What a Joke! Does this set the standard now

[hutch]

yeah right, sure you do mate. But I thought McGuire was being touted as a possibility for the Kiwi squad? I bet you wouldn't be feigning such outrage if that had worked out. Of course, the truth is McGuire should have never been allowed to play for Samoa in the first place. Whoever is in charge of Samoa should have talked with him to get an assurance that he was committed to the cause. But they didn't, because they knew what the answer would be.

Agreed! At the time McGuire publicly said he wants to play for Australia in the future but didnt think he would be good enough for a few years so he would play for Samoa now and switch later. The island nations need also need to take some blame and stop picking anyone available. Concentrate on a small group of players committed to the cause and build from there!

 

[hutch]

Of course it will grow and the rule is there to help it grow. Allowing players to change alligiences simply for World Cups promotes the game in the smaller nations and allows those teams to be more competitive. Having someone like Jarryd Hayne playing for Fiji did a lot for the game there. If he were told if he played for Fiji that tournament but couldn't switch back the following year then he wouldn't have switched to Fiji in the first place and RL there would have suffered because of it. The same goes for other players and the other countries they represented.

Sorry mate but that is not how international sport works! There are no rules just for the world cup either, I'm not sure what you're on about with that.

Hayne playing for Fiji was a joke, he played for Australia less than a year before and then a year later. While it may have been good for Fiji in the short term, how are they better off now? Do you see players switching nations to "help" the minnows out at the RWC or FIFA world cup? Their sport doesn't allow switching which means every nation has a player pool they have built up over time and they have actually developed the sport in the country itself. Our system doesn't give a country such as Samoa any incentive to develop rugby league because they know they can just pick seventeen players with Samoan heritage from aus or nz and be reasonably competitive. It is just as important to have kids playing rugby league in Samoa itself than kids of Samoan descent playing in Sydney. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be picking heritage players because they also need to be competitive, but they should only be picking heritage players who are committed to the national team, and developing pathways for domestic players so they can one day play for their national team or gain a professional contract overseas!

 

[NRL-TGG]

Sorry Spud i usually agree with what you say..

But didnt Fijis semi final appearance cause mass purchases of TV's and whatnot.

And hasnt RL activity in Fiji increased by 150% in Fiji since the world cup

Yes, the success of Fiji at the last world cup had a good effect on RL in the country.

 

[Luc]

Unbelievable that this sort of thing still hasn't been sorted out.

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

Sorry mate but that is not how international sport works! There are no rules just for the world cup either, I'm not sure what you're on about with that.

Hayne playing for Fiji was a joke, he played for Australia less than a year before and then a year later. While it may have been good for Fiji in the short term, how are they better off now? Do you see players switching nations to "help" the minnows out at the RWC or FIFA world cup? Their sport doesn't allow switching which means every nation has a player pool they have built up over time and they have actually developed the sport in the country itself. Our system doesn't give a country such as Samoa any incentive to develop rugby league because they know they can just pick seventeen players with Samoan heritage from aus or nz and be reasonably competitive. It is just as important to have kids playing rugby league in Samoa itself than kids of Samoan descent playing in Sydney. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be picking heritage players because they also need to be competitive, but they should only be picking heritage players who are committed to the national team, and developing pathways for domestic players so they can one day play for their national team or gain a professional contract overseas!

got to disagree with you there. The RLWC is a special event. As a tournament the RLWC is fairly meaningless as only 3 teams have any hope of winning it. However, as a showcase piece for league, it is the only occasion on which interest in the sport might extend beyond the usual suspects. With this in mind it is important that as many of the best players in the game are on display as possible. We should consider the World Cup tournament as a 'festival' of league. As long as the minnow nations are sensible and only select superstar players, and not fill their sides up with eligible journeymen then I see no problem with the concept. Remember we are talking about World Cups only. Any player who plays for a minnow in between a World Cup should be committed to playing for that nation in the next world cup.

 

[roughyedspud]

your a knob


go f**k off with ya dad ECT and go watch a international NFL game or something

 

[Red&BlackBear]

So McGuire will most likely get selected even though he has played for Samoa recently but apparently the same won't be done for Mateo who has played for Tonga. Which leads me to the next questions, should either be eligable for selection? And if McGuire is eligable then why can't Mateo be as well? What sort of double standards are the ARL pulling?

 

[RedVee]

So McGuire will most likely get selected even though he has played for Samoa recently but apparently the same won't be done for Mateo who has played for Tonga. Which leads me to the next questions, should either be eligable for selection? And if McGuire is eligable then why can't Mateo be as well? What sort of double standards are the ARL pulling?

in todays SMH Carr explains it by saying that McGuire has submitted a letter to the RLIF.

One player who won't be selected is Warriors second-rower Feleti Mateo. Although Mateo said during the week he was hopeful of being selected, ARL chief executive Geoff Carr said yesterday no application had been sent to the RLIF. ''He's Tongan,'' Carr said. ''He's not eligible.''
McGuire, on the other hand, has applied. ''He's entitled to do that, and all the indications are from the [RLIF] executive are that it will be accepted,'' Carr said


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...os-forwards-20111002-1l3wm.html#ixzz1ZfxxftOy

IMO the article heading gives away the truth of the matter.

 

[NRL-TGG]

got to disagree with you there. The RLWC is a special event. As a tournament the RLWC is fairly meaningless as only 3 teams have any hope of winning it.

That would be the same for just about every major sporting event.

Olympic tally, there is only a few who can win it.


Rugby Union, there is only four who can it etc.

 

[Arucard]

Since when is Tony Williams eligible for the Kangaroos?!?
Didnt he just play for Tonga?!?

 

[Perth Red]

There you go, all you have to do is send a letter to the RLIF! Did Uate send a letter I wonder?

Farcical, pick a country, you are only eligible for that country until after the following RLWC. To play in the RLWC for that country you have to have been involved in test matches for that country prior to the RLWC. How frickin hard is it?

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

That would be the same for just about every major sporting event.

Olympic tally, there is only a few who can win it.


Rugby Union, there is only four who can it etc.

can you name these sporting events that only 2 or 3 teams can win? In Rugby Union, at least half a dozen teams have a chance to win.

 

[deluded pom?]

Well I'll take the ABs Ernie and you can have the rest for the 2011 RUWC.

 

[hutch]

can you name these sporting events that only 2 or 3 teams can win? In Rugby Union, at least half a dozen teams have a chance to win.

Basketball, which is a much bigger sport than rugby union. There are not 6 countries that can win the RWC!

 

[NRL-TGG]

can you name these sporting events that only 2 or 3 teams can win? In Rugby Union, at least half a dozen teams have a chance to win.

The Olympic, commonwealth games, Rugby Union, baseball and that gridiron world cup off the top of my head.

In union there is only four teams that can actually win the world cup and surprise surprise the WC was set up that all four of those teams would have an easy semi if they didn't have a hiccup.

 

[RedVee]

There you go, all you have to do is send a letter to the RLIF! Did Uate send a letter I wonder?

Farcical, pick a country, you are only eligible for that country until after the following RLWC. To play in the RLWC for that country you have to have been involved in test matches for that country prior to the RLWC. How frickin hard is it?

yes, Uate sent a letter in.

 

[deluded pom?]

yes, Uate sent a letter in.

Who wrote it for him? His agent or Geoff Carr?

 

[Matua]

The Olympic, commonwealth games, Rugby Union, baseball and that gridiron world cup off the top of my head.

In union there is only four teams that can actually win the world cup and surprise surprise the WC was set up that all four of those teams would have an easy semi if they didn't have a hiccup.

What are you babbling about. The top teams are seeded at the rugby WC, like most sporting competitions and why wouldn't you want the best teams in the finals of the competition. And how is the Boks v ABs and Aus v Eng easy semis (if no hiccups?), they're the only teams to have it.

Realistically, I'd normally say only 5 teams (including France) could win, but there has been so many injuries and form fluctuations that I reckon all bar Argentina have a shot from the 1/4s on.

They have gridiron WC? Never heard of it.

At any rate, this thread shows that the Ockers just make it up as they go. (TBF NZ seem to have started getting in on it as well).

 

[NRL-TGG]

What are you babbling about. The top teams are seeded at the rugby WC, like most sporting competitions and why wouldn't you want the best teams in the finals of the competition. And how is the Boks v ABs and Aus v Eng easy semis (if no hiccups?), they're the only teams to have it.

Realistically, I'd normally say only 5 teams (including France) could win, but there has been so many injuries and form fluctuations that I reckon all bar Argentina have a shot from the 1/4s on.

They have gridiron WC? Never heard of it.

At any rate, this thread shows that the Ockers just make it up as they go. (TBF NZ seem to have started getting in on it as well).

I mean't quarters, not semi's. I wasn't having a go at the Rugby World Cup, look at how the 2013 Rugby League World Cup is set up. Same sort of thing.

Realistically there is always only four nations that can win the Rugby World Cup, New Zealand, England, South Africa and Australia.

The fact that Australia is up there despite not having a successful national domestic competition also raises my eyebrows.

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

The Olympic, commonwealth games, Rugby Union, baseball and that gridiron world cup off the top of my head.

In union there is only four teams that can actually win the world cup and surprise surprise the WC was set up that all four of those teams would have an easy semi if they didn't have a hiccup.

which 4 teams are you talking about?