Rules really have to be set in stone and unfortunately our Australian friends are the ones that really need to do it the most. /> Lots of aussies are complaining about Semi Radradradraarararararararra playing for Oz. Ironically he is eligible to play for Australia under a resident's rule, but not eligible to play in State of Origin. So things really need to be brought into line a lot better. /> Add to that, that Addin Fonua-Blake was just selected to play for City. Went to camp before someone realised that he already has played for the Junior kiwis and is therefore ineligible.

Rules really have to be set in stone and unfortunately our Australian friends are the ones that really need to do it the most. /> Lots of aussies are complaining about Semi Radradradraarararararararra playing for Oz. Ironically he is eligible to play for Australia under a resident's rule, but not eligible to play in State of Origin. So things really need to be brought into line a lot better. /> Add to that, that Addin Fonua-Blake was just selected to play for City. Went to camp before someone realised that he already has played for the Junior kiwis and is therefore ineligible.

New Zealanders (who live in NZ and play for the Warriors' reserves) are allowed to play for the NSW Resident's side to play the QLD resident's side, because they play in the NSW comp. Amusingly they would not be allowed to play for NSW in State of Origin. Unless of course they were very good, hadn't played for NZ, and the aussies offered them loads of money...again. /> www.nswrl.com.au/news/2016/05/01">www.nswrl.com.au/news/2016/05/01/intrust_super_premie.html">www.nswrl.com.au/news/2016/05/01 ... remie.html

New Zealanders (who live in NZ and play for the Warriors' reserves) are allowed to play for the NSW Resident's side to play the QLD resident's side, because they play in the NSW comp. Amusingly they would not be allowed to play for NSW in State of Origin. Unless of course they were very good, hadn't played for NZ, and the aussies offered them loads of money...again. /> www.nswrl.com.au/news/2016/05/01">www.nswrl.com.au/news/2016/05/01/intrust_super_premie.html">www.nswrl.com.au/news/2016/05/01 ... remie.html

Whilst it's irritating that some players are choosing, and being enticed to choose, to play for Australia over smaller nations, in the end we're not going to get the other nations to be consistently competitive without significantly investing in developing the domestic game in those nations. Whether that's through the NRL/SL, Championship & L1 or through native domestic leagues, we have to develop the domestic game in some of the "2nd tier" nations so as they consistently produce quality players for their national team.



Until then, while annoying and not helpful, it's not entirely disastrous.

I've said it before on this subject, the eligibility rules and ability to swap and change need looking at - I think the ability to swap and change actually damages the 'buy in' to the international game by both fans and players which means International caps are no longer the prize/reward they once were. I like the Origin eligibility criteria of 'must have lived there before age of 13', plus maybe a defined heritage rule - the issue is the whole tier 1/tier 2 nations, and the huge difference in scale of monetary reward available. /> But what I will say is that we're just as bad - people always slate the Aussies on this front, but we're guilty of exactly the same, with players swapping and changing between the home nations, and then us using residency for players like Chase, Withers, Fa'asavalu etc... The difference is, the Aussies just have more (and better unfortunately) residency players to choose from. /> Ultimately, the only real fix to this issue as always is a meaningful international calendar, allowing enough time for international teams (whether tier 1 or 2) to spend time in camps, building teams and cultures that players want to buy in to.... But it's very hypocritical to point the finger at the Aussies on this one - we're just as bad.

I've said it before on this subject, the eligibility rules and ability to swap and change need looking at - I think the ability to swap and change actually damages the 'buy in' to the international game by both fans and players which means International caps are no longer the prize/reward they once were. I like the Origin eligibility criteria of 'must have lived there before age of 13', plus maybe a defined heritage rule - the issue is the whole tier 1/tier 2 nations, and the huge difference in scale of monetary reward available. /> But what I will say is that we're just as bad - people always slate the Aussies on this front, but we're guilty of exactly the same, with players swapping and changing between the home nations, and then us using residency for players like Chase, Withers, Fa'asavalu etc... The difference is, the Aussies just have more (and better unfortunately) residency players to choose from. /> Ultimately, the only real fix to this issue as always is a meaningful international calendar, allowing enough time for international teams (whether tier 1 or 2) to spend time in camps, building teams and cultures that players want to buy in to.... But it's very hypocritical to point the finger at the Aussies on this one - we're just as bad.

Can I ask exactly what it is that people are looking to achieve by their views on international qualification rules? Because I'd suspect that a lot, maybe a majority, can't actually answer that question in any detail. They superficially think they know what it is they want to achieve, but when they try to explain, it all falls apart. /> For example, a residency test. If I fancy playing for a country, I just need to move there are once I have been there long enough they will let me play for the national team. But if I don't get picked, I can still play for the country I was born in but chose to leave. Or, for some reason I never quite get, I have 4 grandparents and if any one of them came from a handy enough team sorry country, then I can switch to that. I can even make myself available to one country, but if they don't pick me, suddenly declare my undying allegiance to another country. Who will bury their scruples and pick me, as long as I'm good enough. /> I don't have anything against it, and basically as long as the rules are clear and the same for all, then my view is crack on, but I don't really see what these sort of "barn door" rules achieve for the nationality in question. I mean, I know what they achieve for the national TEAM in question - they get players that aren't really theirs and who otherwise wouldn't or couldn't play for them - but then that brings me back to my question - what is the POINT of it?

Can I ask exactly what it is that people are looking to achieve by their views on international qualification rules? Because I'd suspect that a lot, maybe a majority, can't actually answer that question in any detail. They superficially think they know what it is they want to achieve, but when they try to explain, it all falls apart. /> For example, a residency test. If I fancy playing for a country, I just need to move there are once I have been there long enough they will let me play for the national team. But if I don't get picked, I can still play for the country I was born in but chose to leave. Or, for some reason I never quite get, I have 4 grandparents and if any one of them came from a handy enough team sorry country, then I can switch to that. I can even make myself available to one country, but if they don't pick me, suddenly declare my undying allegiance to another country. Who will bury their scruples and pick me, as long as I'm good enough. /> I don't have anything against it, and basically as long as the rules are clear and the same for all, then my view is crack on, but I don't really see what these sort of "barn door" rules achieve for the nationality in question. I mean, I know what they achieve for the national TEAM in question - they get players that aren't really theirs and who otherwise wouldn't or couldn't play for them - but then that brings me back to my question - what is the POINT of it?