The Observer said:
It might as well be following for the sake of it. Your whole rationale is based on meeting other's expectations and coming into line with the practices of other sports rather than being based on a) reflecting modern society or b) a clearly, independently defined, principled ethos or rationale.
If anything, the kind of decision making your suggesting would be a sign of our sport's immaturity.
You're telling me the source of my argument as you see it. But that's not where I see it. I base my rationale not on meeting other's expectations, but purely and simply on a point of credibility.
I take your point about a reflection of modern society and a more peripatetic populace, but RL doesn't allow people to jump if they change their nationality, which could be an exception, it allows them to change based on GPs. Now, I'm all for the GP rule but representing two nationalities without your personal situation changing is a bit embarrassing in my book.
However, I would reiterate that my argument has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to please or align with other sports.
I gave a analogy which might be useful for a lot of people who aren't directly affected by the issue, there was no attempt to be patronising. w/r/t being aware of the issues, I think you have you can identify the issues but you have no understanding of them.
Curious point. Identifying but not understanding them. I don't get you. What's to understand that I haven't already stated?
On this point, you're right. Some players do think about patriotism and allegiance, though for many they are thinking career or opportunity. That being said, a player can do even if they only turn out for one test team. I'm waiting to see you give the green light to a double standard here.
Do you suggest every player some test of a commitment, of loyalty, before they are allowed turn out for a representative team? What do you suggest that might be? :roll:
No, no test of committment other than aligning yourself to one nation's RL federation. Take Tuqiri for example. He was young and he got to play in the WC. El Masri, got to play for Lebanon in the WC, then got to play for Australia, then went back to Lebanon. Is nowt sacred?
Now who's being patronising?
Sarcastic, not patronising!
As a minor quibble, I strongly doubt most people connected to RL have ancestry/heritage/background in, or as you reduce it to, can represent, more than one country. What the % is is an aside and a different issue anyway.
Your stance about your is totally valid, its not for me to question and nor would I. I don't think your particular makeup, mine or anyone else's makeup in particular needs to brought up as evidence to justify a stance on eligibility.
FWIW my ancestry/heritage/background in more than one country. In sport, I be eligible to represent more than one national team, and I would see that as my inalienable right to do so.
As I've said, the last paragraph smacks to me of someone not understanding the implications of the eligibility outside the narrow example of sport.
I fail to see how my feeling English because of my childhood and birth suggests I don't understand this issue. As a RL fan I feel embarrassed when players jump from nation to nation just to get a game in a comp.
The 2000 WC was genuinely ruined for me before it had even started thanks to Scotland and Wales - off the top of my head Brasher and Matt Johns, plus others I'm sure - scouring the NRL for players who had absolutely no allegiance to those countries other than a long lost grandparent.
