For the credibility of Origin

[Dazzat]

The test of good law making isn't whether there is an absence of 'grey areas'. Rules should be about serving the greater good, not rules for rules' sake.

Take a look at the bureaucracy as an example of how being sticklers for rules can stifle passion. Take a look at public servants - those who make their living from rules. No passion, no heart (generally speaking - there are exceptions).

Personally I want passion for playing for one's state to be the preminent 'rule' - this is what SOO is all about. Anything less has the potential to rob the spectacle of its grunt.

199 times out of 200 you won't need an eligibility rule ... and history shows this. Players play for the state they grew up in and love. But on the few occasions where there is some disagreement, passion and pride for your state should be the rule (refer to my idea earlier in the thread).

 

[Whats Doing]

The fact of the matter is that if you have not previously played SOS and you were offered to play for a state, any player would jump at the chance. Name one player that would knock it back. The fact is if NSW offered Inglis a position before QLD, there is no way he would knock it back.

The benefits of playing with representative players to enhance their own skills, the increased bargaining power to signficantly increase contact money due to be a repesntative player and the increased marketing exposure.

The passion for the state comes when they become part of the team. People thinking that players would knock back such opportunities are dreaming and using it as an excuse to support their own arguments.

Like all representative teams in all sports, there must be clear eligibility rules and be as clear cut as possible. The passion thing for players who have not previously played SOS is a load of codswallop. Sure you may prefer to play for one state, but that wouldn't stop you playing for another state if selected first due to the signficantly increased opportunities presented.

 

[Dazzat]

The passion thing for players who have not previously played SOS is a load of codswallop. Sure you may prefer to play for one state, but that wouldn't stop you playing for another state if selected first due to the signficantly increased opportunities presented.

Not from Queensland heh?

 

[Whats Doing]

Not from Queensland heh?

Just stating how it is for professional sports persons in an objective and not an emotive manner.

By the way, you need to look at the entire quote and not be selective.

 

[nqboy]

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.

What you say is fair enough but you cannot totally discount his opinion on the basis that "of course he's going to say that now". All I can say is that if I was one of the gifted few, I'd rather not play Origin than play for NSW.

 

[NthKnight]

Not from Queensland heh?

What kind of statement is that? Oh yeah I forgot, Qlders have the monopoly on state pride. Silly me :sarcasm:

What you say is fair enough but you cannot totally discount his opinion on the basis that "of course he's going to say that now". All I can say is that if I was one of the gifted few, I'd rather not play Origin than play for NSW.

As would I BUT Whats Doing does has a point about the lifting of profile and increased exposure. While I dont agree on a personal level I can see that not all players would have an issue with playing for either side if "the price was right" so to speak

 

[Dazzat]

Inglis has publicly stated that Arthur Beeton's selection as Queensland's first SOO captain made a big impression on him as an indigineous Australia, and that played a significant role in his chosing Queensland.

 

[perverse]

Inglis has publicly stated that Arthur Beeton's selection as Queensland's first SOO captain made a big impression on him as an indigineous Australia, and that played a significant role in his chosing Queensland.

how touching.

 

[Whats Doing]

Inglis has publicly stated that Arthur Beeton's selection as Queensland's first SOO captain made a big impression on him as an indigineous Australia, and that played a significant role in his chosing Queensland.

And he would have said something different if he was selected for NSW first. To believe otherwise people are dreaming.

As I mentioned in a previously, players will jump at the first opportunity due to a range of signficantly enhanced finanicial and publicity benefits. To think that Inglis would have knocked back NSW if they selected him first is codswallop. Anyone believing otherwise are either naive or just playing the passion card to suit their own purposes.

Supporters who show their passion for their state is great, but be objective and realistic in the real world of professional sportsmen.

Sadly so few are.

 

[Dazzat]

Tony Durkin, former editor of Rugby League Week, Courier Mail rugby league journalist and Communications Manager for the Brisbane Broncos (now retired), wrote this today in the Sunshine Coast Daily:

There is a simple solution ...

"When any player signs his first NRL contract, he stipulates there and then his state of origin. It should not be guesswork, or where a player moved when his club first signed him.

Origins are origins, and deep down a young man of 17 or 18 knows the colour of the blood flowing through his veins."

He's obviously been reading my posts ... very similar to my idea mentioned earlier. This is not 'state of choice' because we normally don't get to choose where we are brought up and where our heart lies ... it comes naturally. 'State of choice' is where the league bureaucracy choose where you'll play through a rule.

 

[Whats Doing]

Tony Durkin, former editor of Rugby League Week, Courier Mail rugby league journalist and Communications Manager for the Brisbane Broncos (now retired), wrote this today in the Sunshine Coast Daily:

There is a simple solution ...

"When any player signs his first NRL contract, he stipulates there and then his state of origin. It should not be guesswork, or where a player moved when his club first signed him.

Origins are origins, and deep down a young man of 17 or 18 knows the colour of the blood flowing through his veins."

He's obviously been reading my posts ... very similar to my idea mentioned earlier. This is not 'state of choice' because we normally don't get to choose where we are brought up and where our heart lies ... it comes naturally. 'State of choice' is where the league bureaucracy choose where you'll play through a rule.

FFS. Then it is not State of Orgin it is then Stat of Choice. Durlkin, the doyen of journalism has made a hack of himself again. So a player, who lives all of his life in one state and plays his football in the same state, then has a choice of which state he plays for.

If you are a specialist hooker and Cameron Smith is in front of you for the next 10 years but their is a signifcant opportunity to play for NSW, increase your earnings by over $200,000 a year, increase your marketing power and you say, nope, I will pledge my support for QLD.

Get real, you are dreaming and Durkin as usual is a goose with maroon coloured glasses on.

The passion for SOS from players comes from when they make the particular side. Sure they may have a prefernce, but don't tell me crap they a players would give up SOS if the opportunity arises.

It is either State of Origin or you ditch it for something else that has consistency of eligibility. If you want to change it to State of Choice, then let's have the rules to make it so. But lets not have this current bull$hit and hiding behind passion statements which don't hold any water.

 

[perverse]

what's SOS?

 

[Whats Doing]

what's SOS?

Ok, I meant SOO

 

[_Johnsy]

The test of good law making isn't whether there is an absence of 'grey areas'. Rules should be about serving the greater good, not rules for rules' sake.

Ok, so you initially say there is grey area with my proposed eligibility rule. Now we are moving the goal posts to suit your inept answering of a simple question. The greater good, by that I take it means QLD?

Just admit you were wrong, or answer the simple question that has been asked repeatedly, It's not that difficult.


On a side note, Inglis did not choose QLD he was selected for QLD. If we are to believe Durkin the merkin Origins are origins, and deep down a young man of 17 or 18 knows the colour of the blood flowing through his veins."" It does not say much about QLD, spend a year there and your a QLDér if you can play footy. You lot have consistently shown no integrity when it comes to SOO. This thread just backs it up, claiming a NSWelshman as your own, if he can play footy. Inglis is as weak as piss, but by all means have the guy who has no backbone.

 

[_Johnsy]

I fail to see how a dispute could be raised, especially if the rule is as follows. 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 seems to work pretty well when determining what age your son or daughter qualifies for when they play sport.

But as with all the laws in the history of the world, there will ALWAYS be grey areas.

History clearly shows that you'll never tighten rules enough to catch every individual case.

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.

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 ...

The test of good law making isn't whether there is an absence of 'grey areas'. Rules should be about serving the greater good, not rules for rules' sake.

Any time..........................................

Well if passion/desire to play for a state is the determining factor as you want. Why should'nt NSW pick SBW or Mateo. Afterall SOO is all about passion, isn't it ?

 

[Dazzat]

Thanks for summarizing Johnsy ... your a mate. Happy for Mateo and SBW to play for NSW/NZ.

 

[_Johnsy]

still no answer, imagine my surprise.
No difference to the QLD/NZ/PNG side.
How do you sit up straight without a backbone. Truly pissweak.

 

[Dazzat]

still no answer, imagine my surprise.
No difference to the QLD/NZ/PNG side.
How do you sit up straight without a backbone. Truly pissweak.

Yes, a true sign of courage is debating anonymously on-line.

And it's even more courageous to question other's integrity/character anonymously on-line ...

I believe I've answered youre question in this thread; you don't. Wow we disagree ... big deal. You believe that rules will fix everything .. I don't .. big deal. Lighten up Johnsy. The Saints won this weekend and the sun will be coming up tomorrow morning.

 

[_Johnsy]

It has nothing to do with being courageous, I am sure I didn't mention that word at all, anywhere. The issue here is about integrity, and being courteous enough to answer a question when you dismiss the main point of this thread. I have not stated anywhere that rules will fix everything, you once again assume this. You make a claim and cannot back it up.

The question is simple enough.

 

[Dazzat]

It has nothing to do with being courageous, I am sure I didn't mention that word at all, anywhere.

I believe you used the term 'without a backbone'.

We're debating football here mate, not nuclear disarmament or ending the war in the Middle East.

Just because I don't answer a question the specific way you want it answered doesn't mean I haven't answered the question. I'm signing off from this thread.