Big-money rugby league convert Joseph Suaalii has been named in Australia’s 34-man squad to travel to the northern hemisphere next month.

The 21-year-old former Sydney Roosters wing or centre is yet to play a professional rugby union game after a switch from league reportedly worth more than 5m Australian dollars (£2.6m).

Uncapped former Leicester wing Harry Potter, now with Western Force, has also been named in Joe Schmidt’s squad for their tour of the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Schmidt said that Suaalii – who he will use at centre, wing or full-back – needed to be brought in now in preparation for Australia’s home series against the British and Irish Lions next year.

“I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t conscious of the big deal that he’s on and the profile that he has, because you can’t not be aware of that,” said Schmidt.

“As much as we think maybe it might have been better to come through [the second string Australia XV], part of it is that we play the Lions next year.

“So if he doesn’t debut on this tour, then there’s very little window. There may be one opportunity to play before the Lions next year, and that would be it. So for us, we feel a little bit of pressure to be able to fast-track him.”

Waratahs fly-half Tane Edmed, 21, is the third uncapped player called up, while last year’s World Cup captain Will Skelton is named.

The 32-year-old lock missed the Wallabies’ summer Tests and the Rugby Championship because of commitments to French club La Rochelle.

“He’s [Skelton’s] keen as mustard,” added Schmidt. “He didn’t need any convincing to play for the Wallabies. He’s a really positive character and he has real gravitas in the group.”

Centre Samu Kerevi also returns to international rugby for the first time this year – but the 31-year-old, who plays his club rugby in Japan, and Skelton will be unavailable to face Ireland in Dublin on 30 November as the game falls outside the international window.

Australia first face England at Twickenham’s Allianz Stadium on 9 November before playing Wales in Cardiff on 17 November and Scotland at Murrayfield on 24 November.

The Wallabies – who finished bottom of the Rugby Championship after recording only one victory, over Argentina – also named a 30-player Australia XV squad to travel to the UK for matches against Bristol on 8 November and England A at Twickenham Stoop on 17 November.

The controversy over the Lando Norris/Max Verstappen overtake in Austin has once again put a spotlight on the way Formula 1 is policed.

Fans are divided about whether it was right that Norris got a penalty for overtaking off track in an incident when his rival had run off the circuit in his efforts to defend against him.

It delivered flashbacks to the battle between Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton at the 2021 Brazilian Grand Prix where defending by running wide became a major bone of contention.

What is different now compared to back then is that F1 is operating under a new system where there are common and agreed Driving Standards Guidelines.

As reported by Motorsport.com, this formal document has been pulled together outlining the basis on which stewards will make their decisions, and this is set to be rolled into the FIA’s 2025 International Sporting Code, so will be applied to all categories in the future.

But while the guidelines were aimed at making things clearer in drivers’ heads about what is and is not allowed, what happened at Turn 12 in Austin has perhaps only served to add some confusion, as well as expose some big flaws with how things are judged.

The debate over Verstappen running wide

Lando Norris, McLaren MCL38, battles with Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB20

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

What is mentioned in the guidelines themselves is that no two incidents are the same, and this is in essence one of the key problems when it comes to creating hard and fast rules – because what fits one move may not be right for another.

But one recurring theme from the Norris penalty decision is the fact that Verstappen went off track himself – and that makes the situation less crystal clear than if he had remained within the white lines.

While Norris clearly did not fulfil the guideline’s criterion to be alongside his rival at the apex, equally there is a question over Verstappen’s defence.

As the guidelines clearly states: “If, while defending a position, a car leaves the track (or cuts a chicane) and re-joins in the same position, it will generally be considered by the stewards as having gained a lasting advantage and therefore, generally, the position should be given back, as prescribed in the rules. It will be the sole discretion of the Stewards to determine if the driver of a car is “defending a position”.”

So, are we in a world where if Norris had stayed on the track and aborted his move, then Verstappen would have had to give up the place and Norris would have been better off?

That is something only the FIA stewards will know for sure.

As Williams driver Alex Albon said: “I thought normally if they both don’t make the track, then that gets a bit grey….That reminds me of Brazil [2021].

“I think if you can stay on the track, fair enough. You’ve got it.”

This viewpoint is something that Norris himself made reference to.

“For me, whatever I did, I did for me,” he said. “The point that is incorrect is what Max did, which is also defend his position by going off the track, and what effectively would be keeping his position, which is not correct.

“He went off the track by defending, and he’s overdefended and made a mistake, and therefore he’s gained from that.

“At the same time, because of that, I’ve had to go off the track. It’s impossible for people to know if I could have made it on the track or couldn’t.

“Therefore, you cannot steward that kind of thing.”

The apex issue

Oscar Piastri, McLaren MCL38, Pierre Gasly, Alpine A524, Liam Lawson, RB F1 Team VCARB 01

Photo by: Glenn Dunbar / Motorsport Images

The way that the guidelines are so focused on what is happening at the apex of the corner means there is a clear incentive to make sure that you brake late, so you are there first – as that then gives you far more rights as to how much space needs to be left on the exit.

But even then, drivers are not convinced that everything is being treated equally. For example, Oscar Piastri failed to understand why he got a penalty in the sprint for forcing Pierre Gasly wide at Turn 12 in a near-identical moment to what happened between Norris and Verstappen – and especially considering he managed to stay on track.

“I think if you look at my penalty from the sprint, it was basically a carbon copy of Max and Lando, but I stayed on the track and I got the penalty,” said Piastri. “So no, it’s not very clear, You know, it’s tough. Yeah, it’s just very difficult.

“I feel like as drivers we also all kind of have different interpretations of what we think is fair and what’s not, especially when it comes to being on the outside of another driver.

“But the difference of 10 centimetres or 20 centimetres can be the difference of you having the right to space or not having the right to space. And obviously, for the stewards, who generally haven’t driven a car very much, it’s very tough to judge that in the moment especially.

“I think my incident and Lando and Max’s [in the race] looked very similar with the opposite penalties. So, I’m sure we’ll have some questions.”

The role of the stewards

FIA officials walk the track, including steward Derek Warwick

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

Advertisement

The other problem that has been highlighted by the Norris/Verstappen incident is that once again the stewards are open to accusations of a lack of consistency.

Fans question how variable the decisions are, and drivers themselves are unclear about why sometimes calls go different ways for what look like similar incidents.

Norris himself questioned why he had been penalised for overtaking off track in Austin, while in Austria, Verstappen was not investigated despite running off the track to keep hold of the lead after a move from his McLaren rival – who had ticked off getting to the apex first.

“The rules, they seem to change, because I feel like it’s quite inconsistent from, say, what happened in Austria, where Max didn’t get a penalty and went off the track, and gained an advantage,” said the Briton. “So, I think there’s again inconsistency.”

That inconsistency – and the fact that the basis of decisions is not explained in full – is further clouded by the fact that the stewards’ panel often rotates.

Mercedes boss Toto Wolff in particular suggests that the lack of consistency across the year is fuelled by the fact that he thinks not all stewards operate to the same level.

“There’s always going to be someone that’s happy and the other one unhappy, but we need to try to understand whether there are certain patterns in stewarding decisions, and whether that correlates to some of the situations,” said Wolff, who was furious that Russell got a penalty for forcing Valtteri Bottas wide.

“Everybody’s racing hard, but for me, the decision against George was inexplicable.”

In the Russell case, he had not fulfilled the criteria of the guideline in getting to the apex ahead – so that meant he had to give Bottas room on the outside.

Had he come off the brakes earlier and focused more on getting to the apex first, then irrespective of how he managed to collect things up after that, he would have escaped a sanction as the track was effectively all his.

Wolff added: “We’ve seen plenty of these situations in Turn 12. None of them was penalised until George did it.”

Speaking more about the make-up of the stewards, Wolff added: “I think there’s great stewards, honestly, great stewards that have either been in the racing car or have a non-biased view on situations, doing the best of their abilities for a job that is truly difficult. And we mustn’t put everybody in the same category.

“There’s a few inconsistencies, but I’m sure the president is going to look at that.”

It will be interesting if Austin proves to be a trigger for Mohammed Ben Sulayem to look at the system once more and the way things are done as F1 is in the headlines again for all the wrong reasons.

JAMIE CARRAGHER has revealed how he believes Thomas Tuchel could line up his England side.

The German, 51, was last week confirmed as the new Three Lions boss on an 18-month contract, set to begin on January 1.

5

5

Advertisement

Tuchel’s first game in charge will be next March.

Upon the former Chelsea, Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain boss’ arrival, ex-England defender Carragher had a go at predicting how he will pick his side.

Appearing on Monday Night Football he selected his XI, making some bold choices along the way.

With Jordan Pickford remaining in goal, Carragher added some inexperience to his defence alongside stalwarts Trent Alexander-Arnold and John Stones.

The former Liverpool ace went for Everton centre-back Jarrad Branthwaite, who has so far earned just one cap, to partner Stones.

While he reckons that Chelsea’s three-cap star Levi Colwill could solve the Three Lions’ left-back issue.

In an attacking 4-2-3-1 system, Carragher opted to move Jude Bellingham into a deeper midfield position alongside Declan Rice.

With captain Harry Kane remaining the focal point up front, Carra selected pace and trickery in the trio behind him.

BEST FREE BET SIGN UP OFFERS FOR UK BOOKMAKERS

5

5

“(Bukayo) Saka has to play on the right wing, he has to,” the pundit began, before pointing at the No10 position. “Cole Palmer for me has to play there.

“Not necessarily because he’s been amazing for England, hasn’t had too many choices.

“But when someone’s playing that well in club football, they have to play.

“And right now I’d play Gordon there (the left). Because if Kane for me is still England’s best centre-forward, you need pace around him.”

It was then pointed out that Carragher had made a huge omission in leaving out Manchester City star Phil Foden.

On the reigning PFA Player of the Year, Carragher added: “You know how much I love Phil Foden.

“But Phil Foden still hasn’t done enough in an England shirt. And you’re getting to the stage now where he’s probably played 40-50 games for England.

“He’s still… Palmer’s not really had his chance yet, neither’s Anthony Gordon, certainly the chances that… (Foden has).”

Foden, 24, has so far earned 41 England caps since debuting in 2020, scoring just once in three major tournaments – against Wales during the World Cup in Qatar.

Palmer, meanwhile, has two goals in nine caps – one as a substitute in the Euro 2024 final – with Gordon having made six appearances, featuring for just one minute in the summer’s tournament in Germany.

5

Alpine Formula 1 Academy drivers Sophia Florsch and Abbi Pulling will get their first taste of Formula E machinery when they compete in the all-female test with Nissan next month.

Pre-season testing for the upcoming campaign will get under way at the Ricardo Tormo Circuit in Valencia between 4-7 November, with the final afternoon session designated for female drivers.

Teams will be required to run at least one driver but encouraged to field two in the latest Gen3 Evo cars, with Florsch and Pulling chosen by Nissan to perform testing duties.

Florsch has spent the last two seasons racing in Formula 3, the most recent campaign with Van Amersfoort Racing where she failed to score a point having joined Alpine’s Academy programme in 2023.

Prior to that she competed in the European Le Mans Series and made three starts at the Le Mans 24 Hours between 2020-2022.

“I’m very excited to have the chance to drive the most modern Formula E car,” said the 23-year-old German, who in the past has been critical of female-only championships, including W Series.

“It’s going to be very different to my previous motorsport experiences, but I’m always curious to try new things.

“I’m highly motivated to get the most out of the test and do my all to help the team as they prepare for Season 11.

Sophia Florsch

Photo by: Nikolaz Godet

“I’ll be spending time in the simulator to be as ready as possible for Valencia and allow me to extract all I can. Looking forward to getting out there and taking on this incredible opportunity.”

Pulling will test for Nissan as the current points leader of the female-only F1 Academy championship, having taken seven wins from 10 races with Rodin during her sophomore season.

The 21-year-old Briton also conducted a part-time campaign in British F4 this term, claiming one victory at Brands Hatch.

“I’ve been wanting to drive a Formula E car for a long time, so to be given the chance to test the Nissan e-4ORCE 05 is a dream,” said Pulling, who joined Alpine’s Academy in 2023.

“I’m very excited to take on the challenge of learning the car with the guidance of the Nissan crew.

“There is a lot to learn and much more to manage so we will take it step by step.

“It’s a completely different environment to what I’m used to, but the focus is on doing what the team ask of me and to enjoy a productive test together.”

Valencia all-female test line-up

If Lando Norris got a penalty for gaining an unfair advantage and passing Max Verstappen, why didn’t Max get one for forcing another driver off the track? – Rob

This question goes to the heart of the debate over the rights and wrongs of the defining incident of the United States Grand Prix.

Lando Norris attempted to pass Max Verstappen around the outside of Turn 12. Both cars ended up running off the track. Norris got ahead and stayed there for the rest of the race. He was penalised five seconds for gaining an advantage by going off track, demoting him back behind Verstappen.

There are so many elements to this. The first is that, yes, Norris, in factual terms, undoubtedly gained an advantage after going off the track. This is the position of Red Bull and Verstappen, who felt it was a “slam-dunk” penalty.

Norris and McLaren’s view is that he went off the track only because he was forced there by Verstappen.

This argument is that Verstappen, whether deliberately or not, ran right to the edge of the track on the exit of the corner, leaving Norris on his outside no option but to do the same. Norris could not turn more because if he did they would have crashed.

Verstappen definitely did do this. The question is whether he was entitled to. The stewards decided he was, because Norris was “not level with” Verstappen at the apex and therefore had “lost the right” to the corner.

This assessment comes from the drivers’ overtaking guidelines, which is not a publicly available document. It states the driver on the outside in this sort of situation must “have the front axle at least alongside the front axle of the other car at the apex of the corner and to the exit” to be entitled to be afforded room.

McLaren’s argument is this was an example of a standard operating procedure of Verstappen – throw his car up the inside and force the other driver wide – when he is defending, which is essentially unfair.

McLaren team principal Andrea Stella said: “The defending car goes just straight at the apex. We checked the video multiple times. It is just going straight. It is just going off the track as much as Lando is doing, just giving no chance for Lando to complete the manoeuvre.

“If I was a journalist, I would have done a bit of statistics how many times Max has used this way for defending.”

What McLaren are essentially saying is Verstappen is ‘gaming’ the rules – driving to the letter, but in a manner many would consider not fair racing. It could be argued this is a flaw in the drivers’ racing guidelines.

Another time Verstappen did this was Brazil 2021 against Lewis Hamilton. That was at much higher speed, so the danger was greater, but in that case most of the drivers felt Verstappen should have had a penalty after both drivers went off the track. He did not get one.

The other issue here is Verstappen was ahead at the apex, slightly, only because he had braked later than Norris, despite being on the dustier inside line where there would be less grip. Norris had previously nosed slightly ahead on the straight approaching the corner.

And the question that arises from that is whether Verstappen drove as the guidelines demand, in a “safe and controlled manner at all times”, “forced the other driver off track” and was as a consequence “able to make the corner within track limits”.

McLaren would contend that he did not comply with these requirements. But this was ultimately not considered relevant by the stewards.

Similar questions arise from the incident at the first corner, where again Verstappen was on the inside and both ended up off track on the exit.

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said this would have been considered differently because on the first lap, and especially the start, more leeway is given and the fundamental default is “let them race”.

However, it is easy to see why some have questioned the lack of consistency between the two incidents – and indeed with that at Las Vegas in 2023, when Verstappen was penalised for forcing another driver off the track at the first corner, in that case Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc.

Driving in this way does make Verstappen very hard to overtake, especially on the outside.

How does a rival do it in a manoeuvre where the cars are more or less side by side, one might wonder, if he is highly likely to brake so late he will always be ahead at the apex, to ensure he complies with that requirement, and then force them wide?

It is expected the drivers will discuss some of these issues in their briefing at the Mexican Grand Prix this weekend.

Oregon now has the shortest odds to make the 12-team Playoff after eight weeks of college football.

The Ducks defeated Purdue 35-0, and their odds to secure a spot in the postseason shortened from -2000.

Ohio State had a bye in Week 8 but still saw its odds in this spot shorten to -1200 from -700.

Georgia beat Texas 30-15 and moved to -1000 from -460, while the Longhorns lengthened to -1000 from -2000.

The Playoff is officially expanding to 12 teams this year, meaning an early-season loss or midseason conference loss might not torpedo a program’s chances of competing for a national title, like in years past.

That’s an important note, considering a few big-name programs have already suffered defeats.

Let’s check out the odds to make the 12-team Playoff at DraftKings Sportsbook as of Oct. 22.

BETTING FAVORITES TO MAKE 12-TEAM CFP PLAYOFF FIELD: 

Oregon: -2500 (bet $10 to win $10.40 total)
Ohio State: -1200 (bet $10 to win $10.83 total)
Texas: -1000 (bet $10 to win $11 total)
Georgia: -1000 (bet $10 to win $11 total)
Penn State: -750 (bet $10 to win $11.33 total)
Miami: -400 (bet $10 to win $12.50 total)
Clemson: -300 (bet $10 to win $13.33 total)
Notre Dame: -250 (bet $10 to win $14)
Tennessee: -150 (bet $10 to win $16.67 total)
LSU: -110 (bet $10 to win $19.09 total)
Texas A&M: -110 (bet $10 to win $19.09 total)
Alabama: -105 (bet $10 to win $19.52 total)
Boise State: +100 (bet $10 to win $20 total)
Iowa State: +100 (bet $10 to win $20 total)
Indiana: +120 (bet $10 to win $22 total)
Kansas State: +130 (bet $10 to win $23 total)
SMU: +150 (bet $10 to win $25 total)
Ole Miss: +150 (bet $10 to win $25 total)

Rounding out the top five is Penn State.

The Nittany Lions have moved to -750 from -600 over the last week. 

Their next opponent is Wisconsin. Then after the Badgers, they open their November schedule with a big test against Ohio State.

Led by quarterback and Heisman hopeful Drew Allar, Penn State notched its sixth win of the season with a 33-30 comeback over USC in Week 7.

Georgia hands Texas first loss of the season with upset win in Austin

Other notable shifts on this board include Indiana shortening to +120 from +210 and Alabama lengthening to -105 from -350.

Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, and follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily!

Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more