Matua
First Grade
- Messages
- 5,116
Any of them. I'm still waiting for your list of NZ player "poaches". You haven't really provided your definition of heritage and why NZ doesn't have heritage under your definition. You keep avoiding whether you consider Hurrell is a heritage player or a nationality player.Which of your questions do you imagine I've not adequately answered?
I must admit I'm impressed at the hoops you will jump through to claim an arbitrary age is discrimination yet being one type of Polynesian isn't.There is no discrimination against Kiwis wanting to play origin, other than the arbitrary DISCRIMINATORY origin eligibility rules, which apply to Kiwis and non Kiwis alike. So I actually agree with you, Kiwis should not be banned from qualifying for origin because they did not arrive in Aus on time.
Age rule: This rule is to ensure that people are genuinely raised in the State they're playing for. It's an arbitrary date because a date needs to be chosen. However it does mean that a 17 year NZer/PIer can not just turn up in Sydney and then the next year represent NSW. Because they really have little attachment to the state at this stage.
PIs but not NZers rule: Two players meet all the eligibility requirements for Origin (they turn up before the age date), one of the players has some Samoan descent (he could be from Samoa or NZ or anywhere), the other is a NZer of Maori descent. The player of Samoan descent can play Origin with no other requirements, he does not have to turn his back on his Samoan heritage. Yet the NZer can't, he can only play Origin if he turns his back on his NZ heritage.
Now, if you think the first one is discriminatory, or more discriminatory than the second one you really are just on the troll.