France to stop selecting 'foreign' players - Bernard Laporte

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38389827

France will stop selecting non-French players who have qualified under the three-year residency rule, national federation boss Bernard Laporte says.

He announced the move after meeting World Rugby president Bill Beaumont.

"I told Bill that we've taken the political decision to stop playing foreign players in the national team," Laporte said.

Foreign-born players who currently play for France will remain eligible but new players will require a French passport.

The decision means the likes of New Zealand-born prop Uini Atonio, South Africa-born full-back Scott Spedding and Fiji-born wings Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa will continue to be available for France.

"Obviously, it's not retroactive. Those playing can continue playing but it's a strong signal for French academies and our youngsters that we'll play a maximum number of Frenchmen," added Laporte, the former France head coach who was elected president of the French Rugby Federation on 3 December.

World Rugby rules allow a player to represent another country if he has lived there for three consecutive years and has not played for anyone else, although the global governing body is looking to extend the period to five years.

France have become renowned for picking foreign players in recent years as the financial strength of the Top 14 has brought a flood of foreigners into their top division at a time when the national team has been struggling.

In the past five years, France have come fifth four times in the Six Nations and last on the other occasion.

However, virtually all Tier One teams field players who have qualified on residency grounds.

The issue of foreign-qualified players has also been highlighted by the plight of the Pacific Islands - Fiji, Samoa and Tonga - who often lose talented players to the bigger and richer nations.

The gist is that France will continue selecting residency qualified players who have already played for France, for instance Scott Spedding, Uini Antonio, Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa in the current squad. From now on new caps will require a French passport to be eligible to play for France.

Interesting move and a good one for the game in France and as a whole. It's sad that individual Unions are taking action against the 3 year residency rule before World Rugby are. The decision was announced after Laporte met with Bill Beaumont though which is another positive indication that World Ruby are looking to do more about eligibility problems whilst led by Beaumont and Pichot.

It deprives players like Tony Marsh ever having the chance of playing International Rugby. but on the other hand it can only be healthy for the culture and pride of the team.

Good for France. Hopefully Ireland will follow their example, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

What I really want to see is the 3 year residency rule expanded to 5 right now.

If Ireland adopt this policy it may mean the Freak not getting a chance to play International Rugby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL3sNfd2WJ0

aucklandlaurie wrote:
If Ireland adopt this policy it may mean the Freak not getting a chance to play International Rugby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL3sNfd2WJ0

Think he qualifies at the end of the season, so I doubt that will be an obstacle. Truth is, I would be more than happy if these guys weren't selected. Aki is a great player, and Ludik not far behind (Ludik is better than Piutau at 15), but I really don't want Ireland to be packed with players qualifying on residency.

Munchkin wrote:Good for France. Hopefully Ireland will follow their example, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

What I really want to see is the 3 year residency rule expanded to 5 right now.

So France will now select players of lesser ability because they are "French" - that sounds like a recipe for success.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Good for France. Hopefully Ireland will follow their example, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

What I really want to see is the 3 year residency rule expanded to 5 right now.

So France will now select players of lesser ability because they are "French" - that sounds like a recipe for success.

In the long-term, absolutely. I agree with you.

On the other hand, France, or Ireland, could actually recruit as many of the really talented foreign players, and really boost their chances of winning big. I'm sure all the French and Ireland fans will lap up a foreign side playing for them.

There's also the question of blocking French born, or Irish born, players from coming through, but who cares when we get success? Who cares if it demotivates others from performing to their best? And who cares if we rob other nations of their talent? It's definitely the way to go.

Surely this goes against the Kolpak ruling.

Read this yesterday and can only praise it. Though they need to watch their clubs...as the academies are poaching islanders galore...which probably wont stop.

Just need to make sure England keep it tight aswell.

I like to see Fijians etc earning money at the bigger clubs, but they should still be representing FIJI, or which ever their home nation is.

Players like Nathan Hughes should not be playing for England.

Munchkin wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
If Ireland adopt this policy it may mean the Freak not getting a chance to play International Rugby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL3sNfd2WJ0

Think he qualifies at the end of the season, so I doubt that will be an obstacle. Truth is, I would be more than happy if these guys weren't selected. Aki is a great player, and Ludik not far behind (Ludik is better than Piutau at 15), but I really don't want Ireland to be packed with players qualifying on residency.

Ireland has never had more than a couple of project players in any one team. I dont like it either really but we have never been as bad as France or England for example. Only two project players in the match day squads for the teams that beat Australia and New Zealand recently. Thats not too bad.

I am happy to hear France are doing this. They will be the better for it I'd say.

Exiledinborders wrote:Surely this goes against the Kolpak ruling.

The Kolpak ruling is in no way relevant here! The ruling does not dictate who an international coach picks. If he doesn't want to pick Bundee Aki, for example, then he doesn't have to. Just as a coach doesn't have to pick Jamie Heaslip either if he doesn't want to. Right to work is different to selection for a representative team.

Griff wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:Surely this goes against the Kolpak ruling.

The Kolpak ruling is in no way relevant here! The ruling does not dictate who an international coach picks. If he doesn't want to pick Bundee Aki, for example, then he doesn't have to. Just as a coach doesn't have to pick Jamie Heaslip either if he doesn't want to. Right to work is different to selection for a representative team.

Indeed, I'd forgotten he was Israeli.

Cyril wrote:

Griff wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:Surely this goes against the Kolpak ruling.

The Kolpak ruling is in no way relevant here! The ruling does not dictate who an international coach picks. If he doesn't want to pick Bundee Aki, for example, then he doesn't have to. Just as a coach doesn't have to pick Jamie Heaslip either if he doesn't want to. Right to work is different to selection for a representative team.

Indeed, I'd forgotten he was Israeli.

Damn you Cyril! That wasn't what I meant. Fully 'homegrown' Irish players was my point. But yes, him too on the selection thing.

just kidding Griff.

This announcement would only be effective if Laporte and Co were willing to invest in the underage coaching system who is particularly outdated and need a serious revamping. If we don't produce better young players in specific positions such as FH and TH or even wings there is no point in stopping foreigners to fill those gaps since all other countries will still do it anyway and on a more organised way. Let's face it our foreigners won't be picked by any other tier one nation except maybe Scotland.

Quickly went through the Irish 23 by my reckoning Payne is the only foreigner

We have had a fair few fringe players though

CJ Stander has an Irish passport ?

I was wondering about Stander too. He's surely a product of the Project System and only qualifies on residency.

What counts as a 'foreigner'?

I did enjoy the usual high quality of journalism from the BBC that initially used 4 players as examples of this, Josh Strauss, Nathan Hughes, CJ Stander and Gareth Anscombe, before removing Anscombe when they realised he didn't qualify through residency. Publish an article first, check facts later!

My view is that residency should be increased to 7 years across the board, and that playing 7s, A team or U20s ties you to that nation.

There are plenty of full internationals at the age of 20, and plenty of big life decisions made by that age.

I do agree that recruiting younger and younger players would need to be looked at, we don't want to go down the football route, where 8 year olds are effectively bought over by clubs to qualify.

Players representing nations to boost career aspirations/bank balances doesn't sit well with me at all.

chris_501 wrote:I did enjoy the usual high quality of journalism from the BBC that initially used 4 players as examples of this, Josh Strauss, Nathan Hughes, CJ Stander and Gareth Anscombe, before removing Anscombe when they realised he didn't qualify through residency. Publish an article first, check facts later!

My view is that residency should be increased to 7 years across the board, and that playing 7s, A team or U20s ties you to that nation.

There are plenty of full internationals at the age of 20, and plenty of big life decisions made by that age.

I do agree that recruiting younger and younger players would need to be looked at, we don't want to go down the football route, where 8 year olds are effectively bought over by clubs to qualify.

Players representing nations to boost career aspirations/bank balances doesn't sit well with me at all.

Completely agree. Can I add rugby league to that list aswell...then im a happy man!

Cyril wrote:I was wondering about Stander too. He's surely a product of the Project System and only qualifies on residency.

What counts as a 'foreigner'?

Yes Stander is. Payne and Stander are the two main ones. Bealham is arguably one although I think he has an Irish passport due an Irish granny and he has been here since 2010 and come up through the club game. Id say Australia wish they hung in to him, their front row is quite weak.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:I was wondering about Stander too. He's surely a product of the Project System and only qualifies on residency.

What counts as a 'foreigner'?

Yes Stander is. Payne and Stander are the two main ones. Bealham is arguably one although I think he has an Irish passport due an Irish granny and he has been here since 2010 and come up through the club game. Id say Australia wish they hung in to him, their front row is quite weak.

Bealhams grandparents are Irish, that's how he qualifies

Munchkin wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Good for France. Hopefully Ireland will follow their example, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

What I really want to see is the 3 year residency rule expanded to 5 right now.

So France will now select players of lesser ability because they are "French" - that sounds like a recipe for success.

In the long-term, absolutely. I agree with you.

On the other hand, France, or Ireland, could actually recruit as many of the really talented foreign players, and really boost their chances of winning big. I'm sure all the French and Ireland fans will lap up a foreign side playing for them.

There's also the question of blocking French born, or Irish born, players from coming through, but who cares when we get success? Who cares if it demotivates others from performing to their best? And who cares if we rob other nations of their talent? It's definitely the way to go.

When a national rugby president (who is tasked with success) decides to unilaterally make it a bit harder for his country, the question has to be asked - why?
Before his current position Laporte was appointed Minister of Sport by François Fillon - the Prime Minister who described himself as 'right of the right'. Could this recent stance in support of blood qualification simply be a populist political statement?

Regarding blocking, it's surprising to learn you agree with Nucifora, that foreign players should not be allowed to block indigenous ones, whatever the consequences on success.
Ulster have a potential Test tighthead in Wiehahn Herbst, who will have trained and played for three years alongside his provincial competition before being eligible. If he's raising the standard, surely that competition is good, showing others what's required (same as Ruan). OTOH blood qualified Michael Bent sets his foot for the first time in Ireland and is given a green shirt at the airport - now that's demotivating. Rather than castigate those muggles for earning qualification through residency, maybe it would be far fairer if all Ireland representatives had to be living in and have spent at least three years in the country?

When countries like Fiji have a national wage of 87p per hour, perhaps they are thankful that there is an increasing demand for their players abroad, some of whom will play for other nations (rather than just New Zealand), but many won't and in general they will have a bigger pool to pick from.

Perhaps Monsieur Laporte has evidence that the presence of 'sang français' coursing through the veins of his team affects their performance or perhaps he is just pandering to the right of the right?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Good for France. Hopefully Ireland will follow their example, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

What I really want to see is the 3 year residency rule expanded to 5 right now.

So France will now select players of lesser ability because they are "French" - that sounds like a recipe for success.

In the long-term, absolutely. I agree with you.

On the other hand, France, or Ireland, could actually recruit as many of the really talented foreign players, and really boost their chances of winning big. I'm sure all the French and Ireland fans will lap up a foreign side playing for them.

There's also the question of blocking French born, or Irish born, players from coming through, but who cares when we get success? Who cares if it demotivates others from performing to their best? And who cares if we rob other nations of their talent? It's definitely the way to go.

When a national rugby president (who is tasked with success) decides to unilaterally make it a bit harder for his country, the question has to be asked - why?
Before his current position Laporte was appointed Minister of Sport by François Fillon - the Prime Minister who described himself as 'right of the right'. Could this recent stance in support of blood qualification simply be a populist political statement?

Regarding blocking, it's surprising to learn you agree with Nucifora, that foreign players should not be allowed to block indigenous ones, whatever the consequences on success.
Ulster have a potential Test tighthead in Wiehahn Herbst, who will have trained and played for three years alongside his provincial competition before being eligible. If he's raising the standard, surely that competition is good, showing others what's required (same as Ruan). OTOH blood qualified Michael Bent sets his foot for the first time in Ireland and is given a green shirt at the airport - now that's demotivating. Rather than castigate those muggles for earning qualification through residency, maybe it would be far fairer if all Ireland representatives had to be living in and have spent at least three years in the country?

When countries like Fiji have a national wage of 87p per hour, perhaps they are thankful that there is an increasing demand for their players abroad, some of whom will play for other nations (rather than just New Zealand), but many won't and in general they will have a bigger pool to pick from.

Perhaps Monsieur Laporte has evidence that the presence of 'sang français' coursing through the veins of his team affects their performance or perhaps he is just pandering to the right of the right?

Surely the national rugby president has a duty to ensure FRENCH players represent the side...not fill it with Pacific Islanders and South Africans!

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Surely the national rugby president has a duty to ensure FRENCH players represent the side...not fill it with Pacific Islanders and South Africans!  

What makes them French though?

Some players move to a country to qualify or have grandparents then clear off once they retire

Take Stephen Moore, born to Irish parents in Saudi Arabia, raised in Australia is he any less Irish or Australian because of the other?

Ruan Pienaar obviously capped by the Springboks but his kids are born in NI and hes planning on staying post rugby and take up residency/citizenship. Does is diminish his nationality or identity?

Laporte is basically making them swear allegiance to France before playing by taking up residency or citizenship, so they can still play for France and fill the squad with imports they just have to pass a test first

GeordieFalcon wrote:Surely the national rugby president has a duty to ensure FRENCH players represent the side...not fill it with Pacific Islanders and South Africans!  

A nationalist president certainly.

If a player cannot be classed as being French unless they have French blood that is probably not the pluralist message that a national president in a multi-cultural country should be promoting.

marty2086 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Surely the national rugby president has a duty to ensure FRENCH players represent the side...not fill it with Pacific Islanders and South Africans!  

What makes them French though?

Some players move to a country to qualify or have grandparents then clear off once they retire

Take Stephen Moore, born to Irish parents in Saudi Arabia, raised in Australia is he any less Irish or Australian because of the other?

Ruan Pienaar obviously capped by the Springboks but his kids are born in NI and hes planning on staying post rugby and take up residency/citizenship. Does is diminish his nationality or identity?

Laporte is basically making them swear allegiance to France before playing by taking up residency or citizenship, so they can still play for France and fill the squad with imports they just have to pass a test first

By being the holder of a French passport.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Surely the national rugby president has a duty to ensure FRENCH players represent the side...not fill it with Pacific Islanders and South Africans!  

What makes them French though?

Some players move to a country to qualify or have grandparents then clear off once they retire

Take Stephen Moore, born to Irish parents in Saudi Arabia, raised in Australia is he any less Irish or Australian because of the other?

Ruan Pienaar obviously capped by the Springboks but his kids are born in NI and hes planning on staying post rugby and take up residency/citizenship. Does is diminish his nationality or identity?

Laporte is basically making them swear allegiance to France before playing by taking up residency or citizenship, so they can still play for France and fill the squad with imports they just have to pass a test first

By being the holder of a French passport.

Except under the new rules even that's not needed

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Surely the national rugby president has a duty to ensure FRENCH players represent the side...not fill it with Pacific Islanders and South Africans!  

What makes them French though?

Some players move to a country to qualify or have grandparents then clear off once they retire

Take Stephen Moore, born to Irish parents in Saudi Arabia, raised in Australia is he any less Irish or Australian because of the other?

Ruan Pienaar obviously capped by the Springboks but his kids are born in NI and hes planning on staying post rugby and take up residency/citizenship. Does is diminish his nationality or identity?

Laporte is basically making them swear allegiance to France before playing by taking up residency or citizenship, so they can still play for France and fill the squad with imports they just have to pass a test first

By being the holder of a French passport.

Except under the new rules even that's not needed

Its got nothing to do with the " new rules".

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Surely the national rugby president has a duty to ensure FRENCH players represent the side...not fill it with Pacific Islanders and South Africans!  

What makes them French though?

Some players move to a country to qualify or have grandparents then clear off once they retire

Take Stephen Moore, born to Irish parents in Saudi Arabia, raised in Australia is he any less Irish or Australian because of the other?

Ruan Pienaar obviously capped by the Springboks but his kids are born in NI and hes planning on staying post rugby and take up residency/citizenship. Does is diminish his nationality or identity?

Laporte is basically making them swear allegiance to France before playing by taking up residency or citizenship, so they can still play for France and fill the squad with imports they just have to pass a test first

By being the holder of a French passport.

Except under the new rules even that's not needed

Its got nothing to do with the " new rules".

No its to do with you can be French and not have a French passport

Would be worthwhile for some countries to consider such a rule for their coaches so they don't flip flop up and down all the time

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Surely the national rugby president has a duty to ensure FRENCH players represent the side...not fill it with Pacific Islanders and South Africans!  

What makes them French though?

Some players move to a country to qualify or have grandparents then clear off once they retire

Take Stephen Moore, born to Irish parents in Saudi Arabia, raised in Australia is he any less Irish or Australian because of the other?

Ruan Pienaar obviously capped by the Springboks but his kids are born in NI and hes planning on staying post rugby and take up residency/citizenship. Does is diminish his nationality or identity?

Laporte is basically making them swear allegiance to France before playing by taking up residency or citizenship, so they can still play for France and fill the squad with imports they just have to pass a test first

By being the holder of a French passport.

Except under the new rules even that's not needed

Its got nothing to do with the " new rules".

No its to do with you can be French and not have a French passport

Mr La Porte appears to be setting a higher standard than that, you have to be the holder of a french passport, it may have something to do with France's bid to host the 2023 World Cup.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Surely the national rugby president has a duty to ensure FRENCH players represent the side...not fill it with Pacific Islanders and South Africans!  

What makes them French though?

Some players move to a country to qualify or have grandparents then clear off once they retire

Take Stephen Moore, born to Irish parents in Saudi Arabia, raised in Australia is he any less Irish or Australian because of the other?

Ruan Pienaar obviously capped by the Springboks but his kids are born in NI and hes planning on staying post rugby and take up residency/citizenship. Does is diminish his nationality or identity?

Laporte is basically making them swear allegiance to France before playing by taking up residency or citizenship, so they can still play for France and fill the squad with imports they just have to pass a test first

By being the holder of a French passport.

Except under the new rules even that's not needed

Its got nothing to do with the " new rules".

No its to do with you can be French and not have a French passport

 Mr La Porte appears to be setting a higher standard than that, you have to be the holder of a french passport, it may have something to do with France's bid to host the 2023 World Cup.

Except that's not the standard he's setting

Its citizenship he wants from the players, which doesn't require a passport, but does require an understanding of French culture and competency of the language

Not at all nationalistic

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Surely the national rugby president has a duty to ensure FRENCH players represent the side...not fill it with Pacific Islanders and South Africans!  

What makes them French though?

Some players move to a country to qualify or have grandparents then clear off once they retire

Take Stephen Moore, born to Irish parents in Saudi Arabia, raised in Australia is he any less Irish or Australian because of the other?

Ruan Pienaar obviously capped by the Springboks but his kids are born in NI and hes planning on staying post rugby and take up residency/citizenship. Does is diminish his nationality or identity?

Laporte is basically making them swear allegiance to France before playing by taking up residency or citizenship, so they can still play for France and fill the squad with imports they just have to pass a test first

By being the holder of a French passport.

Except under the new rules even that's not needed

Its got nothing to do with the " new rules".

No its to do with you can be French and not have a French passport

 Mr La Porte appears to be setting a higher standard than that, you have to be the holder of a french passport, it may have something to do with France's bid to host the 2023 World Cup.

Except that's not the standard he's setting

Its citizenship he wants from the players, which doesn't require a passport, but does require an understanding of French culture and competency of the language

Not at all nationalistic

To quote Guy Noves earlier on in the week "One will have to be in possession of a French passport to be considered for selection" Dont know if citizenship is relevant as he didnt mention citizenship.

The Great Aukster wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Surely the national rugby president has a duty to ensure FRENCH players represent the side...not fill it with Pacific Islanders and South Africans!  

A nationalist president certainly.

If a player cannot be classed as being French unless they have French blood that is probably not the pluralist message that a national president in a multi-cultural country should be promoting.

Your right...maybe I went too far.

But I would suggest the 3 year residency people are the ones being targeted. I do think an increase to around 7 years residency would solve the whole thing...if anything in that it would mean Islanders etc playing around the globe would generally choose their own country.

But there is a maze of "what if scenarios" and they all need to be addressed to improve this whole farcical situation.

I like to see players from poorer financial countries earning a living playing rugby....but that is totally separate from international rugby in my eyes.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

To quote Guy Noves earlier on in the week "One will have to be in possession of a French passport to be considered for selection" Dont know if citizenship is relevant as he didnt mention citizenship.

Seems he and his boss need to clarify it as Laportes comments mentioned citizenship though I think you need to be a citizen/national to get a French passport

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

To quote Guy Noves earlier on in the week "One will have to be in possession of a French passport to be considered for selection" Dont know if citizenship is relevant as he didnt mention citizenship.

Seems he and his boss need to clarify it as Laportes comments mentioned citizenship though I think you need to be a citizen/national to get a French passport

Its only a minor matter, the crux of it is that France is setting a much higher standard to play France, than the minimum World Rugby 3 year residency rule. they are not only doing it for their benefit but for the benefit of all International Rugby.

Funny how the standards apply to players but not coaches.
Ten of the top twenty ranked Test sides have a kiwi coach (incl NZ), another four have a non indigenous coach. Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Increase the residency to 5 years and scrap the granny rule too. The Union project player approach is totally against the spirit of the rules but not sure how WR would regulate it.

However you cannot expect players from minor countries not to move when given the opportunity in other leagues and Argentina, PI's and Georgia have become competitive - with the US & Canada remaining a conundrum. Inevitably a percentage of those players will adopt their new home and occasionally be good enough to be selected for Test honours.

It seems the French are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

Recwatcher16 wrote:Funny how the standards apply to players but not coaches.
Ten of the top twenty ranked Test sides have a kiwi coach (incl NZ), another four have a non indigenous coach. Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Increase the residency to 5 years and scrap the granny rule too. The Union project player approach is totally against the spirit of the rules but not sure how WR would regulate it.

However you cannot expect players from minor countries not to move when given the opportunity in other leagues and Argentina, PI's and Georgia have become competitive - with the US & Canada remaining a conundrum. Inevitably a percentage of those players will adopt their new home and occasionally be good enough to be selected for Test honours.

Coaches don't represent the country whereas the players do.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Funny how the standards apply to players but not coaches.
Ten of the top twenty ranked Test sides have a kiwi coach (incl NZ), another four have a non indigenous coach. Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Increase the residency to 5 years and scrap the granny rule too. The Union project player approach is totally against the spirit of the rules but not sure how WR would regulate it.

However you cannot expect players from minor countries not to move when given the opportunity in other leagues and Argentina, PI's and Georgia have become competitive - with the US & Canada remaining a conundrum. Inevitably a percentage of those players will adopt their new home and occasionally be good enough to be selected for Test honours.

Hardly hypocritical when you have one national job available to coaches from different countries so you can't expect every coach competing for the same job, you would also probably need a quota on foreign coaches too, to ensure that they are getting experience and that again poses problems

You also can't scrap the granny rule as its there for a reason, mainly because people move around but their nationality etc doesn't change or diminish so to scrap that would essentially affect military kids etc

I would argue coaches do represent their employer/ country. The phrase Test match was meant to represent the best each rugby nation could produce which includes the management and coaching.
(Perhaps) there is a surplus of quality coaches because there are not enough top tier professional sides competing in enough domestic leages - ie.Sanzar, Wales, Scotland.

To clarify - scrapping the granny rule does not mean ruling out the birthplace of parents.

Recwatcher16 wrote:
To clarify - scrapping the granny rule does not mean ruling out the birthplace of parents.

No one said it did but its there because peoples birthplace does not always fully reflect their nationality and that can extend through a generation

Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

ebop wrote:Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

What coaches are pretending to be different?

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

What coaches are pretending to be different?

The ones that fly in and fly out and flick about

If the 3 year residency rule applied to coaches like it does for players, I dont think it would change things, all you have to do is pay rent for 36 months, during that time players still come home during the off season. No one checks that youve actually lived in the country for the entire period.

How much time does Gatty spend in Wales anyway?

Cyril wrote:It seems the French are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

Indeed. Some folks on here are afraid that their country will be the next in line when it comes to critics against foreign imports.
By the way, am surprised that it ain't the case in other countries but to have a French passport you need French nationality. It's. It just a "test" as well and out of the 4 "foreigners" players, 2 already have French nationality and one will have it soon. At least it's a commitment they make to their new country.

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:Coaches most definitely should be on the same page as players and the fact they can wander off and pretend to be this and that and every other thing is a rort. Why are they any different?

Is it to 'grow the game'?

Drag teams up?

What coaches are pretending to be different?

The ones that fly in and fly out and flick about

Hows that being different?

Trying to be different would be putting on an accent ala Schteve McClaren or changing their name to a local equivalent

The Pacific islanders will continue to seek playing for other nations until they start to get paid fairly, the Fijians barely got paid for playing England and we wonder why players like Roko want to jump ship.