Australia won't win 2022 WC

[Matua]

where did I say Mulitalo had only tenuous links to NZ? But there are plenty of suspect players NZ has poached over the years (going back a long way!) that I could name. In fact I'm sure I probably have posted a list of names on this forum before!

You may as well name them - the obvious one is Nathan Fien but he's not PI so doesn't quite suit the narrative. I'd quite like to see who you view as a NZer or not.

As for this conspiracy of yours that the Ockers are making up rules just to disadvantage the kiwis, either you have that tinfoil cap screwed on a little too tightly, or the propeller is broken and your brain is overheating.

If it really is a conspiracy then what a way for Ocker rugby league to join in the celebration of diversity and inclusion in modern Aus by introducing a rule that is both arbitrary and discriminatory (although not surprising for a sport that is run by stale old white guys.)

I assume it wasn't made up specifically to disadvantage Kiwis yet it does, you can keep denying it all you want but it's true.

Weird to harp on about diversity and inclusion when the rule is favouring some Polynesians over other Polynesians. Furthermore, part of the diversity in modern Australia is provided by NZers (and the Brits).

Like it or not, Origin is the pinnacle of the game in Aus. There is good reason to not allow Kiwis and poms to play origin. It would diminish Origin to have non-Ockers participating. You might then wonder why it is okay to have a PI player represent in origin? But there is actually logic to allowing PI players to play origin, and also represent their nation of heritage. It helps promote the game internationally, which is good of course. But there is a subtle difference with PI teams versus other sides. The PI heritage teams are basically ethnically selected teams. They share a common ethnic heritage. The Kiwi and Pom sides are selected on nationality. While Origin enthusiasts can accept that a New South Welshman or a Qlder might also be Samoan or Tongan, it's a step too far to accept that they can also be a Kiwi or a Pom!

Kiwis have played Origin, they just have to also be Australians (or PIs ) to do it. And at any rate, no one is suggesting that "non-Ockers" be selected. NZers would fall under the same eligibility criteria as everyone else, just like the PI players.

Your logic is not logic it is merely a justification of your beliefs. It's frankly quite silly to suggest that a NZer can't be a NSWelshman or Qlder - Origin enthusiasts are idiots if that's what they believe.

Most NZers aren't going to be eligible for Origin anyway*, but it would allow players of NZ heritage the option to choose NZ if they wanted to - because despite the implication the PIs don't have a mortgage on wanting to represent their heritage and origin.

*Although I have heard of one school/club who tried to entice a young player and his family over to Oz before he met the cut-off age.

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

You may as well name them - the obvious one is Nathan Fien but he's not PI so doesn't quite suit the narrative. I'd quite like to see who you view as a NZer or not.


I assume it wasn't made up specifically to disadvantage Kiwis yet it does, you can keep denying it all you want but it's true.

Weird to harp on about diversity and inclusion when the rule is favouring some Polynesians over other Polynesians. Furthermore, part of the diversity in modern Australia is provided by NZers (and the Brits).


Kiwis have played Origin, they just have to also be Australians (or PIs ) to do it. And at any rate, no one is suggesting that "non-Ockers" be selected. NZers would fall under the same eligibility criteria as everyone else, just like the PI players.

Your logic is not logic it is merely a justification of your beliefs. It's frankly quite silly to suggest that a NZer can't be a NSWelshman or Qlder - Origin enthusiasts are idiots if that's what they believe.

Most NZers aren't going to be eligible for Origin anyway*, but it would allow players of NZ heritage the option to choose NZ if they wanted to - because despite the implication the PIs don't have a mortgage on wanting to represent their heritage and origin.

*Although I have heard of one school/club who tried to entice a young player and his family over to Oz before he met the cut-off age.

You're confusing international league eligibility status with nationality. In those terms I don't think any Kiwi has played origin. When Tonie Carroll played for example he had declared for Aus after representing NZ at the 2000 world cup (all done according to the rules at the time). There is no such thing as NZ heritage. Maori, Samoan or Tongan heritage, yes. But not NZ. A NSWelshman or Qlder could also be Maori and play for the Maori team as happened at the 2000 world cup. But a NSWelshman or Qlder is also an Ocker so cannot be a Kiwi when it comes to representing in league.

 

[Matua]

You're confusing international league eligibility status with nationality. In those terms I don't think any Kiwi has played origin. When Tonie Carroll played for example he had declared for Aus after representing NZ at the 2000 world cup (all done according to the rules at the time). There is no such thing as NZ heritage. Maori, Samoan or Tongan heritage, yes. But not NZ. A NSWelshman or Qlder could also be Maori and play for the Maori team as happened at the 2000 world cup.

First bold: No I'm not. Our entire discussion has been about an intersection of nationality, ethnicity, international and origin eligibility status.

Ben Te'o and James Tamou are NZers who played Origin, who wouldn't be eligible under current rules as they arrived in Oz too late.

Second bold: This is fundamentally incorrect.

But a NSWelshman or Qlder is also an Ocker so cannot be a Kiwi when it comes to representing in league.

Yeah, and this is exactly the B/S we're discussing. A NSWelshman or Qlder is also an Ocker but can also be an Pacific Islander when it comes to representing in league. Therefore despite your claim players with multiple eligibility are not free to represent who they want. Only some players are.

Also, I'd still like to see the list of poaches for interests sake.

 

[Iamback]

The best player the Kiwis has represented Australia in the Commonwealth games

Sorensen is Australian born and raised
Keiran Foran been here since primary school

There is 3 current ones.
Fonua-Blake was born in Sydney

Every sport you have these issues where players have to choose a nation

 

[ATOWN2]

There's some good scratch matches coming up this weekend.

Fiji V England and Tonga v France. Suspect England and Tonga will win both games comfortably.

 

[Matua]

The best player the Kiwis has represented Australia in the Commonwealth games

Sorensen is Australian born and raised
Keiran Foran been here since primary school

There is 3 current ones.
Fonua-Blake was born in Sydney

Every sport you have these issues where players have to choose a nation

No one is arguing that there aren't players in the Kiwis not born in NZ or who grew up in Australia, that's not the point at all.

Fonua-Blake is Tongan now. I always found it funny that Oz selected Manu, did they actually think he would switch?

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

First bold: No I'm not. Our entire discussion has been about an intersection of nationality, ethnicity, international and origin eligibility status.

Ben Te'o and James Tamou are NZers who played Origin, who wouldn't be eligible under current rules as they arrived in Oz too late.

Second bold: This is fundamentally incorrect.


Yeah, and this is exactly the B/S we're discussing. A NSWelshman or Qlder is also an Ocker but can also be an Pacific Islander when it comes to representing in league. Therefore despite your claim players with multiple eligibility are not free to represent who they want. Only some players are.

Also, I'd still like to see the list of poaches for interests sake.

Again you confuse nationality with league eligibility status. Te'o and Tamou were NZers by nationality, but became Aussies (in league terms) when they opted for Origin ahead of NZ representation. And again your claim that players with multiple eligibility are not free to represent who they want to is plainly incorrect, no matter how many times you repeat it. It seems it is you that has trouble with logical argument. You also seemed to have missed my point as to why Samoan, Tongan or Fiji teams based on heritage are different to an NZ team based on heritage. Basically, you're just whinging because as a Kiwi supporter you enjoy playing the victim.

 

[jim_57]

https://www.nrl.com/news/2022/10/05/vlandys-wants-best-possible-model-for-international-game/

No specifics but Vlandys says here that they’re going to look at Origin rules and a player being able to play Origin and the country of their choice. Given that already happens with tier 2s it may mean they’re looking at NZ & England as well.

 

[Smug Panther]

https://www.nrl.com/news/2022/10/05/vlandys-wants-best-possible-model-for-international-game/

No specifics but Vlandys says here that they’re going to look at Origin rules and a player being able to play Origin and the country of their choice. Given that already happens with tier 2s it may mean they’re looking at NZ & England as well.

Logical

 

[Matua]

Again you confuse nationality with league eligibility status. Te'o and Tamou were NZers by nationality, but became Aussies (in league terms) when they opted for Origin ahead of NZ representation.

You claimed it would diminish Origin to have non-Ockers playing, yet both Teo'o and Tamou weren't Australians, even if though they were eligible for Australia. So your claim appears to be based on Origin being diminished by having non-Australian qualified players. Yet, we currently have a situation where a large number of Origin players aren't even playing for Australia, a situation you appear to have no issue with. So what is it?

And again your claim that players with multiple eligibility are not free to represent who they want to is plainly incorrect, no matter how many times you repeat it. It seems it is you that has trouble with logical argument.

Look mate, the discussion is about Origin, if you're going to pretend that this whole discussion has been in absolutist terms then I have to ask whether you're just trolling? In absolutist terms then yes any player can play for anyone they're qualified for, but this discussion has always been about Origin, and under Origin rules players can't play for everyone they're qualified for.

You also seemed to have missed my point as to why Samoan, Tongan or Fiji teams based on heritage are different to an NZ team based on heritage.

I'm not a mind reader, if you're operating with a different definition of heritage that excludes "NZ heritage" then you'll need to explain your thought process.

Basically, you're just whinging because as a Kiwi supporter you enjoy playing the victim.

Lol. Grow up mate, we're merely having a discussion on a forum. I'm just responding to you like you're responding to me.

 

[ATOWN2]

https://www.nrl.com/news/2022/10/05/vlandys-wants-best-possible-model-for-international-game/

No specifics but Vlandys says here that they’re going to look at Origin rules and a player being able to play Origin and the country of their choice. Given that already happens with tier 2s it may mean they’re looking at NZ & England as well.

Sounds good! As a fan I want to see the best players representing in Origin. If they're from NZ or England they could just play for whichever state their club is located in (NZ and Victorian based teams could play for QLD). If it's good enough for Inglis it's good enough for everyone else.

 

[Matua]

Sounds good! As a fan I want to see the best players representing in Origin. If they're from NZ or England they could just play for whichever state their club is located in (NZ and Victorian based teams could play for QLD). If it's good enough for Inglis it's good enough for everyone else.

I think VLandys was specifically meaning players eligible for NSW/Qld under current rules, not assigning NZ to one team or the other. Although back in the day my mates and I used to think it would be good to align NZ with Qld to increase the player base - was before Qld when on their win streak though.

 

[jim_57]

I think VLandys was specifically meaning players eligible for NSW/Qld under current rules, not assigning NZ to one team or the other. Although back in the day my mates and I used to think it would be good to align NZ with Qld to increase the player base - was before Qld when on their win streak though.

Yeh I interpreted it as that, tweaking the current rules for Origin eligibility not getting rid of them. Simplest way to do it would be to keep all current Origin rules as is but players can play for anyone internationally including NZ & England without it affecting their Origin eligibility.

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

You claimed it would diminish Origin to have non-Ockers playing, yet both Teo'o and Tamou weren't Australians, even if though they were eligible for Australia. So your claim appears to be based on Origin being diminished by having non-Australian qualified players. Yet, we currently have a situation where a large number of Origin players aren't even playing for Australia, a situation you appear to have no issue with. So what is it?


Look mate, the discussion is about Origin, if you're going to pretend that this whole discussion has been in absolutist terms then I have to ask whether you're just trolling? In absolutist terms then yes any player can play for anyone they're qualified for, but this discussion has always been about Origin, and under Origin rules players can't play for everyone they're qualified for.


I'm not a mind reader, if you're operating with a different definition of heritage that excludes "NZ heritage" then you'll need to explain your thought process.


Lol. Grow up mate, we're merely having a discussion on a forum. I'm just responding to you like you're responding to me.

Lol. You really need to brush up on your comprehension skills. I'll repeat it again, you are confusing league eligibility with nationality. Obviously that word salad you sprouted about "intersectionality" was just buzz words you picked up in your gender studies course. Teo'o and Tamou (your examples) were NZers by nationality, but become Aus according to eligibility. As was their right to. It's not really that difficult a concept to comprehend is it? You have not actually put forth any "logical" arguments in here, despite your regular appeal to that concept. The Maori team who played at the 2000 world cup were a heritage team. The Kiwi side who played were a national team. What I'm saying is that the PI teams are heritage sides, or can be considered as such. I'll agree it is a distinction that might be objectionable to some, but one worth making in order to grow the game internationally (or at least give an impression of growth).

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

Sounds good! As a fan I want to see the best players representing in Origin. If they're from NZ or England they could just play for whichever state their club is located in (NZ and Victorian based teams could play for QLD). If it's good enough for Inglis it's good enough for everyone else.

Heh. Doesn't sound good. The last thing needed is more convoluted mickey mouse rules devised by stale old whities with no appreciation of multiculturalism or diversity.

 

[Matua]

Lol. You really need to brush up on your comprehension skills. I'll repeat it again, you are confusing league eligibility with nationality. Obviously that word salad you sprouted about "intersectionality" was just buzz words you picked up in your gender studies course. .

Haha, I haven't interacted with you much on this forum but are you always an internet hardman like this? Intersection (not intersectionality) is just a word, you're the one ascribing your culture war definition to it (well at least the word that you miss-read).

My comprehension skills are fine, you're just ignoring any discussions you don't like and then harping back to league eligibility and nationality. You really don't seem to be having a discussion in good faith.

Teo'o and Tamou (your examples) were NZers by nationality, but become Aus according to eligibility. As was their right to. It's not really that difficult a concept to comprehend is it? You have not actually put forth any "logical" arguments in here, despite your regular appeal to that concept.

I haven't at any stage claimed any different to this - I'm unsure why you're arguing any different other than the fact you're avoiding the diminishing of Origin with non-Ockers (PIs) discussion.

The Maori team who played at the 2000 world cup were a heritage team. The Kiwi side who played were a national team. What I'm saying is that the PI teams are heritage sides, or can be considered as such. I'll agree it is a distinction that might be objectionable to some, but one worth making in order to grow the game internationally (or at least give an impression of growth).

The Maori team are not analogous to the PI sides and should never have played in the world cup, and the PI sides are not strictly heritage teams no matter how you try to define them that way. It's not objectionable but it's not strictly true. They are not limited to heritage players, players from the islands themselves can come through. Yes, they need to move away to play but that is true of most of the Kiwis team too. As an example do you consider Konrad Hurrell to be a heritage player?

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

Haha, I haven't interacted with you much on this forum but are you always an internet hardman like this? Intersection (not intersectionality) is just a word, you're the one ascribing your culture war definition to it (well at least the word that you miss-read).

My comprehension skills are fine, you're just ignoring any discussions you don't like and then harping back to league eligibility and nationality. You really don't seem to be having a discussion in good faith.


I haven't at any stage claimed any different to this - I'm unsure why you're arguing any different other than the fact you're avoiding the diminishing of Origin with non-Ockers (PIs) discussion.


The Maori team are not analogous to the PI sides and should never have played in the world cup, and the PI sides are not strictly heritage teams no matter how you try to define them that way. It's not objectionable but it's not strictly true. They are not limited to heritage players, players from the islands themselves can come through. Yes, they need to move away to play but that is true of most of the Kiwis team too. As an example do you consider Konrad Hurrell to be a heritage player?

Heh. You appear to be projecting, again. You are the "hardman" with the conspiracy theories. Then you moan and bleat when called out on it. Kiwis might apply their trade overseas, but they learn their trade in NZ. So your comparison with the PI heritage sides is stupid. Apparently (according to wikipedia) Hurrell come to NZ on a union scholarship. It is rare then that he switched to league. I'm not sure what the story is with that. NZ rugby is notorious for poaching PI talent. They make the Ockers look like beginners in that respect. I'll say it once again for you. There is no conspiracy to disadvantage NZ. Players are free to choose which nations they represent. For example Benji and SBW chose to represent NZ. Contrary to popular belief there was no pressure put on them. Unlike players such as Papali'i or Taumalolo who were bullied by the punk Kemp (who does not take no for an answer!). Papali'i was even coerced into signing a piece of paper pledging allegiance to NZ, which was totally against his interest.

 

[Matua]

Heh. You appear to be projecting, again. You are the "hardman" with the conspiracy theories. Then you moan and bleat when called out on it. Kiwis might apply their trade overseas, but they learn their trade in NZ. So your comparison with the PI heritage sides is stupid. Apparently (according to wikipedia) Hurrell come to NZ on a union scholarship. It is rare then that he switched to league. I'm not sure what the story is with that. NZ rugby is notorious for poaching PI talent. They make the Ockers look like beginners in that respect. I'll say it once again for you. There is no conspiracy to disadvantage NZ. Players are free to choose which nations they represent. For example Benji and SBW chose to represent NZ. Contrary to popular belief there was no pressure put on them. Unlike players such as Papali'i or Taumalolo who were bullied by the punk Kemp (who does not take no for an answer!). Papali'i was even coerced into signing a piece of paper pledging allegiance to NZ, which was totally against his interest.

Comedy gold, you talk about conspiracy theories and then you come up with the all powerful Tony Kemp bullying players.

I've never said there was a conspiracy theory, just that the current Origin rules advantage Australia and the PIs and disadvantage NZ. There is no denying that, but I assume you will try. Yes players are free to represent which nation they like, however some players are free to chose Origin and a nation while others are denied that same opportunity. Nothing you've said changes that fact.

Hurrell arrived in NZ at a similar time that NZers move to Australia to attend high schools on NRL club scholarships. So, to return to the original point, is he a heritage player or is he a nationality player in your view?

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

Comedy gold, you talk about conspiracy theories and then you come up with the all powerful Tony Kemp bullying players.

I've never said there was a conspiracy theory, just that the current Origin rules advantage Australia and the PIs and disadvantage NZ. There is no denying that, but I assume you will try. Yes players are free to represent which nation they like, however some players are free to chose Origin and a nation while others are denied that same opportunity. Nothing you've said changes that fact.

Hurrell arrived in NZ at a similar time that NZers move to Australia to attend high schools on NRL club scholarships. So, to return to the original point, is he a heritage player or is he a nationality player in your view?

Lol. You have nothing. No facts, no logic. According to wikipedia Hurrell arrived in NZ in 2009 so he was already 17 probably 18. Name one player denied choosing the nation they wanted to play for. Was Victor Radley denied choosing who he played for? What about players who are only eligible for one nation rather than multiple? How is that even equitable? I stand by what I said about Kemp. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the reasons Taumalolo ditched NZ so readily was due to the way he was bullied by Kemp.

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

Simple SoO eligibilitly rules

1. eligible for Aus
2. either born in NSW or Qld, or residency for a specified period of time.

if eligible for both, then player can choose.

Couldn't be simpler.