Why Don't England Exploit The Rules?

[playdaball]

Developing nations such as the Pacific Nations, the Home Nations, Lebanon and 2nd tier European countries bring in players using the GP or parent rules. Even the World Champions, NZ and long established, France, exploit these rules and 3 year residency to get players ....

Wwhy aren't the English doing it???

Hats off to them but surely they could increase the strength of their team by including NRL players who qualify to play for England.

They have an Aaussie coach and 1 Samoan playing in their team. I can recall a few years ago that GB were chasing English born Ian Roberts.

What do you think?

 

[Evil Homer]

Because the English want to watch an English team, and not a team of ringers. There is no satisfaction in watching a bunch of ringers win and then claiming it as an international victory, and I can't really understand how fans of nations like Australia put up with it. It might be because England is one of the few nations that was founded by natives, had an empire and invaded many other countries. Either way, English people want to watch an English team and not a scratched together bunch of foreigners. Apart from anything else, bringing in players from other countries is never a good strategy because if they were good enough they would be playing for their country of birth.

 

[kuwaiti kev]

I agree with the priciple of yours Evil Homer, but have a problem with your explanation.

Explain the fanatical support for your foreigner filled Football teams, When Chelsea wins in Europe i'm pretty sure the Chelsea fans rejoice despite the fact there are no Englishmen in the side (there maybe now I don't follow it that closely).

 

[Evil Homer]

I agree with the priciple of yours Evil Homer, but have a problem with your explanation.

Explain the fanatical support for your foreigner filled Football teams, When Chelsea wins in Europe i'm pretty sure the Chelsea fans rejoice despite the fact there are no Englishmen in the side (there maybe now I don't follow it that closely).

Chelsea have always had English players, regardless they are not a national side? Canadian-born Owen Hargreaves came in for quite a lot of criticism when he first started playing for England, if you want a football example.

 

[Pierced Soul]

didnt england want to pick michael withers a few years ago cos of the residency ruile and there was an outcry?

there's plenty of ex aussies they could pick due to this dodgy eligibility rule but i guess they realsie in the long run it doenst help their own players develop any further

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Doesn' stop the cricket team and they're national heroes. The fact is Australia doesn't put up with it because all of our players are Australian, even if not all were born here.

 

[nadera78]

didnt england want to pick michael withers a few years ago cos of the residency ruile and there was an outcry?

there's plenty of ex aussies they could pick due to this dodgy eligibility rule but i guess they realsie in the long run it doenst help their own players develop any further

Withers was picked for a GB squad in about 2001 by Daid Waite and people weren't impressed. But then he didn't make the team and had a sulk about it.

Tony Smith picked Fa'asavalu for GB in 2007 and England in 2008 and it upset a lot of people, me included. The guy isn't English, he's not even British for christ's sake, and had no business pulling on that shirt.

And I say the same for the cricket tem with the likes of Pietersen and Trott, although I (somewhat reluctantly) accept Strauss and Prior as they both moved to England as children.

I think we must play as we are. If we're good enough to win then we will, if not then so be it, but I don't want any victories tainted by the inclusion of non-English players. It's a point of principle.

 

[The Observer]

Good question playdaball, but we could perhaps rephrase it "Why don't England Rugby League make use of people that move to their country long term for work?" In the real world, migration for work has happened not just for decades, but centuries and millennia in the real world. When it comes to English sport,

• English Cricket selects selects foreign bred players. They've won the Ashes doing it.
• English Rugby selects foreign bred players. I posted on another thread a match day squad of 22 players that have come through the grandparent rule or residency. England Rugby has won a World Cup, Six Nations tournaments, test series at home AND away.
• England and Britain have done it in other sports as well.

All these sports have had success at the highest level - except English Rugby League. Noone is suggesting the Tony Smith fill the test team with Aussies/NZers. However, if there is one or two players that want to play for England, and they have the ability to strengthen the team, then they could be worth selecting.

To those who say Australia wouldn't pick foreigners, we have also done it in many sports (think Noriega, Strauss, Rathbone, Vickerman, Willie O, Kingi in Rugby, in fact dozens of current Super 14 players; Kostya Tszyu in boxing, Tatiana Grigorieva in Olympic pole vault etc).

Our Federal Government has now changed the law to allow foreign athletes to get Australian citizenship even more quickly, to enable us to win more Olympic Gold:
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/172408/australia-to-change-citizenship-laws-for-foreign-born-athletes

 

[watatank]

They could've picked Ben Hannant for the RLWC last year, I think. That could've been interesting.

I'm pretty sure England could pick Mateo, he's eligible for a few countries (or at least he would be if he were to switch).

 

[Paullyboy]

I'm ecstatic for England that they dont resort to that level. As I've said in another thread, I think the whole grandparent or parent eligibility loophole is a farce, under pretty much any sports rules I'm eligible for 4 different nations - 2 of which I had never even been to untill last year (where it was just one of many stops on my world tour) and the 4th I have never been to despite travelling a lot of the World.

You should be eligible for one country and one country only. Anyone who isn't patritotic enough to know what 'their country' is, shouldn't be pulling on a jersey to represent anyone.

 

[KumulRaider]

I'm ecstatic for England that they dont resort to that level. As I've said in another thread, I think the whole grandparent or parent eligibility loophole is a farce, under pretty much any sports rules I'm eligible for 4 different nations - 2 of which I had never even been to untill last year (where it was just one of many stops on my world tour) and the 4th I have never been to despite travelling a lot of the World.

You should be eligible for one country and one country only. Anyone who isn't patritotic enough to know what 'their country' is, shouldn't be pulling on a jersey to represent anyone.

I fully agree with u Paullyboy once u play for a country that's it no switching around..If people play for my country PNG and then another and try and come back I guarantee they would not be wanted by the fans, this is applicable in a reverse scenario.

 

[flamin]

It's been said on this forum before, but I'll say it again. When a player becomes a professional he should decide then and there what his country is. In exceptional cicumstances he can apply to change allegiances.

 

[KumulRaider]

It's been said on this forum before, but I'll say it again. When a player becomes a professional he should decide then and there what his country is. In exceptional circumstances he can apply to change allegiances.

hmm Flamin that does seem quite fair..

 

[Marshall_magic]

I think a player should not be able to change their allegiancy after:
-100 First Grade Games (so probably 4-5 years in first grade, I was thinking less [50], but some players take several years to become a regular, racking up 50 games in that time, and go on to be a gun player, whilst others can rack up 50 games before turning 21, then never really kick on)
OR
-They turn 23 (could hurt the late bloomers though, and hurt the guys who burst onto the scene but never kick on)
OR
-They have changed twice already (like Jarryd Hayne last year, changed from Aus to Fiji, and now has switched back to Aus. He can't go back to Fiji again. Also good for the Samoans who go to NZ, then later in their career change back again, whilst this may give the game a bad look, I think the young Samoan guys would learn a lot from the more experienced guys)

The exception I would make with rules 1 and 2 would be if a player pledges allegiancy to Australia at age 23, but never represents them and then changes to say Fiji.

Over time, as the international scene gets more competitive the rules can be tightened to suit.

 

[marv]

worst thread ever

 

[roughyedspud]

They could've picked Ben Hannant for the RLWC last year, I think. That could've been interesting.

I'm pretty sure England could pick Mateo, he's eligible for a few countries (or at least he would be if he were to switch).

yep we can pick mateo...his mum is english....but we won't

 

[playdaball]

perhaps its time to change?

 

[Skinner]

Because the English want to watch an English team, and not a team of ringers. There is no satisfaction in watching a bunch of ringers win and then claiming it as an international victory, and I can't really understand how fans of nations like Australia put up with it. It might be because England is one of the few nations that was founded by natives, had an empire and invaded many other countries. Either way, English people want to watch an English team and not a scratched together bunch of foreigners. Apart from anything else, bringing in players from other countries is never a good strategy because if they were good enough they would be playing for their country of birth.

Dear God almighty.....should we all stand around and sing Land Of Hope & Glory.......FMD.

 

[Kurt Angle]

Because the English want to watch an English team, and not a team of ringers. There is no satisfaction in watching a bunch of ringers win and then claiming it as an international victory, and I can't really understand how fans of nations like Australia put up with it.

Because our identify is obviously different to the UK's. 25% of our population was born in another country, another 24% have at least one parent bover seas.

That said, they emigrate here to become Australians, such as Petro's family. Listen to Petro talk, he has a thicker ocker accent thatn most aussies on this forum. His identity is Australian, he has just represented Fiji out of expedience of International RL, and if he had to choose one on just and moral grounds, he should pick Australia.

It might be because England is one of the few nations that was founded by natives,

Not too familiar with your own history huh?

The Picts resembled the first indigenous society, and since them your island has seen waves of invasion from Angles, Saxons and Normans actually wrest away sovereignty, as well as invasions from Danes, Norwegians, Irish and Britons come in and form concurrent societies.

had an empire and invaded many other countries. Either way, English people want to watch an English team and not a scratched together bunch of foreigners.

Our side doesn't have a bunch of foreigners either, we have Australian citizens play for our side. People who have endeared be Australians, during their footballing creer and afterwards.

But I do see a pattern here.

You island is entirely indigenous, despite waves of successive invasions up to 1066. But all those invaders were white. But that's OK, that is close enough, they are still British.

Our island has a great deal of immigrants, those electing to come here and become Australians, but there is something about their skin colour which will not do, ergo they aren't "Real" Australians

Sorry we abolished the white australian policy without your approval.

Apart from anything else, bringing in players from other countries is never a good strategy because if they were good enough they would be playing for their country of birth.

:lol:

Or they immigrated when they were 2 years of age and have assimilated their identity with their new land hey?

:lol: