Eligibility for State of Origin selection has long been a huge issues, with a number of that eight-year-long Queensland dynasty being born in New South Wales.
Players like Greg Inglis, Sam Thaiday, Matt Gillett and even Queensland legend Billy Moore were born in NSW.
I am not ignorant to the fact that NSW isn’t immune from manipulating the eligibility rules either – Blues legend Peter Sterling was born in Toowoomba.
While the eligibility chat has laid dormant for a few years, to use Peter V’landys’ language regarding the current shutdown, “everything is on the table” concerning what the league will look like following the crisis.
This means the topic has risen again.
Brad Fittler has advocated relaxing the eligibility rules, while former Queensland mentor Graham Lowe wants the series to include New Zealand and a combined Pacific Islands team.
I reject Lowe’s proposal completely as what makes Origin great is the passion. It is an interstate rivalry and adopting his plan would turn it into a hybrid series of both state and international rugby league. Lowe’s proposal would weaken the greatest rugby league spectacle in Australia and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
With that said, there is a chat to be had around players who are eligible for multiple nations choosing to represent Australia solely to play Origin. Andrew Fifita became the exception to this rule in recent years, turning his back on NSW to play for Tonga, and this has led to the small nation becoming stronger on the international stage.
Andrew Fifita (Photo by Anthony Au-Yeung/Getty Images)
This is to be encouraged, but how do we encourage players to ignore Australia and play for emerging nations, thereby growing the international game, when Origin remains the pinnacle of rugby league?
The way is to reform the eligibility criteria on four simple grounds.
1. If you were born in NSW or Queensland, the state you were born in is the state that you play for, regardless of your international allegiance.
2. If you were born in one of the other states, the state where you played your first game within the NRL system – whether junior or senior, SG Ball for the Knights for example – is your state. Again, this would be regardless of your international allegiance (for example, Kalyn Ponga was born in Western Australia but is eligible for New Zealand through his father’s heritage).
3. If you were born internationally, you play for the state of the club you signed your first NRL contract with. Melbourne can be assigned to the Maroons, as their feeder team is in the Queensland Cup, while the Warriors can be assigned to NSW as their feeder team is in the NSW Cup.
4. If you were born in Australia but converted from another sport, apply Number 1 or 2, before using 3 if required.
These four points would simplify the selection criteria, end the ridiculous scenario where a person born in NSW plays for Queensland and vice versa, and grow the international game.
These changes also need to apply retrospectively and equally to all players, or it will take at least a decade to be fully implemented.
We need to grow the international game and the selection criteria for Origin is inhibiting that, but we can’t grow the former game at the expense of the latter, which is Australian rugby league’s greatest product.
We also need to ensure the best players feature in the biggest games and excluding the likes of former Dally M Player of the Year Roger Tuivasa-Sheck and Andrew Fifita from Origin because they play for international sides means the best miss three of the four biggest games of the year.
So while I reject the detail of Graham Lowe’s proposal, there does need to be reform to strengthen the international game.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
It should be on birth for state of origin. It should who you signed your first contract with, if it the storm signing a 7 year old or an under 16’s. Thought has gone into it but the club, said player has skills which have been noticed. A 7 yr old or 16 might not know too much about contracts, but parents will guide and they would have a clue about SoO and who they go for. No tricks would come into it then, maybe they playing For a regional town against guys with ten years on them, great. But till the get ‘selected’, spotted by that Melbourne talent scout and sent to a private school on the Melbourne contract, it don’t matter.
Paul
Roar Guru
I reckon you're a brave man, taking on this topic for a first piece Daniel. You make two statements I have to question. "how do we encourage players to ignore Australia and play for emerging nations, thereby growing the international game, when Origin remains the pinnacle of rugby league?" "We need to grow the international game and the selection criteria for Origin is inhibiting that". In the first instance, why is it "our" responsibility to encourage players to play for emerging nations? I'd have thought players good enough to play at Test level with another country, will have plenty of family or friends to help make that decision. I also wonder how the Origin selection criteria are inhibiting anything to do with international league? I look at the past 12 months where the international game has come along hugely, yet the Origin eligibility rules are unchanged. My final point is, what happens if several positions for both the Blues & Maroons are taken up by overseas players? There are 34 spots up for grabs and without thinking too much about it, I can come up with at least 6 or 8 overseas guys who'd walk into Origin, based on your criteria. It wouldn't be a stretch to find a few more, then I wonder if this is still SOO, or just a couple of hybrid sides playing each other? If we allow overseas guys into SOO, how does that help our international side? Guys who miss out on the high pressure cauldron of SOO, are missing out on a chance to learn how to manage pressure. Why would we want to give that up? I think the current SOO eligibility rules as sufficient. Yes there can be some disputes, but I see that as part of the mystique of the series
Clanger McClunk
Guest
Nice story Daniel. You've put quite a lot of thought into it but I can't agree with point 1. Take for example people who live on the Gold Coast strip. You get a family living around Tugun who have kids born in Tweed Heads Hospital, the baby spends it's first few days in NSW and grows up in QLD. The boy grows up to be a great RL player who loves the maroons but is forced by the rules to play for NSW where his heart doesn't belong. I can see your idea is to stop Greg Inglis part two happening again but it will be very difficult to put into practice. Points 2,3 and 4 have merit, well worth looking more deeply into. To apply these changes retrospectively would open up a volcano that would never die down.
The King of the World
Roar Guru
I’ll break down each of your points. Point 1. I am at a 50/50 line here. If you choose to play for Tonga and NSW like Andrew Fifita, that would be a cool move but it would be hard him to squeeze both in on representative weekend. Point 2. I understand why KP and play for the Maori’s due to his father’s heritage but I personally think if that’s the case, he shouldn’t be eligible for State of Origin Point 3. I do like the idea of bringing in someone from England to play State of Origin. I do know James Roby was close to signing with Newcastle beginning in 2016 and he would have been a good pick for NSW under these rulings while Damien Cook was gaining experience for his Origin debut. Point 4. That does make sense.
Rob9
Roar Guru
In my opinion, your eligibility criteria will diminish what’s one of the most special and valuable products of our game. Firstly, players playing for the state they were born in is far from a perfect model. There are plenty who were born on one side of the Tweed and move to the other side before they’ve laid hands on a Steeden. Sure there was controversy around the likes of Inglis, but as a proud NSWelshmen, I never begrudged Thaiday for representing QLD who moved there when he was 4. What I wouldn’t want to see en-masse is legitimate Kiwis/Poms filling spots in origin teams based on the club sides they signed for as professionals. Sure, if they’re here as schoolboys that’s fine. But if they’re close to the finished product before they arrive in Australia then they shouldn’t be touched by either state. Finally, why should an Andrew Fafita who was born and raised in Australia (not to mention his First Nations lineage) be ‘encouraged’ to play for another country? It’s not to ‘grow the game internationally’. It’s for the strength of a few island nations with populations that are similar in size to most Sydney local councils. Often times these ‘heritage’ selections are to the detriment of the Kiwis who could actually be a real strong, legitimate and long term rival of Australia.
Rellum
Roar Guru
You should only be playing origin if you are "from" QLD or NSW. If you are form any other place you have the Kangaroos to aim for. International football should be held to a higher level of importance. When I say from there needs to be a formula to work it out. You can't say where you were born is the deciding factor. My daughter was born in Melbourne but we moved back to QLD two weeks after she was born. Does that mean a life of growing up in QLD would exclude her or any one in a similar situation from playing for the only place you have known.