I think he left when he was about 14. He was born & brought up in Yorkshire so he can play for England. (England is but a small subsidiary part of Yorkshire anyway)

Quota rules might be interesting. All his junior rugby from age 6-14 was in England. His rugby from 14 until now is in Australia.
Federation trained? non federation trained? Quota?

in the last line of his post he's saying exactly that, to quote(again) "Widdop has emigrated to Australia as a kid, if he feels that "English" maybe he should move back "home" and play for Castleford or Widnes"

fwiw i completely agree with the rest of his post, but widdop moved there when he was 16 and to say he's an ozzie because's he's lived there for the last 7 of his 23 years on this earth is like saying rangi chase is from castleford. he was born in england which puts him in the exact same boat as all the other recent converts.
just because he'd rather ply his trade at starting half back for melbourne storm doesn't make him any less of an englishman

Not necessarily.

It doesn't help. Born in New Zealand, represented New zealand, played against england, my commonsense is telling me he should not now represent england. I don't regard what the 'rules' say as commonsense.

I think a person born here is considered English. For example, I had Australian friends who 10 years ago returned to Australia having lived here for six years. During that six year period they had a child. When they returned to Australia they had to register that child as Australian as he was considered in law to be English because he was born here.

Another English couple I knew lived in the USA for 10 years. When they returned to England to live they had to register their children as English because they had been born in the USA and so were considered to be American.

So far as I'm aware, the same is the case in all countries. Unless you actively change the nationality of a child, if a child is born in a particular country then that child is of that country's nationality.

And, of course, they may have a dual nationality. Either way, there's absolutely no doubting Henderson's right to call himself English and to play for the country of his birth. Would Brown like us to stop playing black players because they 'look like Africans'?

Only if they register as such when the child first returns/arrives. And not all countries offer dual nationality, eg USA.


If he has surrendered his birth nationality then I would disagree. If he has dual nationality then I would agree, although we don't need him.


That would be a racist statement. Are you suggesting Brown is racist?

not all countries, for example if your born in the UAE you have to take the nationality of the parents if they are not emiraties. the locals here get alot of benifits such as 0 percent interest on loans, alot of free land when they turn of age and get married, cheaper cars and no water bills.

also if your mother is a local but the dad isn't you get the citizenship but not the family book which gets you all the benifits as above. i have a friend who plays rugby here and was born here and lived all hes life here (25 years) and still has to apply for a work visa every 2 years.

also another interesting rule if your born in the channel islands your able to play for any of wales, scotland, ireland and england.

He is certainly stereotyping.

"He looks Aussie and talks Aussie so I suppose he is an Aussie."

Change that to "He looks African and talks African so I suppose he is an African." Is that racist?

It used to be that way in Britain, but the law was changed so that the status of the parents is taken into account.

Other countries will have their own laws, but I am guessing that if a child is born outside of the country the parents wish it to have citizenship of, then the parents will have to apply in that country, but this does not mean the child automatically gains citizenship of the country of birth.

The difference is that Australia pick these players because they are performing better than 'born 'n' bred' Aussies. Can anyone say that Henderson has been better than Robinson, especially when you take into account that Robinson got Man of the tournament in the last four nations and England MOM in the Exiles last year.

A couple of weeks ago!

James Tamou. Selected for Aus because NSW were desperate to get him in their team.

So many people are ridiculously precious about eligibility rules when fans of other sports barely blink when the same rules are applied. The obsession with where somebody is born is really quite funny.

what if the person born in england considers himself to be scottish, irish, Indian, or australian for example as that is where both or one of his parents is from.

Is that a problem for you?

Judging by the post you've quoted, it appears he wouldn't.

Tamou was developed in Australian and emigrated to Oz as a 13 year old.

Which other developed player has Australia pinched?

That is the difference.
Australia has selected emigrants that have gone through the Australian system and live permanently in Australia.

Unlike England looking for players that have nothing to do with the UK but have Parents or Grandparents or have moved there as professionals to further their Club Career.

England is his home. Why shouldn't he be able to represent his country of residence (provided that a) he qualifies under international rules which are standard across all sports, b)he wants to and C) he's good enough to be selected)

Oh what a crock of crud.
How on earth can you start claiming viable international selection as to where they spent time in the gym. Jeeesus, Australia has pinched players for years. Period. Uate playing for Australia is EXACTLY the same as Chase playing for England, it's wrong but every other sport does it so I don't see why we hinder ourselves in this way. Residency should be 5 years imo, that's much fairer

I think it's the part in bold that is questionable. The rules for international sport in RL are not standard across other sports. You can't switch nations for example.

Uate and Chase are not exactly the same, let's be fair. Uate emigrated as a child. Chase emigrated for his career (in sport) and has taken advantage of the residency rule to further his career. Uate was developed by Australia, whereas Chase wasn't developed by England. Chase has no ties to England other than he moved over here 3.5 years ago to play for an English club. Uate grew up in Australia, was developed by Australia and therefore is justified to play for Australia.

Personally, I don't necessarily think it's the length of time they've stayed somewhere, but when they actually moved. If they moved as a youngster (so not through their own choice) then I think that's acceptable as they will have had to have been developed by that country. If they've moved here as an adult to further their career, then they should have to have stayed for a considerable amount of time before they can be considered able to represent a country IMO. And 3 years isn't considerable.

They both qualify on residency; it's exactly the same whether morally you agree or not. Australians have pinchedplayers on these grounds for years so we are entitled to play by the same rules

Just because they both qualify on residency doesn't mean both of their situations are exactly the same. That's just one thing.

It's like saying Chase's situation is exactly the same as Robinson's because they both qualify within the rules. They do, but they're not exactly the same.

You can in cricket, subject to serving the appropriate qualification period. You can in football, but not once you've played a competitive game at senior level. Don't know about other sports.

You expressed it better than me Mate.

So the rules aren't standard then?