Americas Rugby News Rugby news from across the Americas!
The votes are in, and the changes promised and spearheaded by World Rugby Vice-Chairman Agustín Pichot have been made. In fact the changes to Regulation 8 regarding international regulations have gone beyond what was hoped. The changes not only affect residency but also the ‘capturing’ of u20 and sevens players. Below we look at the four changes and what they mean.
1) The 36-month residency requirement is increased to 60 months with effect from 31 December, 2020. (unanimously approved)
As promised, the heavily-criticed residency rule has been stretched from three years to five. This means that countries will no longer be able to import players in the first year of a new World Cup cycle and be able to select them at the next tournament, and should put a swift end to the concept of ‘project players’ currently in use by several nations.
While the effective date may seem far off, what it actually means is that any player who moves to a new country after December 31 of this year will have to wait a full five years before representing that country. Players already signed for their clubs will only have to wait the three years. World Rugby had said previously there would be a ‘grace period’ and that seems to have been the bargaining chip used to gain unanimous support with the likes of Scotland and Ireland known to be opposed to the change previously.
Short term examples could be Bundee Aki playing for Ireland or Willis Halaholo representing Wales, but those types of signings will surely slow down dramatically. Some have argued that extending the residency law will only entice rich nations to plunder players from lesser nations at a younger age. That line of thinking ignores that fact that this is already taking place, and that such signings have a much greater risk attached financially than purchasing a player proven at senior level.
2) The addition of a residency criteria which permits players who have 10 years of cumulative residency to be eligible, effective 10 May, 2017. (unanimously approved)
This is a new form of achieving residency that says that a player who moved to a country at a young age and lived there until his late teens but then moved to another country on a professional contract will still retain their residency qualifications. The five-year residency rule is applied consecutively, meaning that should a player live in a country for four years and then move away for one year, the player’s residency clock starts at zero should they return to the previous country. This could mean, for example, that a player born in Samoa who then moved to New Zealand at a young age would not lose their eligibility to play for New Zealand if they move abroad for a short-term overseas contract.
3) Unions may no longer nominate their U20s team as their next senior national representative team, effective 1 January, 2018. (majority)
This removes a country’s ability to ‘capture’ senior eligibility based on playing for a country’s national u20 side, and removes confusing situations where some u20 or Senior ‘A’ fixtures were considered ‘binding’ or not. For example England Saxons recently traveled to play South Africa ‘A’, but because South Africa had nominated their u20 side as their ‘next senior representative team’, the matches did not count towards the eligibility regulations, an obviously ridiculous situation.
Unions affected by this rule include: Belgium, Chinese Taipei, England (women), Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Scotland (women), and South Africa.
4) 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. (majority)
Simply put, what this means is that a player under the age of 20 who represents a country in sevens will still maintain their eligibility for another nation should they meet the criteria. If Player A plays for Samoa at 19 years old but has a German father, that player can still represent Germany in the future. The exception is the Olympics, where the age of majority for that country is the deciding factor.
Previously a player was captured at 18 years or older. A recent example of this is Thretton Palamo, who represented Samoa in sevens at the age of 17, and then went on to play for the US Eagles. Under the new rule he could have played for Samoa up until 19 years of age and still represented the USA afterwards.
CONCLUSIONS
In a perfect world the five-year rule would have come into effect on January 1, 2018, but this seems a reasonable compromise to ensure the necessary votes. While this will not stop European clubs from signing top class southern hemisphere players, it should have a positive effect on player retention for the SANZAAR nations and significantly reduce the number of ‘mercenaries’ playing international rugby.
Adding a 10-year cumulative residency qualification is an interesting an unforeseen development that seems reasonable. Surely if one spends what amounts to an entire career’s worth of time in one country they should be able to play for them.
The change to u20 binding should also be viewed positively as a matter of uniformity more than anything. Some will argue that a player should not be able to represent one nation at u20 and another at senior level, but age-grade players have far less control over their place of residence than a senior player.
If there is criticism to be made it is that the ‘granny’ rule remains, that is a player may represent any nation that their grandparents were born in. Representing the land of your parents is one thing but being qualified for a country you may not have ever stepped foot in just because your grandfather happened to be born there is excessive.
In the ‘grand’ scheme of things this is a minor complaint and overall these changes should be met with widespread approval. Not only does it help restore a measure of credibility to international rugby but also to World Rugby, who have long been seen as overly pandering to Tier 1 nations. It’s also a clear reminder of the influence that Mr. Pichot wields at the international level, with his reputation as the ‘most powerful man in world rugby’ firmly intact.
World Rugby Vice-Chairman @AP9_ on World Rugby’s historic eligibility reform of Regulation 8 https://t.co/ORF54xPmJi pic.twitter.com/2rHxxw94jq
— World Rugby (@WorldRugby) May 10, 2017
