That's the decision you have to make

I got a puppy last year and his kennel club name is Kearney Manu, we call him Manu for short, hope he stays for the sake of my little dog ... lol

No, you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of fair. Here's a definition; free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. Picking out a particular group of players for different treatment shows bias, and arguably injustice to those excluded. It is not at all 'fair' to the players in question, it's a favourable decision not to apply the rules.



I'd agree with a change on eligibility, it's a farce, but your suggestion is simply not an option as far as I'm concerned. Your argument also has no logic to it whatsoever. You're saying you want the RFL to grant dispensation to foreign players as a way to force the RFL's hand on their selection policy. That directly contradicts itself.



Actually, I was pointing out the ridiculousness of what you're saying. You're suggesting changing the non-fed/quota status of a player based upon which international team they play for, so by definition that's exactly the same level of silliness as me doing likewise.

Is it fair that all England internationals can move freely within SL while Widdop, Reed, Heighington & Chase can't?


No, I want them to realise the ridiculousness of the situation and change it beforehand.


They're not the same at all. I'm suggesting dispensation to a few, you're suggesting re-classifying plenty.

At what point do these non fed get dispensation then? Is it only the elite who turn their backs on their country of birth/place they grew up and played their first rugby, because they're not good enough to hold down a place in their own national side or can any player who announces he wants to play for England join in? What about Scottish/Irish/Welsh internationals? CAn they get your special dispensation too? You don't have a msters degree in ambulance chasing by any chance do you?

For Widdop and Reed, there's [imaybe[/i a case that it's not. For Heighington and Chase, absolutely. For all of them, there are a set of rules in place, and what's FAIR is to apply them to everyone.



So why make a nonsensical suggestion to try and make a strange point, instead of just saying they shouldn't have been picked in the first place?



The point I'm making is that I don't think it would be possible to apply to the few you think, it would more likely the plenty. I suspect there'd be legal grounds for players not granted the same dispensation as Chase and Heighington, just because they weren't granted selection by one man. It would be open house again.

My point exactly. My way of reading it (I've asked for clarity, but none has been forthcoming) is that easthullfcfan is saying that once a player is actually picked for England, that is the point at which they should be given dispensation. I just couldn't see that not being challenged, it would end up being all those who are eligible, which would be a huge backwards step.

England internationals only.
If it was still GB then the question around Scottish/Wales/Irish would be relevant, but as they are now separate and not under RFL control, then no.

Why is there maybe a case for Widdop or Reed? That wouldn't be fair.


I have said that, but apparently that wasn't good enough either. Go figure.


Ridiculous eh? But only fair IMO. You can't justify an England international not being afforded the same freedoms because of country of birth.

Because they were actually born here. Personally, I'd still apply the rules.



Who said it wasn't good enough? What you should have done is stop there, rather than come out with a ridiculous suggestion that almost certainly can't be implemented. BTW, you do also realise that you're effectively suggesting to put Steve McNamara in charge of the quota/non-fed status of SL imports, don't you?



I have come to the conclusion that either you or I truly don't have an understanding of 'fair'. And I'm reasonably sure it's not me.

Has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Exactly why I'd rather we changed eligibility, another thing I've said numerous times.

So you think one England international being treated differently to another is fair? You keep trying to prove you're right.


ATEOTD it's all down to the fact Chase shouldn't have been picked in the first place.

Which is why I said I'd still apply the rules, I was just saying there's maybe different grounds, and I'd understand more why people would argue for it.



Within the confines of playing for England, no. In a completely different set of circumstances, which is what you're saying, yes. Which country a player represents at international level is not and should not be an influence on how they are treated at SL level, just as the sheer fact of their international status is/should not be either.



I completely agree with that.

Should all this really be in the rumours thread? It's a debate not a rumour.

Fair point, apologies, I'll leave it alone now.

Yep, me too.

Tah

I don't think he's first choice at Canterbury or not, but Keating is pretty decent at 7 for them. If he's usually a back up, would he be worth considering? From the games I've seen him play in, he looks pretty good. Perhaps Sheldon or someone else who watches alot more of the NRL could shed some light on him?

No, he is first choice for them.

The news that Bradford are still heading for financial meltdown will surely increase the likelyhood that a cash offer for any player would be accepted.

Manuokafoa and Burgess would be two that I would look straight at. Prop is where we'll likely need to strengthen and both could be very good.

If we could tempt Bradford with an offer for Bateman I'd let Tickle go to Widnes now.

That's ridiculous. Tickle is a key member of our team.

It's inconsiderate when they leave after you've named a pet after them, innit?

He'll be gone next year anyway, Tickle for one more year or Bateman for four or five? I know which I'd prefer.