Congratulations NSW

[Kiki]

hi gregory, here's a gift we got you. love, nsw

 

[Bazal]

...you are not right. So many mistakes...

That's Preniers in a nutshell

 

[ANTiLAG]

Sharks fans may regret seeing that photo. Can they maintain their run without him?

 

[Johns Magic]

Any whole Sterling is a Queenslander or Folau is NSW is bollocks. They have chosen to play well for the state they represent. Deal with it. I know what the rules are - but rules like any laws are for a purpose and the purpose was to allow people like Beetson to play for the state they loved more. Folau and Inglis love Queensland more than they do NSW. How is the purpose being broken? You do not need to be Plato to decide its most ethical letting the players choose which state they love.

Terrible post

 

[Rastus_in_Melbourne]

God I'm lovin' the NSW hurt.

 

[TD09]

I mentioned this in jest on another site to a mate from Queensland and his response was "well, they just wanted to play for the side that picks black fellahs"

He's bloody spot on. Had either Inglis or Folau stated they wanted to play for NSW they probably would have been made to wait another 3 years and made to feel bloody worthless into the bargain.

You would have had sh*te excuses questioning their defence or their commitment etc etc etc. Now I know that people can wheel out all the "but this player was better than this one because ..... blah blah blah" but if I were black I would probably look at the treatment of black players in the past and think "right, Queensland it is then"

NSW's historical selection stupidity is Queensland's gain. If I were either Folau or Inglis, I'd want to play for the State that WANTED me to play for them. Not the State that chose me out of a mix of sheer desperation and external pressure.

It's about time NSW fans stopped bitching and moaning about the players making the ONLY sensible choice. Where they were born or where they went to school is irrelevant. What is relevant are the reasons behind their choices to want to play for Queensland rather than New South Wales.

Inglis made his NRL debut in 2005, you said he would probably have to wait 3 years to debut for NSW if he chose them, now, genuine question, do you really think he would have had to wait until 2008 to debut at Origin? Do you not think he would have beaten out Eric Grothe Jr in 2006, or Hayne in 2007 (Inglis would have had a couple more years NRL experience than Hayne at this stage).

As I said, this is a genuine question, do you really think a guy with that much talent would have had to wait that long with those guys as his competition for a wing spot?

 

[lifesgood]

Why do you people have to keep bringing this topic up? No New South Welshman with a brain has tried to claim Israel Falau as their own...

Inglis - Fair enough- but he didnt even play for a large majority of the match with the only thing he got to do in the game being a soft try which was as much nsw's doing as it was his. Queensland had 5 players with a vommiting and diarhorrea virus less then 24 hours before the match, had two atrocious video ref decisions go against them and suffered onfield injuries left right and centre. NSW had a home ground advantage and a large portion of the second half filled with good opportunities to get ahead but despite all this still lost the match and to say that inglis and falau single handedly won Queensland the match is rubbish.

Many decent NSW supporters have already conceded that the team who should have won did win and in contrast it shows just how much of a sook you are.

Awesome Post

Finally someone with some sense

 

[Manly Preniers in 2005]

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.

I may be wrong but I would have thought this was more due to the legality of excluding a club from an oranisation. You see, I believe you will find this is a legal issue, whereas which State of Origin team a player belongs to is a rule. All laws are rules, however not all rules are law.

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!

Point taken, poor use of wording by me.

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.

Correct, the law adapts through common law, and through statute law. Legislation is often made following the creation of Common law, as is seen through both the Mabo and Wik cases.

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.)

Yes, the rules are open to argument and interpretation, and this is why lawyers are brought in. But, as you will see not all rules are law. It is a school rule to wear a hat whilst outside, this does not make it a law. The souths case is much different to general rules in rugby league.

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!

Granted, it is important to dechipher the purpose of the law. However whatever the case may be in black and white Inglis and Falou are NSWmen. They may have a choice to say which state is their most loved but if this is the case we could turn it into a tri series with a Victorian side, after all of the Storm players live there. And I'm confident all would see that is blatantly ridicuolous.

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.

I'm not questioning you have a strong knowledge of law, that is evident. But even some of the things you have said in this post are blatantly wrong

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!

I have not been damaged so therefore there is no doubt they would not find in my favour. Regardless, I have made it clear I do not believe it is a law, but rather a rule. Large difference. And your final point makes it clear that through players such as Inglis and Falou the concept of Origin has been ruined.

 

[ANTiLAG]

I may be wrong but I would have thought this was more due to the legality of excluding a club from an oranisation. You see, I believe you will find this is a legal issue, whereas which State of Origin team a player belongs to is a rule. All laws are rules, however not all rules are law.

Yes I do see it as a legal issue. All rules are subject to law for legality.

Yes, the rules are open to argument and interpretation, and this is why lawyers are brought in. But, as you will see not all rules are law. It is a school rule to wear a hat whilst outside, this does not make it a law. The souths case is much different to general rules in rugby league.

It s a school rule to wear a hat - if the school wishes to expel a student for not wearing a hat - the enforcement of that rule - it could then become a legal issue. Can the school legally exclude that student for the breach of rules? That could be tested in a court of law and often is because of the public interest in education. Because of the high level of public interest in top grade rugby league - cases of this nature would have standing in public law, just as school rules are scrutinized for legality. You cannot have a rule that is contrary to law. You wish to expel a player from a team (Inglis from QUeensland) or a team from a comp (Souths from NRL) - it will be a question of law!!!!!
THe two as you will now have noticed are analogous.

Granted, it is important to dechipher the purpose of the law. However whatever the case may be in black and white Inglis and Falou are NSWmen. They may have a choice to say which state is their most loved but if this is the case we could turn it into a tri series with a Victorian side, after all of the Storm players live there. And I'm confident all would see that is blatantly ridicuolous.

Now its a law and not a rule. Good to see you're comming round to my way of thinking!

It would be the players choice. It is just as ridiculous as Brentt Webb and Nathan Fienn playing for the kiwis against the kangaroos after living with the Warriors for a couple of years. It happens. Australia had Mason, Carroll, Thorn line up agsint NZ. It happens. THey move somewhere and find they love and associate with the place more.

I'm not questioning you have a strong knowledge of law, that is evident. But even some of the things you have said in this post are blatantly wrong

Where are my blatant mistakes? I like to see you are still fighting - but you must substantiate that assertion to conclude in the absolute.

I have not been damaged so therefore there is no doubt they would not find in my favour. Regardless, I have made it clear I do not believe it is a law, but rather a rule. Large difference. And your final point makes it clear that through players such as Inglis and Falou the concept of Origin has been ruined.

you sure you have not been emotionally or mentally damaged - because as quoted above - you called it a law! Have a nice cuppa and put your feet up!

 

[BOMAR]

Possibly - but the errors of the past have created a situation where young black/aboriginal players will feel more affinity to Queensland rather than New South Wales.

Look at talents like Mundine, Blacklock & Preston Campbell. Had they been Queenslanders they would have had a bucket load of Origin caps between them. As it is, what did Mundine play? 1 game off the bench?

If someone is eligible to play for both States - as Folau and Inglis were, which State were they going to choose? There's only one answer.

Firstly let me say the one game anthony mundine played was one to many. He was a decent player but not the best in the world like he believed. The racism card is hard to take when the player keeping him out of the team was an aboriginal as well and will go down in history as being one of the best for that era. Nsw has had a lot of aboriginals in their sides. Secondly if there is a criteria then how can any player choose who they want to play for. The rules seem to only be bent and broken when it comes to queensland. For instance adrian lam, tonie carroll(what a joke)and just recently are preparing early to try and do the same thing for Ben jones. I would be interested to know thurstons history as wouldnt his first game be for the bulldogs.
I am

 

[Manly Preniers in 2005]

Yes I do see it as a legal issue. All rules are subject to law for legality.

It s a school rule to wear a hat - if the school wishes to expel a student for not wearing a hat - the enforcement of that rule - it could then become a legal issue. Can the school legally exclude that student for the breach of rules? That could be tested in a court of law and often is because of the public interest in education. Because of the high level of public interest in top grade rugby league - cases of this nature would have standing in public law, just as school rules are scrutinized for legality. You cannot have a rule that is contrary to law. You wish to expel a player from a team (Inglis from QUeensland) or a team from a comp (Souths from NRL) - it will be a question of law!!!!!
THe two as you will now have noticed are analogous.

It is correct that all rules must not be contray and go against the law, but it is ridiculos to state that all rules are legal issues. A family not allowing their children to eat in the loungeroom is another rule that is not a law. In the case exclusion of Souths from the NRL, the courts also took into account the historical context of Souths within the competition, and valued this as important. The same could not be applied to which state a player represents as only the history of the player could be taken into account. Players must put on their contract when they sign up for first grade which state they are from in terms of origin, as well as their country. Surely, given the young age in which these contracts were signed, it would be seen that they are indeed NSW players. (If you take into account theys igned this at around age 18, and for 15 16 of those 18 years they played in NSW, then common sense should prevail).

Now its a law and not a rule. Good to see you're comming round to my way of thinking!

I was not conceding it is a law, just merely agreeing with your point that it is vital to decipher the purpose of the law, and the same would apply to a rule.

It would be the players choice. It is just as ridiculous as Brentt Webb and Nathan Fienn playing for the kiwis against the kangaroos after living with the Warriors for a couple of years. It happens. Australia had Mason, Carroll, Thorn line up agsint NZ. It happens. THey move somewhere and find they love and associate with the place more.

Agree that it is ridiculous, but not as much importance is placed here as it is in the origin concept.

Where are my blatant mistakes? I like to see you are still fighting - but you must substantiate that assertion to conclude in the absolute. you sure you have not been emotionally or mentally damaged - because as quoted above - you called it a law! Have a nice cuppa and put your feet up!

See above

 

[ANTiLAG]

but it is ridiculos to state that all rules are legal issues.

-

All rules that effect public interest are subject to public law thus may be thought of as legal issues.

A family not allowing their children to eat in the loungeroom is another rule that is not a law.

How is this remotely relevant to anything of public interest? There is no public interest as to which room a child may not eat in. This is a foolish metaphor. This is my point for the fourth time. It is a fact that a private rule which when enforced involves a public interest is subject to law, thus, becomes a question of law as to its legality. NRL and State of Origin Rugby League qualifies as a matter of public interest as seen in the Souths case. Thus any rules which effect public interest are subject to public law. You used school rules as an example - education is of public interest so school suspensions and expulsions can and are regularly uestioned in a court of law.

The same could not be applied to which state a player represents as only the history of the player could be taken into account. Players must put on their contract when they sign up for first grade which state they are from in terms of origin, as well as their country. Surely, given the young age in which these contracts were signed, it would be seen that they are indeed NSW players.

Unfortunately no - you are quite digital in your thinking and not analog. Do you design software for a living? A player could be both QLD and NSW. Much like a person can be both Asian and European. Mixed ancesestry - mixed history! This is why Inglis is allowed to play for QLD. A tribunal found he met the required history. Yet again - another foolish claim.

then common sense should prevail

Clearly common sense in a democratic society is to let a player choose which state to represent when qualifying for more than one rather than dictate terms.

I was not conceding it is a law, just merely agreeing with your point that it is vital to decipher the purpose of the law, and the same would apply to a rule.

- Previously you stated that

Granted, it is important to dechipher the purpose of the law. However whatever the case may be in black and white Inglis and Falou are NSWmen.

Really - so which law is it vital to decipher the purpose of - we are not talking about self defence or contractual privity here? You must be referring to state of origin rules as a matter of law. This is semantics and I knew you have not communicated yourself clearly - so I made a little joke by saying so its now a law which obviously you did not comprehend.

By the way - no case is ever black and white. The law may be certain - but which laws apply - thus the case is not. Which law the facts fall under is always a matter of subjective interpretation that builds a case. That is why computer databases cannot give legal opinions but they can be used to diagnose medical patients.

Agree that it is ridiculous, but not as much importance is placed here as it is in the origin concept

So you are suggesting International representaive fixtures are not analogous to Interstate representative matches? Do you posess any inductive cognition or are you purely dogmatically digital in your thinking?

Alleged mistakes -

See above

You're tenacious if not anything else.

Firstly - if I make Post A - you make Post B claiming I made mistakes in Post A- And I in Post C ask where those mistakes are - you should not point to Post C for those mistakes. Clearly my request for information was as a reference was to post A. You are clearly not illiterate - so my guess is you are a fool. That said, I do not see any mistakes in my argument.

You are clearly very scientific! But no artist.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

I would be interested to know thurstons history as wouldnt his first game be for the bulldogs.

St Mary's College - in Toowoomba