a country and really falls in love with the place and begins to feel a sense of belonging - something that takes a bit of time - he'll be prepared to do the 5 years to become eligible. If he's not and fecks off somewhere else (a la Ben Teo) he can hardly claim to have really integrated and committed to the country. He just wants international rugby wherever he can get it.

If a player who has a single Irish grandparent has been raised supporting Ireland, feeling Irish, and grows up wanting to play for Ireland, he should be happy enough to come and put in three years in the country he thinks of as a home from home (the way many young Exiles like Wootten have over the years). If not, then again I question their commitment to the country in the first place.

Representative rugby's USP is based on limitations around qualification. Without those limitations it's no different to the club game except the teams are named after countries rather than cities, regions or provinces.

But why should there be a need for 2 grandparents? One is a tie to a country. There isn't any need to have to have a second in order to be eligible. And there wont be any differences in years it takes to qualify for a country as that will just cause issues

I agree with your last paragraph however I disagree with having several categories of qualification in terms of parental/grandparental rule. You either are eligible due to having a grandparent from the country or not. You need one to be eligible for a country.

[Munstersrebel]

Is Munster a province or a club?

Both. We call it a province but it is also a club.

[ustix]

I'm saying I would like the current regs changed to what I described, to apply to all countries. They're pretty simple changes and we already have qualification on residency and family connections so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about it being challenged in court.

The reason for my suggestions is that they would reduce the number of lads seeking to play international rugby under a flag of convenience.

If a player comes to a country and really falls in love with the place and begins to feel a sense of belonging - something that takes a bit of time - he'll be prepared to do the 5 years to become eligible. If he's not and fecks off somewhere else (a la Ben Teo) he can hardly claim to have really integrated and committed to the country. He just wants international rugby wherever he can get it.

If a player who has a single Irish grandparent has been raised supporting Ireland, feeling Irish, and grows up wanting to play for Ireland, he should be happy enough to come and put in three years in the country he thinks of as a home from home (the way many young Exiles like Wootten have over the years). If not, then again I question their commitment to the country in the first place.

Representative rugby's USP is based on limitations around qualification. Without those limitations it's no different to the club game except the teams are named after countries rather than cities, regions or provinces.

Is Munster a province or a club?

[Munsterboy]

But why should you be able to limit people who qualify through the regs? Selection regulations like what New Zealand do is different. Selection based on residency qualification could quite easily be taken up in court.
Why should you have to have more than 1 gp to qualify and which countries will ever vote that in/that to change?
And why would countries want to confuse the issue with different qualification periods for different players?

How can you limit players? And Ruddock isn't a residency qualified player. His mother is Irish.
Bealham has an Irish granny.

I'm saying I would like the current regs changed to what I described, to apply to all countries. They're pretty simple changes and we already have qualification on residency and family connections so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about it being challenged in court.

The reason for my suggestions is that they would reduce the number of lads seeking to play international rugby under a flag of convenience.

If a player comes to a country and really falls in love with the place and begins to feel a sense of belonging - something that takes a bit of time - he'll be prepared to do the 5 years to become eligible. If he's not and fecks off somewhere else (a la Ben Teo) he can hardly claim to have really integrated and committed to the country. He just wants international rugby wherever he can get it.

If a player who has a single Irish grandparent has been raised supporting Ireland, feeling Irish, and grows up wanting to play for Ireland, he should be happy enough to come and put in three years in the country he thinks of as a home from home (the way many young Exiles like Wootten have over the years). If not, then again I question their commitment to the country in the first place.

Representative rugby's USP is based on limitations around qualification. Without those limitations it's no different to the club game except the teams are named after countries rather than cities, regions or provinces.

[ustix]

But why should you be able to limit people who qualify through the regs? Selection regulations like what New Zealand do is different. Selection based on residency qualification could quite easily be taken up in court.
Why should you have to have more than 1 gp to qualify and which countries will ever vote that in/that to change?
And why would countries want to confuse the issue with different qualification periods for different players?

How can you limit players? And Ruddock isn't a residency qualified player. His mother is Irish.
Bealham has an Irish granny.

In the manner that RSA can only play a limited number of Caucasian players.
Herbst at 1. so, Ah You for Finlay, Aki at 13 and so on...

[ormond lad]

You're like Mystic Meg with all those predictions.

But why should you be able to limit people who qualify through the regs? Selection regulations like what New Zealand do is different. Selection based on residency qualification could quite easily be taken up in court.
Why should you have to have more than 1 gp to qualify and which countries will ever vote that in/that to change?
And why would countries want to confuse the issue with different qualification periods for different players?

Will they eventually limit the number of Residence-rule qualified players allowed in a national outfit?

1. 2.Big Tom Mac 3. Finlay Bealham
4. Quinn Roux 5. Jean Kleyn
6. Ruddock 8. CJ 7. Jake Heenan
9. JGP 10. Tyler
11. 12. 13. 14.
15.

Just saying like...

How can you limit players? And Ruddock isn't a residency qualified player. His mother is Irish.
Bealham has an Irish granny.

[ustix]

Will they eventually limit the number of Residence-rule qualified players allowed in a national outfit?

1. 2.Big Tom Mac 3. Finlay Bealham
4. Quinn Roux 5. Jean Kleyn
6. Ruddock 8. CJ 7. Jake Heenan
9. JGP 10. Tyler
11. 12. 13. 14.
15.

Just saying like...

[Munsterboy]

That will never happen. You can qualify immediately with grandparent(s) from a country. There will never be any regs stating you must have more than 1 grand parent from a country.
And there wont ever be any situation where you have several different qualification set ups in terms of years of residency

You're like Mystic Meg with all those predictions.

[ormond lad]

I'm ok with a limited number of imports playing for the provinces. The limit means they're only ever complementing a core squad of home grown players. It strikes a good balance between maintaining our identity, developing players for Ireland, and competing with big money clubs who can hire anyone from anywhere.

International rugby is different. The whole point of it is that it's representative. Dilute that too much and it becomes no different to the club game - a "battle of the budget" rather than "our best lads versus theirs".

My criteria would be:
5 years residency if no family connection.
3 years residency if one grandparent.
No residency required if one parent or two grandparents.

Citizenship as a criterion is too variable and also too messy. For example:
What citizenship does a Northern Irish lad need to represent Ireland?
Can any British citizen represent any U.K. country?

And before anybody plays the xenophobia card, I have absolutely nothing against immigrants.
I myself have lived outside of Ireland for just over half my life, in six different countries. I have a pretty solid perspective on what it means to be an immigrant, have a sense of belonging (or not) etc. I feel reasonably well qualified to express an opinion on how long it takes to really integrate and become part of a place.

That will never happen. You can qualify immediately with grandparent(s) from a country. There will never be any regs stating you must have more than 1 grand parent from a country.
And there wont ever be any situation where you have several different qualification set ups in terms of years of residency