Should SOO eligibility rules change ??

[happy_tiger]

I think where you are first either born is the state you play for or if you are from elsewhere (interstate or overseas ) the place you first live is where you should play . Big story coming up about Kennedy from Roosters he is from Casino born and bred but played under 17 for Qld and played A grade in Ipswich also and is going to probably play for Qld . As a Queenslander I'm naturally happy but don't agree with it Others thoughts ???

 

[Jazza]

To me its simple, it should be the state where you were born, hence the name 'State of _Origin_'

I dont understand why the eligibility rules are so complicated, the whole reason for State of Origin in the first place was because QLD players were leaving QLD to play in the NSWRL and then being selected for NSW. Its just now NSW players want to play for the more successful QLD side.

It should be the same for internationals as well.

If they dont like it, tough, dont play origin at all.

On a side note I also don't know why there is all this talk about Kennedy playing Origin, he has one good game against a depleted pack, scores a try running over a busted hooker and he is talked up as an origin representative. I mean for QLD alone he has got at least Petero, Shillington, Hannant and Matt Scott ahead of him. Even for NSW he would have Snowden, Weyman, Mannah, Galloway and Douglas ahead of him.

 

[alien]

it should be where you were born for state of origin and internationals.

 

[Tiger_Watto]

It's a bit of a mess… Look at all the Keebra Park boys who technically are Wests Tigers, but under the rules can play for Queensland...

Not sure if origin of birth is the best option. Some NSW mother might give birth while on holidays in Queensland? Then if you extend the rules for international RL, the Island nations will have little to no chance again... Although, I feel the international RL is worse than origin rules. Look at Nathan Fien who's great grandmother had a budgie which was from the North Island of NZ...

I think you will also find under the current rules, Cory Paterson is eligible for WA???

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

To me its simple, it should be the state where you were born, hence the name 'State of _Origin_'

I dont understand why the eligibility rules are so complicated, the whole reason for State of Origin in the first place was because QLD players were leaving QLD to play in the NSWRL and then being selected for NSW. Its just now NSW players want to play for the more successful QLD side.

It should be the same for internationals as well.

If they dont like it, tough, dont play origin at all.

On a side note I also don't know why there is all this talk about Kennedy playing Origin, he has one good game against a depleted pack, scores a try running over a busted hooker and he is talked up as an origin representative. I mean for QLD alone he has got at least Petero, Shillington, Hannant and Matt Scott ahead of him. Even for NSW he would have Snowden, Weyman, Mannah, Galloway and Douglas ahead of him.

By your logic, Sterlo would have been a QLD'er then… Even though he was a toddler when his family moved to NSW...

 

[Demps]

Kennedy isn't state of origin quality, in my opinion…
As said, he'd be so low on the QLD list if they're actually even considering it.
Also on NSW as well, he's just not going to make it.

 

[TIGER]

If you make it where you were born what happens to kids born in WA, VIC or overseas? What if your born in QLD and move to NSW when you are 2 months old and never go back to QLD, you grow up and play all your footy in NSW you'd have to play for QLD if the state you were born rule applied. That would be stupid!
It has to be where you played your first senior game of footy and thats it.

I have three sons, my oldest was born in NSW but has played all his junior footy in QLD and has now lived in QLD longer than he has in NSW, he is a blues supporter like the rest of the family but if he's good enough and he continues his footy into his senior years then he'll have to play for QLD. It wouldn't be right for him to play for NSW. My other 2 were born in QLD.

 

[Marshall_magic]

it should be where you were born for state of origin and internationals.

Disagree about internationals. If you're born in Australia, but your parents, grandparents, etc are all born in England you would tell people that your English. To force someone in a similar predicament to play for the country of their birth not the country of their heritige is wrong.

 

[stryker]

Where you were born is a flawed argument.

It's where you played you first senior footy.

All these NSW fogs who came out winging today sound like poor losers.

 

[steve-o]

a player should be able to play for the state that:
1) they were born in
2) grew up in
3) played their 1st senior footy game in
if a player is eligible for more than one state based on the above points then the player should be allowed to choose which state he wants to represent.
in regards to the martin kennedy argument, i dont understand why nsw would want a player who doesnt want to play for them. give him to qld. we dont need. we should only want to pick players who have pride in this great state and want to play for the love of the sky blue jumper

 

[TIGER]

a player should be able to play for the state that:
1) they were born in
2) grew up in
3) played their 1st senior footy game in
if a player is eligible for more than one state based on the above points then the player should be allowed to choose which state he wants to represent.
in regards to the martin kennedy argument, i dont understand why nsw would want a player who doesnt want to play for them. give him to qld. we dont need. we should only want to pick players who have pride in this great state and want to play for the love of the sky blue jumper

I don't think they should be allowed to choose i think the rules need to be clean cut, or it just creates more confusion. They can't be eligible for more than 1 state because you either play your first senior game in NSW or QLD simple as that.
And in regards to the Kennedy thing (and this has happened in a lot of other cases as well) why do these kids who say they want to play for QLD play in U17's NSW sides? If you say your a QLDer and want to represent Qld why would you as a 17 year old allow yourself to be picked in a squad, train with a team and pull on a blue jersey and play for NSW? I don't get it!

 

[Yossarian]

I don't think it should be where you were born. The problems really come about when you have non-Queensland teams with Queensland feeder teams. Take Melbourne Storm - depending on what year someone was with them they could have played reserve grade in Brisbane, the Central Coast, or Melbourne.
Then you have the situation where junior state teams are based on residency (as far as I'm aware) so that Kiwis play Australian Schoolboys and Queenslanders play for NSW.

Whatever they come up with, it needs to be clear and make sense. Having someone who is born in NSW and spends the first 16 years in NSW play for Queensland because the team he signs for has a feeder school/club in Queensland is stupid. I've never been a fan of counting school games for eligibility. The level of record keeping for those games is close to non-existent for the most part.

Personally I think they should stop NRL clubs signing players before they are 16 and then eligibility can be wherever you happen to be based on your 16th birthday. Kids attending schools away from their homes can be assessed on their nominal home address rather than the location of their school. Players in border areas should be assessed on their home address. If you live your whole life in Tweed Heads, it shouldn't matter that you played a game at 16 for Coolangatta High. You live in NSW, you play for NSW.

 

[happy_tiger]

I don't think it should be where you were born. The problems really come about when you have non-Queensland teams with Queensland feeder teams. Take Melbourne Storm - depending on what year someone was with them they could have played reserve grade in Brisbane, the Central Coast, or Melbourne.
Then you have the situation where junior state teams are based on residency (as far as I'm aware) so that Kiwis play Australian Schoolboys and Queenslanders play for NSW.

Whatever they come up with, it needs to be clear and make sense. Having someone who is born in NSW and spends the first 16 years in NSW play for Queensland because the team he signs for has a feeder school/club in Queensland is stupid. I've never been a fan of counting school games for eligibility. The level of record keeping for those games is close to non-existent for the most part.

Personally I think they should stop NRL clubs signing players before they are 16 and then eligibility can be wherever you happen to be based on your 16th birthday. Kids attending schools away from their homes can be assessed on their nominal home address rather than the location of their school. Players in border areas should be assessed on their home address. If you live your whole life in Tweed Heads, it shouldn't matter that you played a game at 16 for Coolangatta High. You live in NSW, you play for NSW.

Don't quote me Yoss but I don't think it is based on your first High school team or even high school rep team . I think it is based on your 1st grade side (not meaning first grade side ) but your grade as in u19 upwards colts etc . Pretty sure in case of Kennedy it was either Ipswich Jets u19 or one of the clubs in Ipswich local comp IE Brothers West End etc

 

[Juro]

a player should be able to play for the state that:
1) they were born in
2) grew up in
3) played their 1st senior footy game in
if a player is eligible for more than one state based on the above points then the player should be allowed to choose which state he wants to represent.
in regards to the martin kennedy argument, i dont understand why nsw would want a player who doesnt want to play for them. give him to qld. we dont need. we should only want to pick players who have pride in this great state and want to play for the love of the sky blue jumper

I'm happy with this solution. The thing I would add, though, is that any player who plays at a given level (say NRL or lower grades) has to specify which state they are eligible when they register (or make their debut). This removes the issue of guys waiting until they are good enough before choosing one or the other.

 

[Tigermac]

There are rules :astonished: :astonished: :astonished:

I thought you could play for whoever you like, or whoever is winning !!

 

[Yossarian]

I don't think it should be where you were born. The problems really come about when you have non-Queensland teams with Queensland feeder teams. Take Melbourne Storm - depending on what year someone was with them they could have played reserve grade in Brisbane, the Central Coast, or Melbourne.
Then you have the situation where junior state teams are based on residency (as far as I'm aware) so that Kiwis play Australian Schoolboys and Queenslanders play for NSW.

Whatever they come up with, it needs to be clear and make sense. Having someone who is born in NSW and spends the first 16 years in NSW play for Queensland because the team he signs for has a feeder school/club in Queensland is stupid. I've never been a fan of counting school games for eligibility. The level of record keeping for those games is close to non-existent for the most part.

Personally I think they should stop NRL clubs signing players before they are 16 and then eligibility can be wherever you happen to be based on your 16th birthday. Kids attending schools away from their homes can be assessed on their nominal home address rather than the location of their school. Players in border areas should be assessed on their home address. If you live your whole life in Tweed Heads, it shouldn't matter that you played a game at 16 for Coolangatta High. You live in NSW, you play for NSW.

Don't quote me Yoss but I don't think it is based on your first High school team or even high school rep team . I think it is based on your 1st grade side (not meaning first grade side ) but your grade as in u19 upwards colts etc . Pretty sure in case of Kennedy it was either Ipswich Jets u19 or one of the clubs in Ipswich local comp IE Brothers West End etc

Yeah I don't think that's true. People always quote Arrive Alive Cup games when discussing eligibility - this was one of the debates with Inglis, that he played for someone up in the Hunter I think in the AA Cup. It gets worse than that though, Queensland have basically said anyone who plays for their academy sides (as young as 14) are eligible to play for Queensland at SOO.

I think it should be more along the lines of what you say. At least in comps run by junior leagues there are some decent formalities and checks - you (well in the comps I've been associated with) need to sign the sheet and someone checks your photo ID to make sure there are no ringers. In schoolboy comps (our school didn't play in the AA Cup so no idea if it was better) it was basically anything goes. You could throw anyone in and nobody really questioned it. And the record keeping as I said is basically non-existent.

 

[happy_tiger]

I think there are rules on that as well Back in my day (mid 80's) a guy I had gone to another school with changed schools and was told there was a six week clearance period on him playing for the new school in any comps whether local ,Commonwealth Bank Cup (currently AA comp) and Coca Cola comp .I think you would need to be a registered player with either QRL or NSWRL as well and have proof . As all registrations would be have to be kept for Tax (for audits)and Insurance purposes by all clubs Records would be pretty clear in this day and age I would of thought .

 

[Yossarian]

I think there are rules on that as well Back in my day (mid 80's) a guy I had gone to another school with changed schools and was told there was a six week clearance period on him playing for the new school in any comps whether local ,Commonwealth Bank Cup (currently AA comp) and Coca Cola comp .I think you would need to be a registered player with either QRL or NSWRL as well and have proof . As all registrations would be have to be kept for Tax (for audits)and Insurance purposes by all clubs Records would be pretty clear in this day and age I would of thought .

Maybe it varies. As I recall we just put together a team and turned up… I certainly don't remember anyone needing to be registered but you'd hope that was more a result of the haphazard standards we had and not a reflection of the general situation.

What are you referring to in your last couple of lines? Junior league or schoolboys? Junior league records have always been pretty good.

 

[Tiger_Watto]

It is currently "First Senior Football" which includes any RL Body (ARL/NSWRL/QRL) run Schools/State Competitions played under Senior Rules…

 

[happy_tiger]

Club football in registered competitions in general Whether juniors or seniors . Especially with the insurance side of things . It would not recognize if you played in a unregistered league for SOO qualifications .