- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,502
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Seriously? This is a matter of degree and not principle?
It certainly looks like the pot calling the bloody kettle black.
Calling Scotland embarrassing when all do the same (lesser degree, sure...)?
And how does this whole pride/embarrassment thing work, exactly? When Scotland does this, it's frowned upon. Gotcha.
But then we see Tuilagi say "heart and home is still Samoa" while representing England that's just astute from the RFU?
Mental stuff.
Bottom line is he's playing for England for the money, just as those in the list that play for Scotland. You wanna talk about pride and embarrassment? Start there.
Either it is right or wrong. Whether it's 1 or the entire squad is anecdotal at best.
This is a relevant and interesting question. We need to consider that the rules, whatever they might end up being, will have to be applied equally to ALL unions.
You get too strict with that and Samoa might have to field 14-year-olds because their best were developed elsewhere.
My take: it shouldn't, both for (my) moral and practical reasons. I'll skip you the moral shenanigans and address the practical stuff: if development is a criteria then rich countries have an even bigger pick of the lot at the expense of poorer nations/unions. That widens the already gargantuan gap between tier 1 and the rest.
Is that what you want? Try a veil of ignorance for a second and think about it.
I've mentioned it before but am still surprised when reminded. Ludicrous stuff.
Yes, it is about degree. When it is a few players, there may be genuine underlying reasons for the switch (national affiliation etc) rather than seeking a move for personal gain in your career. When it is the majority of the squad, the argument about genuine reasons for the switch such as national affiliation disappear. Instead we have a systematic system of nabbing players developed by others.
Not all are the same, I believe only Scotland and Wales have dedicated staff geared towards sifting through family trees and making contact with overseas players. I believe Scotland is the only union to have a dedicated age grade team (one only three at that age) based hundreds of miles from their border and exclusively filled with players with no residency status to do with Scotland. Why such hostility towards pointing out these irrefutable distinctions between the conduct of unions and drawing conclusions on the likely impact on domestic youth development in those countries?
Rugby is a sport of degrees. As I said in the refereeing thread, refs will let minor infractions go with a verbal warning but will issue penalties and cards where required. I think it is entirely sensible to apply the same logic to unions and applaud those investing in domestic development and the growth of rugby in their territory. Or do you consider every on field infraction should see the whistle blown (and if not, why not since you are man of principle?)
Maybe by space year 2070 Scotland too will be in that category, but for now we have the bizarre scene of a former England captain, who likely has never spent a consecutive week in Scotland before 2022, celebrating scoring a try against England. And we are meant to pass no comment on the transition of Scotsmen to ethnic minority status within the Scottish rugby squad?