Ross Karl: Preventing Brad Shields from representing England would be churlish and childish

OPINION: Preventing Brad Shields from appearing for England in June is like a petulant child stopping a sibling from using a toy they're not playing with.

Holding the Hurricanes captain back would be churlish and childish.

He's leaving for England after Super Rugby because the All Blacks didn't want him. Steve Hansen won't be picking him in June against France, so why delay his test career with England?

He will wear white soon enough, maybe even against the All Blacks in November. There's no point being mean-spirited.

Yes, he is a New Zealand Rugby (NZR) employee, and yes, the World Rugby rules probably dictate that NZR is within its rights to hold him, but why?

The only argument would be that he might get injured before the Super Rugby playoffs. You could counter that by saying almost as many players get injured at training as they do playing.

In fact, we continuously see players return from their first All Blacks stint to even better Super Rugby form. Good players develop quickly in a test environment. Maybe Eddie Jones could make Shields a classier operator on his Hurricanes return. That could pay dividends in the Super Rugby playoffs.

That's something for the big wigs at NZR to ponder. Holding Shields back seems like bad PR.

NZR is very much in control of how they're seen here. They seem to have all the power in this scenario, according to World Rugby's dual eligibility rules.

Rule 9.38 says a union can seek written agreement that a player won't be available for another nation during the term of a contract. 

It seems Shields might have signed away his right to play in June when he initially put pen to paper on his NZR contract.

Still, just because you can do it, It doesn't mean you should.

Ross Karl is the rugby editor for Newshub.