2011 Four Nations Discussion

Rangi Chase and Chris Heighington playing for the poms too. The farcical way in which players represent the island countries is bad enough, bad when a competing four nations team does it it really does show how silly internationals are.

And no, I don't want to stop flogging a dead horse. It's fun.
 
The rules definitely need fixing up. At a certain age, a player should choose who they want to represent and stick with that test side, no matter what. And I've had this argument before, but only 3 sides really should be test nations at the moment. The rest need as much help as they can get.

I don't understand why people continually criticise the International game. It is growing, as seen with New Zealand and with the Pommies producing some good talent and France pulling themselves out of the mire we could have ourselves a good competition in the coming years.
 
And what age should that be BP? 14? 16? Not old enough to make that huge decision. 18? Sometimes you'll have a case where someone has played International Rugby League by then.

Personally, I see not much wrong with the rules to be honest. And I don't see much different in other sports on the International scale. Last year there was an article in the paper about how Cristiano Ronaldo could've played for the Socceroos. Quade Cooper apparently could've played for the All Blacks but chose Australia? A few from the Arab nations playing cricket for England!!! Why are our rules a farce and theirs not??
 
Because despite how low scale our competition is comparatively we seem to have more issues than those other codes.

16 is the golden age, if it's good enough for Origin, it's good enough for International allegiance.
 
You realise that the only players who actually get to "choose" their State of Origin are the ones who choose between that and representing New Zealand? And generally those would be at least 18 before having to make that decision.

Well apart from Inglis who told a porky.
 
From what I've been informed, it's on everyone of those contracts at around the age of 16.
 
Yeh but it's not a case of 'Mr Lockyer, you're 16, so you need to tell us which state you want to play for'.
 
Of course not, but around that age bracket, there is an option, and it should be followed. The way we allow our players to change their mind hurts the integrity of the International game. It shouldn't happen, in any sport.
 
And what age should that be BP? 14? 16? Not old enough to make that huge decision. 18? Sometimes you'll have a case where someone has played International Rugby League by then.

Whilst it may be hard to choose an exact age, surely we can agree that at 28 years of age and with 3 country city games under his belt, Chris Heighington doesn't really want to represent England, but simply does so because NSW don't want him.
 
Fien's the only really bad example IMO
 
What about TC? Plays for QLD and then NZ which frankly I have no issues with. But then he later plays for Aus too.
 
TC was another unusual case. He only played for NZ in the 2000 World Cup under the tournament rules. he was still eligible for Australia. Very weird.
 
No need to put an age on it BP, First contract you sign is the one where you should make your choice.
 
Why should you have to "choose"? If you have multiple eligibilities that's fine, just wait until you get selected.

IMO though, Origin eligibility shouldn't be reliant on being Australian. If you're brought up in QLD or NSW, play your first senior football here, you should be able to play Origin, even if by birth you are a Kiwi or a Pom or whatever.
 

Active Now

  • Broncosgirl
  • I bleed Maroon
  • bb_gun
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.