Noddy555 wrote:This Stupid RFU decision which robs England of two of its finest players means that we will have no chance of winning the world cup this year. I know that 2 just because they play for French teams is ludicrous, shallow minded, definitely chauvinistic and most definitely
tars the RFU with racial discrimination (against anything other than UK teams). If both players were to take the RFU to the European court of Justice on these grounds although they might lose their case, it would almost deservedly cost the RFU millions to defend it. When will we be finally rid of these stuffed shirts that run our game at the top level.
They cost us the 1991 world cup by picking Mike Teague at No. 8 in preference to our own Dean Richards. The whole thing makes me heartily sick.
Good Lord. I don't know where to start with this post.
I think "racial discrimination" is my favourite bit of sensationalist nonsense in sea of point missing wrapped up in one post.
I also liked, 'two of England's finest players' and 'chauvinistic'. Not to mention 'shallow minded', in light of the very clear and unambiguous rule that players plying their trade overseas, will not be considered for England selection.
"If both players were to take the RFU to the European court of Justice on these grounds although they might lose their case"
Er, no sh*t Sherlock.
I also personally found blaming England's 1991 World Cup final loss to Australia on Mike Teague's selection most insightful. I think what he actually meant was that the England management caved into media pressure stirred up by Campase, and instructed the team to play an expansive game which they were unable to master in the short time they'd had to come to terms with the decision.
Last edited by Roly on Thu May 14, 2015 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
The part I find the funniest from Noddys post is the bit that says the players could take the RFU to a tribunal but would probably lose. So the point he is trying to make saying it is wrong but then following it up by saying the players would probably lose the tribunal, proves that the RFU are doing nothing wrong!
I imagine Noddy would be the 1st to moan if we lost all our top players to France.
Noddy555 wrote:For your Moniker cagey that was not a very cagey post, my riposte is he who laughs last etc.
There you go again Noddy. Nothing related to the topic, just insult the person.
Personally I don't think that England will win the RWC, but I am also of the view that the inclusion of Abendanon & Armitage would make little if any difference and certainly NOT the difference between winning it and losing it. I am sure you will disagree and that's fine. No point discussing it any further as we will never know which viewpoint was valid as neither of them are going to get picked.
Noddy555 wrote:This Stupid RFU decision which robs England of two of its finest players means that we will have no chance of winning the world cup this year. I know that 2 players don't make a team but to exclude them just because they play for French teams is ludicrous, shallow minded, definitely chauvinistic and most definitely
tars the RFU with racial discrimination (against anything other than UK teams). If both players were to take the RFU to the European court of Justice on these grounds although they might lose their case, it would almost deservedly cost the RFU millions to defend it. When will we be finally rid of these stuffed shirts that run our game at the top level.
They cost us the 1991 world cup by picking Mike Teague at No. 8 in preference to our own Dean Richards. The whole thing makes me heartily sick.
ive given up caring i think we all know that they are not picking the best players. also england players would be against it because they could lose there shirt. other countries must be laughing at us.
amazing tiger wrote:ive given up caring i think we all know that they are not picking the best players. also england players would be against it because they could lose there shirt. other countries must be laughing at us.
Yes. I'm sure New Zealand and Australia to name just two find it really strange and hilarious that a rule would be in place that players who play overseas are excluded from the international squad in order to protect their national leagues.
amazing tiger wrote:ive given up caring i think we all know that they are not picking the best players. also england players would be against it because they could lose there shirt. other countries must be laughing at us.
Yes. I'm sure New Zealand and Australia to name just two find it really strange and hilarious that a rule would be in place that players who play overseas are excluded from the international squad in order to protect their national leagues.
I think he meant to post on the England Cricket forum
Well, if true, it is a great shame for England if ANY high quality players are excluded from selection.
Personally, in a World Cup year I would be disappointed in England not fielding the strongest team possible, which would seem to be inevitable.
Anyone interested in the prospects of our national side in international competition should not applaud this decision.
All sorts of domestic interests mean there will be numerous vocal and persuasive arguments to maintain the status quo. This all seems very unsatisfactory to me, but I doubt this will change any time soon.
This topic has been done to death in many threads, though this one has been enlivened by Noddies post.
One thing did strike me though. Abandon on and SF would be squad players, not first choice.
If it was a Tuilagi or a Ford would we be saying different, probably. But it won't be a Tuilagi or a Ford, because they are here. Because of the rule.
northerntiger wrote:This topic has been done to death in many threads, though this one has been enlivened by Noddies post.
One thing did strike me though. Abandon on and SF would be squad players, not first choice.
If it was a Tuilagi or a Ford would we be saying different, probably. But it won't be a Tuilagi or a Ford, because they are here. Because of the rule.
Done to death, indeed, then resuscitated by lazy hacks who want to peddle non-articles.
Those hacks should be investigating the rascals who surreptitiously introduced this law after our best players went to unwittingly play abroad. No, wait...
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man
markharbtiger wrote:Well, if true, it is a great shame for England if ANY high quality players are excluded from selection.
Personally, in a World Cup year I would be disappointed in England not fielding the strongest team possible, which would seem to be inevitable.
Anyone interested in the prospects of our national side in international competition should not applaud this decision.
All sorts of domestic interests mean there will be numerous vocal and persuasive arguments to maintain the status quo. This all seems very unsatisfactory to me, but I doubt this will change any time soon.
As so many queue up to gratuitously insult each other, I'm in the 'it won't change' and ' we'll be lucky to get out of the group' camp. Any progress will be down to Wig (as it has been for a long while) and the players breaking out of the mediocre shackles imposed on them.
Wait for the return of Fazlet and the reversion to dullsville.
FWIW Abdendanon deffo NOT RWC material, SA deffo first choice 7.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Apologies on two fronts to you learned ladies and gents:
(1) for coming back to this old chestnut
(2) if the answer has already been provided somewhere (I have searched but cannot find it)
What I want to know is how "playing outside England" is defined, especially as regards timing. With the World Cup being, effectively, at the start of the 2015/2016 season and following the RFU policy to encourage playing in the Premiership, shouldn't the likes of Ashton and Strettle now be excluded from the training squad? What would happen if a deal was done and one of the players in France signed to play in the Premiership for season 2015/16?
Interesting point, AFAIK 'in England' refers to this season just gone. Otherwise YBY couldn't sign for Toulon.
This has been done over too often, far more interesting to see how many players SL has left once the revelations hit the press that Robshaw once stole from his sister's moneybox, OTY used to beat his little bro up and Dan Cole was once a tranny called Danielle.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
jgriffin wrote:Interesting point, AFAIK 'in England' refers to this season just gone. Otherwise YBY couldn't sign for Toulon.
This has been done over too often, far more interesting to see how many players SL has left once the revelations hit the press that Robshaw once stole from his sister's moneybox, OTY used to beat his little bro up and Dan Cole was once a tranny called Danielle.
I would love to see Dan's reaction if you say it to his face!
