I think it's great news, good for competition for places and good for all aspiring young English players to have a real talent to look up to. I hope he starts every game.

Hopefully not as he is not eligible to play for England.

a perfect example of what I was talking about: regardless of the actual rules, we habe a poster declaring that Chase should't be able to represent his country of residence, Cherry-Evans shouldn't be able to represent the country of his birth, Heighington should't be able to represent the land of his fathers. And because they can, and might possibly do do (or not) - against his personal definition of whether someone is properly English or not - an England win would be meaningless. Tell me that doesn't display a degree of narrow mindedness or arrogance ...

he's completed his 3rd season (3 years) 2009,2010 & 2011....he's eligible

northernsportsreport.wordpress.c ... by-league/ Can you read this and give me your thoughts?

northernsportsreport.wordpress.c ... by-league/ Can you read this and give me your thoughts?

no......

no laws where bent or broken to select him

Missing the point entirely. I'm not arguing that these players are not within their rights or the rules to play for whoever they want, and on any basis you mention. I'm questioning the selection of these players ahead of homegrown talent, that we've invested lots of time and money in, and who won't get the chance at the top level despite McNamara coming into the job talking about development of world class athletes, and opportunities to play at the highest level.

If I'm being narrow minded, enlighten me as to how selecting any of these players helps us develop kids here.

Surely only two things matter when selecting a team. Are they available, are they good enough. The answer to both in Chase's case is yes. It would be stupid not to select him.

I didn't even mention the possibility of rules being bent or broken

So by your logic, George Burgess is suddenly Australian. Like i've said, it be intetresting to see peoples opinions if Burgess, Ellis etc decided to play for Australia. As yet no one has answered me.

Where do we stop with selecting New Zealanders & Aussies for England. What about if Michael Dobson, Michael Monoghan suddenly say they want to represent England because they want to sample a test match.

Call me archaic, but why can't it be as simple as;

Being born on a bit of land which is considered a country and has a name. (i.e., England)

or

having parents which at least one of them were born on a bit of land which is considered a country and has a name (i.e., England)

and if the two don't apply, you're not eligible to play for representative sports teams of that bit of land.

Of course, nations are a merely construct, as are identities (multifaceted and dynamic as they are). But what's wrong with a bit of empiricism now and then?

What do Burgess and Co have to do with this. I'm not Australian so why would it bother me. Granted I'd be disappointed if they were good enough, same as if Reed had decided to play Origin.

Mona, Dobson if they want to play and are good enough get them in the side.

If they decided they wanted to play for Australia, so be it. It's their decision and the rules allow that to be made, whether that's rugby league, football, cricket, rugby union.

It's the typical rugby league 'woe is me' naval gazing. The issue is why English players aren't be developed better than Chase (if, indeed, he makes the final squad) and having a go at Chase, or indeed McNamara, isn't the issue. Why do clubs sign garbage like Korkidas instead of developing their own?

Man chooses to represent country he's made his home rather than where he was born. If a young English born player is good enough to be selected, he will be. Simple

Is that the same Rangi Chase that played for the Exiles

Now then Tom Carlisle - budding sports journalist - have you created a brand new thread and ignored to on-going Rangi thread just to promote your site?

Tut tut.