I think all England players should be able to move freely within Super League. I also don't think players like Widdop and Reed should face similar constraints should they come to super league, just because their parents decided to emigrate.
The problem is that he shouldn't have played for England in the first place, but I don't see why he should be treat any different to any other England international, especially when these rules were put in place to help the England team, it all seems rather pointless.

But that doesn't answer my question, why is it 'fair'? Are you saying it is 'fair' to give dispensation to everyone who wishes to be considered for selection (which become even more farcical), or 'fair' to only dispensate those who are succesfully picked (which is a very unusual view of fair IMO).

And the rules were introduced to encourage the production of young players in larger quantities to increase the talent pool, not to take advantage of pinching other countries' cast-offs where we can and adjust the rules so that their parent clubs can go out and find more.

Another point: If the RFL are to give Chase dispensation from non-fed status, should they also foist it upon Harrison Hansen because he's chosen not to represent England even though he has fairly and squarely met the requirements?

So if Jack Reed or Gareth Widdop were to sign for a SL club they wouldn't count on the quota but would count as non-fed? (although as Widdop emigrated during his teens he may have played some rugby over here, too).

Unless the RFL viewed them as special cases, I believe so. IIRC, the same point was made about Martin Gleeson when the rules were first introduced, which was especially strange given that his brother would have been fine.

As I've said numerous times, I think it's fair that all England players should be able to move freely within SL without constraints. That would mean discretionary dispensation, yes. Which in turn would hopefully make the RFL change it's use of the international rules.



The Quota/Non-fed has nothing to do with us taking advantage of other countries' cast offs. That's down to the international rules that allow that to happen, which damages us more, IMO.

Why would they be special cases and not Chase though? Place of birth means nothing to these regulations.

Which is why it would be a 'special case' as it's slightly bending the regulations....



This is all hypothetical, anyway, none of us know what the RFL would do if that situation arose.

Ah, so when you say 'fair', what you really mean is 'not fair in the slightest, but helpful to the England national team'. Whilst simultaneously criticising the RFL for playing to the same rules as the Antipodeans. Nice use of double standards, there.



At present, no it doesn't, but with your suggestion it would, as you're proposing an almost direct link between England eligibility and fed-trained status. Given that anyone is available to play for England if they've lived here long enough, it would just open the doorway again to overseas players coming to SL in greater numbers. If you can't see that you've really not thought your argument through properly.



About as silly as what you're suggesting, really. I wonder if that's why I posted it?

I didn't say that they would/should.

Why? The two competitions aren't even overseen by the same ruling body. They're entirely separate.

You don't seem to be able to grasp what I'm saying. I think it's only fair that the England international in question should be able to move freely within SL without constraints (you seem to think I mean fair to everyone, I don't). How on earth is that then 'helpful to the national team'? They don't even come into it!


Of course I can see that. Hence why I put in my last post that I'd hope that meant a change in policy fom the RFL on eligibility.


It's really not though, is it? It's a pathetic attempt to undermine what I'm saying. In reality it makes you look petulant.

While hypothetical (and O/T, I know), Widdop or Reed coming to SL would put the RFL in a difficult position. Don't give them dispensation and there'll be howls of derision that they were born here and play for England. Born partly of misunderstanding, but the RFL has been complicit in creating that confusion. Give them dispensation and the already very wobbly rule looks even weaker.

They've overcomplicated, IMO. And been too ambitious, if protectionism can ever be described as ambitious. I know RL is nowhere near as international a sport as football or even RU but it feels like we're swimming against the tide, even so. However, poverty should work where policy has failed.

Spot on.
I find it hard to believe that an England player can find himself on one of these lists, but I understand that's because of the rules of eligibility. I think the RFL are two-faced in letting somebody represent them, yet keep them on the non-fed list.
Either change the way we view eligibility, or give these guys discretionary dispensation. My preference is the former.
The RFL really don't help themselves.

Fairness is nice. But also subjective, trumped by necessity, and generally unobtainable.

The question isn't 'are the rules fair', it is 'are they as fair as possible while still coming somewhere near to achieving their aim'.



Looking at it that way round, picking Chase was bizarre in light of the non-fed rule. An example of trying to have your cake and eat it. England RU have no problem picking Kiwis and South Africans, but they don't have an equivalent of non-fed for their clubs.

For simplicity, I'd scrap either the quota rule or the non-fed. Quota has the advantage of being legal in fact and spirit, but it is leaky. Non-fed has better coverage, but is difficult to enforce rigorously. Without going completely laissez faire, either:

Quota of 2/3, and accept all those overseas players with a legal right to work here.
Non-fed of 5, but a legal right to work here is really irrelevant, even if you were born in Utley.

Any news on Manu yet? Getting a new puppy soon and I wanted to call it Willie, but there's no point if he's leaving.