Yes. Yes you can. And many do. I have considered it myself.

Harrison Hansen is a case in point. Born in Salford (poor lad), qualified for NZ and England through his dual nationality and Samoa through ancestry.


I think there's a growing consensus that scrapping GB was a mistake which has had consequences that nobody in charge of the decision really thought through at the time.

I'm beginning to repeat what I wrote in the first place and hate to bore people. It's emotive, far from straightforward and there are levels of nuance everywhere - that's the main thing I've been driving at.

I'd rather see Ablett and Houghton play for England over Heighington and Henderson for a number of obvious reasons.

Thats they're better?

That's one.

In my opinion Steve McNamara lost credibility when selecting Manu for his first train on squad. Manu eventually went on to play for the exiles.
The whole selection criteria needs to be changed, get rid of the "plastic poms" and give support and encouragement to those who genuinely want to represent their country and not just because that they cannot get into their own national team. E.G Chase is never going to play for the Kiwis as long as Benji Marshall can move aroung the pitch on a zimmer frame.
Why should not League take a lead and set an example to other sports such as Union and Cricket?

And that is where tightening up on other concerns would need to follow up. It's all one big mess and I feel we need to start somewhere. If there aren't 17 players from a given country who are eager to play RL then so be it, other promotional angles need looking at, not cobbling together a team of mercenary journeymen.

Key issue for me remains whether the player really identifies themself as being of that nationality (even if it's one of several they identify with) and doesn't just feel like they have a better chance of getting a game.

Now, who wants to set about proving that (for example) Rangi Chase doesn't fit this criteria?

You shouldn't, in my opinion, ban people from switching allegiance. If somebody becomes a citizen of a country, feels that country is their home, then why on earth would they want to represent anyone else? It would sit strangely with an immigration policy based on integration. "Please, don't just sit in enclaves of fellow national migrants - integrate, mingle, contribute to our society. Oh, you can't join in with our sports teams though. Sorry."

My argument is that Rangi was happy to represent NZ Maori and spoke out that he wants to wear the Black and White internationally mere months before he was called up for England. He should not then be allowed to change his allegiance. This is not a social experiment, this in international sport.

So how does Tony Smith fit into these convenient little Englander boxes? He's a UK citizen. He holds a UK passport. He has settled in the UK with his family. So is he British, Australian or both?

This was less than 4 months before Chase decided to play for England.

[i"Hopefully, I'll end up playing. This game could help me play for New Zealand. That's my goal to wear the black and white of my country.

"It's a dream of mine since I was a little kid. If I play well [in Leeds I might get a crack."[/i


[urlhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/warriors-league-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=360&objectid=10730389[/url

The smith arguement is a non starter as its a different criteria from playing. A player should play for one country only. He should be eligable for the country of his, his parents or grandparents birth. If he gets citizenship of a country before representing another fine. But the likes of chase and carroll are a disgrace.

Doesn't matter really who Banana picks.
England are a poor 3rd behind NZ and Aus, and that's not going to change for a long time.

Is that the same NZ that England have consistently beaten on home soil in recent years?