[November Tests 2016 EOYT] England vs. Fiji (19/11/2016)

[Every Time Ref]

Yes the rules are what they are, but it doesn't stop them from stinking and of need of change, nothing against Hughes personally, but yes it just doesn't feel right that he's lining up against the country of his birth where he was vice captain of the A side.

Yep agreed

I wonder if he will do a Stander (when he knocked out Lambie with his big behind) and go a bit over the top just to prove he is now an England player, if indeed he plays/starts.

Or maybe:

 

[spartan32]

I think it's pretty tough for Islanders. Their unions are so poor and all the talent has to play abroad. Hughes life is in England, and probably will be for many many years to come. His wife's here and his kids will be raised here. The UK by it's very nature is now a cultural melting pot and we are much then better for it. Why should our national sports teams not reflect this? The world is now a different place. Home is no longer your place of birth. It is where you choose to make it. Hughes has decided on England. And why wouldn't he? It's a bloody great place. So I welcome him and all the skills he can bring to our game. Who knows. Maybe we can at last get a England team who can offload in the tackle?!

 

[ncurd]

Could be two Fijian born players in this game in the form of Hughes and Rokoduguni. Although in the case of Roko I do wonder if anyone can justify how a Recce Tank Soldier in the British Army can't play for any of home nations. I bet some do say it

 

[Peat]

Could be two Fijian born players in this game in the form of Hughes and Rokoduguni. Although in the case of Roko I do wonder if anyone can justify how a Recce Tank Soldier in the British Army can't play for any of home nations. I bet some do say it

Don't think his job should come into it one way or t'other tbh. I mean, emotionally it does add an oomph, but logically it should be one set of rules for everyone and if you believe in no qualification by residency as an adult, then you would be against Rokoduguni playing for England.

Which is a pretty extreme position imo, but one I've seen advocated from time to time. (That's a hypothetical you, not directed at you btw).

 

[McTallshort]

Don't think his job should come into it one way or t'other tbh. I mean, emotionally it does add an oomph, but logically it should be one set of rules for everyone and if you believe in no qualification by residency as an adult, then you would be against Rokoduguni playing for England.

Which is a pretty extreme position imo, but one I've seen advocated from time to time. (That's a hypothetical you, not directed at you btw).

Obviously serving in the armed forces is more of a justification than playing a few years at Wasps, Sorry but it is.

 

[ncurd]

Interesting point, afterall a bugbear of mine is the way we place all armed forces personnel on some kind of pedestal. Not trying to diminish the contribution they do make but part of national psyche does seem to be if you served therefore you're beyond reproach as a human being.

So yes there's an arguement should you qualify because you just did your job. However there's another element to that where he did serve our countries interests (I use defend very lightly in regard to modern wars, not soldier fault) and was willing to put himself in a situation where could conceivably be killed for it. That has to qualify him in some regard to represent Britain in other ways surely? Police, Fire Brigade and the Ambulance Service contiinually put themselves into dangerous (and yes sometimes life threatening situations).

However then it starts shifting, do we extend that to the intelligence agencies SS, SIS, GCHQ etc.? Just field agents or desk people? Okay we've added the civil service in then does that includes everyoneeven those working at the job center? What about manufacturers of equipment HMGCC? Private companies that build this stuff?

Okay I'm running at the mouth here a little but it is a can of worms once you start saying it's enough to qualify you. However I think it does even if it is sentimental just that possibly others deserve it to.

 

[McTallshort]

Interesting point, afterall a bugbear of mine is the way we place all armed forces personnel on some kind of pedestal. Not trying to diminish the contribution they do make but part of national psyche does seem to be if you served therefore you're beyond reproach as a human being.

So yes there's an arguement should you qualify because you just did your job. However there's another element to that where he did serve our countries interests (I use defend very lightly in regard to modern wars, not soldier fault) and was willing to put himself in a situation where could conceivably be killed for it. That has to qualify him in some regard to represent Britain in other ways surely? Police, Fire Brigade and the Ambulance Service contiinually put themselves into dangerous (and yes sometimes life threatening situations).

However then it starts shifting, do we extend that to the intelligence agencies SS, SIS, GCHQ etc.? Just field agents or desk people? Okay we've added the civil service in then does that includes everyoneeven those working at the job center? What about manufacturers of equipment HMGCC? Private companies that build this stuff?

Okay I'm running at the mouth here a little but it is a can of worms once you start saying it's enough to qualify you. However I think it does even if it is sentimental just that possibly others deserve it to.

How are we saying that about Roko? Also if someone from Fiji served in the Police/Fire brigade/Paramedic then yes some rules apply but the risk to life is still less than serving in Afghanistan and its a good job they are willing to put themselves in that situation because many others wouldn't.

 

[spartan32]

If someone wants to play for England, why does it matter where they come from, really? Once you've played you can never represent anyone else, so you are putting your all behind that team. It should be taken as a huge compliment that men from other countries would choose to play for us over there country of birth. And before people start moaning about "foreigners coming over here, taking our jobs" etc etc. If England born players aren't as good, then they need to get better, and that can only lead to a stronger National team and that can only be a good thing. I don't care who represents my team, as long as they give it 100% on the pitch and do the country proud.

If I'm honest the people who should be dead against it are the smaller countries who lose their most talented players. How many islanders play for other countries for example? But it's always going to be tough when there is such huge financial disparities between rugby nations.

I for one welcome Hughes, Roko, the Vunipolas, Hartley and others who, having been lead by another bloody foreigner, have turned England into a force to be reckoned with, and make it even easier to be a proud Englishman.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Don't think anyone in here is questioning foreign players playing for England.
Guys like the Vunipolas, Hartley et al. are all products of the English rugby systems.

Te'o is a product of the Aussie rugby league system, represented Samoa internationally and then learnt his Union in Ireland.
Hughes is a product of the NZ system and represented Fiji internationally. Weirdly he turned down a chance to play for NZ 7s to represent Fiji, then turned down an opportunity to play for Fiji in the world cup to wait to qualify for England.

If International rugby is just about which country you'd rather play for then abolish it and just have club rugby, cause it won't mean **** all.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Personally I'm fine with T'eo his mum was English and therefore whilst not perfect I cant see how you can change that IMO.

Hughes yeh IMO shouldn't be near England team.

Roko fine with Bath was his first club and has been based in England or for our army for a while now.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Personally I'm fine with T'eo his mum was English and therefore whilst not perfect I cant see how you can change that IMO.

Hughes yeh IMO shouldn't be near England team.

Roko fine with Bath was his first club and has been based in England or for our army for a while now.

See I really can't understand why people are ok with Te'o who's only lived here for what, 4 months? Playing for us, just because his mum was English, yet Hughes who has actually lived here himself for 3 years is a no go. I see him as much less of a merc than Te'o.

I think we can all agree that any man who has put his life on the line for a country deserves to play for that country. Roko is fine.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Did anyone read the article on Hughes. Basically he states that the only reason he is playing for England is financial security for his family.

To me that's no way near enough

 

[Aristodemus]

Te'o and Hughes are both mercs and yeah I share the opinion that Hughes is more deserving of an England shirt than someone who has only just set foot in the country. Regardless of where his mum was born.

I think you should have to have been a resident of the country before you were 18 and lived here a minimum of 5 years. That would go a long way to stopping this current trend although I suspect the unions who are actively seeking talent would just start making offers to players under 18.

Edit: I'm not suggesting England actively seek mercs, but some are doing.

 

[McTallshort]

Did anyone read the article on Hughes. Basically he states that the only reason he is playing for England is financial security for his family.

To me that's no way near enough

Economic migration my friend. Nothing wrong with it, many people do it, but it is makes me uncomfortable seeing his an Te'o's name on the team sheet

 

[ratsapprentice]

It's fine in other contexts - it's not about employment, it's about representation.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

It's fine in other contexts - it's not about employment, it's about representation.

Dam straight. Playing for England is not a job, it's a privilege.

People forget that. Playing for wasps is Hughes' employed for financial security. Playing for England is something he does not deserve.

 

[McTallshort]

Dam straight. Playing for England is not a job, it's a privilege.

People forget that. Playing for wasps is Hughes' employed for financial security. Playing for England is something he does not deserve.

Well there is a can of worms. Are we saying only English born players have the privilege to play for England?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Well there is a can of worms. Are we saying only English born players have the privilege to play for England?

No, but the mechanisms that decide upon eligibility should be stringent enough to filter out obvious "mercenaries"*.

* Specifically - people who would, finances/club employment not being a factor, choose to play for a different country.

 

[Peat]

Rats has picked the magic word for me. Representation. Every England player should be in some way representative of us as a people, our way of life and institutions and so on. I don't care whether their dad was born half the world away or is descended from Hengist and Horsa, as long as there's some legitimate claim we're good.

I don't think Nathan Hughes has a legitimate claim. Not at this point.

I think Ben Te'o has an unquestionably legitimate claim but I get the feeling he's using it more for convenience than because it means something to him.

I'm not too fussed about either of these things. I don't mind a few guys here and there and no system is perfect. It should be better when it comes to players like Hughes but there we go. Its not like we've got the Qatar Olympic team or something. But I get why some don't like it, even if the amount some people harp on about it makes me hope Hughes is fantastic just to troll them.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

So
Ewels
Harrison
Goode
Roko
Slade
Kept

Attwood
Genge
Haley
Loz
Morgan
Wood
Taylor
Yarde
Released back to clubs.