As night follows day, so discussions around eligibility follow rep footy.
Discussing who can and can’t play for NSW and Queensland is almost as popular as the actual games and ranks right up there with stadium infrastructure, the judiciary and how many clubs there should be in Sydney in the rankings of rugby league’s most tedious and overplayed topics.
Yet this last week, there was actually something of a breakthrough.
It was widely reported that the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) are considering altering the current rules to disregard international allegiances, opening the pathway for players who have represented other Tier 1 countries – namely England and New Zealand – to feature in Origin if also eligible at state level.
This is a rare outbreak of common sense as far as eligibility goes, because it closes down two of the most regular yet least informed arguments on the subject.
Firstly, it recognises that Origin is an internal Australian competition with no impact on any other rep footy, and maximises the ARLC’s ability to make their three game mini-tournament as good as possible without impinging on other nations at all.
By opening the door to those who have chosen New Zealand or England at international level, they make it more likely that dual eligible players will be able to have their rep cake and eat it, opting for Origin when Origin is on and then other nations come the end of the year.
The only impediment would have been scheduling, but given that the Kiwis don’t likely to play a midyear Test any time soon and England can smash France with domestic players, that isn’t really an issue anymore.
Secondly, it stops dead the discussion on players from Tier 2 nations – notably Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and PNG – also playing for New South Wales or Queensland.
They’ve always been eligible, and 90% of the arguments around the ability of Jarome Luai, Brian To’o and others to turn has been rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of how the tiering works in international rugby league.
For the 700th and, hopefully final time: tiering is based on infrastructure and not how good your Men’s national team is. Samoa are never going to be Tier 1 and that’s why the system exists.
State of Origin is an internal Australian competition and, as far as the International Rugby League (IRL) is concerned, it’s alongside City vs Country, the Roses game and Jamaica’s Parish of Residence series in terms of deciding what country you can play for. It’s Australia’s problem alone.
What the changes might do – perhaps as an unintended consequence – is realign the priorities of the ARLC back in favour of the international game.
Historically, the flow chart for rep footy went something like this. If you were good in NSW, you played City-Country, under the auspices of the NSWRL, and if you were good there, you made it to State of Origin and the best from there would be picked for the Kangaroos.
The idea that one was a selection trial for the other persisted for many years, and was a foundational idea behind Origin as a concept in the late 1970s.
That has disappeared from the game now, partly because Australia has allowed (or chosen, if you’re more conspiratorial) Origin to supersede international footy, but also because the demographics of rugby league players have fundamentally shifted since the turn of the century.
In the heyday of Origin, prior to the Super League War, you didn’t really have to think about whether players were ever going to play for someone other than Australia because there weren’t any conflicts of interest, so to speak.
Now, a huge portion of the participants are eligible for Australia and at least one other nation, and if that nation is England or New Zealand, they have to choose between the professional challenge of Origin and any desire they might have to play internationally for those nations.
If you’re Kiwis-eligible, for example, it makes pure financial sense to take the estimated $30,000 three times a year rather than the lesser amounts on offer for international footy. Now, you could have both.
The demographic change that has taken place in just two decades is astounding.
As recently as 2005, there were just two Pacific players in State of Origin: Petero Civoniceva (Fijian) and Carl Webb (of Indigenous and Maori decent).
Ironically Brad Thorn, born in New Zealand and with caps for the All Blacks, was allowed to play as he had chosen Australia in rugby league and was schooled from the age of 9 in Brisbane.
By 2007 there were six Pacific players and by 2010, there were eight, then by the time the international eligbility rules changed in 2017, over a third of State of Origin could play for another Pacific nation and, indeed, at that year’s World Cup, the likes of Andrew Fifita, Josh Papali’i, Anthony Milford and Jarryd Hayne actually did.
As of this year’s Origin, 19 on the 51 who participated in the series could or have played for a Pacific nation, a full 37% of all players and that, of course, only includes those who were eligible under the current rules.
The likes of Jason Taumalolo (raised in Townsville), Ronaldo Mulitalo (Ipswich), Briton Nikora (Gold Coast) Kieran Foran (Sydney) and Moses Leota (St Mary’s) all were all raised in Australia for long enough to be eligible but represented New Zealand at the most recent Pacific Championships and thus cannot currently play Origin.
Victor Radley, though an outside choice, could also have played for NSW but was ineligible due to his appearances for England.
One wonders how rules changes might play into the thoughts of Leeds-born Queenslander Sam Walker when choosing his rep pathway, especially as long as Nathan Cleary still exists.
The new rules will likely need a little refinement to work, but the spirit behind this change is correct.
To pass the pub test, they will have to be able to discern between the Radley/Taumalolo types – clearly from NSW and Queensland – and, for example, allowing someone like Brandon Smith, who moved to Townsville as a teenager, to turn out in Maroon.
For New Zealand, in particular, this is a major issue as more and more of their best opt for Samoa and Tonga – thus allowing them to play Origin, if eligible – which weakens the Kiwis.
Someone like Reece Walsh, yet to feature at international level but of Maori descent, currently has his Origin ambitions clash with international options.
Kalyn Ponga, who has played 9s for Australia, is in the same boat and given the emergence of Walsh and the plethora of elite fullbacks from NSW, one suspects that Ponga might appreciate the chance to reassess his international options. The Kiwis would love to have him.
In the women’s game, superstars like Shannon Mato, Kennedy Cherrington, Sarah Togatuki and Zahara Temara could all have benefited from this rule in the past and, indeed, could do so in the future.
Perhaps it is naïve to think that changing eligibility rules will stop discussion of them around Origin time.
Indeed, the more the rules change in rugby league, the more we tend to debate them, with more and more complexities added to the argument.
On this occasion, however, it does seem to suit all parties.
The players who are eligible for Origin and want to play it, especially those born and raised in the states, can do so without jeopardising their ability to represent their heritage and to play internationally.
Both states gain access to more players without simultaneously taking players away from nations that have smaller talent pools, while also not asking players to pick between their heritage and the place that raised them.
For the administrators, it adds more headline names to an already stellar product and for fans, it makes rugby league’s all star game even more glittering.
Oh, and of course: it gives us all another thing to argue about. Whangārei? Wigan? They’re in Queensland, right?
Morshead
Roar Rookie
You missed the larger point I was making but thanks for your insight.
scrum
Roar Rookie
If you know anything about the history of SOO you should understand that to suggest other teams should be involved is a complete nonsense.
Andrew
Roar Rookie
That makes no sense. Khawaja moved to Australia as a baby, Labuschagne when he was 8 and Inglis when 14. Pieterson when 19. Also from the man himself https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/kevin-pietersen-dont-care-played-england-south-african/
souvalis
Roar Rookie
Of all the talented tough guys in the NRL was a really pleasant surprise to see him nominate Tyson Frizell as his most under rated. What a trajectory for the young bloke broken legs and 25 kg increase in a season considered. The squad plays truer to ability and he keeps tracking upwardly.... not that far away from a Blue jumper.
The Barry
Roar Guru
For the record I do agree with you that the rule of eligibility should apply to all those eligible :laughing: :laughing: it’s good we agree on something… Nationality is not just the place you were born or who issues your passport and once it’s decided it’s decided forever. Nationality and citizenship can be the same thing, they can be different, they can be the same from birth or they can change multiple times because of multiple reasons That’s the context of this discussion and my comment you responded to Nationality is different from citizenship, it’s a one minute google Anyway, there’s no right or wrong and happy to leave it there if you are…
Tez
Roar Rookie
Poms, Kiwis and Islanders playing Origin? Ok commit to one state and Australia .... you want to play Origin then you tick those boxes, and no going back on your word.
Tez
Roar Rookie
Warm Beers v Chilly Bins ????
Tez
Roar Rookie
Yeah .... nah. State of Origin is what it says. It is not about 2 mixed teams from God knows where. Yeah I know there have been some blips in the past ie Adrian Lam and Greg Inglis come to mind but overwhelmingly it has been Qlder v Newsouthwelshman .... enough said. Leave it alone.
Robbo
Roar Rookie
And we would still win with whoever replaced them
Morshead
Roar Rookie
All the examples you’ve shown still end up with citizenship tied to a nationality. If you have two passports then they would still be tied to two nations - of which would be your nationality. Now if your granny was from a third nation, you may associate your heritage or identity with that third nation but it isn’t your nationality. Happy to agree to disagree on this one. For the record I do agree with you that the rule of eligibility should apply to all those eligible :)
Ben Pobjie
Expert
Not since they made Wests merge.
The Barry
Roar Guru
But it’s the “all that” which is my original point I’ve described lots of different ways that nationality isn’t tied to citizenship or country of birth Nationality, national identity and citizenship are different things
Morshead
Roar Rookie
I get all that but your original point I responded to was that ‘there is more to nationality than birthplace or passport’. And with that I disagree as that is exactly what defines legal citizenship. Identity and heritage can be viewed separately.
Tony
Roar Guru
Things aren't always that black and white Ben
Ben Pobjie
Expert
I think at the age of fifteen every player should be asked whether they like blue jumpers or maroon jumpers better. Then they play for whatever team’s colour they prefer.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Sure. But even then people can be dual citizens, have more than one passport, get passports or citizenship based on where their parents were born, emigrate, change nationality by marriage, etc I’m pretty sure Queensland have had the best of the eligibility conundrum… :laughing: :laughing:
Thom
Roar Rookie
Would be best of best. And giving the pi players big game exposure.
Morshead
Roar Rookie
Call me a traditionalist but my point was simply that birth place and passport do actually legally define your nationality so have to mean something unless we’re talking about the abolition of the nation state. (But if that is what it takes to beat Queensland I suppose).
The Barry
Roar Guru
Says who? It’s a very traditional, old school view of the world. Country of birth is becoming less relevant in terms of national identity We’re seeing that with rugby league. Brian To’o could have played a dozen tests for Australia and won a World Cup and probably be better off financially, but would rather represent the country of his heritage. I have Lebanese mates who are proudly Australian but identify as being Lebanese I have a mate who’s Fijian Indian whose family had to flee Fiji in one of the coups. He was raised in NZ and has lived in Australia most of his life. His national identity is far more complex than just where he was born or what’s on his passport What we’re seeing playing out in football eligibility is mirroring what’s happening in the real world It’s not an invalid viewpoint, but clinging to “you’re born here, that’s what you are, no exceptions” positions will make rep footy eligibility less relevant, not more
Ad Tastic
Roar Rookie
KP himself has said he came to England for political reasons. Even while he was playing for England he maintained better personal relationships with the SA team than he did with his own team mates. Doesnt matter what country his parents were from, he's South African. Everything about him is South African.