Jump to content

Jackson Hastings given the all clear for GB


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, rhinos78 said:

Hypocrisy at its finest...All the non Australians that have played for Australia are fine...because they pass Alloras own, bias criteria. All the non British/English that will play for GB/England are not fine...Because they dont pass Alloras own, bias criteria.

 

What bias are you on about?  Allora's been talking about players who moved to Australia when they were young and grew up and/or developed as RL players there and with few exceptions (such as moving elsewhere during their playing career) are settled there for life, there's a world of difference between that and someone qualifying for a country just because his grandfather or grandmother came from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with Hastings and the others qualifying through the heritage rule, it's pretty standard across global sports now so I don't see why we should be any different. It also reflects a more pluralistic view of identity and nation that fits the modern day. If he commits, then he should be welcome. 

I do, however, think that if he does commit, that should lock in his tier one choice, and the same for Coote in a slightly different way. 

It has been suggested that GB won't count in the same way as being capped for England would. Is that still the case? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

I don't have a problem with Hastings and the others qualifying through the heritage rule, it's pretty standard across global sports now so I don't see why we should be any different. It also reflects a more pluralistic view of identity and nation that fits the modern day. If he commits, then he should be welcome. 

I do, however, think that if he does commit, that should lock in his tier one choice, and the same for Coote in a slightly different way. 

It has been suggested that GB won't count in the same way as being capped for England would. Is that still the case? 

Indeed , agree or disagree but it’s very standard now 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

9 posts removed and 7 day suspension added.

"Two lovely black eyes,

Oh, what a surprise!

And simply for telling a man he was wrong ......."

 

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

I don't have a problem with Hastings and the others qualifying through the heritage rule

No, the only thing wrong with Jackson is he signed for Wigan, but on the bright side taking on the Roos with strength in depth will be great.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Big Picture said:

What bias are you on about?  Allora's been talking about players who moved to Australia when they were young and grew up and/or developed as RL players there and with few exceptions (such as moving elsewhere during their playing career) are settled there for life, there's a world of difference between that and someone qualifying for a country just because his grandfather or grandmother came from there.

Bias becase theyr either Australian or theyr not, moving to Australia when your 15 dosnt make someone Australian , if your going to get on a high horse about someone not being born and bread in Britain, playing for GB, then it works both ways, Only people born and bread in Australia should be playing for Australia. The only bloodline or residency timescales that matter are the ones set by the governing body, not by a person who sets them to suit there argument, one who clearly dosnt like that England/GB are doing what Australia have done for years.

GB cant play someone who has a British Bloodline but Australia can play a Fijian who moved ther when he was 15 and had already played international rugby for his proper nation...Hypocrisy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about "bloodline" as though it's an actual real thing is one of the reasons why I think the residency rule is far more valid for eligibility than the heritage rule.

A resident has a tangible connection to their adopted country by living, working and raising their family there. Unless the heritage player has maintained a genuine connection with  the country of their ancestor's origin the supposed greater claim to legitimacy is based on 19th century race science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, damp squib said:

Talking about "bloodline" as though it's an actual real thing is one of the reasons why I think the residency rule is far more valid for eligibility than the heritage rule.

A resident has a tangible connection to their adopted country by living, working and raising their family there. Unless the heritage player has maintained a genuine connection with  the country of their ancestor's origin the supposed greater claim to legitimacy is based on 19th century race science.

A lot of the Tonga squad would argue that bloodline is a real thing, depite being born in New Zealand or Australia, they followed there "bloodline" and played for Tonga. If only they knew what damp squid knows, that bloodlines arnt real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rhinos78 said:

A lot of the Tonga squad would argue that bloodline is a real thing, depite being born in New Zealand or Australia, they followed there "bloodline" and played for Tonga. If only they knew what damp squid knows, that bloodlines arnt real.

The members of the Tonga have strong cultural and family connections to Tonga. If they choose to express that with the term bloodline it's a bit odd but doesn't carry any of the connotations associated with European use of the term e.g. someone with absolutely no tangible connection to Ireland having "Irish blood" because of their grandparents. There's an awful lot of context and history tied up in the way we view "bloodlines" in Europe.

If you want an example, every time an Ireland squad is announced on social media there will be about 20 comments from people who find the idea of Api Pewhairangi having "Irish blood" hilarious but not say, Kyle Amor or Brad Singleton (neither of which are Irish names).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, damp squib said:

The members of the Tonga have strong cultural and family connections to Tonga. If they choose to express that with the term bloodline it's a bit odd but doesn't carry any of the connotations associated with European use of the term e.g. someone with absolutely no tangible connection to Ireland having "Irish blood" because of their grandparents. There's an awful lot of context and history tied up in the way we view "bloodlines" in Europe.

If you want an example, every time an Ireland squad is announced on social media there will be about 20 comments from people who find the idea of Api Pewhairangi having "Irish blood" hilarious but not say, Kyle Amor or Brad Singleton (neither of which are Irish names).

So yet more intangible Loopholes to allow other countrys to use Heritage players but not GB?

You can play for Tonga because we believe you value your heritage, but you cant play for GB because we dont think you do...Its ridiculous!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rhinos78 said:

A lot of the Tonga squad would argue that bloodline is a real thing, depite being born in New Zealand or Australia, they followed there "bloodline" and played for Tonga. If only they knew what damp squid knows, that bloodlines arnt real.

Damp Squib actually said in the post you quoted "Unless the heritage player has maintained a genuine connection with  the country of their ancestor's origin"

I would say that sums up the Tongan players very well. I think you very much misunderstood his point.

"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

Just now, Dunbar said:

Damp Squib actually said in the post you quoted "Unless the heritage player has maintained a genuine connection with  the country of their ancestor's origin"

I would say that sums up the Tongan players very well. I think you very much misunderstood his point.

I didnt misunderstand his point, who decides this connection, how does it get decided? What criteria are we using to determine how gennuine a connection is? Or Are we just assuming someone Australian born with a tongan grandparent  is more genuinly connected to Tonga than someone Australian born with a British grandparent is to Britain, thats a potential can of worms no governing body will want anything to do with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rhinos78 said:

I didnt misunderstand his point, who decides this connection, how does it get decided? What criteria are we using to determine how gennuine a connection is? Or Are we just assuming someone Australian born with a tongan grandparent  is more genuinly connected to Tonga than someone Australian born with a British grandparent is to Britain, thats a potential can of worms no governing body will want anything to do with.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there should be a 'test' of connection between heritage players and their countries, the rules need to be applied in a factual and consistent manner.

I don't want to put words into Damp Squib's mouth but I believe his point is that resistancy, where an individual has chosen to make a life in a new country, is arguably a more legitimate connection to a country than the birthplace of a grandparent.

"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

GB are not actually a nation. So in theory Hastings could play on the GB tour and later play for the Kangaroos (Tier 1). However, if he plays for England he will be locked in to play for England. He could play for a Tier 2 nation e.g. Wales but not for Australia if he had already played for England (Tier 1).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that there should be a 'test' of connection between heritage players and their countries, the rules need to be applied in a factual and consistent manner.

I don't want to put words into Damp Squib's mouth but I believe his point is that resistancy, where an individual has chosen to make a life in a new country, is arguably a more legitimate connection to a country than the birthplace of a grandparent.

Quick shift of the goal posts but il try and keep up.

Yeah damp squid said himself that he believes residancy is more important than heritage, i disagree, do we go with my opinion, Damp squids opinion...Or go with the rules set by the governing body?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rhinos78 said:

Quick shift of the goal posts but il try and keep up.

Yeah damp squid said himself that he believes residancy is more important than heritage, i disagree, do we go with my opinion, Damp squids opinion...Or go with the rules set by the governing body?

Well, both heritage and residency are allowed so don't have to decide between one or the other.

To be honest, I was going to make a comment about different cultures keeping more of a connection to their heritage nations than others but thought that was a can of worms we shouldn't open.

I agree, let's apply the rules as laid down.

"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

7 minutes ago, rhinos78 said:

Quick shift of the goal posts but il try and keep up.

Yeah damp squid said himself that he believes residancy is more important than heritage, i disagree, do we go with my opinion, Damp squids opinion...Or go with the rules set by the governing body?

The rules and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rhinos78 said:

So yet more intangible Loopholes to allow other countrys to use Heritage players but not GB?

You can play for Tonga because we believe you value your heritage, but you cant play for GB because we dont think you do...Its ridiculous!

 

I don't have a problem with Hastings playing for GB or the heritage rule in general (to a point).

My comment was in response to people suggesting that there is some kind of equivalence between a player raised in a country from a young age after being born elsewhere and a player who qualifies through grandparents. The former has far more of a genuine connection to the country than the latter, regardless of how much they've maintained a connection to the culture.

In particular it was a response to the person who invoked Hastings' bloodline as somehow being more relevant than the majority of a lifetime being spent in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, damp squib said:

Talking about "bloodline" as though it's an actual real thing is one of the reasons why I think the residency rule is far more valid for eligibility than the heritage rule.

 

Bloodline is an actual real thing. I'm Welsh but my two children were born in England. My son supports Wales full stop, my daughter supports England at soccer, Wales at rugby. My grandaughter always drinks from a Wales mug at my house and has just gone off to a Welsh University. Like most people I've got a vanload of supermarket plastic bags, but I got 7 that I didn't need from Tesco in Aberystwyth because they are blazoned with the Red Dragon.

Hindus and Sikhs love being British, but most support India at cricket.

I would pay to watch Wales play tiddlywinks. Mind you, I'd draw the line at any raquet sport or golf.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wolford6 said:

Bloodline is an actual real thing. I'm Welsh but my two children were born in England. My son supports Wales full stop, my daughter supports England at soccer, Wales at rugby. My grandaughter always drinks from a Wales mug at my house and has just gone off to a Welsh University. Like most people I've got a vanload of supermarket plastic bags, but I got 7 that I didn't need from Tesco in Aberystwyth because they are blazoned with the Red Dragon.

Hindus and Sikhs love being British, but most support India at cricket.

I would pay to watch Wales play tiddlywinks. Mind you, I'd draw the line at any raquet sport or golf.

But that came from you imparting your Welsh culture to them, not their bloodline.

If you hadn't done that they would still have "Welsh blood" but no connection to Welsh culture. Certainly less of a connection than someone living in Wales for years with no "Welsh blood".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.