I'm not even going to try and reason with someone who thinks that Dean Sampson was international class

Interesting, but at least your opinion avoids confusion!
You might come up against opposition from people like me, born overseas to two English parents who were working abroad but returned to England at 4 months old, in your system I'm not English which is ridiculous. I agree though that once you have selected a nationality, you shoouldn't be able to change this (though let's remember Chase never actually played for New Zealand).

But what about when he does, will he be English then?

That's where the problem is for me. The only way to be consistant is stick to the country of birth. I've not watched an international since Maurie Fa'asavalu played for England in 2007. The international game has become irrelvant to me and has no meaning what so ever. How can you relate to players who have represented more than one country or a country that they have lived in for 3 years?

No, he'll be a British national but that debate should only come about when he actually has a passport.

How is he recognised in the eyes of the law (not the IRB, SL or NRL) right this moment?

So I'm not English?

Not English that's for sure! I can see both sides of the argument, but I certainly don't think you can stop someone with a British passport, who has not played for another country, from playing for England, which will be the case with Chase in a couple of years.

And I realise that my preferred system would penalise genunine people like yourself, but would hope that over time would bring more credibility to our game than the current rules. I could live with the rules saying that players must have lived permanently in that country since the age of 3 for example, but people would then argue for a different age limit. Therefore, I believe the best system would be the country of birth, and whilst it would penalise a minority, it would prevent players like Fa'asavalu, Chase, Brough, Heighington etc making a mockery of our sport.

As for Chase, he may not have played for New Zealand, but it was only recently that he stated his desire to, and I'm in no doubt that had he been selected he would have been lining up for them over the last month.

Ah, the acceptable penalisation of the minority for the benefit of the majority. Tell me where I've heard that one before.......holocaust....apartheid.....treatment of black Americans.....etc etc etc.
Idiot.

So you're happy the Chase is representing England?

Of course you would. We'll never know who's right, will we?

I accept it, as he fulfils the criteria set and hasn't played for another country.
Though I would have rather he had a month's more rest ready for next season!

And I'd rather him play every weekend ready for next season!