Every sport, the eligibility rules are the same, it just happens that in Britain it falls 2 years before you can become a citizen.

Look at Tuilagi in Union, he was struggling to get a visa at the start of the year, now he's an England international!

What?

What?

When did I....what???

Why not wait til he does that then?

Gronk, learn the meaning of racism lad! Or should every national team / institution be labelled racist? What an idiotic comment.

Gronk both Chase and all you Cas fans were wishing he'd get in the NZ squad last week yet now your championing his England inclusion... Do you not feel a bit silly with that no?

Not got anything against him wanting to be a citizen and he'll cross that bridge in 2 years or so but he was all Kiwi 3 months back!

Because the rules state that you can play for a country after you have lived in that nation for 3 years





I don't see every institution/national team trying to oust somebody who wants to represent them - and is legally allowed to do so just because he wasn't born in the country. Legally, he is English because that is what the rule makes him, on residency grounds.



He's certainly good enough to get in the Kiwi squad, he's a far superior player to Thomas Leuluai. But I would much rather have Chase playing for England and in fact I've said it in numerous posts on here BEFORE Chase joined the squad, it's New Zealand's loss and England's gain.

Every sport?
FIFA tells me: "1. Any player who is a naturalised citizen of a country in virtue of that country's laws shall be eligible to play for a national or representative team of that country." That would mean Chase is ineligible for England at football, but is in RL. How does that work then?

Even all the Saffas in the England cricket team have British passports and family.

Just had to highlight that bit - I would have Leuluai before Chase at Hull FC

He is a cracking player

If Chase had stated 12 months ago 'I want to be English' fair enough but I'm not going to act like he's Winston Churchill now he's decided it's his one shot at international rugby ATM. Again that's my one major issue and why laughable he's being held as a martyr!

Seem's I'm blaming Chase a bit, but I don't really but all these patriotic comments are taking the pi$$ a little bit tbh. Be better if he kept his head down and did his bit being a top class RL player.

Because citizenship, residency and sporting elegibility rules are different things.

What utter rubbish. Surely being fecking English comes before being 'the best'? Unbelievable how so many people are just swallowing this - it's shambolic. How the hell does omitting our best young products from the international game, in favour of an Aussie or Kiwi help our game long term? Unless you're happy to see a none English team running around in 10 years time? Maybe that's what you want?!

Where would Moz be, and Tomkins, and Briscoe, and Burgess etc etc had they been denied the chance to play for their country by some kid who regardless of the rules, is an Aussie, Kiwi, or whatever? The rules are a joke, and the fact they do it in cricket and union simply doesn't come into it. Same applies to Fijians playing for Aus etc. so this isn't a crusade against Chase. I felt the same about Fa'assavalu, Withers and Tollett - and he was born here. My mate was born in Oldham but moved down under at 2 weeks old - suppose that makes him an Oldham lad?

Awful precedent to set.

I cannot understand, for the life of me, why people hold such ridiculously entrenched views on this subject. When you think about it, it's not even all that controversial any-more. But it seems that some people want to stick to some quixotic, and incredibly naive, version of what they think international sport is meant to represent.

The laughable thing is that people can’t even be consistent with it, and make their own exceptions for one player and not another. If you are going to be puritanical then, at least, be consistent. International sport is either:

1) A showcase, which is purely and exclusively for the homegrown talent. (That is players born here, coached here and both playing and contributing to the sport here and resident here).

Or

2) It is there simply to represent us all even by, if felt necessary, people who also may come from different backgrounds and have skills learned elsewhere, but are legally eligible and want to represent an adopted country. (Which is the case, or the 3-year residency law would not be in place)

If it is #1 (and the reality is that it isn’t) then neither Widdop or Reid should be selected. They were both brought to pro standard via the Australian youth system and neither of them have played a single game in the ESL and don’t even reside in the country that they want to play for. Therefore, if you agree to these players being in the England set up, you can only believe in option #2. Thus there can be no argument against Rangi Chase also being allowed to play for England.

Anything else is either an irrational ideal or racist. The majority of people who are against Rangi Chase do seem to be more irrational that racist though - Thank God

Look, the lad wants to play for England, he is legally allowed to do so, the England coach wants him and he's better than anything we have. The national side has been a joke for years, with all the depth of a puddle in Saudi Arabia, and he fills a position we have struggled for quality in for years. If he makes England that little bit better (and he will) and gets us closer to the likes of Australia and NZ, then we should be all for it. There is also a bigger picture here too.

Personally, I'm genuinely excited at the thought of having a quality, match-changing player, such as Rangi Chase pulling on an England shirt. Far, far more than I was when Messrs Brown and Robinson did.

How is it even closely racist to want England citizens to play for England.

I support England because I am English and want to see English lads / ladies represent our country at any sporting level. Would I feel 'represented' by Rangi Chase? No.

If you 'want to see best players no matter were born etc' isn't that what the club games for? Even the exiles game!

No one can deny that it is exciting to have all 3 MOS contenders in the England team.

You might not feel represented by Rangi, but what about those who have migrated here to start a new and better life, who contribute to this country, who plan on throwing down permanent roots here and who are proud to now call themselves English? Are they not allowed to have a role model whom they can identify with within the English team because you and others have what can be seen as a xenophobic attitude?

Although I am not a huge fan of the residency criteria rule which is allowed in RL among other sports I an not keen on this whole "english rugby league for english born players only" shout from some people.

It might not be racist but I am not comfortable with it at all. Even if you do not like the choice Rangi has made, you should still support him if you are an england fan.

Rangi has come over to the UK, contributes to society, pays taxes and entertains fans every week. He is not some kind of johnny foreigner as some people call him.

I'm not saying you are racist. You have a naive and wrong-headed view of what international sports represents, in it's current form. You are clearly not alone in that. You have also ignored and failed to address what has been written, by me, in that post.

The guy came here as a pro RL player and is still that. It's not like he cane from nothing.

My point this 'I want to be English' attitude has cone about this last week (no mention when signed new deal?) and he was desperate for Kiwi chance, didn't get it now we jump in and act like he's a martyr.

As I say if he wants to become a citizen and withdraw from exile selections until then fair enough. Who does he play for in that next year?

How can it be xenophobic? I have no issue with him living, playing here whatsoever. It's a delight tbh. Issue is representing England RL that's the ONLY issue, period. Talk of racism / xenophobia is just people who can't really fight the actual point.

Personally I'd prefer it to be citizenship (can still qualify from living here etc). How can I guy whose played 3 seasons here and probably every off season back home rightly qualify? 28/30 months?

As i've also said if Chase had stated his intent start of the year at least fair play but fact is it's a new thing after not gaining Kiwi selection.

No, qualifying for England comes before being the best. He qualifies.

Precedent? You clearly have no clue what that word means. National eligibility rules are not the subject of common law so no precedent can be set. Even if it were, Chase isn't the first player to represent England under these rules so he can't have set a precedent.

This is meaningless, Joey


There is no way on Earth that you can know that for sure. Only predudice can draw you to such a conclusion, without full knowledge.


England


No it is not. It could very easily be based on racism, very easily. I don't actually think it is though. Not from what I have read here, anyway.

I'll take #1 any day, and it's not racist, old skool, or narrow minded to hold that opinion. Simply because some people disagree with the direction the international game is heading, doesn't make us any more entrenched than you are in your opinion. Neither does it mean we're being down on the game.

Bottom line is, it prevents a player who should otherwise get the opportunity from getting it. That's bad news for his development, and given he's probably represented England at junior level for a few years - and who know's even beaten the Aussies in a test series! - probably leaves him feeling a bit dejected. Or is the idea that they should be motivated?

Spot on that man/woman.

Where do you draw the line with these things? Some saying it would be OK if he was a citizen, others if he has parents, others grandparents, others he has to be born on English soil. Plenty of qualifying Aussie and NZ players over here that don't have a chance of getting into their national team who don't want to play for England, although they may well be good enough. Rangi WANTS to play and is eligable. That will do for me. You get English players born and bred who put club before country whereas Rangi is saying "I want it"

Your opinion is based on your misguided whim. It is a whim which you desperately cling to, despite all the evidence which shows that your ideal situation is wrong and doesn't exist anywhere in Pro team sport. That is an entrenched view.

My view is based on the laws of international sport. Therefore, the logical view, which you cannot accept.

It can be seen as xenophobic because you only want English born athletes playing for England. You and others don't want Rangi to represent England just because he was born elsewhere. Therein lies what can be seen to be xenophobia. You want to deny him the ability to represent England even though he is just as English as the rest of us because he lives here, works here, pays his taxes etc etc. Despite him being just as eligible as all other English athletes to play you want to prevent him because you see him as different. That is how it can be seen to be xenophobic. National identity or the eligibility to represent a nation is far more complex than just being born in a country.