I think the issue/ confusion is a result of that 1st contract he completes and if you read through the snippet in the Fox sports story (link below) he answers ALL of the questions honestly which suggests he is entitled to continue to play for QLD.
Also remember that he had already been picked for QLD U-15’s as a 14 yr old.
The questioning in the 1st contract is very “sketchy” in the detail and appears that as long as you have already played for a state (ie QLD or NSW) at “U-15” level or higher you are entitled (Take special note of Q13).
By the time the 2nd contract comes along, the ARL have made some “adjustments” (obviously now knowing the ambiguity of the old contract) by then Ronnie has already represented QLD in U-15’s so thinks he is still entitled to play.
He completes all of the form (again, just as he did the previous time) when he should have stopped at Q-12 which now shows he is NOT eligible.
But who reads every line on a contract, especially if you think you are already eligible due to previous rep game???
I think common sense should now prevail and the decision should be to allow him to play under dispensation, given the stuff up in selecting him in the U-15 and U -18 squads.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/st...s/news-story/08f10d1fb58d5358a3a755f8d86f78fa
PS, I’m a Blues Fan in case you are wondering if my opinion is based on sour grapes……