Talk:State of Origin

Aussie Rules at the Top? State of origin is synonomous with Rugby League and the majority of people who will be looking at this topic will be doing so with the intent of researching Rugby League state of origin. Rugby League state of origin was far more popular and successful.

Also, the reasons for state of origin coming about have nothing to do with AFL. Queenslanders had been pushing for a state of origin competition for decades but meeting much resitance from their NSW counterparts. To understand this better, I think we need to add another section, explaining in more detail, why state of origin exists. I'd be happy to add this but not until i've had an oportunity to do more research on the subject. In short, it had a lot to do with NSW clubs buying Qld players and either using them in the NSW team, or at the very least, making them ineligible to play for Qld. The concept may have been tried in VFL first, but that does not mean the idea was taken from the, unpopular, VFL state of origin.

But in any case, Australian Rules state of origin does not belong at the top of this thread any more than a speal about the State of Oregon (sounds similar, but it's irrelevant).

I won't call it "rugby" if you don't call it "VFL" or "AFL" ;-) Sorry, but even the name "State of Origin" was invented in Aussie rules. WA, SA and Tasmania had exactly the same issues as Queensland did, and had also been campaigning for changes to the selection rules for many years before it happened. I might add that this page didn't even exist before I wrote the first version, including fair mention of RL, but I doubt that would carry any weight with bigoted league supporters ;-) Grant65 (Talk) 12:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe two pages, one each? Wikipedia is rife with pointless granularity - I mean there people working on a page for each suburb of Canberra. What a colossal waste of effort. Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

There is not really much on Aussie rules in the article at the moment, considering the 22 years that origin was part of the game. I had been thinking about creating a separate Aussie rules origin page, but as Jim says below, it is an important historical point that the concept originated (heh) with Aussie rules.Grant65 (Talk) 00:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why ignore 1980 and 1981? I've never heard of any other sporting body ignoring past statistics at the point of a rule change. When the state of origin series moved from a single game to a 3 part series, this was a RULE change.

The first two games were trials, the 1980 game was only formulated after NSW lead 2-0. Had a deciding game been required, it wouldn't have even happened. Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

If use of the term 'series' is incorrectly applied to 1980 and 1981 then it seams to me that the term 'series', when used in state of origin statistics, was invented, for no reason other than to make NSW look good. In this case, the 'series' statistic should be omitted completely.

Are you actually familiar with the meaning of the word "series" Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me, *Paul*, that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You altered the stats yesterday to include an exhibition match, which was not an official state of origin match, in the stats. You seem to want to exclude two legitimate games won by queensland but then be able to add an illegitemate game won by NSW. You can't have it both ways.

All 3 one off games count in the stats but not in the series tallies. Seems blindingly obvious, really. Check some of the player's game totals, e.g. Lewis's 31 include all three. So if want to play revisionist, a bit of work to be done, adjusting all the official tallies. No reputable League statisticians would count these single games as series (see if you find a cite for 12-11), not even Barry Gomersall would Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

We're celebrating 25 years of state of origin. Not 23.

Years Holding State of Origin Shield This is the most important statistic of all. I don't know why it was removed. If team A holds the shield, then team b has to beat team A to get the shield. Pretty simple really. A draw means you didn't win and we keep the shield. RL isn't the only sport that works (at least did in the past) this way.

Sorry if you don't like the fact that Qld has held the shield for 3 more years than NSW has but this is a matter of record... a fact that you can't dispute. You've offered no explanation for removing this stat.

It isn't a stat, that's why. It's like years holding the Ashes, no-one thinks in those terms, it's the result of the series. And I very much doubt the Shield even existed prior to 1982. Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

--All stats are included-- Stop the semantics, includes years, and series, and shield retained.

The most important stats are the games won and points scored, the show the real stroy, which is that there is no appreciable superiority on any side. Thank god we haven't a fight about Grasshopper here yet.

-- Hmmm... the results do appear that way once you add the results of an unofficial exhibition game ;-) If Qld had won that game they sure as hell wouldn't be included. NSW media is incredibly biased when it comes to rugby league.

Here is your bias revealed, which clears things up immensely. Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

A fact reflected all throughout the games history and the only reason for these inventive statistics.

I'd say that's where your ignorance is revealed. It's well documented that the NSW media wrote Qld off in every game during the early eighties. Even after Qld continued to beat them. I'd say that's an example of a strong bias.

However. I'm willing to leave things the way they are so long as all stats stay as they are and my disclaimer remains where it is. --

I for one think the stats should stay. They're a correct reflection of the facts. I also think Aussie Rules belongs at the top. It's well documented that Ron Mcauliffe got the idea for state of origin directly from the VFL boss of the time, so the above arguments don't hold water. I'd be supportive of a move to create separate RL and Aussie Rules pages for state of origin. They are afterall, different subjects. Both of which have the potential for a great deal of content. Jim

Just wanted to add that every Qlder should be very greatful to both Ron Mcalliffe and the VFL for the concept of the state of origin. It put the fire in the belly of rugby league in Qld. If it weren't for them, we'd probably be following AFL ;-)

Thanks Jim. Perhaps one of the contributors here can take a look at Queensland Rugby League which is basically a stub. History of rugby league also needs a bit more Aussie content I think.Grant65 (Talk) 00:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

State of Origin, Rugby League I've thrown together a new page called State of Origin, Rugby League. It is Rugby League specific. I've moved the stats from this page over to that one.

I took the additional step of removing the 25 state of origin highlights on the grounds that they were either largely based on opinion or, if taken from another source, a blatant breach of copyright. I've also removed the section on '# of years holding SOO shield' because it makes NSW people cry. Jimbo Jim

A recalcitrant

194.46.230.53 has accused me of "valdalism" in putting Aussie rules first, even though it is historically accurate and I wrote most of the article. Once again, for the record, Australian rules football invented the name "State of Origin" and Aussie rules used the concept first. No mater how much you hate the game, you can't change history. Take it to Rugby League State of Origin. Grant65 (Talk) 03:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Good luck trying to convince him/her/it --Paul 06:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You're so far gone you can't even see your own prejudices. I see you've reverted on the complete and utter lies in the article. And for the record, starting an article in wikipedia does not give you the right to preach BS.

The article still suggests that the concept of state of origin was invented by the VFL when it was clealy an emulation of rules already enforced in other nations such as the united kingdom and ireland where players were already required to play for their home state. If use of the term state has your little insular Australian mind spoofed then perhaps you should look it up. Ireland is a state as is scotland, england and wales. NZ is a state and Australia is a state. Yes Aussie Rules ppl invented the term 'state of origin' but they did not by any stretch of the imagination invent the concept.

Of course the article does state the above facts but then goes on to contradict itself.

Traditionally the constituent parts of the UK are not usually referred to as "states", they are "countries" or "nations", which is why they have separate national teams in rugby union, soccer etc. We are talking about the next level down, which would be counties in the UK. If you can show me where the actual term "state of origin" (or "county of origin") was used in the UK or elsewhere before Aussie rules used it, I will be glad to change the article. Since you are clearly not an Australian, perhaps you can explain how you come to be such an "authority" on Australian rules football? Grant65 (Talk) 00:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he is a Briton because he is wrong about British rugby league. You do not need to play for the 'state' (nation) you were born in. Iestyn Harris was born in England but played for Wales as his family is Welsh. State of Origin is closer to the county games held between Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumberland (and sometimes other counties) which was held over from the old rugby union county games.GordyB 13:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Google... Results 1 - 10 of about 93,000 for "the irish state". (0.28 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 1,640 for "the scottish state". (0.42 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 562 for "the welsh state". (1.15 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 33,100 for "the english state". (0.27 seconds)

I live in Ireland where the country is regularly referred to as 'The State'. In fact, the term state would be more frequently used by the local media than the term 'Country' or 'Nation' when referring to Ireland.

>If you can show me where the actual term "state of origin"

Well that would be completely irrelevant since i'm not disputing that Australian Rules football came up with the name 'state of origin'. What i'm suggesting is that that is all they came up with... the name. The concept was not original in 1977.

So what makes you think i'm not one of the 300 thousand Australian people living in the UK anyway? And if not, perhaps I am British or Irish and simply subscribe to Sky Sport!

I work with British and Irish county councils regularly. Counties don't have governments. They have councils. They're more closely related to an Australian shire or city than an Australian state.

At worst you might be able to pick up on suggesting that wales is a state. While england, scotland and the republic of ireland certainly are states, Wales doesn't actually have a proper government with its own legislitive powers. If you want to draw comparisons there, Wales is like an Australian Territory (NT or ACT).

You've got it arse about. Before 1998 Wales and Scotland were countries/nations without states; since 1998 they have had their own limited governments. They are nevertheless still part of the (broader) state known as the UK.

The concept was not new in 1977, in terms of national teams but it was new in terms of sub-national teams. NSW, Victoria, Qld and WA are not nations like Wales or Scotland. Gordy is correct; they are closer to British counties, which have far greater powers than Australian local councils.Grant65 (Talk) 14:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole question of whether England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland are nations or states is a red herring. I don't think there was ever a requirement that you had to be born in a particular place to represent that team at rugby league. I think the Yorkshire versus Lancashire games are more meaningful in terms of origin games. I think county cricket might well be the first time that players played for the area of their birth rather than just their club team. AFAIK originally you had to be born in that county to represent it, Yorkshire retained this rule until about 1991.GordyB 17:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The other thing I would point out is that the first rugby league international is considered to be Wales against a touring New Zealand. If Wales were not considered to be a national team then this would not be an international, New Zealand against Queensland would not be considered an international.GordyB 17:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite an argument over such a trivial matter, heh? Even if one buys the Eng/Sco/Wal/Ire thing is equivalent to NSW/QLD/Vic etc. (quite a stretch, IMO), I hardly think it played any part in the concept and formulation of SOO, and as such not relevant to the article. BTW are 194.46.241.113 and 62.254.168.102 the same person? --Paul 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The first IP officially emanates from Belfast and the other one from Dublin. Since they are only about 150km apart, my guess is yes. Whatever the case, it is in his/her own interests to register with Wikipedia, or at least sign his/her name. Grant65 (Talk) 23:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I miss State of Origin. At least in our, you could see every state play. With Rugby league, they're bought it to Melbourne. Why? So we can watch two other states beat each other? Where's our enjoyment in that. If you were from ACT, NSW, QLD, NT (Allies), WA (Western Australia) or SA (Croweaters) you couls watch your team play. Who are we susspoed to go for here, even if we do like Rugby?

Move page

I know the AFL fans are not going to agree with it, but does anybody agree that the State of Origin article should be about the Rugby League version with a section up the top saying "for the AFL version see Interstate matches in Australian rules football link". I mean being realistic, the AFL version doesnt even exist anymore and the Rugby League version of State of Origin is one of the biggest sporting events in Australia. It is aired all over Australia, in England, New Zealand etc.. and even America! The Rugby League version also is one of the highest rating shows in New South Wales and Queensland. 99% of people who type State of Origin into Wikipedia will be looking for the Rugby League information NOT AFL information. A lot of people probably have never even heard of the AFL State of Origin. And whats this business about "AFL started State of Origin first".. Rugby League Interstate matches have been around for years (take for example Charles Fraser (rugby league footballer). He played for New South Wales back in 1915. Origin back then may not have been dubbed "State of Origin" but a similar concept certainly existed. What does everybody else think?

Leave it as it is. This article about the idea of SOO and others about the specific SOO played in each country / sport.

SOO in rugby league didn't start until 1980 (according to RL article). Prior to this state teams did compete but qualification was down to residency rather than origin, so they weren't SOO.GordyB 13:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the general concept of State of Origin.

Why then are there match reports listed under the AFL section. Edit it down to a few sentences and leave details for the specific pages. Bongomanrae 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)