Mary Maurie quite contrary

[Sutty]

I see your point Rob, but how many foreign coaches are there managing national teams, compared to foreignors playing in those teams? If you know what I mean? :conf: I think this issue relates to many sports and my sentiments are exactly the same for those sports. If you are representing a nation, you should have some sort of heritage to that nation.

[robjoenz]

Sutty posted:
I see your point Rob, but how many foreign coaches are there managing national teams, compared to foreignors playing in those teams? If you know what I mean? :conf: I think this issue relates to many sports and my sentiments are exactly the same for those sports. If you are representing a nation, you should have some sort of heritage to that nation.

Sutty posted:

I see your point too...

50+ years ago I bet Wigan RLFC was made up of purely Wiganers and Leeds was made up of Leeds men too. Same with football, how many English people play for Arsenal? Times change unfortunately. I don't like it so much myself but it happens.

[ancientnloyal]

robjoenz posted:

Sutty posted:
I see your point Rob, but how many foreign coaches are there managing national teams, compared to foreignors playing in those teams? If you know what I mean? :conf: I think this issue relates to many sports and my sentiments are exactly the same for those sports. If you are representing a nation, you should have some sort of heritage to that nation.

Sutty posted:

I see your point too...

50+ years ago I bet Wigan RLFC was made up of purely Wiganers and Leeds was made up of Leeds men too. Same with football, how many English people play for Arsenal? Times change unfortunately. I don't like it so much myself but it happens.

actually more foreigners play for Bolton than Arsenal. But 2 englishmen play for arsenal. Hoyte and Walcott. (im a gooner)

I think it is fine having foreign coaches, its just 'england' means english and as someone pointed out, Maurie isnt even a citizen. I find it unacceptable also in Athletics where you get Kenyan's wanting to represent GB simply because of the competition in Kenya for places (kenya = example). You should go as far back as grandparents for national representation then you now you're 1/4 of something

[warriors10]

i think that this rule may cause a big problem for british rugby. If this rule stays in then give it time and a lot of the squad could be foreign. I mean these people are takin away good chances for other british players who could have a chance.

That may just be my opinion!

[AndyLaw]

Apparently I qualify for Australia because I once had a barbeque, Ireland because I drunk a pint of Guiness and Russia because I once ate caviar.

I don't qualify for GB though because I am British!

The whole assimulation and parentage rule is a farce, and personally how can you respect someone who doesn't want to play for his own country. Mercenary of the highest degree, I can't get a game for my own country, so I'll adopt another nationality. (Henry Paul also springs to mind for Yawnion along with Alan Lamb, Robin Smith and Kevin Peiterson in cricket).

Although I'm now in a dilema. What if someone genuinely comes to Britain to live here and wants to be a British citizen? Doesn't the British public expect them to adopt a "British" way of life, hold British values and adhere to British law and culture? If someone genuinely wants to be a British citizen then why shouldn't they play for Britain, as in their eyes they are British? What would be the public opinion who takes British citizenship then plays for another country? The question is, are they British because they want to be, or British for convenience. If the former, then IMO it's OK for them to play for GB,if the latter, then don't want them. Hmmm dug a hole for myself here. :conf:

[ancientnloyal]

I read today in The Times Fa'asavalu tried to sing our anthem... why? He wouldn't save the Queen (i wouldn't... damn monarchy)... i'd personally fight for our land. anyway... I think parentage AndyLaw is fine... upto Grandparents so then you can be 1/4 irish (eg)... people wishing to become British via assylum is fine, like migrants from Sierra Leone or Kryghstan through war/oppression. People wishing to become British simply to get sporting honours and bump up ther CV is wrong IMO. It shuns the place you're born and makes a mockery of nationalistic values.

[robjoenz]

ancientnloyal posted:
actually more foreigners play for Bolton than Arsenal. But 2 englishmen play for arsenal. Hoyte and Walcott. (im a gooner)

There used to be a time when people supported their hometown club too rather than one the other side of the country - times change.

I think it is fine having foreign coaches, its just 'england' means english and as someone pointed out, Maurie isnt even a citizen.

If the British side is coached by a non-British man then he is putting a non-British influence to that side. He is influencial, if not more, than any individual player.

[mikey-warriors]

ino saints fans are s****ing him because hes in the gb squad only four years ago he was playin for samoa in the rugby union world cup and i prefer only english born players in our squad with the likes of lockers roby coley n more not samoa'ns

[DaveO]

gpartin posted:
Thats part of my argument though, If Barrett was eligible there'd be no complaints on here.

There would, from me!

Andwe've used loads of loopholes to get players that don;t count on the quota. Rules are rules and you use them your advantage.

And therein lies the death of the International game.

If you take this to its logical conclusion there must be plenty of overseas players who already "qualify" to play for GB like Mary so you may as well pick GB (or England) from the best players in SL regardless of nationality.

That is not what international sport is supposed to be about.

Wakefield took advantage of the rules and fielded a side of 16 (or it may have even been all 17) overseas players in their relegation game with Cas in 2006. Is that supposed to be OK and good for the game because its in the rules?

I would say not and the RFL agree given their attempts to restrict overseas players. The trouble is with a mere four years residency all that is required to qualify for GB and with no such restrictions in place you could soon see several foreign players playing for GB/England. If that happens any victories will be hollow and I predict fewer people than ever will watch.

Dave

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:
50+ years ago I bet Wigan RLFC was made up of purely Wiganers and Leeds was made up of Leeds men too. Same with football, how many English people play for Arsenal? Times change unfortunately. I don't like it so much myself but it happens.

Wigan has always been a very cosmopolitan club and has a long history of employing foreign players. Ever heard of Lance Todd? Signed by Wigan in 1907.

I have always been proud of what I consider Wigan's willingness to sign the best player regardless of where they come from (no racism at Wigan RL!) but in the past the league was much bigger and so the number of foreigners we have in the game here now would not be an issue back then.

With only 12 teams it is a problem and one the RFL are trying to tackle. It is therefore very disturbing such minuscule qualification is required to play for the national side IMO and it goes against the idea of promoting British talent which the new rules are designed to do.

Dave