Editorial: English rugby living in past

There is something futile as well as sad in the English pursuit of the bloodlines of two New Zealand rugby players who have been representing Wales: sad because Shane Howarth has been put in a position of embarrassing his family; futile because national barriers are being breached in almost all activities of modern life and the trend is mostly for the better.

Commerce and instant communications are the twin forces that national borders can no longer contain and now that commerce is enriching rugby, its professionals are plying their trade wherever the game is played. Provincial teams in this country and club teams in Europe readily draw players from outside their territory these days and the fans do not mind in the slightest so long as the team is winning. Should national rugby unions follow suit?

It is a question that could be left to each union. To do so would not spell the end of exclusive selection policies. National identity is still sufficiently important that no country would allow outsiders to play in its representative colours unless it simply was not competitive without them. It is unlikely that New Zealand or South Africa, for example, would relax their rules. The NZRU is so protective of its representation that even expatriate New Zealanders are ineligible for the All Blacks.

The Welsh Rugby Union could never afford to be that exclusive. But it represents a nation that holds the game and its national representation in much the same regard as do New Zealand and South Africa. Rugby is part of Wales' national expression and the emotions aroused by the red jersey frequently exceed anything heard in this part of the world. It is a sad commentary on the state of the player pool in Wales today that its union plainly did not care to look too closely at the nationality claims of Howarth and Brett Sinkinson. But is that really of any concern to anybody besides the Welsh?

The English union is aggrieved because it believes its team might have beaten Wales last season but for the Kiwi ring-ins, and the loss cost it prize money in the five nations' competition. Well ... maybe. It might more forcibly argue that it was a New Zealand coach that made the difference, except that England also had one of those, as does Ireland, Italy and one or two other parts of the rugby world. Professionalism has cross- fertilsed the game at a national level as much as anywhere, and the game overall is better for it.

Is there really a need for the International Rugby Board to lay down universal rules of national representation? The state of the game varies greatly in different countries. Would it not be better that each set its representative criteria to suit its needs? New Zealand disqualified expatriates because it is rich in players, but fears it will not remain so if too many are attracted to countries richer in potential sponsorship. Strict application of a universal eligibility rule could be as unfortunate for New Zealand as for Wales.

Ultimately it could be unfortunate for international rugby. Professional sports have proved that fans care less about the residency or nationality of players than about the success of the team. Even rugby has confirmed that with the Super 12 league. If countries such as Wales, Scotland and Japan cannot import players they need, their supporters will eventually watch something else. How many New Zealanders would object to one or two imports in our national cricket team?

The likes of Shane Howarth and Brett Sinkinson should be allowed to play for any country that wants them, and English bloodhounds should wake up to the modern world.