Eels Blogs

ARLC Makes Changes Ahead of 2013 Season

Posted by SuperEel 22 on December 18, 2012 at 7:34pm

The Independent Rugby League Commission has made a number of big changes for the 2013 season in terms of rules and Origin eligibility.

The "Benefit of the Doubt" rule has been removed from the rule book, meaning that the Video Referee will now have to be definite on his decisions.

The Benefit of the Doubt law has been the subject of much conjecture over the past few seasons and has caused a large amount of angst in the Rugby League community.

Perhaps one of the biggest changes being brought in is the new Origin eligibility criteria. Under the new rules players will only be able to play for a state that they lived in that state before the age of 13 or if their father played for that state.

This decision will mean that any younger players who have lived in NSW before the age of 13 and then moved to QLD will only be eligible for NSW. Situations such as the one Greg Inglis has been involved in will now be avoided

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

★

Votes: 0

Email me when people reply –

Replies

Jimmy December 18, 2012 at 7:52pm

Thank goodness they have got rid of that stupid benefit of the doubt rule. It created more problems than it solved. QLD will be stuffed now with the new eligibility rules for SOO. HAHA
Yobz December 18, 2012 at 8:36pm

Now the questions are:
- will this apply to current players?
- will this apply to players from other nations (eg NZ)
- SuperEel 22 > Yobz December 19, 2012 at 9:24am
  
  The current rules do not apply to any player who has already played State of Origin. As for international players I think this means that you have to be born in Australia to play Origin. No more Tamou situations.
Morgs82 December 19, 2012 at 9:21am

Um what if you lived in NSW and QLD under the age of 13? i.e. NSW from birth to 7, then moved to QLD? Seems that would then leave it open to choice...
- SuperEel 22 > Morgs82 December 19, 2012 at 9:24am
  
  I think it then goes to where you were born.
- Morgs82 > Morgs82 December 19, 2012 at 10:19am
  
  I just read the full article on NRL.COM and my understanding is you must have lived in the state before the age of 13 and eligible to play for Australia.the only variable to that rule us if your father played state of origin you can play for that state regardless.
  So in answer to my own question,if lived in both under the age of 13 you can choose.
timbodavo December 19, 2012 at 9:44am

Thats what you think but what are the facts i wonder?
- SuperEel 22 > timbodavo December 19, 2012 at 10:19am
  
  I just posted what was available to me. Reading the NRL media release they said that they will be concentrating a person's STATE OF ORIGIN. Therefore it would be safe to assume that if they have lived in both states, the state they were born in will take precedence.
SchnitzelKilt December 19, 2012 at 10:47am

Watching the american football season i gotta say i really like the way that the ref announces to everyone the reasoning/ rationale behind thier decisions. I would really like this to happen in league. Instead of a silent video ref where you have no fucking clue what they are thinking (they prob have no idea either)...I just want to hear it from them. It would earn them a little bit more respect i think also.
This reply was deleted.
- Moray Eel - the killer eel December 19, 2012 at 8:52pm
  
  Mat rogers played for qld even though his father played for nsw and his first club he played rugby league for was cronulla. He played rugby in qld before this but not league. How did he play for qld? He was over 13 when he first played league. Confusing to say the least. There need to be hard fast rules without any grey areas. These new criteria do nothing to solve eligibility which should be quite easy. Giving players a choice. Wtf??!!