OpinionGoldilocks test still the best when it comes to qualifying
Rugby bosses have it just right in determining the length of residency required to be eligible for international competition

A sigh of relief will have swept through the offices of the Hong Kong Rugby Football Union last week when the sport's world governing body announced it had no plans to tighten up residency qualifications for players wishing to represent a country other than that of their birth.
The International Rugby Board's three-year residency law will stay - and that is good. Unlike in some other major team sports, rugby union has got it right.
In cricket, the residency requirement is four years, which is too long. Fifa, soccer's world governing body extended their residency ruling from two years (too short) to five years (much too long).
Shouldn't the IOC leave it to the individual federations to set the rules and abide by those?
Three years falls in line with the Goldilocks equation of being not too hot and not too cold.
In this global village we live in, if you wish to represent another country, you should fulfil a certain time frame which, while forbidding anyone from just rocking up and donning a new shirt, should also not be too punitive in that it will rob players of their best years.

Hong Kong is a special case. People come here mainly for employment. Sport is secondary.