State of Origin: Is dual eligibility the answer?
Related coverage
State of Origin is the most anticipated event in the rugby league calendar. The standard of the contest is undisputedly high and the series always provides some of the most enthralling matches of the year.
Yes, State of Origin is considered to be one of rugby league’s greatest assets, but could it also be hindering the sport’s development?
Now, before all you cockroaches and cane toads start furiously commenting in defence of Origin, I am not questioning its success as a rugby league event.
However, when rugby league’s major competitors, such as AFL and rugby union are focused on increasing their foothold across the country and internationally, a contest that essentially only represents two states could be holding back the code.
The disproportionate importance placed on State of Origin is shown by the fact that foreign-born players are willing to sign away a chance to represent their country to play Origin.
Rugby league is not only played in Queensland and NSW, though, and not all players start their careers there.
Yes, the vast majority of NRL players are from these two states but if State of Origin is consistently held up as the epitome of the code, then it is going to become increasingly irrelevant to the rest of the country once the NRL expands.
The problems that came with the staging of Origin I in Melbourne this year are a prime example of this.
A lot of the crowd came from the NRL stronghold states. I would say that those who were from Melbourne were objective third party observers.
Even as a third party observer you can appreciate the quality of Origin clashes, but it’s not like being intimately involved in the outcome.
It’s the same with any sport.
At the time, journalists from the Origin states blamed the all-consuming nature of the AFL in Melbourne for the lack of coverage of the opening match, but when Victoria is not a major player in the event, why would Victorians be interested?
When a contest between two states trumps any other contest, both in the minds of players and those of the greater community, the game’s ability to entrench itself in areas outside of those two states is always going to be undermined.
Obviously when it provides such a commercial advantage for the code, no one is going to change the product that is State of Origin.
Rather than diminishing the significance of Origin, which is probably near impossible, the NRL needs to focus on providing incentives for players to choose national representation.
While tackling the AFL states is a fair way off, there is a way that rugby league can stop itself from becoming irrelevant outside of Queensland and NSW.
A great way to do this, at least at the international level, to allow players to have dual eligibility, rather than making state eligibility and international representation mutually exclusive.
So, New Zealand-born players, such as the Bulldogs’ Sam Kasiano or North Queensland’s James Tamou, who played junior footy in Australia, should be eligible for Origin and for New Zealand duties.
This would mean Origin could still maintain its place as a significant rugby league occasion without diluting the talent pool for international representation.
Furthermore, this could make for better Tests, which could attract a national audience for rugby league, transcending state borders at least a few times a year.
State of Origin was originally established to avoid NSW raiding Queensland talent and yet this is exactly what the two rugby league states are doing to many of Australia’s international neighbours.
Yes, State of Origin is the highlight of the NRL season.
Yes, State Of Origin swells the code’s pockets.
Yes, more than three million people will tune in next Wednesday to watch what is certain to be a thrilling decider in the 2012 series.
But the nature of the beast is that it will always be about NSW and Queensland. This is a problem for rugby league as it attempts to show its relevance to the rest of Australia and across the Tasman.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- How to increase crowd numbers in the NRL (181)
- How rugby league should expand (132)
- All I am saying is give Pearce a chance (123)
- Why do NRL fans love empty seats? (115)
- Let me tell you why people don’t like Manly (106)
- Ease up on ASADA: NRL boss (90)
- It’s time for Channel Nine to get serious about the NRL (90)
- Manly coach slams NRL rule changes (20)
- Taylor’s Origin bid up to NRL judiciary (2)
- Storm get new owners as News Limited sell out (17)
- Desperate Tigers recall Marshall into NRL
- Manly call for NRL extra-time rethink (3)
- NRL fans: the English are coming (15)
- Daly Cherry-Evans the highlight of a bumper NRL weekend (36)
- NRL fans: the English are coming (15)
- Wind down the whining rugby league! (20)
- Time for the NRL to introduce silver point (51)
- A Blues Origin jumper for everyone? Why not (8)
- NRL golden point must get the flick (31)
- Cronulla Sharks fighting a war they can’t win (71)
- Where were you when sport sold its soul? (32)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- James Tamou, NRL, Rugby League, State Of Origin

June 27th 2012 @ 2:10am
Johnno said | June 27th 2012 @ 2:10am | Report comment
-No no no. Defininatly not.
-The answer for mine is this:
-Have 2 Tiers. Tier 1/Tier 2 nations like rugby union
-You pick you stick.
-For life you are bound to that tier 1 nation and can’t play for another tier 1 nation ever eg Tony Carroll, or even sam burgess if he becomes resident or SBW if he comes back . You pick you stick, no flip flopping on both sides Aust/NZ/England/PNG/France
-So any regrets, too bad, you have to accept and live with your decision for life no 2nd chance
-But still be allowed to play for Tier 2 nations but only in world cups, and world cup qualifiers.
-Give teams like France and PNG, and Irleand, and FIji,Samoa,Tonga more matches.
-And origin payments stay the same, and increase test payment from the profits made from Origin.
-Relaity is it is the kill the goos theory. Origin needs test footy to stay credible, and legitimate.
-State footy was always the stepping stone to test footy for your country. And that Pyramid should stay the same.
-Without it as Rugby league goes more national and global, if Origin kills off competitive test footy fans will lose interest in origin.
-And will also lose interest if it becomes too many imports.
-So if you play origin your career for England/France/NZ/PNG is over no redemption or 2nd chances.
-Sorry karmechial hunt or James Tamou you pick you stick:
-And same on the other side of the coin.
-No 2nd chances for Adrian Lam/Neville Costigan QLD/PNG, or NZ-Tony Carroll/ Craig Smith can not come back and play for QLD type in past.
-Both nations Aust/NZ have to comply.
Rugby union has done this 1 nation for life you pick you stick. so no more Frank Bunce/Micheal Jones/ big ing’a Tuigamala/
Patrico Noriega.Topo Rodriguez Argentina and Australia, or Tian Strauss Sth Africa and Australia Wallabies
-You pick you stick
-Imalso against though junior footy you pick you stick. Like in rugby union under-20, you can play for another nation so are not locked in based on schoolboy rep rugby or under 20 rugby.
-Believe me if NZ want to change the under 20 rule it theory it sounds good but it will hurt them long term.
-SBW played junior footy for NSW/ Kieren Foran was a junior kangaroo , as was Gerard Beale
-Many kiwi born kids or kiwis with heritage may be pressured by there club junior coaches at felt level or by junior aussy coaches of under teams to play for state under 20′s or Junior aussy under 20′s, they may not have the confidence to say no for fear it will hurt there club contracts as they are not rich or established stars.
June 27th 2012 @ 1:55pm
Maximus said | June 27th 2012 @ 1:55pm | Report comment
Pick and stick but the 3 year residential rule in rugby couldnt work because all those NZers playing for Canterbury, Souths etc would then be eligible for NSW and Australia – yikes…
June 27th 2012 @ 7:49am
Rabbitz said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:49am | Report comment
No it is not the answer.
Your state of birth is the answer.
Can’t play because you weren’t born in NSW or Qld? Tough Titties – Life just ain’t fair…
June 27th 2012 @ 8:11am
btn said | June 27th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
What do you do with players born in QLD or NSW with foreign heritage then? They will still have a choice – they should be allowed to play both.
June 27th 2012 @ 9:30am
Rabbitz said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
The birthplace of their parents is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.
If the player was not born in NSW or Qld then they are ineligible.
Who cares where their parents or siblings were born, they are not playing.
June 27th 2012 @ 6:03pm
steve b said | June 27th 2012 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
Spot on !!
June 27th 2012 @ 7:34pm
Balmainslipperyeel said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
Have to agree with that stunning logic.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:38pm
Balmainslipperyeel said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
It’s so simple really…the name says it all. State of origin.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:43pm
Balmainslipperyeel said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
or·i·gin (ôr-jn, r-)
n.
1. The point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived.
2. Ancestry: “We cannot escape our origins, however hard we try” (James Baldwin).
June 27th 2012 @ 7:45pm
Balmainslipperyeel said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:45pm | Report comment
^
Unless your name begins in G and ends in Inglis, of course. :p
June 27th 2012 @ 10:26am
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Ridiculous notion Rabbitz!!
As has been alluded to in other posts, Origin is about passion and allegiance – which isnt necessarily borne out of where one was born. I could quote numerous examples of players born in one state but would die & bleed for the other. I have no issue with keeping Origin NSW/QLD-centric, but eligibility is the crux of the argument here.
The answer is very simple – and I cant believe it doesnt get more airplay – when a player joins the NRL they declare where their heart lies .. this doesnt change based on where they see there best opportunity, or next pay cheque, it should be instilled in them through their early years. Same could be said for the nation one wants to play for – you’re kiwi and/or aussie proud or you’re not! Lay your cards on the table, then stick with it. No coercion from coaches, fans etc can then come into it – if you’re not on the list for either NSW or QLD then you cannot play for that respective state.
As for NZ’ers (or other nationalities) being picked for Origin – why not? its not a selection arena for the Kangaroos. If I was born overseas, but grew up and played all my junior footy here, and then was deemed good enough to play Origin BUT couldnt because I wasnt “Australian” per se I’d be taking the respective leagues through the court system for racism .. because that’s what it is! How can you say that a player that calls Australia home, who learnt his trade in NSW/QLD, who may have even represented one of these states at the junior level, shouldnt be allowed to play for them at the highest level simply because they were born overseas. Are we a multicultural society or is this a misnomer to appease?!
Whether a player is allowed to play for their country of birth or heritage is a matter for that country or the RLIF, it shouldnt be determined by whether they also have an allegiance to an Australian state; similarly Origin shouldnt make a player choose. A country like NZ that has a proud tradition / culture in the maori will generally pass this culture through the family structure .. it would be hard to dispel whether you were born in australia or not if ones parents were proud NZ’ers. But this doesnt mean the player wouldnt put their body on the line for either NSW or QLD if they were bought up in one of these states and had instilled a ‘hatred’ in them for the other through Origin football. Being a proud maori, for example, doesnt mean one isnt also a proud Qld’er or NSWelshman.
June 27th 2012 @ 10:33am
liquorbox_ said | June 27th 2012 @ 10:33am | Report comment
If you were born in NSW but consider yourslef a QLDer then you just dont play origin, why would you help your enemy.
Why is it every year people dont understand the meaning of the word Origin?
The rule is quite simple-
“You are elligible for the state you were born in, If you were not born in NSW or QLD then you are most welcome to watch the games too.”
June 27th 2012 @ 10:41am
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Qld’ers better stop using the call “Queenslanderrrrrr” then – because Billy Moore was born in NSW! For info, the term ‘Origin’ (in this context) pertains to where one’s senior footballing originated, not where one was born – thus the actual rules for Origin. Are you happy to get rid of Inglis, Petero, Thaiday, Barba etc??
June 27th 2012 @ 11:15am
Rabbitz said | June 27th 2012 @ 11:15am | Report comment
You really do not understand the concept do you?
Your example is a prime example. If Moore was born in NSW, that is to say he originated in NSW, then he should have played for NSW.
The original concept of the series was that NSW kept winning the interstate games. Apparently this was because many Queensland born players moved to NSW to play in the NSWRL competition, thus they were NSW players. So to even it up the Origin Concept was created.
All was well for many years, but now both states are trying to get ineligible players on the field, thus the concept is no longer valid.
As an alternative, why not go back to the original NSW vs Queensland idea? That way if you are contracted the the NSWRL or the QRL you are eligible. IF the state is willing to contract you then regardless of you history, birthplace or allegiance to are eligible.
As I have said before, I am willing to see any player who was not born in NSW or Qld become ineligible, regardless of who they are. In reality, if such a scheme was introduced currently capped players would be sunsetted so they could play out their days but incoming players must meet the criteria.
June 27th 2012 @ 11:44am
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Its not I who doesnt understand the concept – it is you looking for a literal interpretation of the word “origin” – which btw also means “something from which anything arises or is derived” .. ie: ones footballing ability!! (not necessarily one’s actual existence or birthplace)
Moore was born in NSW because he lived in Qld just inside the border and the closest hospital was in NSW. Your notion he should thus play for NSW is ludicrous! Even the man himself jokes he was quickly rushed back over the border before the NSW air infected him .. does that sound like the player you want wearing a sky blue jersey – when he bleeds maroon??
I know why Origin was created – I’m old enough to have watched football pre Origin – and it wasnt because players were born interstate, it was because players who had grown up and/or plyed their footballing trade in Qld and had since moved to NSW (as you have recognised) became eligible for NSW and therefore made the stakes uneven.
June 27th 2012 @ 4:24pm
Toa said | June 27th 2012 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
I’ve beaten this drum many times, eligibility must be regulated at junior level. NZRL needs to identify, process & nurture young prospects in order to continue to built relationship once they leave their homeland.
Previous posts I’ve mention all players immigrating here over the age of 15 should not be eligible for both State & Australian teams at schoolboy & club levels for a period of 3yrs.
During this time the onus is on NZRL to develop, fund & provide scholarship/traineeships for talented prospects. What it also allows australian prospects a fair chance of reaching their goals without added hinderance.
Far to many Kiwi’s brand the likes of Hunt & Co as turn coats without acknowledging their appreciation for the amount of development, funds & time that was invested by AIS,QAS & the QRL let alone the benefits & opportunities living up there in Queensland.
June 27th 2012 @ 11:16am
Jason said | June 27th 2012 @ 11:16am | Report comment
lol really who had to play the race card? New Zealanders aren’t a race they are a nationality.
June 27th 2012 @ 11:50am
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Check your dictionary Jason. The point is, just because one wasnt born in Australia they shouldnt be excluded. Forget ‘racism’ if you must, but I still think the CAS lawyers would be interested in hearing one of these cases.
June 27th 2012 @ 12:11pm
Jason said | June 27th 2012 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
“deemed good enough to play Origin BUT couldnt because I wasnt “Australian” per se I’d be taking the respective leagues through the court system for racism .. because that’s what it is! ” That would be absolutely pathetic on your part. I’m glad no one else has tried this, it would be a laughing stock
June 27th 2012 @ 1:11pm
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
laughing stock you think? Isnt that the issue – the origin selection criteria is a joke already!
June 27th 2012 @ 8:40am
turbodewd said | June 27th 2012 @ 8:40am | Report comment
The solution is simple. We must regulate!
Allow 2 non NSW/Qld players per team, label them Honorary Blues or Mercenary Maroons. These players may be from ACT, NZ, anywhere. NZers for example, would feature a small black NZ map patch on their jersey. Eligibility would be via a mini draft. The losing team from previous series gets 1st pick. 1st pick remains an Honorary Blue, for example, for rest of career.
Simple!
This just makes what has been going on as official and would allow Benji and SBW to play.
June 27th 2012 @ 2:33pm
dishes said | June 27th 2012 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
That’s a terrible idea. If that happened the entire concept, which has made state of origin so great, would have officially eroded.
June 27th 2012 @ 2:34pm
dishes said | June 27th 2012 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
June 27th 2012 @ 9:56am
Patrick Angel said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
I’ve always liked this idea.
Is it possible to be from New South Wales and another country? Of course it is.
Look at el Masri, born in Lebanon, played first rugby league in New South Wales, should have been eligible for New South Wales and Lebanon.
June 27th 2012 @ 11:14am
Jason said | June 27th 2012 @ 11:14am | Report comment
El Masri condsiders himself Australian
June 27th 2012 @ 9:56am
Patrick Angel said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
I’ve always liked this idea.
Is it possible to be from New South Wales and another country? Of course it is.
Look at el Masri, born in Lebanon, played first rugby league in New South Wales, should have been eligible for New South Wales and Lebanon.
June 27th 2012 @ 11:22am
Redback said | June 27th 2012 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Great way to kill the origin series. State v State that is what it is about and what made this concept great.
June 27th 2012 @ 11:51am
Pot Stirrer said | June 27th 2012 @ 11:51am | Report comment
IMO before a player can be considered to play SOO he should declare his allegiance to Aust by way of citizenship. This would eliminate all grey areas. Ben teo is the classic example of who shouldnt be able to play becuase he has already represented NZ as a 16 yr old, isnt that the criteria for origin ? where you played your first game as a 16 yr old ? I dont have a problem with him representing samoa
as they are only a minnow but by playing soo he has effectivley represented 3 different countries.
June 27th 2012 @ 12:05pm
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
SBW came to sydney as a 16yr old – played Jersey Flegg for the Bulldogs, then played Premier League, then making his NRL debut as an 18yr old in 2004. Should he be allowed to then play for NSW? If not, why not – playing for NSW is not playing for Australia – so who cares what his ancestery is?! Why should the rules for junior state representation be any different to seniors? Have a look how many overseas born, or those kids with overseas ancestery, are playing in NSW and QLD jnr rep sides!
June 27th 2012 @ 12:12pm
Pot Stirrer said | June 27th 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
If he wanted to declare his allegiance to Australia absolutley he should. You forget he was recruited to the Bulldogs as a 16 yr old and always wanted to represent New Zealand so no he shouldnt be able to play in representative games that are thier to develop junior nsw and qld players to possibly represent Australia. It is not Aust RL’s job to develop future Kiwis, NZ should do that themselves but they get it anyway by being developed by an NRL club like the Dogs.
June 27th 2012 @ 1:26pm
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
you contradict yourself there – Its not aust RL job to develop overseas players yet the nrl does! Try picking an NZ based kiwi team (minus the warriors) and see how they fare against Australia. Without overseas players here the international game would be dead! That said , the nrl doesnt even control origin, Its a collaboration between the respective state bodies. good luck telling all those kids (and the coaches) they cant play for nsw Or qld junior rep teams because they may one day be forced to declare a one sided allegiance to the country of their birth / heritage.
June 27th 2012 @ 2:45pm
Pot Stirrer said | June 27th 2012 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Dont you understand the concept of professional sport ? The Bulldogs are an Australian club, it is not their job to develop players for any other purpose than thier own future and development. The game is full of over seas players in the national competition and if they want to keep thier heritage which i would hope they do then they shouldnt represent Australian states. They allready get selected in junior NZ teams. You cant have it both ways, your allegiance is either Aust or NZ or England etc.
June 27th 2012 @ 3:24pm
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
“Dont you understand the concept of professional sport ?” hahaha – I have a university degree in sports management and have worked with an NRL club – so pretty sure I understand the concept of professional sport. You are correct, its not the clubs job to develop players for any other purpose than their own development .. yet the salary cap already erodes this notion by forcing clubs who have developed players to an elite standard then having to let them go because the cap says they cannot pay them what they’re worth [but thats an argument for another day]. The fact is, the international game is stronger because Australian clubs have players who then go on to represent Fiji, Samoa, NZ etc.
Pn that note, I’m all for the ‘pick & stick’ concept for international football .. irrespective whether a country is a minnow or not (Australia has enough depth to lose players to other nations) and I concur that one’s allegiance is either Aust or NZ or England or any other country … BUT the crux of my argument is, in the current climate, I fail to see the correlation between representing an Australian state in Origin when one has been bought up in australia and developed their footy skills here, and representing one’s country of birth / heritage?!
When Origin was (allegedly) a selection arena for the Kangaroos then fair enough – fill it with players vying for australian selection – but its not!! We both know one doesnt need play Origin to pull on the green & gold! That said, playing for Qld or NSW does not alter ones heritage or allegiance to one’s homeland any more than living interstate does to a player of another state’s origin.
June 27th 2012 @ 3:29pm
Pot Stirrer said | June 27th 2012 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Anakin, yes but my point of veiw is if you play SOO then you should only be able to represent Australia.
June 27th 2012 @ 3:29pm
Pot Stirrer said | June 27th 2012 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Anakin, yes but my point of veiw is if you play SOO then you should only be able to represent Australia.
June 27th 2012 @ 3:46pm
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
“my point of veiw is if you play SOO then you should only be able to represent Australia.”
I’m hearing you Pot Stirrer – but I’m questioning your logic as to WHY? Origin is about STATES, not about country of birth, and I dont believe one should have to forego allegiance to the other.
June 27th 2012 @ 1:31pm
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
and why allow a player to play origin and for a country like Samoa, but not NZ? Is the argument they are not “true” state origin reps (born overseas), Or are people just against the kiwis and poms?
June 27th 2012 @ 2:54pm
Pot Stirrer said | June 27th 2012 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Mate Please, if they declare thier allegiance to Australia thier is no problem, If they declare thier allegiance to NZ then no they play for NZ so SOO is out of the question. Its not rocket science. And yes they can play for samoa if they want as long as they havent yet represented Aust in either Origin or Test Footy and are AUst Citizens before they play Origin or Test Footy.
June 27th 2012 @ 3:36pm
Pot Stirrer said | June 27th 2012 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Anakin
My point of veiw is if you play SOO you should only be able to represent Australia, and on another side note the u/20′s comp is dominated by NZ heritage players and if we allow them to play SOO, We will soon be uncompetitive on the international stage
and isnt that the big picture keeping/making International footy the pinnacle of our game. NZ are fast catching us in player talent
eg
Marshall
Foran
Matulino
Luke
Johnson
Locke
Kasiano ?
Paolo
June 27th 2012 @ 3:54pm
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
See point above re nexus between origin (state) & international footy. WRT the international scene: I dont subscribe to your comment that if we allow NZ heritage players to play Origin we’ll fall apart at the seams come international football. If they came here late in life then theyre a kiwi, but if they came here as a child and grew up here, and have developed an us against them mentality in relation to SOO, then so be it. They’re passion for the maroon or blue shouldnt be devalued because tyhey may also feel a link to another nation. Australia has plenty of home grown talent to draw on – and whats to say those from ‘outside’ wont decide to play for Australia anyway (ie: Tamou, Civoniceva etc)
As an aside, Benji Marshall played Australian Schoolboys, as did Nathan Cayless (future NZ captain!) Duncan MacGillivray (Scotland) & Theo Anast (France) .. didnt stop them choosing to play abroad on the international stage, and yet the kangaroos remain the dominant side on the world scene. Even last years Schoolboys team contained players such as Pat Mata’utia, Matiu Fukofuka, Junior Paulo & Samisoni Langi … arguably a safe bet not all these boys would pledge allegiance to Australia, but really, who cares?.
June 27th 2012 @ 4:14pm
Pot Stirrer said | June 27th 2012 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
Thats my whole point, that should not be happening, its robbinng Aust born players or players who have grown up in Australia and want (nationalised) to be Australian of the oppurtunity to play for Aust at what ever level. Why should we allow the Kiwis or any other country to use us to develop thier players.
June 27th 2012 @ 4:20pm
Anakin said | June 27th 2012 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
“Why should we allow the Kiwis or any other country to use us to develop thier players.” This is a seperate argument to origin, but if we dont, we may as well scrap international football!
June 27th 2012 @ 4:14pm
Pot Stirrer said | June 27th 2012 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
Thats my whole point, that should not be happening, its robbinng Aust born players or players who have grown up in Australia and want (nationalised) to be Australian of the oppurtunity to play for Aust at what ever level. Why should we allow the Kiwis or any other country to use us to develop thier players.
June 27th 2012 @ 4:14pm
Pot Stirrer said | June 27th 2012 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
Thats my whole point, that should not be happening, its robbinng Aust born players or players who have grown up in Australia and want (nationalised) to be Australian of the oppurtunity to play for Aust at what ever level. Why should we allow the Kiwis or any other country to use us to develop thier players.
SOO is an Australian Concept for Australians, they are free to come up with thier own.
June 27th 2012 @ 10:26pm
Sylvester said | June 27th 2012 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
“the u/20′s comp is dominated by NZ heritage players and if we allow them to play SOO, We will soon be uncompetitive on the international stage”
Pot stirrer, I can’t see how allowing Kiwis to play SOO will affect the national side. You think Slater, Inglis, Thurston etc became world class playing Origin? They’re simply the best players in the NRL. The Kiwi invasion into the NRL is by far the greater threat.
June 27th 2012 @ 12:10pm
ecto said | June 27th 2012 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Yes.
There are players that may have been raised in NSW or QLD but have strong family/heritage links to another country.
Why weaken international football by forcing them to play for Australia? If they want to play for Australia, they will choose Australia. But if they qualify for another country, then at least give them the choice.
June 27th 2012 @ 1:40pm
Tigranes said | June 27th 2012 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
Its up to NZ to lift their game and make it worthwhile for their younger players to want to play for NZ as opposed to Queensland or NSW.
June 27th 2012 @ 4:22pm
LT80 said | June 27th 2012 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
No this is a terrible idea.
Queensland and NSW are states of Australia, so if you consider yourself to come from one of these states, it follows that you must consider yourself to come from Australia.
I realise that many people have divided loyalties because they have spent time in more than one place, but allowing this sort of thing is not the answer. Players who are in this position must decide one way or the other and stick with it.
Indidently, making rep criteria based one the place of birth is also a bad idea. Most people’s identity is derived from where they spend their formative years, not where they were born.
Allowing people to chop and change their eligibility for different levels of rep football just weakens the integrity of rep football.