Geoff Carr warns players off Samoa

[roughyedspud]

we get it...the kiwis get it...the couple of french lads on here get it...alot of the aussies don't though


we can all see that origin,as good as it is,is strangling the international game.....


i'm 2000% sure that if you asked Uate...the 2 QLD/samoan kids...or tony williams...or even robbie farah...if they could play for their heritage/native country AND NSW or QLD...they would...christ even sam burgess said he'd love to play in origin....and i'm sure the NSWRL would love him too as well...and i would'nt really have a problem with it tbh....nor did i have a problem with gareth widdop playing for NSW residents earlier this year.....why can't origin be played under those rules??


its funny that the one rule most of us wants...'the 1nation for life' rule only really applies to a state contest......its time the ARL scrapped the australia eligibility rule for SoO

 

[Joker's Wild]

yes it is, SOO is not test football therefore there is absolutley nothing stopping players playing SOO and turning out for whichever country they see fit other than the bl00dy mindedness of the ARL and its desire to protect the sanctity (haha) of SOO selection.

How can you tell two players not to choose Samoa or they won;t be picked for SOO yet be happy to pick a player who played for Fiji just last year? Its farcical and is damaging the Int game. Uate should be the poster buy for Fiji RL and helping drive the game forward with the backing of the RLIF. Instead he is giving all that up and Fiji's big opportunity to get RL more developed in the hope of a NSW shirt. How's that not damaging to the Int game?

Mate that is the ARLs doing, not SOO itself.

FTR I believe the rules need to be changed to allow players to play for both state and heritage country as long as they are eligable. For those who say it would make a joke out of SOO, well all you have to do is look at guys like Ben "Beached az" Te'o and his selection for Qld to know that the rules are already as loose as can be.

Dont hate SOO because Carr and the like use it to draw the best to Australia.

 

[hutch]

we get it...the kiwis get it...the couple of french lads on here get it...alot of the aussies don't though


we can all see that origin,as good as it is,is strangling the international game.....


i'm 2000% sure that if you asked Uate...the 2 QLD/samoan kids...or tony williams...or even robbie farah...if they could play for their heritage/native country AND NSW or QLD...they would...christ even sam burgess said he'd love to play in origin....and i'm sure the NSWRL would love him too as well...and i would'nt really have a problem with it tbh....nor did i have a problem with gareth widdop playing for NSW residents earlier this year.....why can't origin be played under those rules??


its funny that the one rule most of us wants...'the 1nation for life' rule only really applies to a state contest......its time the ARL scrapped the australia eligibility rule for SoO

i usually agree with what you say spud, but this time you are pretty much 2000% wrong with uate being the exception. he is a joke, and simply should not be eligible for origin or australia.

the two qld/samoan kids, vidot openly stated his ultimate dream is to play for qld AND australia, he is australian, wants to play for his national team, is not good enough yet so playing a game for samoa sounds good. is given the choice of samoa or australia (origin or not) he would choose australia. maguire has also publicly stated he wants to play for australia but as he isnt good enough yet he doesnt mind helping samoa out. he has a samoan parent or grandparent, i cant remember, is born in australia. why do you think he would choose samoa over australia? and why does this only come up with the players with some polynesian background? i dont hear people blowing up that hindmarsh is playing for nsw and australia and not scotland? he has a scottish mother, its the same thing!

as for tony williams, i have spoken to him about this issue through a mutual friend, and he told me first hand (a couple of years ago mind you) that his first choice is australia as he was born here (at the time he had knocked back tonga a couple of times and actually played against them for the junior kangaroos). come world cup time, not wanting to miss out on the big event, he played for tonga knowing he could always switch back to australia if he was good enough hence continuing the farce of our international game.

and farah, he has said publicly numerous times that his ultimate goal was to play for his country which he achieved last year. he played for lebanon when he was an 18 year old reserve grader with an uncertain future. there is no way he would choose lebanon over austraia if given the choice, i dont know where you came up with that!

 

[hutch]

What about Cayless...born and bred in Parramatta.

he made a choice because he had a greater connection to his country of heritage than an australian state and australia. he has dual nationality, made a choice and stuck with it. whats the problem?

 

[Matua]

he made a choice because he had a greater connection to his country of heritage than an australian state and australia. he has dual nationality, made a choice and stuck with it. whats the problem?

I don't see why you don't apply the same reasoning to Taia then?

 

[RedVee]

What about Cayless...born and bred in Parramatta.

Cayless was lucky enough to have been able to choose. Good luck to him but he made his choice knowing it locked him out of Origen. But, guess what? Don't you think that he made this decision in the realisation that he was unlikely to be selected for Origen or Australia????
How about player X in the same situation as Cayless but whose parent(s) migrated from Mauritius (where ever) - he doesn't get a choice. If he isn't good enough for Aust or Origen he just doesn't play.
Cayless was advantaged by this, remember the 70's when New Zealand and English players that came to play in Sydney could not play for their Country? Let alone those born here from migrating parents like Cayless.

The only reason I would allow the minnow country eligble players to double dip is because those countries do not have the representative calandars available to rival those of Australia, New Zealand & England. If this allows "better" players to turn out for the country of their choosing - then good. I wonder though, how many of these players in Vidot type situations would want to switch back to Australia once they played Origen and realised they were under consideration?
As I have repeatedly said, these players situations are all individual and need to be considered on a case by case basis. We can't just all assume that they would all choose their heritage nation, or Australia for that matter.

the two qld/samoan kids, vidot openly stated his ultimate dream is to play for qld AND australia, he is australian, wants to play for his national team, is not good enough yet so playing a game for samoa sounds good. is given the choice of samoa or australia (origin or not) he would choose australia. maguire has also publicly stated he wants to play for australia but as he isnt good enough yet he doesnt mind helping samoa out. he has a samoan parent or grandparent, i cant remember, is born in australia. why do you think he would choose samoa over australia? and why does this only come up with the players with some polynesian background? i dont hear people blowing up that hindmarsh is playing for nsw and australia and not scotland? he has a scottish mother, its the same thing!

as for tony williams, i have spoken to him about this issue through a mutual friend, and he told me first hand (a couple of years ago mind you) that his first choice is australia as he was born here (at the time he had knocked back tonga a couple of times and actually played against them for the junior kangaroos). come world cup time, not wanting to miss out on the big event, he played for tonga knowing he could always switch back to australia if he was good enough hence continuing the farce of our international game.

and farah, he has said publicly numerous times that his ultimate goal was to play for his country which he achieved last year. he played for lebanon when he was an 18 year old reserve grader with an uncertain future. there is no way he would choose lebanon over austraia if given the choice, i dont know where you came up with that!

I agree.

 

[Springs]

i usually agree with what you say spud, but this time you are pretty much 2000% wrong with uate being the exception. he is a joke, and simply should not be eligible for origin or australia.

the two qld/samoan kids, vidot openly stated his ultimate dream is to play for qld AND australia, he is australian, wants to play for his national team, is not good enough yet so playing a game for samoa sounds good. is given the choice of samoa or australia (origin or not) he would choose australia. maguire has also publicly stated he wants to play for australia but as he isnt good enough yet he doesnt mind helping samoa out. he has a samoan parent or grandparent, i cant remember, is born in australia. why do you think he would choose samoa over australia? and why does this only come up with the players with some polynesian background? i dont hear people blowing up that hindmarsh is playing for nsw and australia and not scotland? he has a scottish mother, its the same thing!

as for tony williams, i have spoken to him about this issue through a mutual friend, and he told me first hand (a couple of years ago mind you) that his first choice is australia as he was born here (at the time he had knocked back tonga a couple of times and actually played against them for the junior kangaroos). come world cup time, not wanting to miss out on the big event, he played for tonga knowing he could always switch back to australia if he was good enough hence continuing the farce of our international game.

and farah, he has said publicly numerous times that his ultimate goal was to play for his country which he achieved last year. he played for lebanon when he was an 18 year old reserve grader with an uncertain future. there is no way he would choose lebanon over austraia if given the choice, i dont know where you came up with that!

Your points are valid except that one. No one would have been harmed letting Vidot and McGuire play for Samoa tonight. As it is, only one of them is, and that's only because McGuire doesn't think he will play for Queensland next year.
Yeah sure, if Vidot and McGuire want to play for Australia that's fine, but if they are not good enough then why not let them play for Samoa? I know you've said that we should let players that want to put Samoa first ahead of the ones that put Aus or NZ first, but fair dinkum half the team has played for the Kiwis before, and I'm sure the other half want to play for the Kiwis or Kangaroos. Even the reserve grade players that have replaced Vidot and Roberts I doubt put Samoa first, I'd say the only reason they are playing for Samoa is the same reason McGuire is, they aren't good enough to play for the Kangaroos or Kiwis.

 

[hutch]

Your points are valid except that one. No one would have been harmed letting Vidot and McGuire play for Samoa tonight. As it is, only one of them is, and that's only because McGuire doesn't think he will play for Queensland next year.
Yeah sure, if Vidot and McGuire want to play for Australia that's fine, but if they are not good enough then why not let them play for Samoa? I know you've said that we should let players that want to put Samoa first ahead of the ones that put Aus or NZ first, but fair dinkum half the team has played for the Kiwis before, and I'm sure the other half want to play for the Kiwis or Kangaroos. Even the reserve grade players that have replaced Vidot and Roberts I doubt put Samoa first, I'd say the only reason they are playing for Samoa is the same reason McGuire is, they aren't good enough to play for the Kangaroos or Kiwis.

bcause this is international sport, it is supposed to be a test match between 2 nations. it is not a samoan/tongan heritage game, if the players arent willing to commit to the country, then p*ss off and let someone play who will. how does having players play for a country only to abandon them when they are better players benefit the national team? it creates fake teams full of players who are there for 2-3 max instead of allowing countries to build national teams over the years where they can aim for future world cups.

 

[hutch]

Cayless was lucky enough to have been able to choose. Good luck to him but he made his choice knowing it locked him out of Origen. But, guess what? Don't you think that he made this decision in the realisation that he was unlikely to be selected for Origen or Australia????
How about player X in the same situation as Cayless but whose parent(s) migrated from Mauritius (where ever) - he doesn't get a choice. If he isn't good enough for Aust or Origen he just doesn't play.
Cayless was advantaged by this, remember the 70's when New Zealand and English players that came to play in Sydney could not play for their Country? Let alone those born here from migrating parents like Cayless.

The only reason I would allow the minnow country eligble players to double dip is because those countries do not have the representative calandars available to rival those of Australia, New Zealand & England. If this allows "better" players to turn out for the country of their choosing - then good. I wonder though, how many of these players in Vidot type situations would want to switch back to Australia once they played Origen and realised they were under consideration?
As I have repeatedly said, these players situations are all individual and need to be considered on a case by case basis. We can't just all assume that they would all choose their heritage nation, or Australia for that matter.



I agree.

so imo the answer is to give these countries representitive calendars every year, both mid nrl season and post nrl season. players who have the choice can make their choice knowing that they are guaranteed meaningful tests and rep matches every single year. if they still want to play origin and for australia fair enough, if they commit to their heritage nation than thats great. but you cant have both, make a choice and stick with it. the arl have every right to only pick players committed to australia for their state teams, but it would be a lot fairer system if other countries were allowed to play their own big rep matches with their full strength teams at thr same time.

 

[Springs]

bcause this is international sport, it is supposed to be a test match between 2 nations. it is not a samoan/tongan heritage game, if the players arent willing to commit to the country, then p*ss off and let someone play who will. how does having players play for a country only to abandon them when they are better players benefit the national team? it creates fake teams full of players who are there for 2-3 max instead of allowing countries to build national teams over the years where they can aim for future world cups.

That was my point, if it wasn't for these 'fake teams' then I doubt Samoa would be playing at all this year.

 

[hutch]

I don't see why you don't apply the same reasoning to Taia then?

taia, australian born to parents from the cook islands, plays for nz. he is not a kiwi, but as we have discussed in another post the cook islands is a nz dependency and he would be eligible for a nz passport. from my understanding you have to be born in country, your parents or grandparents born in that country or live a minimum of 3 years in a country to be eligible to play rugby league for them, taia doesnt meet any of those requirements but i assume he is eligible for them because he is eligible for a nz passport. we've gone over this and the rlif share your view, good luck to him.

 

[Matua]

taia, australian born to parents from the cook islands, plays for nz. he is not a kiwi, but as we have discussed in another post the cook islands is a nz dependency and he would be eligible for a nz passport. from my understanding you have to be born in country, your parents or grandparents born in that country or live a minimum of 3 years in a country to be eligible to play rugby league for them, taia doesnt meet any of those requirements but i assume he is eligible for them because he is eligible for a nz passport. we've gone over this and the rlif share your view, good luck to him.

FFS, how many times do I have to say this, Cook Islanders are NZ citizens, when his parents were born in the Cook Islands, effectively they were born in NZ. You are just being deliberately stubborn on this point.

There is a good chance that Taia's parents could have lived in NZ for many years. My grandparents were born on Raro, in various times they lived in NZ and in Raro. Many Cook Islanders do the same, my cousin has moved back there to live, he was born there but has been in NZ since he was 2 years old, he's 38 now, he's a NZer, yet if he had a child outside of NZ you think that his child shouldn't be a NZer also.

What I find annoying is that you are overlooking citizenship because you don't like that the Cook Islands are going to be weaker in league games. You're wanting to deny Cook Islanders their rights as NZ citizens because you have a bee in your bonnet.

 

[RedVee]

so imo the answer is to give these countries representitive calendars every year, both mid nrl season and post nrl season. players who have the choice can make their choice knowing that they are guaranteed meaningful tests and rep matches every single year. if they still want to play origin and for australia fair enough, if they commit to their heritage nation than thats great. but you cant have both, make a choice and stick with it. the arl have every right to only pick players committed to australia for their state teams, but it would be a lot fairer system if other countries were allowed to play their own big rep matches with their full strength teams at thr same time.

Yes, that is pretty much 100% my position.

FFS, how many times do I have to say this, Cook Islanders are NZ citizens, when his parents were born in the Cook Islands, effectively they were born in NZ. You are just being deliberately stubborn on this point.

There is a good chance that Taia's parents could have lived in NZ for many years. My grandparents were born on Raro, in various times they lived in NZ and in Raro. Many Cook Islanders do the same, my cousin has moved back there to live, he was born there but has been in NZ since he was 2 years old, he's 38 now, he's a NZer, yet if he had a child outside of NZ you think that his child shouldn't be a NZer also.

What I find annoying is that you are overlooking citizenship because you don't like that the Cook Islands are going to be weaker in league games. You're wanting to deny Cook Islanders their rights as NZ citizens because you have a bee in your bonnet.

Sorry to butt in on this one, but from reading your post ^ it makes me ask if the Cook Islands should be playing Internationals at all? Should these players be considered NZers and the Cook Island team be treated in the same fashion as the Maori team?
I'm not trying to be controversial, I would just like an opinion from someone with close ties to this situation. A sincere question.

 

[Evil Homer]

The Cook Islands should not allowed to enter the World Cup, no. It's effectively another NZ 'B' team.

 

[Matua]

Yes, that is pretty much 100% my position.



Sorry to butt in on this one, but from reading your post ^ it makes me ask if the Cook Islands should be playing Internationals at all? Should these players be considered NZers and the Cook Island team be treated in the same fashion as the Maori team?
I'm not trying to be controversial, I would just like an opinion from someone with close ties to this situation. A sincere question.

No worries, I tend to agree, but international league is a joke anyway so if Lebanon (which is effectively Oz 'C' - directed at Evil homers post), Ireland, Scotland etc can have teams then it really doesn't matter if the Cooks do. As I said earlier most Cook Islanders live in NZ, probably most are born there now, all are NZ citizens.

I guess it just comes down to dual nationality like (English and Welsh/Oz and Kiwi) it's up to the player to decide who they play to.

 

[Springs]

If Scotland, Wales and England break up to play in international competitions then Cook Islands have every right to as well.

 

[Evil Homer]

If Scotland, Wales and England break up to play in international competitions then Cook Islands have every right to as well.

Scotland and Wales are not administrative regions of England. Scots and Welshmen are not also Englishmen. All the CI players are Kiwis, they already have an international team representing them. It's not the same as Scotland and Wales at all.

 

[The Observer]

Yes, that is pretty much 100% my position.

Sorry to butt in on this one, but from reading your post ^ it makes me ask if the Cook Islands should be playing Internationals at all? Should these players be considered NZers and the Cook Island team be treated in the same fashion as the Maori team?
I'm not trying to be controversial, I would just like an opinion from someone with close ties to this situation. A sincere question.

If you ask this question about the Cook Islands team then you could ask the same about the Home Nations. Should England, Scotland, and Wales being playing international RL, or sport, at all? Should these players be considered Britons, and should only Great Britain be playing international RL?

A Great Britain team represents the UK, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is the sovereign state, it is the state that is entitled and empowered to enter into international relations with other states (such as at the United Nations, where there are 192 member states, including the UK). Neither England, Scotland, Wales or Scotland are sovereign states, theytheir sovereignty centuries ago.

However, England, Scotland and Wales want teams to uniquely represent them in RL and other sports. Cool, good luck to them. So do the Cook Islands. Good luck to them.

One could ask why Northern Ireland (NI) field a national team in soccer when the Republic of Ireland(ROI) team can select anyone off the island of Ireland, as Northerners automatically have ROI citizenship under the ROI's constitution. The right of ROI to pick NI players has been ratified by the International Court of Arbitration for Sport. The reason Northern Ireland field a team is because some of its people want a team to uniquely represent NI.

 

[Springs]

Scotland and Wales are not administrative regions of England. Scots and Welshmen are not also Englishmen. All the CI players are Kiwis, they already have an international team representing them. It's not the same as Scotland and Wales at all.

I'm talking about the United Kingdom. All Scots, Welshmen and Englishmen are Britons are they not?

 

[Springs]

If you ask this question about the Cook Islands team then you could ask the same about the Home Nations. Should England, Scotland, and Wales being playing international RL, or sport, at all? Should these players be considered Britons, and should only Great Britain be playing international RL?

A Great Britain team represents the UK, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is the sovereign state, it is the state that is entitled and empowered to enter into international relations with other states (such as at the United Nations, where there are 192 member states, including the UK). Neither England, Scotland, Wales or Scotland are sovereign states, theytheir sovereignty centuries ago.

However, England, Scotland and Wales want teams to uniquely represent them in RL and other sports. Cool, good luck to them. So do the Cook Islands. Good luck to them.

One could ask why Northern Ireland (NI) field a national team in soccer when the Republic of Ireland(ROI) team can select anyone off the island of Ireland, as Northerners automatically have ROI citizenship under the ROI's constitution. The right of ROI to pick NI players has been ratified by the International Court of Arbitration for Sport. The reason Northern Ireland field a team is because some of its people want a team to uniquely represent NI.

My point exactly.