Rule Changes

[Viti]

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.

I dont really understand this, so if someone hasnt lived in either NSW or QLD they can play for the state there father played for? I really dont see the point in even having that rule if its just going to be overruled by the age rule. Also, with these new rules I know GI will still be a maroon but will the likes of Korbin Sims be forced to play for NSW?

 

[Anonymous person]

if their dad was an origin player, yes. if their dad never played origin and the kid doesnt live in NSW or QLD before theyre 13 they can NOT play state of origin under the new rules.

currently someone could live in WA until theyre 25, come play a match in NSW, then play for NSW the next week. under the new rules they cant.

the father rule is there so that sons of former origin players can follow in their fathers footsteps regardless of them being born out of state, nothing more.

 

[Mister Wright]

I think Mark Coyne is a good example of the father/son rule. He was lamenting on 'The Roast' during the season that his son was upset having to possibly being eligible for N.S.W. at least under the new rule he could play for QLD despite growing up in N.S.W.

 

[Viti]

if their dad was an origin player, yes. if their dad never played origin and the kid doesnt live in NSW or QLD before theyre 13 they can NOT play state of origin under the new rules.

currently someone could live in WA until theyre 25, come play a match in NSW, then play for NSW the next week. under the new rules they cant.

the father rule is there so that sons of former origin players can follow in their fathers footsteps regardless of them being born out of state, nothing more.

does that mean that if a sydney based maroon had a child they would be allowed to choose to play for qld?

 

[Anonymous person]

I wouldn't think so, because they lived in nsw before they were 13.

Just need a bit of clarification on what overrules what in regards to father being an origin player.

 

[Je$ter]

I thin as far as benefit of te doubt and video ref here's what I would like to see:

- on field refs MUST make a call
- the video referee may decide to then review the decision OR the captain chooses to challenge the call if video ref doesn't choose to review the play.
- If there is no irrefutable evidence to overturn the referees call, it stands as is. If there is video evidence to overturn the call it is over turned.

 

[GCBRONCO]

There would have to be limits on the amount of challenges a captain of a side could make, wouldn't want to see them challenging every try.

 

[Coxy]

There would have to be limits on the amount of challenges a captain of a side could make, wouldn't want to see them challenging every try.

Need to be like cricket. Say 1 unsuccessful challenge per half.

 

[Nashy]

I thought we already tried the challenge rule and it was fucking shit.

 

[Anonymous person]

i dont think we have?

i think its something that we NEED to have. QLD could potentially have gotten another clean sweep this year if we couldve challenged that touchies "brent tate just knocked the ball on....15m into the stands.... while trying to put it down" call.

 

[Nashy]

Captains could check for strips, and it was nothing but a game slower. It was crap.

 

[Viti]

Captains could check for strips, and it was nothing but a game slower. It was crap.

Im pretty sure they weren't challenges, the video ref just reviewed any knock on call and could hold up play and reverse the decision if they thought it was wrong.

 

[Nashy]

Right, and that's not a challenge how?

*Play stops for whatever reason. I dunno Thaiday probably knocked on or something dumb*
Ref: Lost
Thaiday: Nah bullshit mate, lets check that sucker out

Video ref checks, and gets back to the ref.

How is that not a challenge?

 

[Coxy]

Right, and that's not a challenge how?

*Play stops for whatever reason. I dunno Thaiday probably knocked on or something dumb*
Ref: Lost
Thaiday: Nah bull**** mate, lets check that sucker out

Video ref checks, and gets back to the ref.

How is that not a challenge?

Err, because the captain wasn't requesting it. It was being done regardless, according to viti.

Are you reading the forum on your phone? Because you seem to be missing the point of a lot of posts today.

 

[Anonymous person]

i see a "challenge" as something that you officially request, and if your challenge is upheld then you lose nothing. if your challenge is denied, you lose the right to challenge again (IMO each team should get say 2 challenges a half, incorrect challenge is the only way to lose one of those 2).

the ref just checking it because he can isnt a challenge.

 

[Nashy]

But the captain had to challenge it. It wasn't just "done" at the kindness of the VR heart. The captain had to walk to the ref, and request it be checked. This was like 2 years ago.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

i dont ever remember this happening

 

[Nashy]

It was a strip rule. The captain could walk to the ref after calling a knock-on, and check if it was stripped.