Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France
PWR

RFU statement: Leicester Tigers and Sale Sharks docked points

(Photo by Alex Davidson/RFU for Getty Images)

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has imposed five-point league deductions on Premiership Women’s Rugby teams Leicester Tigers and Sale Sharks Women for not meeting the required average of 13 English Qualified Players (EQP) in their match day squads.

ADVERTISEMENT

This decision follows the regulations set for the 2023-24 season which all clubs agreed to prior to the start. The penalty applied automatically today offers no right of appeal but does not affect the teams’ league standings.

This measure supports the RFU and Premiership Women’s Rugby’s (PWR) commitment to the development of domestic talent and the ambitions of the Red Roses ahead of the Women’s Rugby World Cup in 2025.

RFU statement: “The RFU can confirm five-point league deductions have been placed on Premiership Women’s Rugby clubs, Leicester Tigers and Sale Sharks Women.

“Following the conclusion of Qualification Period 1, as defined in the Premiership Women’s Rugby Competition Regulations 2023-24, Leicester Tigers and Sale Sharks Women failed to achieve a minimum average of 13 English Qualified Players (EQP) in their match day squad.

“All PWR clubs signed up to the regulations prior to the start of the 2023-24 season. The deduction will take place automatically today and there is no right of appeal. This will not impact either club’s league position.

“The EQP principle has the full support of both the RFU and Premiership Women’s Rugby as part of its partnership to support the ambitions of the Red Roses, especially with the Women’s Rugby World Cup taking place at home in 2025.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The RFU and Premiership Women’s Rugby (PWR) welcome athletes from all over the world and appreciate everything they bring to rugby in England,” the statment concludes.

Despite this focus on English talent the RFU and PWR continue to welcome and value international players contributing to the sport in England promoting a blend of local development and global talent – the union claim.

Leicester Tigers have issued a statement saying: “While disappointed, Leicester Tigers accepts the findings and would like to reiterate our support, as a club, for the EQP regulations within the competition.”

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

2 Comments
N
Neale 316 days ago

Why is the EQP bar set so ridiculously low anyway? It’s an RFU league so why aren’t they insisting on at least 17 or 18 EQP out of 23? If Leicester and Sale can’t even manage 13 they deserve kicking out. Ditto the men’s Premiership… if they want the RFU to bail them out with millions, EQP levels should be much higher than 15. Sort yourself out Sweeney!

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 2 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search