NIQs qualifying through residency to play for Ireland. Thoughts?

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.

JustinDee

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

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

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?

Its irrelevant though as that isn't the case and never will be.
I wasn't born in Ireland myself. I can qualify for Norwegian, Israeli or Greek citizenship if I ever wanted to and have lived far more than half my life overseas.
I am a dual Irish/Australian citizen.

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

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 don't think they NZ do "use" it.
The people who play for them have been living in the country since they were young children. They choose to play for the country that they were brought up in and are citizens of.

Eoin

Goodluck2me wrote: »

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

Country of birth really doesn't mean much, I wouldn't bring that into the equation at all.

I think a 5 year residency rule could be a good compromise.

Goodluck2me

No opinion.

eoin wrote: »

Country of birth really doesn't mean much, I wouldn't bring that into the equation at all.

I think a 5 year residency rule could be a good compromise.

Probably agree with this, I actually think it would be best reflection on international rugby if you had to have played underage rugby at any level to play for that country, that way you would be more a product of the level of rugby in that area - than a blow in.

Podge_irl

Goodluck2me wrote: »

Probably agree with this, I actually think it would be best reflection on international rugby if you had to have played underage rugby at any level to play for that country, that way you would be more a product of the level of rugby in that area - than a blow in.

Pretty sure Gleeson played most/all of his underage rugby for Aus and you'd hardly describe him as a blow in...

Goodluck2me

No opinion.

Podge_irl wrote: »

Pretty sure Gleeson played most/all of his underage rugby for Aus and you'd hardly describe him as a blow in...

No, but I would describe him as a product of Australian rugby, so they should reap the rewards for the efforts they put into grassroots. I would happy to see him play for Australia, even though he was born here. (countrys aside)

Eoin

Goodluck2me wrote: »

I actually think it would be best reflection on international rugby if you had to have played underage rugby at any level to play for that country, that way you would be more a product of the level of rugby in that area - than a blow in.

So if you don't make the grade by 21, you would never have a chance of playing internationally? I hope I've read your post wrong.

Goodluck2me

No opinion.

eoin wrote: »

So if you don't make the grade by 21, you would never have a chance of playing internationally? I hope I've read your post wrong.

You have, I mean played underage rugby IN Ireland before 21 rather than FOR Ireland at 21.

Eoin

Yes, I understood that - so if you haven't played underage for Ireland, then your chances of an international career are over at 21?

Goodluck2me

No opinion.

eoin wrote: »

Yes, I understood that - so if you haven't played underage for Ireland, then your chances of an international career are over at 21?

Change this to IN - so if you played u16 in Barnhall or u21 in Galweigen's or u8 minis in Old Belvo you are fine.

Eoin

Ah sorry, I missed the "at any level" part.