So what if your parents emigrate when you're a kid, and you grow up with an attachment to your new home country? Should you be denied the opportunity to represent it just because you were born somewhere else?

Or someone who comes to Britain as a refugee, like say Mo Farah or Luol Deng? I'm sure they consider themselves to be as British as anyone born here.

The global population is much more mobile these days. A larger percentage of people are living in and growing up with an attachment to a country other than the one they were born in. Sporting eligibility rules need to reflect that.

I'm no fan however of people switching from one country to the other. Once you've decided which country you want to represent, stick with it.

Atkins has played well this season and would be worthy of a spit there's a out if rugby to be played yet and I'm.sure centres a position.that's still up for grabs.

If Hodgkinson gets picked over Gale then its an absolute disgrace, and show that SL is basically pointless
Gale is tearing it up in SL, Hodkinson is struggling in NRL

As for the Morris twin, they have both played for australia and therefore would play for australia if picked

There is a HUGE difference that you are forgetting
In the case of nearly all RU international teams, you have to PLAY in that country to be eligible (the major hold out being SA)
That means that any players from Aus or NZ who play for England in RU have officially given up their chance to play for their country anyway

In RL however Hodkinson or the Morris brothers could still be picked for Aus and we might get the embarrassing situation where a player pulls out of the Aus camp and they take someone that has said they wanted to play for us!

That is the big difference why I support picking Cuthbo and not these guys

Born here or qualify through residency for me. Although the not identifying with the team argument tends to fall down when you see how much one club mentality exists between RL supporters generally.

It doesn't work that way in RU, although some unions insist on international players actually playing in their home country (which I tend not to agree with).

There's no chance the Morris brothers would be eligible or willing to play for England. They are both still in the Origin frame and also possibly Australia (although down the pecking order now). I wouldn't have a problem with Hodkinson as he hasn't played for Australia. If he wants to play I also wouldn't bet against him and Widdopp being first choice halfbacks because they at least offer control and kicking games.

I'd be surprised if a few others don't come out of the woodwork under Bennett, but most of the pack will be English.

In any event what seems small time to me is the hand-wringing that goes on whenever the very idea is mentioned. Nothing screams little-Englander flat cap mentality more than insisting that England RL should not even apply the same rules as other sports have for years.

If Hodkinson is picked over Gale (or even Matty Smith for that matter!) I will not be watching

He is playing worse that a lot of Halfbacks in SL, he would only be picked on the grounds he was an NRL player, as there are plenty of Aussies who believe that virtually EVERY player in the NRL is better than virtually every player in SL

RL has different rules to virtually EVERY other sports
In MOST sports you can only play for one country

What people fear is you will get Aussies like Hodkinson who will probably not play origin again, never mind australia, who decide that they will play for England for a payday
If we play as the Aussie B team we will never beat them, thats just logic

To answer your opening question. Yes. If you are born in England and emigrate to Oz, you're English. The whole point of international sport is one country competing against another.

In 'MOST' sports there are eligibility and qualifying rules very similar to those in RL. Residency has been used a number of times for RU players who have played for one country to become eligible for another. There's even a helpful listing on Wikipedia. Not to mention could you get any less 'English' than Hape or Vainakolo?

In any event, who is actually suggesting someone who has played for Australia would be picked for England? The Morris twins won't be eligible never mind wanting to play for England, so who is being suggested in that vein? TBH I'm so desperate for England to compete that I wouldn't have a problem if they did, but I can't see it happen.

If Hodkinson wants to put up his hand he should be considered on merit, not because of his accent. He hasn't played for Australia. Doesn't mean Bennett will pick him. But no matter how bad his form, he at least has been playing in the NRL. That should and will be a major factor in Bennett's choice of team because the NRL is a higher standard. It really is that simple.

Suggestions of Bennett picking Australia B are hysterical cobblers. Most if not all of the pack will be genuine Englishmen by even the most inward-looking standards (if fit Burgess x 3, Graham, Hodgson, Whitehead and Cooper from the NRL) plus most of the backs. All I reckon we'll see is one or two players we might not be aware of putting their hands up for England. Bennett is huge on team unity, so the idea that he'll be trawling the NRL for a multitude of hacks and has-beens is ridiculous.

That's not actually the case - there have been times when certain countries (England included) have done this, but certainly Aus, NZ and SA don't do this anymore - they realised they were holding their players back and more importantly losing their best players from the international game, just to protect their own domestic competitions - it was never really about eligibility for the National sides.

In today's world, there needs to be things in place to allow free movement around the globe, and I'm quite happy with players choosing between their place of birth, adoptive country or even heritage country if it means that much to them - but I do feel there should be a 'pick and stick' rule to stop swapping around - but then that will make the weaker nations even weaker.

So maybe we should stick with tier 1 and tier 2 Countries, and players can be eligible for 1 tier 1, and 1 tier 2 Nation - that they can jump between - might as well get rid of the rules around number of years between switching allegiance.... That way if Anthony Milford as an example gets picked for Aus, he can play for them and earn the money on offer, if he isn't picked, or Somoa have a game when Aus don't, he can still play for them and make their team stronger, whilst getting the feeling of 'representing his family'....

It's a fine balancing act between having decent eligibility rules so that the essence of International fixtures isn't lost, and keeping the better players available for the smaller Nations so that they can remain competitive and build for a stronger International game.

Wow, some real mixed views on here. I believe that once your capped for a country, you then shouldn't be allowed to change, in that sense I wouldn't have a problem with Hodkinson, but the Morris twins are a no. How are they even potentially eligible, were they born over here when Steve was at Leeds?

Might be a grandparent in there somewhere, but both were born in Australia as was their Dad as far as I know.

That's all well & good as things stand right now, but what if Graham retires, Burgess x 2 & Whitehead are crocked, Hodgson & Cooper are woefully out of form. Would you be happy with drafting in 5 Aussie forwards (with a tenuous link to England) to join Burgess.

Unlike you, I am not that desperate.

The problem with loosening up any rules is not usually the effect it will have immediately, rather the unintended consequences down the line.

I think that you are probably correct across the board with that.

It's a shame that some people would prefer to stifle the development of say Don Manfredi or Tom Lineham simply because Brett Morris is (crazily) eligible for England. The fact is he's played for Oz, he's Australian, his parents are Australian, he shouldn't be eligible for England. He's only up for selection because he hasn't made the Kangaroos team for two years!

So under those rules I am not 'English' in a sporting sense - being born in Germany to English parents and then living in England for 27 of my 30 years (bar the first year in Germany, the last 8 months in Scotland and a year in France.

But conversely if my parents were both Australian, I was born in England and then went back to Australia and spent all of my life there, I would have more entitlement to play for England..?

I don't like the grandparent thing myself although I did once play junior RU with a guy who found out he had a Dutch grandparent. He was called up to play second row in a WC qualifier in 1998 - against England at Twickenham. He was scared sh**less. He managed to weasel out of it in the end which was just as well as England won 110-0 without breaking sweat.

Depends how you look at it, I have family in Aus and they all moved out in the late 60's but came back for a spell in the 70's. my cousins kids are all Aus born, one of my cousins was Aus born, but there parents are and grand parents are British born. Two of my cousins who both played league are eligible for Austrailia through birth, England through parents and philapeans through their mother. I think if you have a strong family history and affiaction to your uk ancestry then why not.

True, but I think if you're born in a country and your parents were born in a country and you lived all your life in a country then you should play sport for that country, not one a grandparent may have been born in.

You shunt even of been on this board .you should of been on the Jerry one.

Don't see it that way myself, it don't see why you can't consider yourself British by ancestry specially if two or more grandparents are, and Australian. What is more important for me is you pick a country when it comes to team selection and stick with it, I am sure we're are all sick of this swapping and changing sides and picking a home nation or Pacific team as a fall back option. International RL can only get stronger this way.

I don't actually have a problem with people swapping international teams under certain conditions. If you move residence and take up another nationality eventually I see no problem with then qualifying to okay sport for your adopted country.
My grandad was Born in Scotland but lived nearly all of his life (from being very young)in Leeds, my parents were born in Leeds, all my other Grandparents were born in Leeds etc. Me being able to represent Scotland at rugby just seems daft.

True. What hope does it give to aspiring fringe international players when they see there efforts blocked by mercenaries. I'd rather lose with English players than the embarrassment of only being able to compete by loading the team with Aussies.
Come on people, where's your bl**dy pride gone?

Ben Currie played for Ireland in the 2013 World Cup, do you flat earthers think he should not be selected for England too?

Personally I don't see the problem with having dual nationality and representing more than one nation. If your mums from Aus and dads from England for example. Or parents emigrate to Aus and you are brought up there. I could go through many more cases where it makes perfect sense for someone to have a passion and connection to more than one country, and would want to represent either given the opportunity.

The islanders living in NZ and Aus are good examples - they've lived in Aus/NZ most of, if not all of their lives, but they live in Samoan/Tongan communities, living by their traditional values, often with religion involved, with lots of family still back in the country of their heritage.... Whilst they're Australian citizens, they also have a deep tie to their heritage country - this is why, although in principle id like to see pick and stick, I can understand the benefits of almost being dual reg to a second country from the next tier down.