The rugby

[Dogtrousers]

Succinctly put.

And it varies by sport too.

Yeah, take Chris Froome, Pavel Sivakov, Bradley Wiggins, Matthew Richardson etc. People are very mobile these days.

You can make a good guess that if the subject is raised on social media then behind it is probably just an attempt to have a pop at a team or athlete or nationality that the poster doesn't like.

 

[Time Waster]

You're either new to rugby (or indeed professional sport generally) or taking the proverbial.

Please do enlighten me. That is what I am looking for. Foreign born players has been commented on a lot by several rugby sources of late so there is something to discuss here. It is not trolling or taking the proverbial to discuss the effects of residency rules and more distant links. Certainly it is discussed by rugby sources I doubt you would make that comment to.

 

[AndyRM]

Please do enlighten me. That is what I am looking for. Foreign born players has been commented on a lot by several rugby sources of late so there is something to discuss here. It is not trolling or taking the proverbial to discuss the effects of residency rules and more distant links. Certainly it is discussed by rugby sources I doubt you would make that comment to.

What is it that you actually want to know? What the rules are? Why they're in place? How they've changed over the years? Who's most affected?

It's a vast topic that generally only gets brought up when someone comes up with "Northern Hemisphere teams are only any good because they're filled with foreigners who aren't good enough for the Southern Hemisphere teams", which just isn't the case.

It's also worth pointing out that New Zealand and Australia have benefitted massively over the years by poaching players from the Pacific Nations.

I'd say the same to these "rugby sources" too, whoever they might be.

 

[Dogtrousers]

It's also worth pointing out that New Zealand and Australia have benefitted massively over the years by poaching players from the Pacific Nations.

That's a massive over simplification. NZ (and Aus) have large populations of Pacific Island origin, just as they have large populations of European origin. And a lot of these people, born and raised in NZ (or Aus) have dual qualification via parents or grandparents in Scotland, Samoa, Italy, Fiji etc. They're no more "poaching" someone born in NZ with Samoan or Fijian family qualifications than they are "poaching" someone born in NZ (or Aus) with Italian or Scottish family qualifications. But guess which sector generates more complaints? There is, or can be, a whiff of racism about this, or there cn be. (To be clear, not accusing you of that @AndyRM )

For anyone interested the regs are here: https://www.world.rugby/organisation/governance/regulations/reg-8

 

[AndyRM]

That's a massive over simplification. NZ (and Aus) have large populations of Pacific Island origin, just as they have large populations of European origin. And a lot of these people, born and raised in NZ (or Aus) have dual qualification via parents or grandparents in Scotland, Samoa, Italy, Fiji etc. They're no more "poaching" someone born in NZ with Samoan or Fijian family qualifications than they are "poaching" someone born in NZ (or Aus) with Italian or Scottish family qualifications. But guess which sector generates more complaints? There is, or can be, a whiff of racism about this, or there cn be. (To be clear, not accusing you of that @AndyRM )

For anyone interested the regs are here: https://www.world.rugby/organisation/governance/regulations/reg-8

It's cool, I get what you're saying and "poaching" was the wrong word to use.

I think that for most rugby fans it's just not an issue as it's always been a part of the game internationally.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Once a sport has come up with the same qualification criteria across all its member countries then I don't see what the problem is.

Once you move from the basic, i.e. must have been a citizen born in the country to represent it, then everything else is an artificial construct...that brings us back to my first sentence.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'm sure I remember reading of someone who was born in one of the Crown Dependencies and could thus choose whether to be eligible for any of Wales, Scotland or England, who ultimately chose Scotland. I thought it was Budge Poutney, but on investigation I find he was born in Southampton. Maybe I imagined it.

In my searches I came across the fact that Matt Banahan was born and grew up in Jersey, and so theoretically could have opted for any of England, Scotland or Wales or potentially even Ireland.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

That's interesting! It kind of leads into the question whether that sayhs something about the quality of NH/ teams? If SH players get into NH teams but would stand no chance in their original national teams does that not say something about NH teams?

Ireland is second in the rankings between SA and NZ. So would that mean the Irish foreign players from NZ could strengthen the NZ squad? Bundi AKi, Gibson-Park and Lowe, G-P IIRC was man of thee match yesterday and Aki is ofteen effective on the pitch. Could they not make the MZ squad if not even the team?

Looking at a website giving the Foreign born players in the 2025 6 nations squads and rule under which they made the squad. Ireland has more parents and grandparents than REsidency but the big threee NZ players were residency. French foreign squad members are all residency with last residency from 2020 (as is Irish residencies). That to me is interesting in light of Irish diaspoora being widely spread in nations big in rugby world, but I do wonder if the French diaspora is as widely spread in rugby nations around the world. If you follow what I mean from the residency vs ancestry.

I will just say that I have no real problem with it all. I would prefer a different system than residency to be applied but recent ancestry applies for citizenship so whynot sport? Either way we get interesting playeers lik G-P and Aki and Vunipola, etc. playing in the 6 nations.

Interesting to note that SH are common sources but England is perhaps a bigger source of foreign players in the other 5 nations.

As an aside
A lad I grew up with was a Rugby player - he was more than pretty good but the England second row were doing well when he was at a point where he might have been picked - so the highest he ever got was playing for the North of England - for which he has a cap (or more - not sure)
WHich is still pretty impressive!

anyway - to the point - he was told that if he used his father's Irish heritage (he was born there) then he could claim to be eligible to play for Ireland
and they would welcome him with open arms as they were desperate for players like him

He refused as he felt he was English and he didn;t feel it was right for him to play for another country


so some players think differently - the balance is up to the governing bodies - which he is what they are there for

 

[matticus]

One final thing on the "20minute red". I saw this scores breakdown:
Wales XV -vs- Ireland XIV -> 15-3
Wales XV -vs- Ireland XV -> 3-24

...so being a man down makes a big difference. You can't say the 20min red is inconsequential, unless you also think that 10min yellows also have no effect!
The rule probably needs some better PR, and of course it STILL depends on good interpretation by the officials (e.g. you don't want them never giving full reds even for egregious foul play). Time will tell ...

 

[Alex321]

One final thing on the "20minute red". I saw this scores breakdown:
Wales XV -vs- Ireland XIV -> 15-3
Wales XV -vs- Ireland XV -> 3-24

...so being a man down makes a big difference. You can't say the 20min red is inconsequential, unless you also think that 10min yellows also have no effect!
The rule probably needs some better PR, and of course it STILL depends on good interpretation by the officials (e.g. you don't want them never giving full reds even for egregious foul play). Time will tell ...

I believe that on average a yellow card is about an 8 point advantage to the other side.