Changes to eligibility etc

swiwi_

• The 36-month residency requirement is increased to 60 months with effect from 31 December, 2020
• The addition of a residency criteria which permits players who have 10 years of cumulative residency to be eligible (effective May 10, 2017)
• Unions may no longer nominate their U20s team as their next senior national representative team (effective 1 January, 2018)
• Sevens players will only be captured for the purposes of Regulation 8 where the player has represented either of (i) the senior national representative sevens team of a union where the player has reached the age of 20 on or before the date of participation; or (ii) the national representative sevens team of a union in the Olympic Games or Rugby World Cup Sevens, having reached the age of majority on or before the date of participation in such tournament (effective 1 July, 2017)

So...project players here until 2020 (but you'll need to arrive in your new country by 31.12.2017 if you want to do it in 3 years...James Lowe for example). You can also come and go if you want, but in this case you need to chalk up 10 years. Playing for the U20s no longer locks you into a country. Young 7s stars won't be captured if they are not yet 20...unless they play Olympics or Rugby World Cup 7s.

pickarooney

I wouldn't argue with any of that.

irishbucsfan

Great stuff

Kinda disappointed they've left a window open that still allows projects. Guess it's for contacts that are already signed but the player hasn't moved yet.

irishbucsfan

I wonder if this will lead to the provinces going on a bit of a shopping spree this summer...

Erik Shin

No project players will weakness the provinces, but we'll have to get over it

thomond2006

Glad to see common sense prevail with an increase to 5 years. No more recruiting for national teams.

phog

This will have a knock on effect on the provinces and will probably see a rush to sign a few project players this summer.

I wasn't convinced it was needed but let's see how it improves international rugby.

sydthebeat

The cumulative one is a bit weird, who are they trying to catch with that one? Especially since it's effective immediately

irishbucsfan

sydthebeat wrote: »

The cumulative one is a bit weird, who are they trying to catch with that one? Especially since it's effective immediately

I'm not sure. There must be somewhere that has players who move back and forth. Maybe Japan or someone like that.

molloyjh

Happy enough with that. I would also like to see a cap on the number of project players in a national squad at any one time though as well. Much and all as I have no issue with a Strauss, Payne or Stander coming here and making it their home (and representing Ireland on that basis) I wouldn't be at all happy with an Ireland squad containing 7 or 8 imports. While I don't see that happening here, if it can happen it should be legislated for.

Buer

Good stuff. Makes it better for all involved. If we want to sign project players, they'll need to be 23 or 24 and no older.

I wonder what the knock on impact will be for the IRFU guidelines on NIQ players. The value of a project player is diminished now and they will become much harder to recruit.

The Lost Sheep

molloyjh wrote:

Happy enough with that. I would also like to see a cap on the number of project players in a national squad at any one time though as well. Much and all as I have no issue with a Strauss, Payne or Stander coming here and making it there home (and representing Ireland on that basis) I wouldn't be at all happy with an Ireland squad containing 7 or 8 imports. While I don't see that happening here, if it can happen it should be legislated for.

but how can you do that? If eligible you can play. What way would you be able to limit number of projects used?

molloyjh

Buer wrote: »

Good stuff. Makes it better for all involved. If we want to sign project players, they'll need to be 23 or 24 and no older.

I wonder what the knock on impact will be for the IRFU guidelines on NIQ players. The value of a project player is diminished now and they will become much harder to recruit.

Hopefully the ongoing work to develop our underage and Academy set ups will mean we'll naturally start to see a reduced need for projects anyway. As it is we've only Stander and Payne as a regular part of Ireland squads, and Stander is in an area of real depth. So it isn't a massive issue for Ireland right now.

molloyjh

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

but how can you do that? If eligible you can play. What way would you be able to limit number of projects used?

You'd need to categorise eligible players into naturally eligible and eligible through residency. Then state that any named squad (for a tournament or tour) can only have X number of the latter. It's very doable, but would require an element of administration.

Erik Shin

Don't think any province was signing project players with the view to capping them with the national team ..They were being signed because there were uncapped in their home nation and Nucifora was encouraging the provinces to sign them..

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

Happy enough with that. I would also like to see a cap on the number of project players in a national squad at any one time though as well. Much and all as I have no issue with a Strauss, Payne or Stander coming here and making it their home (and representing Ireland on that basis) I wouldn't be at all happy with an Ireland squad containing 7 or 8 imports. While I don't see that happening here, if it can happen it should be legislated for.

I don't like the idea of a limit like that because it basically openly claims that one way of qualifying is worse than the others. You could have 5 guys who have been playing rugby in Ireland for 8/9 years and are completely dedicated to life in Ireland (like the Strauss/Nacewa/Pienaar's of the world) and 5 other guys who rocked up eligibly on day 1 because of a granny (the Bent/Boss/Courts of the world) and the 2nd group would be consider "more eligible" than the first.

I think increasing the limit to 5 years also solves the 7/8 import problem because in reality from 2020 an import is someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in the country. I barely even think of Strauss as an import now for example, he's a citizen who has long-term plans to stay in the country, he's as deserving of being "Irish" as anyone else in his position as far as I'm concerned.

The Lost Sheep

molloyjh wrote:

You'd need to categorise eligible players into naturally eligible and eligible through residency. Then state that any named squad (for a tournament or tour) can only have X number of the latter. It's very doable, but would require an element of administration.

but that isn't going to happen is it? Any player who qualifies could surely take a case against that? You can have a selection policy based on where you play your provincial/club rugby but not based on limiting those who qualified on residency grounds.

Erik Shin wrote:

Don't think any province was signing project players with the view to capping them with the national team ..They were being signed because there were uncapped in their home nation and Nucifora was encouraging the provinces to sign them..

can't say because nucifora was encouraging provinces as they were doing it well before he arrived.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Erik Shin wrote: »

Don't think any province was signing project players with the view to capping them with the national team ..They were being signed because there were uncapped in their home nation and Nucifora was encouraging the provinces to sign them..

Projects existed before Nucifora.

IRFU guidelines made an allowance for projects so they signed projects.

If IRFU remove the extra allowance for projects then so be it. As likely in the short term is the IRFU providing an additional allowance for projects this summer and removing the extra project allowance going forward.

Neil3030

This is not good news for the provinces. If they can't offer international rugby as an incentive, you'll see more players of the Aki, Payne and Stander calibre ending up in France and England. Plus, has any national​ side ever fielded seven or eight project players?

MattD

Yeah, currently there's only about 5/6 project players in contract next season that I'd consider might threaten an Irish place (Stander, Payne, Bleyendaal, Aki, Lowe in 3 years, *maybe* Roux/Kleyn).

Sure that might change if there's a rush on signings before the rule change, but introducing 'Irishness' quota rules will only lead to a mess.

thomond2006

phog wrote: »

This will have a knock on effect on the provinces and will probably see a rush to sign a few project players this summer.

I wasn't convinced it was needed but let's see how it improves international rugby.

If you watch the short clip of Gus Pichot, the goal wasn't to improve international rugby. The integrity of international rugby was the issue.
https://twitter.com/WorldRugby/status/862159925773991936

I'm delighted. The project player stuff has gotten out of control. It's going to be a massive boost for the weaker unions. Thankfully nobody currently under contract will be burned by this either. The provinces will be just fine. There's still going to plenty of talent moving abroad, particularly from South Africa.

awec

Neil3030 wrote: »

This is not good news for the provinces. If they can't offer international rugby as an incentive, you'll see more players of the Aki, Payne and Stander calibre ending up in France and England. Plus, has any national​ side ever fielded seven or eight project players?

Don't buy this, you have guys like Coetzee, Piutau, Fardy for example in Ireland next year who aren't projects.

Indeed, depends on what you define 'improve'. An improvement for me is Unions being prevented from buying in players and for players to be prevented from going country shopping.

The cumulative thing - I guess it covers periods when you're underage? I don't know if there's ever been a case of this but people move around in the EU all the time, there's no need to get a new passport if you move to a new country, etc. Your parents get a job somewhere, then move somwhere else, you end up spending your formative years in a country not of your birth but then go move somewhere else. I think it's a good idea, I just can't think of anyone it would have applied to.

Neil3030

awec wrote: »

Don't buy this, you have guys like Coetzee, Piutau, Fardy for example in Ireland next year who aren't projects.

How is that relevant?

thomond2006

Neil3030 wrote: »

How is that relevant?

The provinces are financially well able to bring in capped players.

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

How is that relevant?

They're high calibre players who are in Ireland despite not being offered international rugby as an incentive.

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

How is that relevant?

I assume you're suggesting the money is better in France, yet all those guys have still come to Ireland without the possibility of playing for Ireland, why would they do that?

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't like the idea of a limit like that because it basically openly claims that one way of qualifying is worse than the others. You could have 5 guys who have been playing rugby in Ireland for 8/9 years and are completely dedicated to life in Ireland (like the Strauss/Nacewa/Pienaar's of the world) and 5 other guys who rocked up eligibly on day 1 because of a granny (the Bent/Boss/Courts of the world) and the 2nd group would be consider "more eligible" than the first.

I think increasing the limit to 5 years also solves the 7/8 import problem because in reality from 2020 an import is someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in the country. I barely even think of Strauss as an import now for example, he's a citizen who has long-term plans to stay in the country, he's as deserving of being "Irish" as anyone else in his position as far as I'm concerned.

All fair points. Although we already treat the projects differently to the granny rule players. This would just mean continuing to do so. It's not something I'm all that hung up on tbh, and it'll probably never really be an issue. I suppose I'm just used to covering all bases on stuff like this. The "if it can happen it will happen" type thing.

Just in TLSs point re players taking cases, it's incredibly rare that courts would get involved in disputes over representative sport like this. It just doesn't conform to the same logic and standards as the likes of employment law.

Former Former

The objective was to protect the island nations. I don't think it will tbh.

The effect on Ireland will be minimal.

It's a first step but I think in three years we'll be hearing calls for a seven year residency period.

Neil3030

Three high quality NIQs, indeed. Some teams in France would have same on their benches. I admire the optimism, bordering on naivety, but we are losing a major bargaining chip here.

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

The objective was to protect the island nations.

And South Africa. Don't forget weak South Africa being taken advantage of by smaller countries.

thomond2006

Neil3030 wrote: »

Three high quality NIQs, indeed. Some teams in France would have same on their benches. I admire the optimism, bordering on naivety, but we are losing a major bargaining chip here.

We are, but the integrity of international rugby is more important. I think the greater good was recognised here.

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

Three high quality NIQs, indeed. Some teams in France would have same on their benches. I admire the optimism, bordering on naivety, but we are losing a major bargaining chip here.

Name a player of Charles Piutau's quality who sits on the bench in France, please.

molloyjh

Neil3030 wrote: »

Three high quality NIQs, indeed. Some teams in France would have same on their benches. I admire the optimism, bordering on naivety, but we are losing a major bargaining chip here.

Yeah I'd tend to agree. We'll still be able to attract high quality players, just not as many. Hopefully with time our need to won't be there so much though.

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

Three high quality NIQs, indeed. Some teams in France would have same on their benches. I admire the optimism, bordering on naivety, but we are losing a major bargaining chip here.

Haha those lads on the bench? That's bollocks

We are losing a bargaining chip, but we are still well capable of attracting top level NIQs from the southern hemisphere.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

The objective was to protect the island nations. I don't think it will tbh.

The effect on Ireland will be minimal.

It's a first step but I think in three years we'll be hearing calls for a seven year residency period.

Not just the island nations at all, Pichot puts it pretty well.

3-5 is a much bigger change than 5-7.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't like the idea of a limit like that because it basically openly claims that one way of qualifying is worse than the others. You could have 5 guys who have been playing rugby in Ireland for 8/9 years and are completely dedicated to life in Ireland (like the Strauss/Nacewa/Pienaar's of the world) and 5 other guys who rocked up eligibly on day 1 because of a granny (the Bent/Boss/Courts of the world) and the 2nd group would be consider "more eligible" than the first.

If they're eligible for a passport on day one, there's no way you can restrict them based on where they were born or where their parents were born. That's a decision that was made at a level above sports administration and can only be changed at that level.

shuffol

Buer wrote: »

Good stuff. Makes it better for all involved. If we want to sign project players, they'll need to be 23 or 24 and no older.

I wonder what the knock on impact will be for the IRFU guidelines on NIQ players. The value of a project player is diminished now and they will become much harder to recruit.

They'll also be much harder to hang onto after 2/3 years if they look like test level players. They'll be subject to big money offers from abroad without the carrot of test rugby to keep them here.

CMOTDibbler

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

If they're eligible for a passport on day one, there's no way you can restrict them based on where they were born or where their parents were born. That's a decision that was made at a level above sports administration and can only be changed at that level.

Of course you can. The laws say nothing about a passport, they say you can play for a nation of your parents or grandparents. That's how (e.g.) Bent is eligible, the fact he has a passport streamlines things a bit in terms of not needing a visa etc but that's all.


These are the criteria:

Subject to Regulation 8.2, a Player may only play for the senior fifteen-aside
National Representative Team, the next senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team and the senior National Representative Sevens
Team of the Union of the country in which:
(a) he was born; or
(b) one parent or grandparent was born; or
(c) he has completed thirty six consecutive months of Residence
immediately preceding the time of playing.

Remove the grandparent bit from (b) and Michael Bent (example again, don't mean to pick on him) isn't Irish eligible.

swiwi_

The biggest loser out of this is NZ. The ABs will become whiter than a Springboks team of the 1960s, now that we can no longer raid the Islands*

*North and South Island excluded

Neil3030

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Haha those lads on the bench? That's bollocks

We are losing a bargaining chip, but we are still well capable of attracting top level NIQs from the southern hemisphere.

I made the relatively straightforward point that we are losing a bargaining chip negotiating with promising uncapped players. And someone pointed out three high quality NIQs currently playing in Ireland to dismiss this concern. Three. Spread amongst the four provinces. And in any event, this in no way addresses the point that we will lose bargaining power when negotiating with a completely separate group of players. And I'm the one talking bollox?

molloyjh

swiwi_ wrote: »

The biggest loser out of this is NZ. The ABs will become whiter than a Springboks team of the 1960s, now that we can no longer raid the Islands*

*North and South Island excluded

#PrayForNewZealand

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

I made the relatively straightforward point that we are losing a bargaining chip negotiating with promising uncapped players. And someone pointed out three high quality NIQs currently playing in Ireland to dismiss this concern. Three. Spread amongst the four provinces. And in any event, this in no way addresses the point that we will lose bargaining power when negotiating with a completely separate group of players. And I'm the one talking bollox?

Yes, you were talking bollocks when you claimed Piutau would be on the bench in France.

molloyjh

Neil3030 wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Haha those lads on the bench? That's bollocks

We are losing a bargaining chip, but we are still well capable of attracting top level NIQs from the southern hemisphere.

I made the relatively straightforward point that we are losing a bargaining chip negotiating with promising uncapped players. And someone pointed out three high quality NIQs currently playing in Ireland to dismiss this concern. Three. Spread amongst the four provinces. And in any event, this in no way addresses the point that we will lose bargaining power when negotiating with a completely separate group of players. And I'm the one talking bollox?

Lads, come on. Let's not let this become another row. Let's try and find the middle ground that does exist. We'll still be able to sign high quality foreign players but just not as many. The carrot of international rugby is reduced which will have an impact. Nobody is saying it will stop it from happening entirely.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, you were talking bollocks when you claimed Piutau would be on the bench in France.

The other two would quite clearly start for many/most teams in the T14 also.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, you were talking bollocks when you claimed Piutau would be on the bench in France.

Well what he actually said was that some French sides have 3 high quality imports on the bench. Let's wind our necks in here.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Well what he actually said was that some French sides have 3 high quality imports on the bench. Let's wind our necks in here.

"The same on their benches".

A player the same as Charles Piutau on the bench in the T14.

Bollocks.

Neil3030

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, you were talking bollocks when you claimed Piutau would be on the bench in France.

I said some French teams would have three quality NIQs on their bench. But continue to cherry pick points that weren't made.

molloyjh

Peter Enough Victory wrote: »

molloyjh wrote: »

Well what he actually said was that some French sides have 3 high quality imports on the bench. Let's wind our necks in here.

"The same on their benches".

A player the same as Charles Piutau on the bench in the T14.

Bollocks.

Ah read what he wrote would you. Not everything needs to be an argument FFS. There are others here who'd like to discuss the topic at hand, not navigate around another internet argument over nothing at all. It's downright f-ing tedious at this stage.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah read what he wrote would you. Not everything needs to be an argument FFS. There are others here who'd like to discuss the topic at hand, not navigate around another internet argument over nothing at all. It downright f-being tedious at this stage.

"Stop arguing!" says the now backseat modder who partook in the argument. But fine, happy to drop it.