Don't patronise me, I know how the law system works in any Westminster(sp?) system. The law has a duty to stay constant within the ethical views of society. We are not talking about a law here, but rather a rule. There is a difference there in itself. Secondly common law is a form of law as it causes precedence in which must be followed in any court lower than the one in which the decision was handed down within the same system. If this is the case, why doesn't the ARL abolish the Origin rules which currently stand. Laws are not ignored, but rather changed. The rules were changed in 1980 in order to make interstate matches more competitive (and rightly so), the origin laws were brought in, thus creating the State Of ORIGIN. For good reason these rules still exist, and are blatantly being ignored.
State of Origin defined:
Origin: The point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived.
The beginning of footballing existance clearly began for these 2 players in NSW.
Simple as that really.
With the greatest respect you are not right. So many mistakes. I will help you out.
There is a reason why the courts could force the NRL to reenter Souths despite the NRL ruling otherwise. The NRL's decisions are subject to law. The law may impose DECISION upon private bodies and force injunctions if it thinks right to do so. That said the NRL eligibility rules are subject to judicial review law. This is the branch of law that scrutinizes whether a decision was made following the correct procedure.
Westminster is a Parliamentary system not a judicial system. USA has a common law legal system and not a Westminster parliament system. They do not have a Parliament in their government!
Australia's legal system is based upon judges interpreting Parliament's statutes. Statutes can overrule previous Judge's decisions held at common law. Therefore, the statutes dictate to judges what they can and cannot decide. These statutes are however interpreted by judges. This is to prevent tyranny and injustice according to Blackstone. As such it is the role of Parliament to legislate current social ethics into law or judges to take into account public policy ramifications when interpreting legislation. No court in effect binds itself under
stare decisis within commonlaw. Therefore the law may always be free to adapt.
All law is a set of rules, therefore any association's rules are analogous to law. These rules must be consistent with law. You cannot contract out of law. This is why players have their lawyers goto the "judiciary" of the NRL when suspensions (penalties) are executed. This is why they can sue the decision making body in a full court of law if they do not agree with the decision made. (
ala Souths again.)
The Inglis case was tried by the appropriate authority and they gave him the green light, thus, they they decided that no law or state of origin rule was broken. This is almost certainly because all rules must be ascertained in light of their text (before you goto the dictionary you must see if origin is defined in the rules itself -) and
in light of their purpose. We disagree what the purpose is. You say to make it more competitve. I say to allow people like Beetson to qualify for the state which they love. The purpose should be stated in the rules. Now if a body of rules is to deprive someone of the liberty of choice - the rules must enunciate this clearly. This may not be presumed even by the rules definition of origin and certainly not by a dictionary! Australia is a free society. People who have lived in two states have the choice to say which state is their most loved. Former immigrants who are citizens can choose to say whether they are Australian or Tongan! Likewise whether they are Queenslanders or NSWmen. This probably influenced the authority that duely found Inglis's decision to play for Queensland was within their interpreted purpose of those rules!
I hope I didn't patronise you - I know the law is subtle and some struggle to grasp it - but it makes sense. Please do not try to educate me on legal matters again. I have not seen the state of origin eligibility rules and I do not really need to for the purposes of arguing with you because those rules are subject to greater law of which I am familiar.
If you think the authority erred in its decision, instead of bleating on this website - sue them in court - you may even be awarded damages if in the very unlikely event the judges find for you. Until you do - no rule or law has been breached with Inglis playing for Queensland. Its a free country! Until then, I suggest you think of State of Origin as a State of Choice. Inglis chose QLD. For what its worth - Im glad he did!
