Should you be born AND a resident in the country you represent in Rugby?

Question

Are the eligibility laws a little slack. Do you feel that a person representing their country should be born and a resident of the country they represent. OR, does having a grandparent for example, in the relevant country seem acceptable?

Answer 1

Being a Resident and having that small drop of blood from that Country is Good Enough I suppose!

Answer 2

Of course it would be better at every level if national teams were represented by their own people, and even local teams should be made up of local people, but it isn't going to happen!!

Answer 3

No, because certain countries will never be able to field competitive teams robbing rugby of its brightest stars.

Can you imagine if Gregan had only been eligible for Zambia, or Skinstad for Zimbabwe, or Takudzwa Ngwenya for Zimbabwe.

Furthermore players like Matt Stevens/Clyde Rathbone although highly talented who would have never worn Springbok colours, have managed to make transitions to other set-ups that suit their style of play and see them get noticed faster.

I understand Pacific Island nations have suffered from these circumstances, but the eligibility criteria you point to would be dogmatic and not in the best interests of the global game.

Answer 4

No, players shouldn't be punished because of their parents choosing to live in a particularly Country.

A player shouldn't also be punished for making the country they have settled in as their home.

But it is sad that teams like Samoa has chosen for this World Cup to mainly go with players that are were born in Samoa, as there are a lot of players in New Zealand, Australia, America, France and England that would love to play for them.

Another example with mainly Islanders is because they are born in another country they are still known as the home land they come from, but their home land see them as the country they were born in.This makes them The Lost Generation?

I believe it's an Honor and privilege to represent any Countries, weather it's where a player lives or where they have come from. Because both will means a lot to them.

The sad thing about all this is when money is involved and when a player chooses money over Country rather than Pride. It would be sad to see teams being build around the fact of opportunity of getting a contract to play professionally.

Answer 5

I think you should have been resident for a significant amount of time - there have been some strange situations (such as Zola Budd) for patriality just so someone can represent a country on the other hand as a result of globaisation it would be a bit rough to say you could only represent the country of your birth.  After all that's often just where your mother happened to be when she gave birth!  Maybe you should have to be a citizen rather than just a resident - that way you would have had to live in the country for a specific amount of time and go through a process to become a citizen.  It used to be that you could only play cricket for Yorkshire if you were born there but I think that's changed now.

Answer 6

No, I'd probably draw the line at great grandparents but if I could prove my family links I'd definitly be putting my hand up.

"Pacific Island nations have suffered" IMV they brought it on themselves when they made the decision to chase the AB jersey. They know the eligibility rules and the stand down period, (rules implemented by the IRB) tough bickies.

In saying that, the rules, I believe need to be relaxed a bit, it's a pity some of these guys have to sit out a couple of years.