Fireworks wrote:Is there a chance that this might make the situation worse with some like France and NZ just trawling up lots of guys at a younger age so the 5 years is not an issue as it will take them that long to develop.
Well NZ and France already identify young talent early and get them into schools. I read a while back that Saracens are planning to set up an actual school of their own which would pave the way for them to become Englands project factory (among other things). I have no problem with it as long as the kids get a proper education and aren't set up for a fall - it's very hard to make it as a pro let alone an international.
One possible upside of the rule changes is that at least countries can't tie them to the country until they're playing senior grade.
I dont think starting residency at 18 is fair - what if a family happen to move to a country they have no ties in when a child is young? Do they have to wait until 18 too before the 5 year period begins?
Interesting few details that World Rugby passed while also increasing the residency rule from 3 to 5 years
The governing body also ruled that nations can not use their U-20 sides as their 'capture' teams, which rules players out from switching allegiance if they have played at that level.
World Rugby also handed 2019 World Cup hosts Japan and two-time semi-finalists Argentina a seat at their top table, with both countries getting a third vote at the Council table, bringing them into line with the sport's traditional powers.
Fireworks wrote:Is there a chance that this might make the situation worse with some like France and NZ just trawling up lots of guys at a younger age so the 5 years is not an issue as it will take them that long to develop.
Well NZ and France already identify young talent early and get them into schools.
Thats something completely different though as time spent in full time education does not count towards international eligibility.
French clubs weren't trying to qualify players for France - the two things were for separate reasons, they were using it to qualify players to play in france without breaking the LNRs limits on overseas players. The system was called JIFF, jouers issues des fillieres de formation - and basically said that if you spent a certain amount of time in a french academy attached to a professional club before the age of 21 then you would be regarded the same way as a french national as regards player quotas
New Zealand, despite what people think, couldn't be arsed trawling for younger players, they don't need to. As the major economic powerhouse of the area, there is a lot of immigration as a matter of course from less developed countries to a first world economy and they are quite happy to take advantage of it.
Fireworks wrote:Is there a chance that this might make the situation worse with some like France and NZ just trawling up lots of guys at a younger age so the 5 years is not an issue as it will take them that long to develop.
Well NZ and France already identify young talent early and get them into schools. I read a while back that Saracens are planning to set up an actual school of their own which would pave the way for them to become Englands project factory (among other things). I have no problem with it as long as the kids get a proper education and aren't set up for a fall - it's very hard to make it as a pro let alone an international.
One possible upside of the rule changes is that at least countries can't tie them to the country until they're playing senior grade.
I dont think starting residency at 18 is fair - what if a family happen to move to a country they have no ties in when a child is young? Do they have to wait until 18 too before the 5 year period begins?
The current rules around residency already deal with situations like that for players under the age of 18 or players whose primary reason for being in the country is study. For example, Vasili Artemiev couldn't play underage for Ireland as he hadn't qualified under residency. This was because his family home was still in Russia while he was boarding at Blackrock. In another case, pretty sure it was Hanno Dirksen of the Ospreys, his qualifying period for residency only started when he finished his university course, as that was why he ended up in South Wales in the first place.
A kid moving with their parents to a new country would serve their residency period as a child. e.g. Niyi Adeolokun
Why were the Vunipolas allowed play for England at underage level only a couple of years after moving from Wales (and having been born in the Pacific Isles and spent their very early years there) ?
"This is breathless stuff.....it's on again. Contepomi out to Hickie,D'Arcy,Hickie.......................HICKIE FOR THE CORNER! THAT IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
neiliog93 wrote:Why were the Vunipolas allowed play for England at underage level only a couple of years after moving from Wales (and having been born in the Pacific Isles and spent their very early years there) ?
did the family move to England less than 3 years before Mako played for England u18s?
Retired from babbling. Can be found on twittter @okeeffesimon
But I thought years when under 18 didn't count towards eligibility?...
"This is breathless stuff.....it's on again. Contepomi out to Hickie,D'Arcy,Hickie.......................HICKIE FOR THE CORNER! THAT IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The vunipolas played for England because they lived in England. Until you get to disqualifying grades you play for where you live, that's the only requirement.
Vas Artemyev played for all the Irish age grade teams on the way up, plus Irish schools and Irish universities.
It's impossible to stop, but the Vunipolas playing for England doesn't sit well with me. You have Mako and Billy, born in New Zealand and Australia respectively to Tongan parents and spending part of their childhood in Tonga, before emigrating as a family to Wales when the kids were still very young. Then they both get into English private rugby boarding schools (scholarships perhaps?) as teens because of their outstanding strength and athleticism, and end up playing for England, a country they have no real connection to at all.
"This is breathless stuff.....it's on again. Contepomi out to Hickie,D'Arcy,Hickie.......................HICKIE FOR THE CORNER! THAT IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
neiliog93 wrote:It's impossible to stop, but the Vunipolas playing for England doesn't sit well with me. You have Mako and Billy, born in New Zealand and Australia respectively to Tongan parents and spending part of their childhood in Tonga, before emigrating as a family to Wales when the kids were still very young. Then they both get into English private rugby boarding schools (scholarships perhaps?) as teens because of their outstanding strength and athleticism, and end up playing for England, a country they have no real connection to at all.
At age grade, in virtually every sport, you play for wherever you live, regardless of your nationality. Its why Artemyev played for Irish schools despite being a Russian national and its why Ryan Wilson played soccer for and captained England Schoolboys despite being Welsh
Dave Cahill wrote:The vunipolas played for England because they lived in England. Until you get to disqualifying grades you play for where you live, that's the only requirement.
Vas Artemyev played for all the Irish age grade teams on the way up, plus Irish schools and Irish universities.
Artemiev wasn't allowed play for Ireland at IRB sanctioned tournaments, in his case it was the U-19 tournament in 2006 (?). Qualifying to play for a country in non-World Rugby events is often done on different criteria, e.g. schools, universities etc. Playing at U-20, A or Senior sides means qualifying under World Rugby rules.
I think the rule change will help but I still think there will be issues. There is the spirit and the letter of the law and I think that thought has already been given in how some might look to get around the spirit of the rules.
I don't think that the likes of Strauss and other project players from top 8 countries is the area where the focus should be. If the second tier countries, especially the islands, can keep their talent and get some investment it could be great for the game. It could make the WC more competitive and expand the reach of the game.
Thanks to those with the real info for the clarifications.
What they could do is make a rule that if a player moves to a new country as a teenager but at least one guardian does not, then it doesn't count towards eligibility (as would likely be the case for a French club tapping up a 14 yr old Georgian prop or Fijian/Pacific Isle wing). However, if one parent moves as well, it is more likely to be a case of genuine emigration. Now, you might say what's to stop French clubs or Saracens from paying for parents too, but I think it's a significant cost risk for early teen players who may not ever develop as projected.
"This is breathless stuff.....it's on again. Contepomi out to Hickie,D'Arcy,Hickie.......................HICKIE FOR THE CORNER! THAT IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
