Sam Kasiano

[Coxy]

And then what about people born and bred in Australia? What if you were born in QLD, moved to NSW when you were 5. No longer eligible for QLD? Must play for NSW? Or can only play for QLD even though you might not give a **** about QLD?

Honestly. Make it open slather. The game will be better off that way.

 

[Anonymous person]

And then what about people born and bred in Australia? What if you were born in QLD, moved to NSW when you were 5. No longer eligible for QLD? Must play for NSW? Or can only play for QLD even though you might not give a **** about QLD?

same deal - case by case basis based on how old you were when you moved. dont see how thats hard to get from my post. i didnt specifically mention Tonga/Fiji/UK/America, but that doesnt mean the NZ example of moving doesnt apply across the board.

How will it be worse off?
At the moment the whole eligibility furore and pathetic bitching that goes on between the camps is making Origin worse off.

itll be worse off because it wont even resemble the "state of origin" concept.

and remember, NSW are the only ones bitching about origin eligibility. QLD didnt so much as make a peep about Tamou the New Zealander saying how much he wanted to play for NZ and then 4 days later turning around and saying how much he wants to play for Australia and NSW instead. the QLD team said nothing.

I'm happy if they go with the xenophobic way and ban anyone not born in Australia playing Origin. It'll fit in with our generally racist/xenophobic culture ;-)

its not xenophobic/racist at all. being a male im not allowed to use the female rest rooms - is that sexist? no. so not being born in QLD/NSW meaning that you cant play in a QLD/NSW state or origin match isnt racist.

 

[Coxy]

State of ORIGIN has never been about where you were BORN. It's always been about where you played your first senior football. That's always been the rule.

Has Origin been LESS about states under that rule? No.

And allowing those who by birthright can (and should be able to) play for NZ, but who played their first senior football in QLD/NSW playing Origin does what exactly different to what the situation is now?

Answer is nothing, except a better pool of players to pick from, and improving the international game. Win. Win.

 

[Viti]

State of ORIGIN has never been about where you were BORN. It's always been about where you played your first senior football. That's always been the rule.

Has Origin been LESS about states under that rule? No.

And allowing those who by birthright can (and should be able to) play for NZ, but who played their first senior football in QLD/NSW playing Origin does what exactly different to what the situation is now?

Answer is nothing, except a better pool of players to pick from, and improving the international game. Win. Win.

This is exactly what i think. I know of many people myself included, that are of pacific island descent that were born here in Qld that are just as passionate about there heritage as they are about being a Queenslander and it makes no sense to me why they shouldnt be able to represent a country other than Australia.

 

[Coxy]

This is exactly what i think. I know of many people myself included, that are of pacific island descent that were born here in Qld that are just as passionate about there heritage as they are about being a Queenslander and it makes no sense to me why they shouldnt be able to represent a country other than Australia.

Yay, that's one person who agrees with me! LOL

 

[Porthoz]

Yay, that's one person who agrees with me! LOL

I do too.

I wasn't born in Qld or even Australia, but it doesn't make me less passionate about Qld than anyone else.
My son only arrived in Aus at age 13, but has been playing RL since. He is so passionate about Origin and Qld, that he got literally sick when Qld lost the second game. Why should he be denied the chance to pull the maroon jersey on? (if he obviously is good enough)

 

[Hamm.0]

In any other walk of life, there isn't really a set age where a person can say they are an Australian. What I mean by that is, if you move to Australia at 30, live here the required 5 (?) years and then (take the Citizenship test?) become a Citizen, you are Australian. Nobody can debate that, nobody can deny that. It's black and white, it's simple. If you are under 18 when you move here the 5 years is reduced I believe (?)

For any player who is an Australian citizen, at the time they play senior football (IMO this should be before Rnd 1 of their Under 16s season which means 17s to 20s you are locked in. Let's face it, most players who have a future in rep footy will be well known by the time they are leaving their JRLFCs). For any other player, from ANY nationality other than Australian, they can choose their State allegiance UPON becoming an Australian citizen.

To me, it's quite clear; if Tamou/Uate is/are an Australian citizen, then nobody has the right to tell him he isn't a NSWman. Carroll/Thorn/Petero, etc are ALL Australian citizens.

State of Origin, while RL pinnacle, is still a representative game, not an exhibition game. It's the best players the QLD RL system has produced vs. the best players the NSW RL system has produced.

The inherent problem doesn't lie in the eligibility of SoO, the problem lies with making serious inroads to allow Polynesian players have a representative game of their own. How long have we discussed "Auckland vs. Rest of NZ" or "North vs. South Island" or "Tauiwi vs. Kiwi"??

*WNG- Off topic rant; The NRL as the ambassador of RL worldwide and more importantly, Oceania, should be celebrating the huge potential of the Pacific Islands. Make the rep week people talk of. Make SoO Saturday night, create Auckland vs. Rest of NZ and play it on the Friday night, make Tonga vs. Samoa vs. Fiji vs. PNG, make it on the Wednesday night. Create Cook Islands vs. New Caledonia vs. Solomon Islands and play it as a curtain raiser. It won't be a success overnight, however give it time.

Don't drag down SoO to accommodate the needs of others. Although, the salary cap shows evidence that RL in Australia doesn't get that concept. I'm sure we were founded by communists....

 

[Hamm.0]

This is exactly what i think. I know of many people myself included, that are of pacific island descent that were born here in Qld that are just as passionate about there heritage as they are about being a Queenslander and it makes no sense to me why they shouldnt be able to represent a country other than Australia.

Viti; if you were selected to represent the country of your heritage and Australia and you had to choose one, who would you choose?

 

[Hamm.0]

I do too.

I wasn't born in Qld or even Australia, but it doesn't make me less passionate about Qld than anyone else.
My son only arrived in Aus at age 13, but has been playing RL since. He is so passionate about Origin and Qld, that he got literally sick when Qld lost the second game. Why should he be denied the chance to pull the maroon jersey on? (if he obviously is good enough)

He wouldn't be denied. He is a product of the QLD RL system, therefore he is eligible to play for QLD. If at age 17 he moved to NZ and got selected to play for the junior Kiwis, would you think it odd he would suddenly identify himself as a Kiwi? Unless he wanted NZ citizenship I would find it odd.

 

[Coxy]

He wouldn't be denied. He is a product of the QLD RL system, therefore he is eligible to play for QLD. If at age 17 he moved to NZ and got selected to play for the junior Kiwis, would you think it odd he would suddenly identify himself as a Kiwi? Unless he wanted NZ citizenship I would find it odd.

In Porthoz's son's case, it's a bit hard because IIRC they're Dutch, and Holland doesn't have a Rugby League team yet.
But suppose they did. Would you deny Porthoz's boy the opportunity to play for QLD and the country of his heritage?
I just think that's ridiculous, whether he's an Australian citizen or not. And I think it's ridiculous that you HAVE to make yourself available for Australia to play Origin. It doesn't make sense in this age of multiculturalism.

 

[Big Pete]

Coxy's idea has merit but I just don't like it.

If you're a Queenslander, you're also a proud Australian and you dream of wearing the green and gold. You don't play Origin for the fame or the money, you play because you bleed for your state & don't want to let your predecessors down. I don't believe we're seeing that with the likes of Tamou and I don't think we'd see it with Kasiano and the game would just dissolve into another exhibition game, when really it's the jewel crown of the game to many.

I don't really have an issue where somebody was born or where they first played League. What I hate is this bulls**t song and dance these players do to up their own personal value. I can't believe a player like Kasiano doesn't know who he wants to represent at age 22 and really I think by the age of 15 or 16 when he's first signed his contract to a major NRL club, he should know & from that point on he cannot change his mind.

There is so much more to this problem that needs addressing but to me, that'd eliminate the media circus that's going on right now and the need for QRL, NSWRL & NZRL to scout whatever talent they can persuade to represent them.

 

[Coxy]

And whatever the rules are or become, mrslong is right. Players should have to declare their allegiance when they register their first senior contract with the ARLC and that's it, there's no changing.

 

[Viti]

Viti; if you were selected to represent the country of your heritage and Australia and you had to choose one, who would you choose?

Honestly if i could play origin and play for Fiji id pick fiji anyday of the week

 

[Porthoz]

In Porthoz's son's case, it's a bit hard because IIRC they're Dutch, and Holland doesn't have a Rugby League team yet.
But suppose they did. Would you deny Porthoz's boy the opportunity to play for QLD and the country of his heritage?
I just think that's ridiculous, whether he's an Australian citizen or not. And I think it's ridiculous that you HAVE to make yourself available for Australia to play Origin. It doesn't make sense in this age of multiculturalism.

In our case it's even crazier, as besides being proud Australian Citizens, we have dual nationality (Portuguese and Dutch).
FTR, I think my son's preference would be: Australia = Portugal > Holland, but Qld over any of them.

The biggest problem here, is that people like Tamou or Kasiano probably wouldn't have chosen Qld over NZ if it wasn't for the generous extra income, which in turn is robbing the international game of its competitiveness...

Take Hammo's example, which imo is a very good one. Australian Citizenship will generally be added to your other nationality, and very rarely will you loose or relinquish it. So yes, make the eligibility about the player's footy origins, not about his nationality of country of allegiance. It is after all about where you played and developped your footy, not where you were born.

Benji Marshall should be able to play Origin and for NZ, as he came through the Keebra Park School footy system. Jack Reed should be able to play Origin and for England. On the other hand, Sam Burgess should never pull an Origin jersey on!

 

[Coxy]

Benji Marshall should be able to play Origin and for NZ, as he came through the Keebra Park School footy system. Jack Reed should be able to play Origin and for England. On the other hand, Sam Burgess should never pull an Origin jersey on!

This. 1000%.

 

[Manifesto]

I also really like Hammo's example, because it makes it really clear than any person with Australian citizianship 'is Australian' and hence should be guaranteed Origin and Australian rep status. If both Uate and Tamou (and all the other controversial selections over the years) do indeed have Australian citizenship (which they probably do?) the I would more readily accept their origin status. To me, the biggest problem and biggest issue is the player having the integrity to pick the team they want to represent and associate with based on their own beliefs/values etc. Unfortunately the reality is that money will usually win out over integrity, as 'most likely' evidenced by the Tamou situation.

 

[Dexter]

That's just it though, Sam Burgess would want to play Origin if he could. There is no way I could cheer for him or Benji or Reed for that matter if they hadn't declared themselves Australian.

Origin should be kept as it is and the Kiwis should be more responsible for making sure they find a way of locking in the players they think should be theirs instead of sitting back and bitching about it every time a Tamou situation comes along.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

And whatever the rules are or become, mrslong is right. Players should have to declare their allegiance when they register their first senior contract with the ARLC and that's it, there's no changing.

Why cant this just be the rule? Eligibility aside, dont we just want ppl that WANT to play for QLD and NSW playing in origin? If kasiano is eligible, but has no passion for QLD, then i dont want to see him in a qld jersey. i bet if he was asked when signing his first senior contract who he wants to play for out of NZ or AU/QLD he would not have chosen the latter (this is evident since he signed and returned the latter to the NZRL saying he wants to play for NZ).

If this is done, and made into a legal document, then theres no questioning it later on down the track when the player has made a name for himself and the lure of money in origin comes into it. If he didnt choose AU back when he signed his contract then tough luck, you made your bed now lie in it.

Where do ACT and SA players stand atm if they played their first game in either of those states (or any other states outside of QLD or NSW for that matter)? Sure, they are eligibly for Australia, but surely we wouldnt allow them to play for QLD or NSW?