Rule Changes
- Thread starter QUEENSLANDER
- Start date
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
"The Commission has also expanded the trials of the Captain’s Challenge System for next year with each televised match in the Under 20s competition to use two referees and implement the challenge system that was trialled at the end of this season.
The introduction of the second referee in these games allows the Captain’s Challenge to be viewed in conditions reflective of an NRL match.
“There are only specific areas that can be challenged such as: a mandatory penalty; a loss of possession (knock-on, strip) where play is to recommence with a structured start; charge downs where play is to recommence with a structured start; and determining which team last played at the ball prior to the ball going into touch or touch in-goal,” Mr McGuirk said.
“Having trialled it in one game last year this is an opportunity to test the concept in a way that would allow us to make a clear recommendation about its future at NRL level."
"
thats an awesome start, hopefully itll be in the NRL in 2014.
while its great that theyre doing something about origin eligibility, i think 13 is too old. its ridiculous that a kid could be born in NZ, live in NZ til hes 12 years and 364 days old, move to NSW/QLD and still play origin. should be much younger IMO, like 5-6. they wouldve done 13 as thats high school age, so thats when you start playing "real" rugby league.
but i guess as long as it keeps one player like Tamou from abusing the origin concept for monetary gain then its better than before.
do NOT like the shoulder charge ban at all though. minimum 200 points for being charged, which is 2 weeks suspension, maximum of 800 (8 weeks). thats ridiculous for a shoulder charge.
The introduction of the second referee in these games allows the Captain’s Challenge to be viewed in conditions reflective of an NRL match.
“There are only specific areas that can be challenged such as: a mandatory penalty; a loss of possession (knock-on, strip) where play is to recommence with a structured start; charge downs where play is to recommence with a structured start; and determining which team last played at the ball prior to the ball going into touch or touch in-goal,” Mr McGuirk said.
“Having trialled it in one game last year this is an opportunity to test the concept in a way that would allow us to make a clear recommendation about its future at NRL level."
"
thats an awesome start, hopefully itll be in the NRL in 2014.
while its great that theyre doing something about origin eligibility, i think 13 is too old. its ridiculous that a kid could be born in NZ, live in NZ til hes 12 years and 364 days old, move to NSW/QLD and still play origin. should be much younger IMO, like 5-6. they wouldve done 13 as thats high school age, so thats when you start playing "real" rugby league.
but i guess as long as it keeps one player like Tamou from abusing the origin concept for monetary gain then its better than before.
do NOT like the shoulder charge ban at all though. minimum 200 points for being charged, which is 2 weeks suspension, maximum of 800 (8 weeks). thats ridiculous for a shoulder charge.
New video ref rules - will be interesting to see how this works in practice. Guarantee it will lead to every try or no try decision being whinged at by the likes of Lyon, Gallen and co.
Why would a ref ever award a try if he was uncertain and believed it needed to be reviewed? Most refs would then lean towards no-try and then the video ref needs to find evidence to suggest a try.
I guess it is good that the onus is shifted back to the on field ref to make a call and to the video ref then to find a reason to award or not award a try.
Why would a ref ever award a try if he was uncertain and believed it needed to be reviewed? Most refs would then lean towards no-try and then the video ref needs to find evidence to suggest a try.
I guess it is good that the onus is shifted back to the on field ref to make a call and to the video ref then to find a reason to award or not award a try.
What if Greg Inglis son plays all his junior Rugby League for Redfern, and then his first "senior game" for South Sydney reserve grades.
Would he then be eligble for Qld and NSW and gets to choose? Or is he bound by his father's selection for Qld.
For example, Steve (NSW)/Matt Rogers. Under this rule, would Matt Rogers have to play for NSW, or is it still his choice if he qualifies for both?
Would he then be eligble for Qld and NSW and gets to choose? Or is he bound by his father's selection for Qld.
For example, Steve (NSW)/Matt Rogers. Under this rule, would Matt Rogers have to play for NSW, or is it still his choice if he qualifies for both?
I believe it'd be a choice in that circumstance. Interestingly the only scenario they mentioned was if Billy Slater's kid grew up in Melbourne. He'd be eligible for QLD.
Pretty funny though, as if Billy will stay in Melbourne after he retires.
...y u keep posting in Rugby League forum?
QUEENSLANDER
NRL Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 4,316
- 537
- Thread starter
- #26
well nowhere has it says the current rules hold no bearing (where u play your first senior game). to me, it means to qualify for a state u must have lived there before u were 13 AND played ur first senior game there. in the given example, if inglis' son played his first senior game for south sydney, and he grew up there, i would think he qualifies for nsw and nsw only. but they havent really qualified that
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
thats an "OR" though.
so you can either qualify by living in NSW/QLD before youre 13 OR you play for who your dad played for.
The press release is poorly worded (suprise suprise ARLC).
Answer me this:
Jacob Lilyman resigns with the Warriors and plays out his career in Auckland. He retires there and has a son who plays Rugby League.
Lilyman returns to Australia with his family to live in Sydney with now 15 year old son.
Junior Lilyman plays first senior rugby league game with the Newtown Jets.
Who is Junior Lilyman eligible to play State of Origin for:
1. Under the old rules;
2. Under the new rules.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
Old rules = NSW, provided he doesnt play for NZ
New Rules = QLD, provided he doesnt play for NZ
Would it make any difference if Junior Lilyman came to Sydney aged 12?
In that case I would think he could choose between QLD and NSW and NZ...which means we're basically at square 1.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
yep, he'd be eligible for NSW then under the new rules (and old rules too)
from how i read it, if you dont live in NSW/QLD before the age of 13 then you can play for the state your dad played for. if you did live in NSW/QLD before age of 13, youre eligible for the that state and that state only, even if your dad played for the other state. i could be wrong, but thats how it reads to me.
Last edited:
Putting aside the highly unlikely scenario of a father-son playing State of Origin, the new rules are meant, AFAIK, to prevent the James Tamou rather than the Greg Inglis.
James Tamou >
A New Zealand born player must have lived in Australia before he was 13 in order to be eligble for State of Origin.
Greg Inglis>
A kid born in NSW who lived there until he was 14, cannot play for QLD (even if he plays U/15 to opens and his first senior game for a QLD club).
James Tamou >
A New Zealand born player must have lived in Australia before he was 13 in order to be eligble for State of Origin.
Greg Inglis>
A kid born in NSW who lived there until he was 14, cannot play for QLD (even if he plays U/15 to opens and his first senior game for a QLD club).
Last edited:
QUEENSLANDER
NRL Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 4,316
- 537
- Thread starter
- #36
Thats how i interpret it. the "first senior game" rule would outweigh the "father" rule
