Geoff Carr warns players off Samoa

[roughyedspud]

there should'nt be "australia's interpations" of the RLIF laws...


a law is a law for f**k sake....and australia helped write the friggin laws..


Origin has outgrown its purpose...that being a australia trial...its far bigger than that now....and the only way we can loosen the death grip origin has over internationals is to allow "islanders" play origin as well as for fijij,samoa,tonga etc....

 

[ozbash]

I hope they both play this weekend and then stick with Samoa. It may encourage others to do the same. The more players that walk away from SOO the better for the international game.

dead right, f**k Origin..

 

[ozbash]

You are totally missing the point. Timana Tahu is a perfect example. His ancestory is Maori. He is not a New Zealander.

they refuse to understand, Iafeta. It's beyond them...

 

[roughyedspud]

tahu will be anyone you want if you pay him enough

 

[Springs]

Quite easily, really. If your parents are Aboriginal, but you are born and bred in Houston, Texas after your parents move there for employment opportunities, your heritage is Aboriginal but to say your nationality can't be American and has to be Australian to match your racial heritage of obtuse. There is a fair chance that persons citizenship and how they regard themselves is American, but that they represent the notions of their Aboriginal heritage. The Tahu situation is no different. He is a born and bred Australian with Maori roots. He is not however, a New Zealander.

I didn't say Tahu has to be a New Zealander, my whole point is that you don't have to be one nationality. If you are aboriginal and born in America you would be Australian American. I thought that was pretty simple.

 

[Eels Dude]

there should'nt be "australia's interpations" of the RLIF laws...


a law is a law for f**k sake....and australia helped write the friggin laws..


Origin has outgrown its purpose...that being a australia trial...its far bigger than that now....and the only way we can loosen the death grip origin has over internationals is to allow "islanders" play origin as well as for fijij,samoa,tonga etc....

Origin is and always bigger than internationals will ever be. No way should the laws or credibility be relaxed for Origin for the sake of the international game. Let those who qualify for both nations make their choice as to what matters most, an Australian based competiton between two state rivals, or playing internationals for a country they feel more aligned with.

 

[roughyedspud]

scrap australia then and have NSW & QLD play in international comp instead.

. Let those who qualify for both nations make their choice as to what matters most, an Australian based competiton between two state rivals, or playing internationals for a country they feel more aligned with.

what like Uate did?

 

[Eels Dude]

scrap australia then and have NSW & QLD play in international comp instead.




what like Uate did?

I've no idea what Uate did or who his eligibility is for, but it's his decision either way.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

Origin is and always bigger than internationals will ever be.

In what way? Media hype? Yes. Quality of games though - no way. Origin's a one way street these days. How many series has NSW won since NZ won the 05 Tri Nations?.....zero.

 

[Eels Dude]

In what way? Media hype? Yes. Quality of games though - no way. Origin's a one way street these days. How many series has NSW won since NZ won the 05 Tri Nations?.....zero.

In crowds, televisions ratings, advertising, and revenue raised yes it is. Even overall 'quality' of games I'd argue they're far better also due to the overall contest. What exactly are internationals top of of seeing as you brought the argument up?

And to reply to your question since you up "since 2005". Australia and NZ have played 12 times since 2005, how many have NZ won?

 

[flamin]

In crowds, televisions ratings, advertising, and revenue raised yes it is. Even overall 'quality' of games I'd argue they're far better also due to the overall contest. What exactly are internationals top of of seeing as you brought the argument up?

And to reply to your question since you up "since 2005". Australia and NZ have played 12 times since 2005, how many have NZ won?

No really only crowds are beating internationals by any serious margin and that has only been since the super-league era.
An international will always make up for less coverage in Australia with more coverage overseas. There is greater potential for financial return from a tournament which has a market across nations than just 2 states. The most watched game in rugby league history was the 2008 World Cup Final.

 

[Eels Dude]

An international will always make up for less coverage in Australia with more coverage overseas. There greater potential for financial return from a tournament which has a market across nations than just 2 states. The most watched game in rugby league history was the 2008 World Cup Final.

I'm not disputing that. But when it comes to profit in regards to expenses SOO wins hands down. The cost of having another world cup won't be feasible for another 5 years and doesn't make as much money, whereas SOO is guarenteed revenue on a yearly basis no matter what due to it's popularity.

 

[bender]

In crowds, televisions ratings, advertising, and revenue raised yes it is. Even overall 'quality' of games I'd argue they're far better also due to the overall contest. What exactly are internationals top of of seeing as you brought the argument up?

And to reply to your question since you up "since 2005". Australia and NZ have played 12 times since 2005, how many have NZ won?

I am not really sure how many New Zealand have won since then, though i am guessing that they wone more series than NSW did in the same time. Would that be right.

 

[Eels Dude]

I am not really sure how many New Zealand have won since then, though i am guessing that they wone more series than NSW did in the same time. Would that be right.

It'd be right, but winning one game over the course of 5 years doesn't say much for NZ V Aus matches being high quality does it? I'm not talking series won, but of the overall competitiveness during that period.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Do you really think that someone of the calibre of Robbie Farah would prefer to play for Lebanon than NSW? In the players eyes, state > small country. So players eligible for both will continue to choose SOO, because there is more appeal there.

Apart from the minority of players who would choose their country over SOO ( and these are normally the lesser ones who probably wouldn't make SOO) their priorities are
1. State of Origin - fame, wealth, etc.
2. Minnow country - one test a year v another minnow.

So, for the majority of these players, the only way you can get them to play for their country is to allow both. The rules are already a joke, this would maintain the standard of comedy but improve developing nations, so that they become stronger, and then, down the track, players may choose to represent them of their own accord, without playing SOO, because their country now plays a worthwhile amount of games.

Robbie Farah DID play for Lebanon, he wouldnt be able to switch if it was one nation for life.

Josh McGuire chose to play for Samoa. There is a good chance he could be a Kangaroo quality player, but if it were one nation for life, Samoa would have a great player to call upon.

People seem to be ignoring that SoO is owned by the ARL. The RLIF CAN NOT tell the ARL what to do with their eligibility rules. If the ARL wish to use Origin as a tool to bring players over who are eligible for more then one nation, then that's tough. Other nations need to find a way to convince players to chose to play for them.

The loophole is that a player can play SoO and then still represent any nation. The only thing the ARL can do then is make a player declare officially that they pledge their allegiance to Australia before playing SoO.

And Springs, you have absolutely no understanding of development matches. Its about representing the League you are in. Remember what Origin used to be. It was NSWRL vs QRL. Now its NSW vs Qld. You seem to be struggling to comprehend that. And unless im mistaken, are you saying that a player should be able to switch nations at will? Because according to the rules, Tahu can play for the Kiwis if he stands down for 2 years. We know that he should be able to represent NZ if he wants, but he shouldn't be allowed to change his mind about it.

 

[hutch]

they refuse to understand, Iafeta. It's beyond them...

who is they? i agree with iafeta, am i part of them?

 

[Didgi]

Robbie Farah DID play for Lebanon, he wouldnt be able to switch if it was one nation for life.

Josh McGuire chose to play for Samoa. There is a good chance he could be a Kangaroo quality player, but if it were one nation for life, Samoa would have a great player to call upon.

People seem to be ignoring that SoO is owned by the ARL. The RLIF CAN NOT tell the ARL what to do with their eligibility rules. If the ARL wish to use Origin as a tool to bring players over who are eligible for more then one nation, then that's tough. Other nations need to find a way to convince players to chose to play for them.

The loophole is that a player can play SoO and then still represent any nation. The only thing the ARL can do then is make a player declare officially that they pledge their allegiance to Australia before playing SoO.

And Springs, you have absolutely no understanding of development matches. Its about representing the League you are in. Remember what Origin used to be. It was NSWRL vs QRL. Now its NSW vs Qld. You seem to be struggling to comprehend that. And unless im mistaken, are you saying that a player should be able to switch nations at will? Because according to the rules, Tahu can play for the Kiwis if he stands down for 2 years. We know that he should be able to represent NZ if he wants, but he shouldn't be allowed to change his mind about it.

I agree it should be one nation for life. But separate origin so that players who play origin can still represent Samoa etc.

 

[deluded pom?]

The issue here is SOO a stand alone "international" type of event - OR - is a selection trial for the Australian national team

ARL has always beleived that it is part of the selection process for the Australian national team, just as is the City v NSW Country match

So all Geoff Carr is stating is the RLIF laws and Australia intrepations

It's all well and good to follow RLIF rules when they suit Australia but to Hell with them when they don't.

If you play fro another country then you must sit out 2 years before changing "nationalities"

Not true as we've seen with Uate.

 

[Springs]

And Springs, you have absolutely no understanding of development matches. Its about representing the League you are in. Remember what Origin used to be. It was NSWRL vs QRL. Now its NSW vs Qld. You seem to be struggling to comprehend that. And unless im mistaken, are you saying that a player should be able to switch nations at will? Because according to the rules, Tahu can play for the Kiwis if he stands down for 2 years. We know that he should be able to represent NZ if he wants, but he shouldn't be allowed to change his mind about it.

For Allah's sake of course I do. Can you not understand that playing for a team CALLED New South Wales is still representing NEW SOUTH WALES!!! And Origin was never NSWRL vs QRL, it was the state competition, those who lived in New South Wales vs those who lived in Queensland. You still represented your state of residence, you didn't have to play in the NSWRL comp to play for NSW.
The point I am making is that it's stupid how you have to be tied to Australia to play for New South Wales in Origin, but you don't have to be tied to Australia to represent NSW U19s, or even AUSTRALIAN Schoolboys or whatever. Neither are test level, yet for some reason Origin is tied to tests.

And you are mistaken, I support one nation for life in the future, but as of now I think that players should be able to play Origin and for their nation of heritage.
The only thing I am trying to tell Iafeta is that Tahu can both be Australian and New Zealander, he doesn't have to be only one, and that playing for Australia doesn't make him 100% Australian. I support Tahu playing for the Maori, it's great that he wants to represent his heritage, but I don't agree with letting Tahu playing Origin and for the Maori, yet not letting Vidot play Origin and for Samoa.

 

[Springs]

who is they? i agree with iafeta, am i part of them?

No hutch, I'd say it's only me. What they say is above me simply because I disagree with them.