scott dureau

[roughyedspud]

has he been sounded out about playing for france in the world cup yet? he'll qualify via residency after next season.......would be a welcome addition to the french setup imo

 

[Evil Homer]

Hopefully this is the last we'll hear about this.

 

[PacificCoastRL]

How long must a player live in a country for the residency rule to kick in?

 

[Evil Homer]

How long must a player live in a country for the residency rule to kick in?

3 years, although it should be more.

 

[Bluebags1908]

Noooooooooo! I HATE the residency rule. He is NOT French and as soon as he retires he will be back in Australia.

If he has a French wife then maybe...

And his name does sound French.

 

[PacificCoastRL]

3 years, although it should be more.

I agree. I think five years would be enough. Five years is a long time. Imagine oneself living in a different country for five years. How long does a person have to live and work in France or England or Australia to become a citizen? Two years? Five years?

 

[roughyedspud]

well its 3 years so get over it lol

 

[Evil Homer]

I agree. I think five years would be enough. Five years is a long time. Imagine oneself living in a different country for five years. How long does a person have to live and work in France or England or Australia to become a citizen? Two years? Five years?

I think it's 5 years in England, but I'm not 100% on that. IMO, the residency rule should simply be that you need to gain citizenship. That shows a genuine commitment to the country, rather than players who make themselves available just because they want to play international RL.

Spud, if you don't want to debate things in a constructive way then why bother posting?

 

[roughyedspud]

cos theres no debate to be had because 3 years is enough...just cos you don't like it :lol:

 

[Evil Homer]

cos theres no debate to be had because 3 years is enough...just cos you don't like it :lol:

No, it's not enough. Has it not struck you that there might be a reason I don't like it? 3 years is nothing like enough time to develop an affinity with a nation, it allows farcical scenarios with the likes of Jared Taylor playing for France and then going back to Australia and probably never visiting or having anything to do with France again. The rule should be that players need to gain citizenship. At least that means the player has to make some sort of commitment to the county.

 

[PacificCoastRL]

I would say that three years would be enough, if the RLIF had put any thought into the decision to make it three years. But, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say the decision to make it three years was based on the fact that any more than three years would be an inconvenience for the players. Imagine having to spend any more time than is necessary in a country for which you wish to compete. I agree Homer, citizenship should be a must, and the players should have to attend all the pertinent meetings etc. to meet the obligations of citizenship, and not send a lawyer in their stead.

 

[Evil Homer]

I would say that three years would be enough, if the RLIF had put any thought into the decision to make it three years. But, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say the decision to make it three years was based on the fact that any more than three years would be an inconvenience for the players. Imagine having to spend any more time than is necessary in a country for which you wish to compete. I agree Homer, citizenship should be a must, and the players should have to attend all the pertinent meetings etc. to meet the obligations of citizenship, and not send a lawyer in their stead.

I think you are giving the RLIF too much credit. I'm not even sure when these rules were put in place, or if there are any official rules. Certainly I don't remember too many heritage players when I first started becoming interested in international RL, and I'm pretty sure Rangi Chase was only in England for 2 years and 10 months before being named in their squad last year. That's the problem - there is no RLIF and there are no rules. I'm not sure there is any sort of codified eligibility rule set of any kind, precedents are rarely followed and pretty much the major nations just make it up as they go along. Once an actual legitimate RLIF is formed, the international game will be 100x better. It's a disgrace that such a body does not exist in 2012.

 

[RedVee]

I think you are giving the RLIF too much credit. I'm not even sure when these rules were put in place, or if there are any official rules. Certainly I don't remember too many heritage players when I first started becoming interested in international RL, and I'm pretty sure Rangi Chase was only in England for 2 years and 10 months before being named in their squad last year. That's the problem - there is no RLIF and there are no rules. I'm not sure there is any sort of codified eligibility rule set of any kind, precedents are rarely followed and pretty much the major nations just make it up as they go along. Once an actual legitimate RLIF is formed, the international game will be 100x better. It's a disgrace that such a body does not exist in 2012.

Although I think Fien had to sit out an extra year between his Great Grandmother debut and his return as a residential NZ rep.

re Heritage players, when I was a wee lad in the late 60s/early 70s I'm pretty sure the deal was you had to be playing in the country to rep for it. I believe NZers like Noonan, Tatana, Lowther lost their chance to rep NZ when they came across to the Berries.

 

[Misanthrope]

I'm all for the residency rule, if only because international league is one sided enough without making it even harder for other nations to make use of players Australia/New Zealand have no desire to use.

If there are locally created players good enough, they'll be picked. The fact that there isn't just means that cricket scores occur. In my mind, that does more damage to international RL's credibility than a player with a non French sounding name playing for the French.

 

[hutch]

there is no problem with the residency rule, it happens in all sports. 5 years is probably ideal to stop players such as fien, webb, chase, faasavalu, john wilson and greenshields (france) playing for a country they only lived in for 3 years due to a sporting contract. the issue we have is switching nations. the rules we have hold the game back and we dont even stick to those rules.

 

[roughyedspud]

given that the residency law is actually the only law we enforce its bleeding ridiculous to whinge about it :lol:


also does anyone actually think of the implications of changing it to 5 years...or getting rid of the heritage law?, as many of the same posters want...

it would instantly kill international development & stop hundreds upon hundreds of players playing international RL....


as hutch says the issues we have is nation switching and sticking to rules we already have

 

[roughyedspud]

and I'm pretty sure Rangi Chase was only in England for 2 years and 10 months before being named in their squad last year. .

he played in 3 seasons.....3years,3 season.....no need to be picky :lol:

 

[deluded pom?]

In my mind, that does more damage to international RL's credibility than a player with a non French sounding name playing for the French.

Believe me, international rugby league doesn't have ANY credibility.

 

[deluded pom?]

The current residency rule is a waste of time. Players will invariably play in one of four countries as a full time pro. Brent Webb is Australian but played for NZ under the residency rule. He is now eligible for England under the same rules yet only came to England to continue his club career. If he so desired he could move to France to play for the Dragons for three years thus making him eligible for France. A joke scenario but a possible one. The longer the big three keep the international game to themselves the longer jokes like this will be allowed to happen. If we do have to have a residency rule then there has to be some form of commitment from the player besides taking the money from his club for three years. A passport is a must.

 

[deluded pom?]

How long does a person have to live and work in France or England or Australia to become a citizen? Two years? Five years?

In England it's approximately three minutes after you've stepped off the plane, boat, car or train. I believe the French simply herd you on to a plane, boat, car or train that is going to England.