Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rebels3]

NRL is not based on state of birth. It lends more to schooling and where you played junior football. Any number of instances where players have represented the other state they were actually born in due to schooling and junior footy allegiances.

I completely understand that. However qualification no.1 is birth then it branches off to other measures. If you answer no to the birth question it branches off to a 13th birthday rationale.

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/documents/state-of-origin-eligibility-rules.pdf

 

[KOB1987]

I would rather hear a lot more about any ideas that were actually come up with, I suspect a little pressure at this stage, and good on him, but I will wait to see more. If you read the proposal it seems that it either a TT or domestic with a super 8 (sounds quite good) but has anyone spoken to other nations about a super 8? Probably the one thing if this is true what has been proposed it pretty clear that RA got interest in PI rugby as seems it not mentioned.
One thing I do like what he said is if true also,“As I said right at the beginning, we need to make decisions in the best interest of rugby in Australia
Gee it sounds better when we don't think NZ is making suggestions in the best interest of NZ rugby doesn't it?

That is why I will wait to hear more.

McLennan is quoted in the article as saying that the discussions he has had with Japan about it are ‘promising’. So I’m inclined to think he’s consulted with the other nations about it too. RA doesn’t have a great track record, I’ll grant you that, but this bloke isn’t an idiot.

 

[rugboy]

I completely understand that. However qualification no.1 is birth then it branches off to other measures. If you answer no to the birth question it branches off to a 13th birthday rationale.

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/documents/state-of-origin-eligibility-rules.pdf

It is actually what you answer yes to as a majority. 6 questions of which State of birth is one with no greater or lesser weight than the others (excluding father/son rule). If you were born in QLD but the answer to all others is NSW then you are only eligible for NSW. Luke Keary although born in QLD is ineligible for QLD due to majority NSW.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/st...s/news-story/d6d8e651f822d529404ba38ef41b16bb

Keary was born in Queensland and grew up idolising Allan Langer, however, moved to Sydney’s north-western suburbs with his family when he was 10.
He attended a Queensland emerging camp in 2012 but after former NRL boss Dave Smith amended the representative rules that same year he was classified as a Blues player.
Under NRL rules, players answer six questions to determine their eligibility: what state they were born in, in which state did they play a majority of football from under-6s to under-18s, in which state did they spend the majority of their school years, in which state did they first participate in a junior representative competition, for which state did they first play school state representative rugby league, did your father play State of Origin and if so for whom?
A player’s eligibility will be determined by which state they answer a majority of the questions.
At the time, Keary wrote to the NRL in an attempt to have himself made available to Queensland.
But he has since moved on and considers NSW home.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

McLennan is quoted in the article as saying that the discussions he has had with Japan about it are ‘promising’. So I’m inclined to think he’s consulted with the other nations about it too. RA doesn’t have a great track record, I’ll grant you that, but this bloke isn’t an idiot.

Hamish was involved in the creation of the very successful big bash competition so comes with credibility of knowing what a successful sports competition looks like that very few other rugby chairman can claim.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I would rather hear a lot more about any ideas that were actually come up with, I suspect a little pressure at this stage, and good on him, but I will wait to see more. If you read the proposal it seems that it either a TT or domestic with a super 8 (sounds quite good) but has anyone spoken to other nations about a super 8? Probably the one thing if this is true what has been proposed it pretty clear that RA got interest in PI rugby as seems it not mentioned.
One thing I do like what he said is if true also,“As I said right at the beginning, we need to make decisions in the best interest of rugby in Australia [/SIZ


Gee it sounds better when we don't think NZ is making suggestions in the best interest of NZ rugby doesn't it?

That is why I will wait to hear more.

Yep which is why message is TT with 5 oz teams or we do our own thing - the super8 was very clear this already discussed with other parties / countries

 

[Rebel man]

re SOO, i believe that it will be a three cornered contest, NSW, QLD, Rest (ACT, VIC, WA), i am sure a player who was born in Vic say but went to secondary school in Qld for example will be allowed to choose which state they want to represent. For the OS born one would assume it will be the state at which they went to school or first played club rugby in.

The rest concept never works. As a Victorian I have no interest in watching the rest

 

[Rebel man]

I get where you are coming from, and they can’t discard the other states completely. I think in the first instance though the solution is to incorporate their best players into the main game, rather than try to concoct some sort of lower level game which the general public aren’t going to be interested in.

The aim is to get the smaller states to a point to where they can be somewhat competitive. You would get more buy in from people in Victoria and WA if we saw our states represented. Their will be no buy in of the rest concept

 

[Rebel man]

No better to start with state of origin between nsw and qld, lower risk commercial option to start with. Evaluate its success and room to expand to vic, wa and act for next broadcast deal in 2025

Will state of origin get significantly more buy in than the Tahs v Reds?

 

[KOB1987]

The aim is to get the smaller states to a point to where they can be somewhat competitive. You would get more buy in from people in Victoria and WA if we saw our states represented. Their will be no buy in of the rest concept

I get that. I’m thinking more towards getting the best players included in the Qld/NSW teams. As wild card or draft inclusions or something like that. Not something I could put my finger on at this point in time, but there will be a way.

 

[Rebel man]

I get that. I’m thinking more towards getting the best players included in the Qld/NSW teams. As wild card or draft inclusions or something like that. Not something I could put my finger on at this point in time, but there will be a way.

But then that will diminish the feeling of state pride if you have ring ins

 

[sendit]

The rest concept never works. As a Victorian I have no interest in watching the rest

Out of interest, would you prefer a "rest" team or would you prefer to sit out and not take part at all?

Id personally want a VIC v WA as a curtain raiser then NSW v QLD as the main event, canberra to be included in NSW

My only problem with not having a "rest" team is that if we branch out and include another state, which is obviously long term, they'll have no one to play.

I'm also unsure where players that arent born/go to school here would fit in, is it - too bad sit out, is it where they play their first senior game?

What's the purpose of this concept? Is it a wallaby trial of sorts or is it more of a spectacle to promote our game?

 

[rugboy]

Out of interest, would you prefer a "rest" team or would you prefer to sit out and not take part at all?

Id personally want a VIC v WA as a curtain raiser then NSW v QLD as the main event, canberra to be included in NSW

My only problem with not having a "rest" team is that if we branch out and include another state, which is obviously long term, they'll have no one to play.

I'm also unsure where players that arent born/go to school here would fit in, is it - too bad sit out, is it where they play their first senior game?

What's the purpose of this concept? Is it a wallaby trial of sorts or is it more of a spectacle to promote our game?

I see it as more of the latter, a built to boost TV revenue game. Therefore they would want to get as many of the best players eligible to play the highest quality match. This would mean relaxing the eligibility rules to accommodate the many. Problem with this is it's hard to generate any true passion from those involved. That is what the core of League SOO is built on and much of the appeal of the mate against mate philosophy.

 

[liquor box]

Will state of origin get significantly more buy in than the Tahs v Reds?

I would watch it because it is a Rugby game, but the idea holds no attraction to me.

I would prefer a City v Country match where you can pick from any franchise but select based on where they played junior rugby. Each team could feature players from all five states/territories but has an us against them mentality. Move this game around and maybe try to time it to be on either at Easter to coincide with the Royal Easter show or the QLD Ekka to allow the country supporters to travel to the city for the game.

 

[Rebel man]

Out of interest, would you prefer a "rest" team or would you prefer to sit out and not take part at all?

Id personally want a VIC v WA as a curtain raiser then NSW v QLD as the main event, canberra to be included in NSW

My only problem with not having a "rest" team is that if we branch out and include another state, which is obviously long term, they'll have no one to play.

I'm also unsure where players that arent born/go to school here would fit in, is it - too bad sit out, is it where they play their first senior game?

What's the purpose of this concept? Is it a wallaby trial of sorts or is it more of a spectacle to promote our game?

If Victoria doesn’t have its own side I would rather sit out.

I see Vic WA as a curtain raiser would help draw in more of an audience to the main game

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Will state of origin get significantly more buy in than the Tahs v Reds?

I would be saying if gets Reds vs Tahs ratings it is viable and I think that would be achievable, the upside is whether more fans then tahs vs red matches - less sure on that but if anything like the rivalry and quality of contest like league yes i would be optimistic of growing the audience

I expect initially would get the more reds vs tahs numbers unless supported by decent marketing

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I would watch it because it is a Rugby game, but the idea holds no attraction to me.

I would prefer a City v Country match where you can pick from any franchise but select based on where they played junior rugby. Each team could feature players from all five states/territories but has an us against them mentality. Move this game around and maybe try to time it to be on either at Easter to coincide with the Royal Easter show or the QLD Ekka to allow the country supporters to travel to the city for the game.

Nah city vs country matches don’t have same commercial appeal

 

[Dctarget]

Still don't see how it's terribly different from 'Tahs v Reds.

 

[sendit]

Nah city vs country matches don’t have same commercial appeal

Its a very bygone rivalry from years when the world was a smaller place

 

[qwerty51]

Still don't see how it's terribly different from 'Tahs v Reds.

It’s not. I think it’s a really dud concept if the Tahs and Reds still exist. It would only make sense if we went a domestic route of only NRC teams.

I mean shit the two promos for both Reds vs Tahs matches was literally the focus of the state rivalry and history ie. Origin.

 

[The Honey Badger]

But then that will diminish the feeling of state pride if you have ring ins

how did Brad Thorn qualify for QLD?

I dont think the ring ins take anything away from the spectacle. In fact, IMO the opposite