[England] Post-6N/Pre-RWC Player Watch

[j'nuh]

And that's where we'll have to disagree.

I hold an individual responsible for own actions - Lancaster will go down severely in my reckoning if he selects him.

Imposing your own sense of nationality on someone else is the immoral action, IMO. Hughes has come to a personal decision where representing a nation that isn't the nation of his birth makes sense to him. His motivations are personal and he's working within the confines of what is allowed by the IRB. I find it difficult to be angry with that, whatever his motivations are. Who are we to say, "Nah mate, not English enough"? Too loaded with personal definitions of nationality for me; I prefer that we work to a standardised definition of nationality that all countries universally follow.

I also dislike the argument of "taking away from Fiji". People aren't property; nations are not entitled to their services. Fiji shouldn't blame others for "taking their players". They should be focusing on why their players are choosing to represent other nations.

You can't just absolve people of any responsibility just because the situation allows for exploitation.

Exploitation of who?

 

[Tony Manx]

Hate to be that guy, but I have no problem with it. Hate the game, not the player and all. We might not like the residency rules, but they are what they are, and as long as it is within the rules, we shouldn't let coaches be the arbiter of whether someone is "English enough". They have no moral responsibility over that kind of issue; it's for the IRB to think about.

From another POV, I don't begrudge a player wanting to play for 1. a competitive team, 2. a team where they don't have to pay for things as basic as travelling costs, and 3. a nation without a totally corrupt government.

+1

 

[Tony Manx]

Exactly, see the bankers involved in the financial crisis.

"Some bankers" not "bankers" as politicians, who spent spent spent all the reserves and borrowed billions and billions, (and the press) like to blame to assuage their own guilt for nearly bankrupting the UK!!!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Who are we to say, "Nah mate, not English enough"? Too loaded with personal definitions of nationality for me; I prefer that we work to a standardised definition of nationality that all countries universally follow.

Who are we to say?!

We are exactly the people to say - by virtue of the fact we are English and supporters of our national representative rugby team.

I'm finding your apparent denial/naivety/obtuseness absurd, frankly.

As someone who has demonstrated that you're not a complete and utter dimwit, you should be able to understand why Hughes' "Englishness" is so ****ing tenuous, why that's an issue re: him playing for England, and why it's an issue for international rugby more generally.

You need to accept that international sport is by definition nationalist, to maintain it's integrity you cannot allow this sort of **** to happen, if you feel uncomfortable with that then maybe it isn't for you...

 

[Tony Manx]

Who are we to say?!

We are exactly the people to say - by virtue of the fact we are English and supporters of our national representative rugby team.

I'm finding your apparent denial/naivety/obtuseness absurd, frankly.

As someone who has demonstrated that you're not a complete and utter dimwit, you should be able to understand why Hughes' "Englishness" is so ****ing tenuous, why that's an issue re: him playing for England, and why it's an issue for international rugby more generally.

You need to accept that international sport is by definition nationalist, to maintain it's integrity you cannot allow this sort of **** to happen, if you feel uncomfortable with that then maybe it isn't for you...

Actually I thought @j'nuh put his arguments forward calmly and cogently.

However it is obvious from the "bullying" nature of your text that you disagree to the extent that you will never accept his arguments.

Why not just leave it at that rather than resort to name calling or even responding...... Other than to advance the argument with something new?!

 

[Peat]

Imposing your own sense of nationality on someone else is the immoral action, IMO. Hughes has come to a personal decision where representing a nation that isn't the nation of his birth makes sense to him. His motivations are personal and he's working within the confines of what is allowed by the IRB. I find it difficult to be angry with that, whatever his motivations are. Who are we to say, "Nah mate, not English enough"? Too loaded with personal definitions of nationality for me; I prefer that we work to a standardised definition of nationality that all countries universally follow.

I also dislike the argument of "taking away from Fiji". People aren't property; nations are not entitled to their services. Fiji shouldn't blame others for "taking their players". They should be focusing on why their players are choosing to represent other nations.


Exploitation of who?

Why shouldn't they have a moral responsibility?

Since when was moral responsibility about saying "Well the governing body says its fine so I will do it regardless of all other factors" regardless of what the governing body actually says?

Since when it is immoral to turn around to say to someone "I am sorry, but you are using a factual definition that does not apply to you"? I mean, that already happens, we already tell people they can't qualify on two years or great-grandparents, how is it moral for the IRB to do that and immoral for us to do that?

And the situation exploits unions that exist in countries that are too economically backwards to have a sustainable professional infastructure that allows professional rugby players to reach their peak. They produce players but are unable to keep them.

 

[ncurd]

I think ratsapprentice is partially right. It is certainly up us what we consider someone is a national or not. However you do that by arguing against the qualification rules. If a player has been selected under the current rules that's not their fault or their governing body or the head coach. He's available says he feels that nationality why should he not be selected because the fans disagree? We all know if they play well most will forget.

Personally I think the qualifying period should be up until they leave secondary school ( 1st September after they turn 16). Or qualify through a parent. Grandparents are fair but just feel wrong but I've met plenty of 3rd and even 4th generation Indians/Pakistanis that still feel more affiliated with country of birth of their ancestors.

On qualification period once you leave education it is my experience people hold on to their nationality far longer than outside.

My best man at my wedding was born in England and finished school here but grew up mainly in Canada. He holds a passport for both countries due to ease but considers himself Canadian he's lived all his adult life here. I don't think that changes for sports players they just do what is most convenient for them.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Why not just leave it at that rather than resort to name calling or even responding...... Other than to advance the argument with something new?!

Care to point out this so called name calling and bullying?

j'nuh can handle himself.

 

[Tony Manx]

Say Farage were ever to see the lawful introduction of smoking permitted areas of pubs...unlikely but let us just say!!

I would not expect people who chose to go that pub to smoke rather than their local where they cannot to be accused of being wrong! They are following the rules.

I would, however, respect people's right to oppose the change in the law that permitted it in the first place and to campaign vigorously to have the change reversed!!

 

[ratsapprentice]

That's really not the same situation at all, because in your scenario, the law specifically and intentionally allows the smoking.

In an effort to accommodate the very real instances of unusual or changing national identity, the laws governing elligibility are open to exploitation by those who have motives not in keeping with the "spirit" of the laws.

 

[MotherRucker1]

I think the current IRB rules are fine; i.e: being born in the country, having a parent/grandparent born in that country, or completed 36 months of residency in that country. It's a reasonable way that recognizes that just because you were born in Samoa, Kenya, New Zealand, Australia, wherever that you may not want to compete for such countries for a multitude of reasons. Some which are personal, some which are just part of living in a modern world.

But I do think all of those residency subsections should be completely overridden if you've represented another country at any age group level. Sorry but if I've seen you have a crack for one country, that's your dash mate. If you want to take a personal stand about which nation you represent and feel truly apart of, then you should have some freedom to do that. However, you shouldn't be allowed to take the mick and nation hop, imo. The IRB should only have to bend over backwards for you so far - you have to be an adult, make a decision, and stand by it. That's one of the distinctions between commercialized clubs and a nationalistic level of the game.

I don't really care how lovely Granny's stories were about life in the old country. If you've played for Fiji under-whatevers (as an example), then you've committed yourself to that nation. It's not a heartless scenario, you were given an opportunity to figure out where your loyalty rests. How you exercise it is your call.

I do acknowledge that there are more complex situations where players for Samoa, for example, started playing under what they thought was a reasonable administration. It has now been investigated and exposed for all of it's problems, some of which were completely unknown. But if you want to play at international level, and don't necessarily care too much about pride, or do it just to spite your former country / make a political point then I don't think you're in it for the right reasons anyway.

The introduction of that stipulation would be like most municipal laws, and be 'henceforth' rather than retrospective (i.e: outlawing guys who are already in this situation).

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Wow this has all escalated quickly. I do wonder what part of Hughes thinks he is English enough to represent us though? He's been here two years and has no family here.

Can he really class himself as English? He's basically a gap war student!

Personally I think the rules need changing, we will see what happens

 

[ratsapprentice]

It's possible, but highly, highly unlikely IMO and I wouldn't take his word for it even if he came out and said he was the embodiment of King Arthur.

 

[Peat]

Wow this has all escalated quickly. I do wonder what part of Hughes thinks he is English enough to represent us though? He's been here two years and has no family here.

Can he really class himself as English? He's basically a gap war student!

Personally I think the rules need changing, we will see what happens

The part of him that wants a half-decent shot at playing in a WC final :lol:

 

[j'nuh]

Who are we to say?!

We are exactly the people to say - by virtue of the fact we are English and supporters of our national representative rugby team.

Maybe it's just me being a bleeding-heart liberal, but I recognise a person's national self-identity, even that of first-generation immigrants. If a person comes to live in England and chooses to identify as English, even as part of a dual-national identity, I have no problem with that. That's what I mean by, "who are we to say?" What gives anyone the right to pigeon-hole someone else's identity? I think the "born"/"raised in" standard of identity is outdated (although fairly popular, if the rise of UKIP is anything to go by) in the modern, mobile world. Is Englishness really as easily defined as a longitude and latitude of birth?

For example, there are currently ~3,640 active Gurkhas, recruited from Nepal, representing the British Army. We (hopefully) agree that if they choose to self-identify as British, that would be acceptable. But they clearly do not follow the standard of "born"/"raised in"; therefore there has to be another standard of nationality that we accept. A simple choice of identity and right to live/work/settle in a country is good enough for me to define nationality, but I can understand the need for a residency rule. I just hoped that people wouldn't still criticise someone's self-identity after passing the residency rule. It implies that first-generation immigrants can never consider themselves integrated into their new community.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It implies that first-generation immigrants can never consider themselves integrated into their new community.

No it doesn't - it just recognises that in sport there are factors extraneous to an individual's genuine sense of identity that will often encourage disingenuousness.

 

[Peat]

Maybe it's just me being a bleeding-heart liberal, but I recognise a person's national self-identity, even that of first-generation immigrants. If a person comes to live in England and chooses to identify as English, even as part of a dual-national identity, I have no problem with that. That's what I mean by, "who are we to say?" What gives anyone the right to pigeon-hole someone else's identity? I think the "born"/"raised in" standard of identity is outdated (although fairly popular, if the rise of UKIP is anything to go by) in the modern, mobile world. Is Englishness really as easily defined as a longitude and latitude of birth?

For example, there are currently ~3,640 active Gurkhas, recruited from Nepal, representing the British Army. We (hopefully) agree that if they choose to self-identify as British, that would be acceptable. But they clearly do not follow the standard of "born"/"raised in"; therefore there has to be another standard of nationality that we accept. A simple choice of identity is good enough for me, but I can understand the need for a residency rule. I just hoped that people wouldn't still criticise someone's self-identity after passing the residency rule.

Accepting people willing to kill and die for you =/= accepting people who want to further their career using your nationality as a convenience.

I am all for respecting the right to self-identity but that identity can only be something logical. I am not a black lesbian and neither is Nathan Hughes English. He's not even a first-generation immigrant who might choose to identify that way. He's a professional rugby player who's here as long as its convenient and three years is not long enough to prove otherwise.

If its solely about the right to self-identity, what have eligibility at all? Why can't I declare a deep and lasting affection and affinity for Hungary and declare myself available for selection? Or that I wish to seek to represent my ancestors of a thousand plus years ago and declare for Denmark? Clearly that would be ridiculous. Clearly there needs to be a line somewhere. And once we accept that, the debate is over where, and most people are of the opinion that three years is not enough.

 

[j'nuh]

No it doesn't - it just recognises that in sport there are factors extraneous to an individual's genuine sense of identity that will often encourage disingenuousness.

Assuming you are right about this, the burden of proof would still be on you to prove your accusation that Hughes is being disingenuous. A flat out ban on first-generation immigrants representing their country in order to weed out those being disingenuous with their identity is akin to throwing anyone suspected of a crime in jail. Why is Hughes being disingenuous?

That said, I do not think you are right about this, because I do not believe in a "genuine sense of identity". Identity is personal.

 

[Peat]

Assuming you are right about this, the burden of proof would still be on you to prove your accusation that Hughes is being disingenuous. A flat out ban on first-generation immigrants representing their country in order to weed out those being disingenuous with their identity is akin to throwing anyone suspected of a crime in jail. Why is Hughes being disingenuous?

That said, I do not think you are right about this, because I do not believe in a "genuine sense of identity". Identity is personal.

No one suggested that. There was more pride than complaining when Botha or Fourie pulled on the red rose. This is because they are different.

Please stop equating the case of Nathan Hughes, ex-Fiji A Captain and blatant mercenary, with the case for acceptance of first generation immigrants. It is appalling logic.

 

[91jmay]

Seven, actually.

- - - Updated - - -



And that's where we'll have to disagree.

I hold an individual responsible for own actions - Lancaster will go down severely in my reckoning if he selects him.

You can't just absolve people of any responsibility just because the situation allows for exploitation.

Hape was playing for New Zealand until 2007. Wasn't living here permanently and disingenuous to pretend he was.