NIQs qualifying through residency to play for Ireland. Thoughts?

thomond2006

Rugby Analyst, Neil Francis - Rugby needs its very own Home Rule

The international game has become a joke with players featuring for countries they have no links with, so it's time that the IRB and IRFU clamped down on it.

Something was bugging me after Munster's Heino demolition of Toulon last Saturday. Mick O'Driscoll was awarded man of the match. The award was well merited as Munster's second row did indeed have a very big game. What irked me about the whole thing was what his opposite number was doing while O'Driscoll was striding around the park like a colossus. Indeed, what was Donncha O'Callaghan, a Lions test lock and Ireland's starting second row for the last seven years, doing while his partner was having a stormer? Who was O'Driscoll's opposite number in Thomond? I ask this because his name was not called once during the game. I had to look it up – K Chesney. Well that explains it, Kenny Chesney the country and western star from Knoxville married to Renee Zellweger for four months, probably looking to sing his new hit at the half-time show – "The Boys of Fall" (well I suppose Don Henley had already done "The Boys of Summer"). Kenny was probably hanging around the corridors in Thomond. Mourad Boudjellal, Toulon's trigger-happy cash splasher, liked the cut of his jib and suddenly he starts at second row for Toulon.

"Sorry... Kris Chesney you say... He is actually a second row... bought from Saracens last season... Not a country and western singer... you're certain... couldn't hit water if he fell out of the Queen Mary... okay."

Folks, Toulon's lack of heart for the battle and determination to win that match could end up in one of Kenny's doleful ballads. I have seen more grit on a plate of mushy peas. Philippe Saint-André made 11 changes to his side that played Munster. He picked his strongest side for yesterday's match in Paris against Stade Francais. Clearly his priority is the Top 14. Connacht would have presented a far more difficult proposition. Although they were never tested, the occasion did rouse them and one could never hope to call it a full-scale revival. The win, the winning feeling and most importantly the winning template has returned. I wouldn't get carried away just yet but it is only in hindsight that we can see how awful they were against a moderate and uncomplex side of London Irish's calibre.

The Ospreys beat Munster home and away last season and turned up to Thomond a few weeks ago to play silly buggers. I have never seen such an ambitious side play with such a lack of ambition. They did nothing. They did not play rugby on purpose. I think from a long way out the Ospreys have targeted the Munster game in Thomond and played in such a neutral gear so as to give Munster nothing. They will turn up to play, compete and win – something Toulon did not bother their collective swiss to do. Unfortunately for Ospreys, Toulon's compliance has kick-started Munster's season.

Back to Kris Chesney's old club Saracens, who are not a very good side at all. When they come to Dublin in January, if it is a dry day they will get filleted with a bonus point to boot. Leinster will have to be cognisant of the fact that they will get caught out one of these days trying to defend their way to victory. That 6-5 win over Harlequins at the Stoop was the start of it and they seem to enjoy the electro-cardiographic excitement and rather than close out with a bit of margin they choose to play a game where they sail too close to the wind for their close-out – a touch of Michael Hutchence about them – don't get caught lads.

If Van Drickenburgen had been playing against Sarries, Leinster with a little more focus could have bonus-pointed that one. Sarries threw themselves about gamely in the collisions but were unable to sustain their wits in the second half as the pace told. Normally they can cut loose against Leeds Carnegie, Newcastle and Exeter when three-quarters of the game is up and holes appear. Leinster squeezed just a little tighter and Sarries resolve becomes a little more fraught. If you need reminding of how we compare quality – the English media trump up Sarries players like Alex Goode or Brad Barritt who played last Saturday and are both in the English Saxons squad. The truth is that if Saracens had Andrew Conway and Brendan Macken, our academy players, in at full-back and centre respectively against Leinster, they would have won because they possess the cutting edge that the Saracens three-quarters singularly lacked. Hard to keep Leinster bubbling up: Wembley one week, the Sportsground the next . The only common denominator was that a greyhound track bordered both stadia. Alas Lucky Dan in trap three no longer gets to ****e on the pitch at Wembley.

Belatedly, we get to the point of the article. One of the things that surprised me this week was that 45,000 people turned up to watch a rugby match in Wembley in London. Huge population, great city, people do turn up, but why would you go and watch eight South Africans play for an average London club? The fabric and culture of the club would have to change fundamentally for Englishmen to shout "come on Schalk, come on Burger, come on De Kock ...."

Whatever about the supporters, I don't know how the RFU can countenance subventing Sarries to the tune of nearly £4m to have a little rugby enclave of Saffers who are not, and never will be, England qualified.

Gary Lineker did a sports documentary called Can England win the next World Cup? The answer quite disarmingly, even for Lineker, was a resounding no. Of course they couldn't, their league is so full of foreigners that only somewhere in the region of 30 per cent of the Premier League is England qualified. It was amazing to see Jose Mourinho's Inter Milan win the Champions League with a team that not only included nobody from Milan, but nobody from Italy. How can Inter Milan – as Italians – take themselves seriously? The win can have no resonance for any Italian who supports that club.

The English Union and League governing bodies as well as their cricketing chums probably watched that documentary and probably said "Jeez the soccer boys are f**ked." England have beaten us once in seven years and they still haven't copped on why. But before we get all self-congratulatory in a Winston Wolf type of way let's just have a look around at ourselves.

One of the things that has to be looked at, and the regulatory bodies will have to make a call on this issue because it has become too lax, is the issue of residency and country qualification, to ask whether the player has or has not got any parental or grand-parental link to an adopted country.

Regular readers of this column will be aware of the high esteem I hold Richie Flutey (onomatopoeic) in. Flutey's situation is symptomatic of where the game is going wrong. He was born in New Zealand and has no connection with England at all – after playing only five games for Wellington he buggers off to the UK to play for London Irish. After two seasons he buggered off to Wasps. In the 2008-09 season he becomes qualified to play for England – Stephen Jones picks him in Martin Johnson's England squad and he gets to wear the rose. After qualifying to play for England while playing for an English team in England he buggers off to play for Brive, in France, has an unhappy time there and buggers off back to Wasps. In between all that I can barely keep my lunch down when he is selected to play for the British and Irish Lions in 2009, getting a test cap in the dead rubber.

I find the whole thing objectionable. It is, more importantly, unethical. Qualification by residency sticks in the craw, but the IRB must move to legislate. If mercenaries arrive on the shore and qualify to play for the host country, then they must stay and play within that country, otherwise forfeit the right forever to represent their adopted country – it turns the thing into a mockery. In my opinion, Flutey has no loyalty to England; he gets paid to play for them but he is not English. When he retires from playing rugby he will undoubtedly return to New Zealand and his mates will call him a silly bugger for playing for the Poms. This has to stop.

Takudzwa Ngwenya was born in Zimbabwe, heads off to the States, and gets his green card and then buggers off to France to Biarritz to play his club rugby. Completely incongruous. He is not American, but when his career finishes he might out of necessity return to the USA. Dan Parks and Nathan Hines, both Australian, qualify for Scotland while both are playing well south of where they should be playing.

I remember a while back one of the national dailies, giddy with anticipation, announcing that the 'talented' Cameron Jowitt would become Irish qualified that year. 'Talented'? A mix -up surely. Maybe he could tackle like Liberace and sing like Lawrence Taylor. 'Talented' – Madre de Dios! He buggered off to Australia and unbelievably is playing for the Warratahs. I just wonder how much better a player Kevin McLaughlin would have been if he had played all the games that Jowitt got instead.

We remember Denis Hickie as being for a while our top try scorer; he had exceptional speed, dash and possessed serious rugby intelligence. One of Ireland's greats. We forget that he was dropped for the extravagantly gifted Matt Mostyn (below) – a package tourist with boots. Wazza gave him six caps for which Ireland's foreign debt of Hail Marys would not give the Kiwi redemption. Hickie in a wheelchair and an eye-patch would have smoked the guy. He is back in Australia and he can tell his grandchildren about the time he played for a quaint little old country called Ireland – what larks.

I see that Robbie Diack and Richardt Strauss will go down the three-year qualification/residency route. It's just plain wrong. What is the point in having academies, lads? They are South African, not Irish, and if they get picked in the squad you are just not paying attention to what is going on in the UK. It has to stop.

I would go further and take a view that all interpros should be played only with Irish players. I don't think it would do too much damage to the gate or television. It would however allow you to take stock and assess the real quality of what is available to the national side. I'd prefer to see Brian O'Driscoll go toe-to-toe with Keith Earls than Lifeimi Mafi. I'd like to see how Tony Buckley fares against Cian Healy, not with Heinke van der Merwe.

If the last four to five years has showed us anything, it demonstrates that Irish-born, Irish-bred rugby players that come through the system are vastly superior to some of the imposters who find themselves on these shores.

When Nigel Wray gets bored and the South Africans go home, that club, to use their coach's phrase, is dead in the water.

http://www.tribune.ie/sport/rugby/article/2010/oct/24/rugby-analyst-neil-francis-rugby-needs-its-very-ow/

Franno does write some good articles.

I'm not sure where I stand on foreigners coming to play there and suddenly deciding they want to play for Ireland. We could have a few players with no ties to Ireland wearing green in the future: Robbie Diack, Richardt Strauss and Peter Borlase who is on his way as an "IRFU project" player. They are certainly hampering Irish indigenious players from representing their country. Is it right or even ethical that in theory anyone in the world (once they have completed their residency obviously) can represent Ireland?

I think the Irish only interpros are an interesting concept but unrealistic as the coaches would be very annoyed.

Certainly I agree with Franno (first bolded bit) that foreigners must stay in that country forever if they want to represent it internationally. Riki Flutey is taking the píss IMO.

Any thoughts on this? Oh and please don't turn this thread into another round of Franno bashing, it's been done.

danthefan

No opinion.

Don't like the current rules. Diack, Strauss, Wilkinson, Court should not be playing for Ireland imo.

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

Provided a player cannot switch between countries having represented them at senior, 'A' or Sevens level there's nothing wrong with players qualifying to play for a country.

Not every player is a Ricky Flutey.
The likes of Simon Geoghegan, Guy Easterby, Andy Ward, Kevin Maggs are all from overseas and qualified via heritage or residency to play for Ireland. Whatever they did after playing is nobody else's business and should not be a prerequisite to being selected in the first place.
If an Irish player wants to quit the country and play in France or Australia, thats their choice too.
If an Irish player, qualified or otherwise, is good enough to be selected then select them.
Acadamy players are brought through ranks and chosen.

Much fluff about nothing that article.

thomond2006

No opinion.

Heritage is different though. Personally I don't like the idea of residency but heritage is a different kettle of fish. I'm indifferent to the likes of Tom Court (Irish grandmother?) playing for Ireland.

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

thomond2006 wrote: »

Heritage is different though. Personally I don't like the idea of residency but heritage is a different kettle of fish. I'm indifferent to the likes of Tom Court (Irish grandmother?) playing for Ireland.

Why?
Whats the difference?
Someone who has probably never even set foot in the country before is fine but someone who comes here to qualify via residency and commit is not?

lologram

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

Court, Wilkinson, Strauss, Diack etc are fine by me. If they aren't capped by another country, and they want to declare themselves for our country, there's nothing wrong with that. They don't get into the team just by virtue of the fact that they say they want to, they have to earn selection after becoming eligible. If they earn that selection, then they're obviously better than whoever else would be in that positon. Nothing wrong with that, the Irish team and the provinces benefit by their presence here.

ki

If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.

Simple Solution:

Increase the number of years required from 3 to 5. It then becomes less attractive to the Money men.

Then true players who want to play for there adopted country are more likely to put down roots also.

I believe the residency rule was brought in to cover the young player who doesn't make it in his own country and moves on. It gives him a fresh start and a possibility to repay a country for an opportunity.

danthefan

No opinion.

lologram wrote: »

Court, Wilkinson, Strauss, Diack etc are fine by me. If they aren't capped by another country, and they want to declare themselves for our country, there's nothing wrong with that. They don't get into the team just by virtue of the fact that they say they want to, they have to earn selection after becoming eligible. If they earn that selection, then they're obviously better than whoever else would be in that positon. Nothing wrong with that, the Irish team and the provinces benefit by their presence here.

There's something very wrong with that. They're not Irish, completely defeats the purpose of international rugby.

There are a couple of situations where I think it's alright, for example if someone was born abroad but move to Ireland young-ish, grow up here, learn their rugby here etc, then I'd have no problem with them playing for Ireland. Guys who come over in their 20s because they get offered more money or can't make it back at home, I have a real problem with playing for Ireland.

irishbucsfan

Personally I think the rule should be that the player must spend 3 years in the country before his 24th birthday. i.e His residency starts before his 21st.

That cuts out any already-established rugby players from moving with the intention of gaining residency and moves the scope back to people who are genuinely in that country for other reasons from a young age. It also means that the player will more than likely undergo some significant development as a player in that country (which I think is important). I have no problem with the likes of Stewart Maguire or Rhys Ruddock (pretty sure Ruddock is elligible anyway for being half-Irish), who are graduates of Irish academies.

irishbucsfan

JustinDee wrote: »

The likes of Simon Geoghegan, Guy Easterby, Andy Ward, Kevin Maggs are all from overseas and qualified via heritage or residency to play for Ireland.

All of those players qualified through heritage.

Completely different thing.

danthefan

No opinion.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Personally I think the rule should be that the player must spend 3 years in the country before his 24th birthday. i.e His residency starts before his 21st.

That cuts out any already-established rugby players from moving with the intention of gaining residency and moves the scope back to people who are genuinely in that country for other reasons from a young age. It also means that the player will more than likely undergo some significant development as a player in that country (which I think is important). I have no problem with the likes of Stewart Maguire or Rhys Ruddock (pretty sure Ruddock is elligible anyway for being half-Irish), who are graduates of Irish academies.

Rhys Ruddock was born in Ireland.

conf101

danthefan wrote: »

There's something very wrong with that. They're not Irish, completely defeats the purpose of international rugby.

There are a couple of situations where I think it's alright, for example if someone was born abroad but move to Ireland young-ish, grow up here, learn their rugby here etc, then I'd have no problem with them playing for Ireland. Guys who come over in their 20s because they get offered more money or can't make it back at home, I have a real problem with playing for Ireland.

I agree with you in theory that people who move here at a young age and come up through the ranks here are ok but how do you regulate for that?

danthefan

No opinion.

conf101 wrote: »

I agree with you in theory that people who move here at a young age and come up through the ranks here are ok but how do you regulate for that?

I have no idea. It's a very hard thing to nail down.

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

irishbucsfan wrote: »

All of those players qualified through heritage.
Completely different thing.

It isn't a greater form of qualification than living in a country and declaring for it however.
It most certainly doesn't make a non-national more Irish qualified than someone who actually lives here qualifying. Why should someone from another country's grandmother make them more Irish than living here for the required amount of time?

irishbucsfan

danthefan wrote: »

Rhys Ruddock was born in Ireland.

And I think Maguire would qualify through heritage as well.

If they were two fully Welsh guys who joined the Leinster academy when they were 18/19, and then went on to play for Ireland when they were 22 then I wouldn't have a huge problem with that, as at least a large part of their development as players took place in the country.

irishbucsfan

JustinDee wrote: »

It isn't a greater form of qualification than living in a country and declaring for it however.
It most certainly doesn't make a non-national more Irish qualified than someone who actually lives here qualifying. Why should someone from another country's grandmother make them more Irish than living here for the required amount of time?

It doesn't make them more Irish. That's not really the point though... It's just those guys who are qualifying through heritage would be elligible for Ireland even if they never set foot in the country. They're Irish, so it isn't like they're just mercenaries like Riki Flutey.

They're not non-nationals with no links to the country, who have moved to the country with the intention of representing them, despite a complete lack of any links.

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It doesn't make them more Irish. That's not really the point though... It's just those guys who are qualifying through heritage would be elligible for Ireland even if they never set foot in the country. They're Irish, so it isn't like they're just mercenaries like Riki Flutey.

They're not non-nationals with no links to the country, who have moved to the country with the intention of representing them, despite a complete lack of any links.

Because of a grandparent, they are more "Irish" than someone who qualifies via residency?
You are basically denegrating residency in this country.
By your logic, I am Greek and not Irish.

The Rooster

JustinDee wrote: »

Because of a grandparent, they are more "Irish" than someone who qualifies via residency?
You are basically denegrating residency in this country.
By your logic, I am Greek and not Irish.

Yeah that's exactly what he's saying :rolleyes:

There is of course a massive difference between qualifying via heritage versus qualifying via residence.

I have not got a problem with qualification through residence, but I would put a proviso that we only pick such players when they are still playing in Ireland.

If I was part of the Scottish Rugby Union, there is no way I'd pick Dan Parks and Nathan Hines (two fine players but who only qualified via the residency rule), unless they came back to Scotland and were contributing to Scottish rugby (and maybe they wouldnt have left if that was the case).

conf101

The Rooster wrote: »

I have not got a problem with qualification through residence, but I would put a proviso that we only pick such players when they are still playing in Ireland.

If I was part of the Scottish Rugby Union, there is no way I'd pick Dan Parks and Nathan Hines (two fine players but who only qualified via the residency rule), unless they came back to Scotland and were contributing to Scottish rugby (and maybe they wouldnt have left if that was the case).

Completely agree. I also think 3 years is a bit short. Like has already been said, raise the residency rule to 5 years and it requires a lot more commitment both from the home nation and from the player themselves. 5 years is a serious investment and not one that would be undertaken lightly.

Ste_D

If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.

JustinDee wrote: »

Provided a player cannot switch between countries having represented them at senior, 'A' or Sevens level there's nothing wrong with players qualifying to play for a country.

I think its a bit harsh when someone represents a country at 7s that they are automatically excluded from representing another country. Anyone who has played 7s to a reasonable lever will appreciate that it is a very different game.
There are a lot of cases in the southern hemisphere where developing rugby nations have players who were made ineligible by representing Aus/NZ at 7s when they were young. It would help the smaller countries develop if these players were freed up.

funky penguin

Difference between Heritage and Residencey is semantics imo.

If Strauss could play for Ireland like he has been for Leinster, I'd love to see him in an Irish jersey. I don't see the problem. Yes he may oust an Irish born hooker, but if Strauss is a better player and can play for Ireland......romanticism can get lost.

Re: the all-Irish interpro......what an utterly stupid idea.

They are provincial clubs, not international teams. Imagine dropping Ica Nacewa just because he isn't Irish. He might as well be, with the reception he has recieved here. In fact, imagine him as a utility back for Ireland? Damn that 1 Fijian cap!!

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

The Rooster wrote: »

Yeah that's exactly what he's saying :rolleyes:

There is of course a massive difference between qualifying via heritage versus qualifying via residence.

I have not got a problem with qualification through residence, but I would put a proviso that we only pick such players when they are still playing in Ireland.

If I was part of the Scottish Rugby Union, there is no way I'd pick Dan Parks and Nathan Hines (two fine players but who only qualified via the residency rule), unless they came back to Scotland and were contributing to Scottish rugby (and maybe they wouldnt have left if that was the case).

Dan Parks as did Nathan Hines (ex-Norths RL club :cool:) qualified for Scotland via heritage ruling.
Not residency.
I would say putting your body on the line every time for Scotland is more than enough to make a player like either of these folks "worthy".

molloyjh

If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.

I think to really answer this question we need to look at what we and the IRFU want to see happen. We want:

1. A strong national side
2. Strong provinces
3. To develop homegrown talent to fuel the 1 & 2

I don't think having non-Irish in the national squad nessecarily prevents the homegrown talent coming through, just as it doesn't at provincial level. Look at Leinsters second row for example. Devon Toner has been getting his game time there which has led to an Ireland call up despite the fact that we have Hines in the Leinster side. If Toner can get his game time in Leinster then he could get it in Ireland even if Hines were to have qualified for us rather than Scotland.

I think the big issue we would have is with the Fluteys of this world. The money grabbers who could and would feck off at the first sign of more cash. If a player is living and working here and really investing themselves here then I see no issue with them being allowed to play in the Irish side. However strict rules would need to be put in place first.

To my mind the 3 year restriction is about fair. If you bump it up to 5 and someone doesn't come over until they are 24/25 then would there be much point in it at all? Instead I reckon it should be that they are here 3 years (i.e. played here & have their primary residence here) and have a deal signed with their province for the next 2/3 years or something similar. And they continue to be eligible for as long as they play and live here. As soon as they leave they are no longer eligible, and some form of "breakage" penalty should be applied.

Risteard

If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.

Would like to increase to maybe 7 years or one parent must be Irish.

I don't really like the idea of Strauss, Diack, borlase etc. playing for Ireland, no matter how good they are/will be.

corny

If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.

funky penguin wrote: »

Difference between Heritage and Residencey is semantics imo.

If Strauss could play for Ireland like he has been for Leinster, I'd love to see him in an Irish jersey. I don't see the problem. Yes he may oust an Irish born hooker, but if Strauss is a better player and can play for Ireland......romanticism can get lost.

Re: the all-Irish interpro......what an utterly stupid idea.

They are provincial clubs, not international teams. Imagine dropping Ica Nacewa just because he isn't Irish. He might as well be, with the reception he has recieved here. In fact, imagine him as a utility back for Ireland? Damn that 1 Fijian cap!!

In fairness Isa would probably have a few NZ caps if it weren't for Fiji so we'd have to get in line.

Saw an interview a while back with a NZ chap where he basically said he was coming to England for the money with the added incentive that after 3 years he'd have more money with a few England caps. It meant nothing to him. Only money. I'm not the romantic type but for me thats not what international rugby is about. Should up it to at least 5 years imo.

danthefan

No opinion.

JustinDee - I seem to recall not so long ago you going on about how it's every schoolboy player's dream to play for the national side.

Seems a bit incongruous with the views you're expressing in this thread, you being ok with foreigners over here making a bit of money taking the places of those schoolboy players in the national side.

Though of course since Ireland select guys like Court, you will defend that to the hilt.

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

danthefan wrote: »

JustinDee - I seem to recall not so long ago you going on about how it's every schoolboy player's dream to play for the national side.
Seems a bit incongruous with the views you're expressing in this thread, you being ok with foreigners over here making a bit of money taking the places of those schoolboy players in the national side

I'm fine with anybody who qualifies to play for Ireland and gives 100%. I can't really think of any who are selected and don't.
Out of all this 'outrage' I've seen one name of a player who would, in my view, make the squad. The only other players I've seen mentioned are from other countries playing for teams in other countries.
I would also take issue at somebody who has no idea about me, saying I wasn't Irish.

danthefan wrote: »

Though of course since Ireland select guys like Court, you will defend that to the hilt.

Don't speculate what I would or would not do or think. Its irrelevant and bound to be wrong.

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

The Rooster wrote: »

Yeah that's exactly what he's saying :rolleyes:

Its what their logic implied.

danthefan

No opinion.

JustinDee wrote: »

Its what their logic implied.

JustinDee wrote: »

Don't speculate what I would or would not do or think. Its irrelevant and bound to be wrong.

Good man Justin.

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

danthefan wrote: »

Good man Justin.

Look, if you're in the mood for an anonymous argument on the internet, please don't bother especially if you don't understand the difference between the context of both those quotes.

danthefan

No opinion.

JustinDee wrote: »

Look, if you're in the mood for an anonymous argument on the internet, please don't bother especially if you don't understand the difference between the context of both those quotes.

The context is you seem to be able to tell other people what they're thinking, but nobody can do it to you.

And if you don't contradict yourself nobody will point it out, simples.

profitius

No opinion.

JustinDee, how about if they introduced a transfer system in intrnational rugby? The richer countries could buy all the best players and as long as they gave 100% you'd see nothing wrong with it. It defeats the purpose of playing international rugby.

I think it should be 8 years of living in a country or 1 grandparent at least. I've no problem with the like of Tom Court who has an Irish grandparent. Brett Wilkinson and Robie Diack though are a different story. Nothing personal against them but they're not Irish and always dreamed of playing for South Africa.

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

danthefan wrote: »

The context is you seem to be able to tell other people what they're thinking, but nobody can do it to you.

And if you don't contradict yourself nobody will point it out, simples.

First up, a poster outlined that residency did not qualify somebody to be considered 'Irish' as opposed to having a grandparent.
The second quote, you assume my subsequent point of view.

Difference.

"Simples".

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

profitius wrote: »

JustinDee, how about if they introduced a transfer system in intrnational rugby?

Tongue-in-cheek I realise but regardless, such a case of affairs is impossible in rugby union due to players being restricted once they represent a country at a certain level as already pointed out.

A thread like this is a complete overreaction anyway, in my opinion anyway.
The issues the journalist points out in the Tribune are not even a problem here. There are plenty Academy 'graduates' in the system already and as I mentioned earlier, I would say one name out of all those raised would make the squad.

In other words, a whole lot of fuss about what is pretty much a non-issue here.

funky penguin

profitius wrote: »

I think it should be 8 years of living in a country or 1 grandparent at least. I've no problem with the like of Tom Court who has an Irish grandparent. Brett Wilkinson and Robie Diack though are a different story. Nothing personal against them but they're not Irish and always dreamed of playing for South Africa.

I see your point, but that's assuming someone who has lived in Australia has always dreamed of playing for Ireland just because their granny is from Donegal or something. Even if they have NEVER set foot in the country.

Versus say....someone who has lived and worked in Ireland for three years and has actually experienced our culture, grown to love it and genuinely wants to play for the country.

Honestly, I think it's a case by case situation.

bamboozle

despite the merits of doing so, i cant see any changes to these rulings. As it stands the bigger rugby playing countries benefit most.

if it was my call i would allow players play for country of their birth or their parents birth, also allow players play for a country if they have lived in that country since the age of 18.

LeinsterDub

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

One of the polling option is if your not good enough to play for your home country its tough but what if your too good for your home country like Tim Visser?

tolosenc

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

How about if any countries of which you are a citizen get first dibs, and only if they say they're not interested can the player then be available for selection by another country.

conf101

tolosenc wrote: »

How about if any countries of which you are a citizen get first dibs, and only if they say they're not interested can the player then be available for selection by another country.

Well wouldn't countries just say they are interested, whether they actually were or not, just so a player couldn't go and play for another country?

outwest

out of curiosity,

if pocock had moved to ireland and was able to play for ireland on the residency rules would people care. diack and wilkonson have put in tough years in ireland, if their good enugh for the squad then let them in,

CIARAN_BOYLE

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

tolosenc wrote: »

How about if any countries of which you are a citizen get first dibs, and only if they say they're not interested can the player then be available for selection by another country.

Thats more or less what happens now, if your own country doesn't pick you you are available

toomevara

OK lads, take it down a notch. Thread is starting to spiral rapidly downwards, take the personal element out of things. Ball, not the man etc...

Goodluck2me

No opinion.

funky penguin wrote: »

Difference between Heritage and Residencey is semantics imo.

If Strauss could play for Ireland like he has been for Leinster, I'd love to see him in an Irish jersey. I don't see the problem. Yes he may oust an Irish born hooker, but if Strauss is a better player and can play for Ireland......romanticism can get lost.

Re: the all-Irish interpro......what an utterly stupid idea.

They are provincial clubs, not international teams. Imagine dropping Ica Nacewa just because he isn't Irish. He might as well be, with the reception he has recieved here. In fact, imagine him as a utility back for Ireland? Damn that 1 Fijian cap!!

The Irish team IS an international team, I've no problem with him doing a job for "leinster lions" but I don't think people should be playing for a country they have no real affiliation with.

profitius wrote: »

Nothing personal against them but they're not Irish and always dreamed of playing for South Africa.

Great point, we are basically just playing second best - and I dont think they could ever give it 100% against they birth country.

outwest wrote: »

out of curiosity,

if pocock had moved to ireland and was able to play for ireland on the residency rules would people care. diack and wilkonson have put in tough years in ireland, if their good enugh for the squad then let them in,

Again, I don't care how good they are if they arent Irish they shouldnt play for Ireland! Otherwise its basically a club competition, and the only thing Irish about us will be where we play our "home" games.

funky penguin

Goodluck2me wrote: »

The Irish team IS an international team, I've no problem with him doing a job for "leinster lions" but I don't think people should be playing for a country they have no real affiliation with.

Great point, we are basically just playing second best - and I dont think they could ever give it 100% against they birth country.

Suppose it depends on what you mean by 'affiliation'.

On the other point.....it could work the other way as well.....a player might give that little bit extra to show his birth country what they missed out on!

Impossible to tell either way in a general sense. As I said before, I think it'd be a case by case thing.

[Jackass]

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

Seeing as this rule benefits Ireland a lot more than most countries, I'm all for it.

Not many players leave Ireland to play for Australia / New Zealand, but plenty come our way, and I don't see how it's a bad thing. We don't have the playing numbers of the other countries, so if guys like Gleeson, Boss, Court (in a problem position) and possibly even Strauss want to play for us, then I say it's great news!!

Just a shame Isa Nacewa has that one Fiji cap...

Morf

[Jackass] wrote: »

Just a shame Isa Nacewa has that one Fiji cap...

I think i'd rather if Stan Wright had zero Cook Island caps.

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

[Jackass] wrote: »

Seeing as this rule benefits Ireland a lot more than most countries, I'm all for it.

Not many players leave Ireland to play for Australia / New Zealand, but plenty come our way, and I don't see how it's a bad thing. We don't have the playing numbers of the other countries, so if guys like Gleeson, Boss, Court (in a problem position) and possibly even Strauss want to play for us, then I say it's great news!!

Just a shame Isa Nacewa has that one Fiji cap...

Keith Gleeson is actually Irish-born. He was brought up in Australia though of course and through their Academy systems. I remember him playing union for Norths as a yo'un. Then again, Spike Milligan was Indian-born.
In 1999, an Aussie rugby union magazine did an article where pundits such as Campese, Fitzsimons, Connolly would pick the stars of the future for RWC2003 in a team.
For the no.7 shirt, it was a tussle between Gleeson and a certain George Smith (Dave Wilson was only then retiring) with Gleeson getting the nod.

Zzippy

I've no problem with NIQ players qualifying through residency. Practically every other country in test rugby benefits from this rule, particularly the likes of Italy and NZ, why shouldn't we?

Podge_irl

I think I'd be happier with the system as a whole if it was slightly two-tiered. Someone could qualify through residency after 3 years but would only remain eligible if they stayed resident in that country. Then after a slightly longer period (5-6 years maybe) they would be eligible by right no matter where they went.

JustinDee

The residency period should be increased: e.g 5 years

Zzippy wrote: »

Practically every other country in test rugby benefits from this rule, particularly the likes of Italy and NZ, why shouldn't we?

Apart from Sivivatu, who exactly on the NZ panels was brought up from childhood outside of New Zealand?
Its actually not as easy as you think finding names of players in this predicament as there are hardly any. Players like So'aiolo and Collins have been in the country since nippers. I had a debate with a rugby pundit on this subject before and amongst the names of alleged Kiwis 'poaching' targets were Jerry Collins, Tana Umaga, Ma'a Nonu, Joe Rokocoko and Jonah Lomu! Collins and Rokocoko were brought up in NZ since an early age while Nonu, Umaga and Lomu are all born and bred Kiwis.
If anything, the teams from the likes of Fiji, Samoa or Tonga playing during the RWC tend to be packed with Kiwis who qualify to play for them.

And I agree with you by the way. Every team has benefitted from qualified players. I'd like to see someone from here go up to Jerome Kaino and tell him he's no Kiwi!

Ciaran-Irl

If you from a certain country, you play for that country. If you aren't good enough then tough.

JustinDee wrote: »

Apart from Sivivatu, who exactly on the NZ panels was brought up from childhood outside of New Zealand?
Its actually not as easy as you think finding names of players in this predicament as there are hardly any. Players like So'aiolo and Collins have been in the country since nippers. I had a debate with a rugby pundit on this subject before and amongst the names of alleged Kiwis 'poaching' targets were Jerry Collins, Tana Umaga, Ma'a Nonu, Joe Rokocoko and Jonah Lomu! Collins and Rokocoko were brought up in NZ since an early age while Nonu, Umaga and Lomu are all born and bred Kiwis.
If anything, the teams from the likes of Fiji, Samoa or Tonga playing during the RWC tend to be packed with Kiwis who qualify to play for them.

And I agree with you by the way. Every team has benefitted from qualified players. I'd like to see someone from here go up to Jerome Kaino and tell him he's no Kiwi!

If this rule didn't exist at all, and you had to be born in the country, then which NZ players were born outside NZ?

I agree with the residency rule by the way, just saying that the people who are against this in every way could probably back up the argument that NZ use the rule a huge amount.

I think I would change it from 3 to 5 though. I think people should be naturalised and should commit to the cpountry, so I see what Franno means about Ngwenya and Flutey.