costa Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 Presume he's eligible. Sure he's raw, but undoubtedly talented. Plays same side as Makinson - could be an issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 9s World Cup for mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 Let's hope there's lots more to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MZH Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 48 minutes ago, Man of Kent said: 9s World Cup for mine Assuming he doesn't make the GB team then that's a no brainer. He is tailor made for 9's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 How does he qualify for England/GB? An honest question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUBRATS Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said: How does he qualify for England/GB? An honest question. He's in the British army , so possibly ' residence ' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 Does he want to play for GB ? Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits. http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Prince Posted July 11, 2019 Share Posted July 11, 2019 2 hours ago, costa said: Presume he's eligible. Sure he's raw, but undoubtedly talented. Plays same side as Makinson - could be an issue? Possibly. But having just watched the WC cricket semi final and I see that the 'England' captain was born in Dublin. And a nice soft brogue he has. But born in Dublin as he was, he plays not simply for 'GB' but for 'England'. He has an English mother. Meantime we ourselves have this question, this ambivalence, over whether we in RL should have GB or England. Should we really worry too much about where people in GB & I come from, when cricket have people from all over the place and still play for 'England'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluded pom? Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 9 hours ago, costa said: Presume he's eligible. Why do you presume he’s eligible? I’m not saying he is or he isn’t, I just find it curious that you presume he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost crayfish Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 He's served in the military so good luck to him with whatever he chooses, but Fijian born and bred... Would rather he play for them myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 15 minutes ago, ghost crayfish said: He's served in the military so good luck to him with whatever he chooses, but Fijian born and bred... Would rather he play for them myself. Me to, sorry I don't care how good a player is if you have some other person/player worthy of selection i.e. a player born and bred then he should take preferance in my opinion, I also feel exactly the same about all the other RL playing nations and also other sports and countries who continue to fabricate a way of getting 'foreigners' into their national teams, and that is said with no racial undertones at all before someone accuses me of being so, it is just a way I feel about this matter of international selection in sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 25 minutes ago, ghost crayfish said: He's served in the military so good luck to him with whatever he chooses, but Fijian born and bred... Would rather he play for them myself. I think he’s been in England 9 years and could’ve applied for British residency. Yes, I agree with Fiji but we know the way things are these days. Mason was born in NZ but ended up playing for Tonga and Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost crayfish Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 For me it's more to do with England being a strong rugby league country, Fiji a developing one, than a question of identity. Ultimately it's up to him, but I'd hope English authorities aren't in his ear... Just as the Radrada Kangaroo selection disappointed me. As a strong nation, we have an obligation to not poach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 17 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said: Me to, sorry I don't care how good a player is if you have some other person/player worthy of selection i.e. a player born and bred then he should take preferance in my opinion, I also feel exactly the same about all the other RL playing nations and also other sports and countries who continue to fabricate a way of getting 'foreigners' into their national teams, and that is said with no racial undertones at all before someone accuses me of being so, it is just a way I feel about this matter of international selection in sport. The problem is that in the modern world 'born' and 'bred' are often different things. Let's say George Burgess moves to Super League and plays out his career here and then stays in England (his native land). Which country should his kids play for? They were born in Australia but bred in England. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, ghost crayfish said: For me it's more to do with England being a strong rugby league country, Fiji a developing one, than a question of identity. Ultimately it's up to him, but I'd hope English authorities aren't in his ear... Just as the Radrada Kangaroo selection disappointed me. As a strong nation, we have an obligation to not poach. I would rather being born in a country meant you could represent it and would want to, but we have rules and if these rules allow a player to play for another to benefit that team, coaches can and will select them. Makes you wonder what the RU coaches at Bath we’re looking at when he played as a Guest player for them. ‘Guest player’? Will that be the next step up from Marquee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 minute ago, Dunbar said: The problem is that in the modern world 'born' and 'bred' are often different things. Let's say George Burgess moves to Super League and plays out his career here and then stays in England (his native land). Which country should his kids play for? They were born in Australia but bred in England. Yes Dunbar, as in anything there will always be "grey" areas, which this you quote is undoubtedly one, should allowances be made in some cases, yes, I think they should, but and I think you know that I am relating to those who have spent most of their life in the country of their birth and their chosen profession takes them to another country and 3 years later they can represent that country, sorry but for me that is a complete load of tosh. I am as fervent about watching GB/England as anyone and previously have made trips down under and I am even contemplating going this year (fortunate enough to be able to afford it and retired) but if my international team started filling the team up with 'residents' or those under the 3rd generation rule who may have never set foot in the UK that would be me done, I would disown the team and not attend again, how those who watch that other oval ball game at Twikkers or Murrayfield can delight in the teams their selectors put out to represent them I just cannot understand or comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 13 minutes ago, Lowdesert said: I would rather being born in a country meant you could represent it and would want to, but we have rules and if these rules allow a player to play for another to benefit that team, coaches can and will select them. Makes you wonder what the RU coaches at Bath we’re looking at when he played as a Guest player for them. ‘Guest player’? Will that be the next step up from Marquee If our national team included say 6 or 7 of those you describe in your first paragraph, firstly would you attend, secondly could you take satisfaction from a victory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieSaint Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 51 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said: Yes Dunbar, as in anything there will always be "grey" areas, which this you quote is undoubtedly one, should allowances be made in some cases. And this is one of those cases. This bloke isn’t some random Fijian who has come over here to play sport. He’s a man who has pledged allegiance to fight and die for this country if required; served in Cyprus, Afghanistan etc. If he decides he wants to play for England, IMO he’s more than earned his right to do so. (But I don’t think he’ll be picked for any rep side). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Stottle Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said: And this is one of those cases. This bloke isn’t some random Fijian who has come over here to play sport. He’s a man who has pledged allegiance to fight and die for this country if required; served in Cyprus, Afghanistan etc. If he decides he wants to play for England, IMO he’s more than earned his right to do so. (But I don’t think he’ll be picked for any rep side). So if at any point do you draw a line in the sand, or are you happy whoever wears the shirt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieSaint Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said: So if at any point do you draw a line in the sand, or are you happy whoever wears the shirt? If we are going by the book, the eligibility criteria is the line in the sand. It works for other sports, so why not RL? What makes us so different than football or cricket? If we went solely on where you were born, the likes of John Barnes, Kevin Petersen et al would have never played for our national sides. So where do I stand? I guess if people meet the eligibility criteria and make a commitment to this nation, then that's good enough for me - hundreds of thousands have done it in the past and continue to do it today in my line of work; fought and died for this country despite having not been born here. So for me, it's more than acceptable in the sporting world as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulwalker71 Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 34 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said: And this is one of those cases. This bloke isn’t some random Fijian who has come over here to play sport. He’s a man who has pledged allegiance to fight and die for this country if required; served in Cyprus, Afghanistan etc. If he decides he wants to play for England, IMO he’s more than earned his right to do so. That's a fair point For consistency, anyone saying he shouldn't be picked to play rugby for England should also presumably saying he shouldn't be in the British Army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbar Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said: Yes Dunbar, as in anything there will always be "grey" areas, which this you quote is undoubtedly one, should allowances be made in some cases, yes, I think they should, but and I think you know that I am relating to those who have spent most of their life in the country of their birth and their chosen profession takes them to another country and 3 years later they can represent that country, sorry but for me that is a complete load of tosh. I am as fervent about watching GB/England as anyone and previously have made trips down under and I am even contemplating going this year (fortunate enough to be able to afford it and retired) but if my international team started filling the team up with 'residents' or those under the 3rd generation rule who may have never set foot in the UK that would be me done, I would disown the team and not attend again, how those who watch that other oval ball game at Twikkers or Murrayfield can delight in the teams their selectors put out to represent them I just cannot understand or comprehend. In general I agree with you. I would prefer that the heritage rule was parents and not grandparents and I would also prefer that 3 years playing in Super League is not enough to warrant an England/GB place. And then something like the Naulago situation comes up. The guy is allowed to serve Britain in the armed forces and yet we may not allow him to represent the same nation at rugby... that feels wrong somehow... it's complicated. At the moment though, I think he is miles behind the likes of Makinson in the pecking order so we don't have to worry about it. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hullfan Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 11 hours ago, Harry Stottle said: How does he qualify for England/GB? An honest question. Does it matter, happens in every sport!! Totally irrelevant question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushy Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 There are rules obviously and you’d be daft not to pick whoever is best within those for your team. Winning is everything isn’t it. You might not like those rules and choose not to watch or support, and the game should respect and consider these views but not necessarily how to them. Nationality is a complex thing and some of the above makes me feel quite uncomfortable as though only some people can claim allegiance to a country and not others. I’m not for nation hopping or second choice nationals, nor am I for very tenuous links, but you don’t have to be born somewhere to have that country as the most appropriate place for your nationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluded pom? Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 44 minutes ago, Dunbar said: In general I agree with you. I would prefer that the heritage rule was parents and not grandparents and I would also prefer that 3 years playing in Super League is not enough to warrant an England/GB place. And then something like the Naulago situation comes up. The guy is allowed to serve Britain in the armed forces and yet we may not allow him to represent the same nation at rugby... that feels wrong somehow... it's complicated. At the moment though, I think he is miles behind the likes of Makinson in the pecking order so we don't have to worry about it. It's five years residency now Dunbar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.