• You must be logged in to view threads on this forum. Please sign up by clicking here to continue viewing content on the mighty South Sydney Rabbitohs.

Origin Vs International Eligibility

How should Origin eligibility work?

  • Origin eligible players can only represent Australia!

    Votes: 8 50.0%

  • Origin eligible players can represent a different Tier 2 country of heritage.

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • Origin eligible players can represent any country of heritage.

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • Total voters
    16
Pplspoet

Pplspoet

Legendary Member
Joined
10 Oct 2005
Messages
42,158
Reaction score
11,758
Location
Hobart
We’ve been here before, but this topic seems to be trending once more post Radley.

Where do you stand?

NB: the fact you can’t swap between selected countries is implied.
 
Given that the original process was City V Country; SOO then Internationals; I believe that if you play in SOO then you are playing for Australia. I know there have been precedents with SOO players (Brad Thorn/ Tony Carrol) playing for NZ but we should not be undermining the Australian jersey. Sam Burgess would have loved to play SOO but couldn't; so if you don't intend to play for Australia then you should not be eligible to play SOO. Glory, glory
 
Agree with tragic. It’s is a hard one with the islanders as we all want to grow the international game via them but if the likes of To’o or Luai play origin but not for Australia It weakens Australia.
 
This might be a controversial statement but how about determining Origin eligibility based on where you play your junior footy? And Test eligibility based on country of birth / players election due to family heritage?

This would allow Pacific players to play Origin if they played their junior footy in Australia and they are talented enough to get picked in Origin, good luck to them.

Origin is a spectacle, so it makes sense that the best of the best play in it.

Meanwhile, the Test arena becomes a purer form of football and actually becomes about representing your country. Personally, I see this strengthening the International game.
 
I don’t get why we are making a big deal about this. Radley made a choice. He knew the consequences when he made his decision.
 
Strange comment.
 
bunnytragic said:
Given that the original process was City V Country; SOO then Internationals; I believe that if you play in SOO then you are playing for Australia. I know there have been precedents with SOO players (Brad Thorn/ Tony Carrol) playing for NZ but we should not be undermining the Australian jersey. Sam Burgess would have loved to play SOO but couldn't; so if you don't intend to play for Australia then you should not be eligible to play SOO. Glory, glory
Click to expand...
Sorry to disagree but CVC-SoO-Aus hasn't been in place since Super League introduced the ANZAC Test.

Origin has had a different set of eligibility criteria for the last decade or so as outlined here: https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/documents/state-of-origin-eligibility-rules.pdf

The caveat, however, is this line: To qualify for State of Origin you must be eligible and elect to play for Australia and have not represented another Tier 1 Nation at Senior Level (England/New Zealand).

The problem for me is that the game will simply not be able to grow without players being able to represent their heritage. Why does it matter if To'o plays for Samoa and NSW? If he meets the criteria for both the Blues and Samoa why should one exclude him from representing the other?

Origin and Internationals haven't always been mutually exclusive - while Origin used to be a selection trial(s), those were the days of leather footballs and policemen playing first grade.

With the multicultural nature of Australia and how big Origin has become, I think both can coexist without stepping on each other's toes. It might even help strengthen the international game as well as Origin.
 
why is it strange?

Radley didn’t play for NSW so he’s free to go play for his heritage.
luai & to’o have taken someone else’s spot in origin then walked out on Australia
 
captainsutto said:
why is it strange?

Radley didn’t play for NSW so he’s free to go play for his heritage.
luai & to’o have taken someone else’s spot in origin then walked out on Australia
Click to expand...
Your point is valid but it was terribly articulated initially.
 
captainsutto said:
why is it strange?

Radley didn’t play for NSW so he’s free to go play for his heritage.
luai & to’o have taken someone else’s spot in origin then walked out on Australia
Click to expand...
Considering he was recently selected in the squad didn’t he do the same?
 
Choose you origin and stick with it.

If you really want to represent Samoa that bad you won’t care if you play for NSW or not.

Oh wait it all about the cash really - cash for the player and cash for the game - and as usual soles are sold for it…
 
I think the balance is correct now.

If you're born and bred in NSW to two Samoan parents, I see no reason why you can't play for NSW and Samoa. Especially when those sort of decisions only help to grow the competitiveness of the international game.
 
But it weakens Australian football.
origin is in effect a trial fir the Aussie team
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top