Not certain if this is right section, but just read on BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/42540676

That a Scottish qualified player, who has played in Scottish age group sides is being prepped to join the England set up.

He is English by birth, but Scottish qualified. He has made a choice to play for the Scottish age groups and should not be eligible for England.

The rules need sorting out and quickly, otherwise international rugby will be restricted to the rich nations, and I am including the USA in the next 10 years, if they can get their MLR running well and encourage players to move to USA and qualify on residency.

There are rules everyone uses them when it suits them for their own aims. American rugby is hardly a threat because the sport there is lacking money. Scotland make more use of them than most.

Agree with American rugby, but what if it does take off.

Indeed, it'd be rather rich for the Scots to complain, when they have: Luke Hamilton, Josh Strauss, Cornell du Preez, Willem Nel, David Denton, Blair Cowan etc. All of these have either qualified for Scotland based purely on residency or, at best, on partial ancestry and have played for other countries at age grade level.

Remind me where Ross Moriarty was born and which country he played age grade for. I think this is political and pretty cynical selection but I don't see him having a future with England, this feels like an attempt to stick 2 fingers up at the Scots. I mean look at the hypocrisy, English born and bred player playing in England but it's poaching because he played a bit of age grade for Scotland. English born player lived in Wales for a bit, plays for English at age grade and then capped by Wales isn't poaching. Welsh born and bred but come over to England in early teens and play age grade, English poaching.

Quite simply anything other than a player born and bred in England who has played all his rugby in England is poaching. Hell we even hear the likes of Itoje and Piers Francis being used as examples of poaching, the former for being too black and having a name that doesn't sound English and the latter because he played for a few years abroad, despite being English. I'd suggest people get their own houses in order before throwing around poaching accusations.

Also notice this key bit The Rugby Football Union offers Premiership clubs funding for England-qualified players, meaning young non-English players can struggle to earn a contract in England's top flight. But yeah, we are totally all in on a big conspiracy to steal everyone elses players, even if they are English.

Epic fail
"He was educated at Glyncollen Primary School and Morriston Comprehensive School in Swansea, Wales. He took up rugby union at the age of ten playing for Swansea Schools and West Wales Schools. He also played his junior rugby at Gorseinon RFC"

Born in Merseyside, England. Was a regular at Hartpury, England. Played for U20's England. But let's see, the criteria for it not being poaching is if they lived in the country since they were young? Well then this isn't a poach as this "scottish" player was born and bred in England and has played for English clubs. Maybe it's representing another country at U20? Well then that makes Moriarty a poach.

But yeah, it seems you just twist whatever the criteria is so it fits your little world view in which we are the ones who always poach. Simple fact you can't comprehend, any argument used to portray this as a poach can be turned on you. Let's compare Vellacott and Moriarty:

Were they born in the country they could play for senior? Vellacott Yes, Moriarty No.
Were they brought up in the country they could play for? Vellacott Yes, Moriarty Yes.
Have they played the majority of their rugby in the country they could play for? Vellacott Yes, Moriarty No.
Have they been through the academies of the country they could play for? Vellacott Yes, Moriarty No.
Have they played at age grade for the country they could play for? Vellacott No, Moriarty No.

So come on, tell me how Vellacott is a poach but Moriarty isn't that doesn't involve making some special exception to England. If anything this is evidence of the Scots trying to poach.

His father happened to be working in England at the time of his birth. Not sure if you know who his dad and uncle are but good luck telling them that Ross is anything other than Welsh. BTW he was in Hartbury because Gloucester got him a place there
Ask your self where he learnt to play rugby, which Union invested money in school systems that taught him
Epic fail

Yet you still failed to actually answer the question, pathetic. Again, by what criteria is Moriarty less of a poach?

He's not a poach, you plonker, he's Welsh, he was brought up here, he learnt how to play here yes he went to collage in England via GRFC, I don't know and neither do you why he chose English age group rugby but that is not the defining criteria to which his International future is formed, Who knows if playing for the U21's had tied him to England perhaps he might not have played I don't know and neither do you

In which case you agree that Vellacott also isn't a poach?

Have no idea and don't really care

It's kinda the whole point of the thread... Nice to see you come swooping in, completely miss the point in your desperation to try to make me look bad without realising that your combative defence of Moriarty was a bait. The more strongly you defended Moriarty, the more difficult it would become to claim Vellacott was a poach. Thanks.

You're welcome

Blimey. This exchange of views seems rather less about Ross Moriarty rather than you trying to ram home your own point. It doesn't reflect on you very well.... What I don't like is when national sides take a player into the national set up, play him or her, for a game, in the full knowledge that under the rules they may not play for another international side again. It happens and the likelihood of this fella gaining caps is not much.