For the credibility of Origin

[_Johnsy]

Let us hear more about your 'interaction with the court system' oh esteemed counsel; the one who seems to believe that more laws are the answer for everything.

Interpretation you say? Mmm ... does that mean laws can be interpreted in different ways? According to you they cannot ... its black or its white; day or night; blue or maroon.

I was refering to law that is often argued in a court of law. I thought this was obvious, my mistake.

Please inform me how the following can be interpreted more than one way.

From the date of your 16th (or any age that is determined) the next club game you play is deemed the sate in which you are eligible to play SOO.

 

[hellteam]

I don't know if this has been said before, but sh*t it must be embarrasing for you NSWelshman that Inglis lived in NSW nearly his whole life and doesn't want to play for you.

 

[Dazzat]

I don't know if this has been said before, but sh*t it must be embarrasing for you NSWelshman that Inglis lived in NSW nearly his whole life and doesn't want to play for you.

Johnsy would have Inglis arrested and charged with treason. The sentence: To play in a team you hate.

 

[_Johnsy]

Again dazzat, please inform us all how there is any grey area in this eligibility rule.

From the date of your 16th (or any age that is determined) the next club game you play is deemed the sate in which you are eligible to play SOO.


You have stated numerous times how tere is grey area in ever law/rule. How is it so with the above.

 

[Dazzat]

Please refer to my Lettucehead post on page one.

If you were Lettucehead (which you very well could be) would you want to be playing for Qld?

There's more to sport than rules and regs. People aren't robots and the best rules allow for this.

After Inglis' game on Wednesday night you must be preparing a petition ...! And to think, we could well have 10-12 years of whinging from NSWers about Inglis. Oh the joy!

 

[_Johnsy]

Please refer to my Lettucehead post on page one.

If you were Lettucehead (which you very well could be) would you want to be playing for Qld?

There's more to sport than rules and regs. People aren't robots and the best rules allow for this.

After Inglis' game on Wednesday night you must be preparing a petition ...! And to think, we could well have 10-12 years of whinging from NSWers about Inglis. Oh the joy!

Lettuce heads scenario has nothing to do with the rule I have proposed. You stated there is grey area with every rule/law. Please stop dodging the question. Just back it up or concede you were wrong.

I for one dont care if Inglis plays for QLD, i believe that the eligibilty rule needs to be changed to ensure there is no grey area for any future player.

Is this too difficult a concept for you, I wont hold my breath waiting for your revealing of this grey area.

 

[Dazzat]

I note you are a question dodger yourself ... would you want to play for Queensland if you were Lettucehead? I can just hear you/Lettucehead, going down the tunnel before a game shouting "Queenslander .... yeah, Queens .. lan... d..... oh forget it ... I'm playing with a bunch of red necks ..."

What so magic about the age of 16? How about 15? How about 15-1/2? At 16 you are still living with your parents, have no choice of where you play ... but you damned well know who you support and that should count for more. Why should the age of 16 be used? Sounds like constription to me ... you have no choice you are going to fight in the army ...

The better soldiers are always those that choose to be there.

What if you play one game after your 16th birthday in Queensland and every other game in NSW? What if you've hated Queensland (some people actually do) and just don't want to play with them. What if you think Wally Lewis is a moron and a second-rate player ... yeah you'll go well in the Queensland team. But you'll be abiding by "the rule".

The best rules are those that put some responsibility on to the stakeholder, not some edict from on-high. I'm not saying free for all, I'm talking striking a balance; otherwise you'll rip the heart out of the contest.

 

[Loudstrat]

Please refer to my Lettucehead post on page one.

If you were Lettucehead (which you very well could be) would you want to be playing for Qld?

There's more to sport than rules and regs. People aren't robots and the best rules allow for this.

After Inglis' game on Wednesday night you must be preparing a petition ...! And to think, we could well have 10-12 years of whinging from NSWers about Inglis. Oh the joy!

Funny you say that, because we have had 28 years of you whinging about Noel Kelly.

 

[Loudstrat]

Sounds like constription to me ... you have no choice you are going to fight in the army ...

The better soldiers are always those that choose to be there.

Actually, our greatest military victory came from conscripts.

 

[El Diablo]

I don't know if this has been said before, but sh*t it must be embarrasing for you NSWelshman that Inglis lived in NSW nearly his whole life and doesn't want to play for you.

it would be more embarrassing that the best player wearing a Queensland jersey isn't even from that state. not only that but he didn't learn his football there either

Queenslander :lol:

but then Queensland have had foreigners play for them too

they even had a Kiwi coach and made him a honorary Queenslander :lol:

 

[icewind]

NSW health may support the concept, but people in Towoomba have been drinking it for years.

really? that's news to me. I didn't know we had a direct link to your mouth.

i live there buddy. get your facts right! anyway as far as treated water goes..... all water we drink has at one time contained/been a part of effluent/urine etc., so quick... stop drinking water full stop!

FOR ALL OUR SAKES!

 

[_Johnsy]

dazzat

If I was lettuce head and the rule stated I had to play for QLD. So be it, why have a whinge about it as you are. You are eligible to play for QLD, do you want to play origin or not?

Now could please extend me the courtesy, and shoe me where there is grey area (as you have claimed) in the eligibilty rule I have proposed.

 

[nqboy]

Funny you say that, because we have had 28 years of you whinging about Noel Kelly.

Wasn't from me. I didn't even know he was a Qlder until the TotC was named.

 

[_Johnsy]

Dazzat

Enough inane ramblings, just answer the question.

Show me where there is grey area (as you have claimed) in the eligibilty rule below.

From the date of your 16th (or any age that is determined) the next club game you play is deemed the sate in which you are eligible to play SOO.

It's ok if you admit you are wrong, we wont think any worse of you.'If this is not the case, just show me where they grey area is.

 

[mark123]

I have been thinking a bit about the credibility of origin, and it has a bit. There is one thing that diminishes the credibiltiy of the centrpiece of our game. The grey area that surrounds eligibility of players.

I have searched hi and low and have been only able to find one source than names an age of a player "Under State of Origin eligibility rules, it is where the player began his first senior football when aged 16, which determines their origin status. Folau, who moved to Queensland with his family as a boy, played his initial senior football with Brisbane Norths the Melbourne Storm's feeder club."

One thing is clear, all other sources state senior game. Herein lies the issue, if you are 17 years old and play in qld, but played u/16 in NSW in a senior grade who do you play for ?

Some would say NSW, others QLD. The issue needs to be sorted out and have one clear defining rule, without the grey area.

Case in point. Greg Inglis born 15/01/1987. He attended Hunter Sports High School in 2003, and also played for Wests Newcastle that same year, not in the u/16's but U/17's, a senior game. He then moves to Norths in Brisbane and plays for the Brisbane Norths Devils colt side in 2004 when aged 17. Both states will have a bona fide claim to this player. I have confirmed this in conversation with several school staff and coaches.

ARL/NSWRL/QRL please sort this issue out re-write the rule to put a stop the the eligibility argument in SOO once and for all.

You are soooo astute johnsy

 

[mark123]

Dazzat

Enough inane ramblings, just answer the question.

Show me where there is grey area (as you have claimed) in the eligibilty rule below.

From the date of your 16th (or any age that is determined) the next club game you play is deemed the sate in which you are eligible to play SOO.

It's ok if you admit you are wrong, we wont think any worse of you.'If this is not the case, just show me where they grey area is.

very. harsh.

 

[_Johnsy]

very. harsh.

Did you even bother to read the entire thread?

He makes a ridiculous claim, and cannot back it up.

 

[NthKnight]

Johnsy I think the grey area in all this is where the players heart lays when the loyalty card is played. I know this doesnt fit into the rule you propose but it must have a bearing on a players eligability otherwise the SOO concept becomes just another club v club game.

If I was lettuce head and the rule stated I had to play for QLD. So be it, why have a whinge about it as you are. You are eligible to play for QLD, do you want to play origin or not?

If it were myself in the above example then I would not play Origin if it meant playing for Qld and I believe the same could be said for Inglis and Folau. I personally wouldnt want a player playing in the sky blue whos heart was maroon through and through regardless of where they stand under the eligability rule.

 

[nqboy]

Johnsy I think the grey area in all this is where the players heart lays when the loyalty card is played. I know this doesnt fit into the rule you propose but it must have a bearing on a players eligability otherwise the SOO concept becomes just another club v club game.

If it were myself in the above example then I would not play Origin if it meant playing for Qld and I believe the same could be said for Inglis and Folau. I personally wouldnt want a player playing in the sky blue whos heart was maroon through and through regardless of where they stand under the eligability rule.

There's got to be some allowance for matters of the heart. It's easy for me to say that with us having gained Joe and Izzy that way, but I would grant you a player of the stature of Locky or JT if the situation was reversed. Bookmark it and challenge me if I don't.

Like nthknight, I wouldn't want anyone playing in the maroon whose heart was blue. I'd just want him playing for the Blues and smashed stupid every time he touches the ball.

 

[_Johnsy]

NthKnight/NQboy

I can understand the desire to integrate a players heart re: loyalty card. I don't want a player playing for either state who does not want to, However how can Inglis identify as a QLDér after residing there for 1 year?

IMO he had the opportunity to be selected for SOO for QLD before NSW, who can blame him for jumping at the chance to play in the best quality game of football in the world ? Certainly not I. But people telling us he wanted to play for QLD, and that he see's himself as a QLDér is a bit rich. He really has no option to publicly say this after choosing to play for QLD, if he didn't say this he would look rather stupid. Again the issue is choosing to play for them, the eligibiltiy rule should have no room for choice. Are we to believe the Inglis would be less passionate had he waited to be chosen for NSW. Would he be any less passionate about the sky blue jumper, afterall he was born in NSW, schooled in NSW, played every single junior game in NSW, played his 1st senior game in NSW, lived his 1st 17 years in NSW. I doubt it. IMO there needs to be a clear rule when determining what state you qualify for. Currently there is not.

Any chance of a reply to the question I have asked numerous times Dazzat ?

If I was lettuce head and the rule stated I had to play for QLD. So be it, why have a whinge about it as you are. You are eligible to play for QLD, do you want to play origin or not?
If it were myself in the above example then I would not play Origin if it meant playing for Qld and I believe the same could be said for Inglis and Folau. I personally wouldnt want a player playing in the sky blue whos heart was maroon through and through regardless of where they stand under the eligability rule.