In this case, if a player came back to Australia as soon as the Northern Hemisphere season finished, they could play club rugby, be eligible to be selected for the Wallabies (because they'd signed with the ARU) and could potentially pick up a Super Rugby contract if a position became available due to injury.
Players are available for a Super Rugby side if one has a space to sign them after the season has started.
Surely it would be more of an artificial stipulation if the ARU introduced a rule that said that all players were ineligible to play rugby in Australia if they are not contracted at 1 January of each year. Any players who had played in Japan or Europe would need to sit out the season. Surely this would be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
All that is happening is that players returning from playing overseas aren't forced to sit out of rugby entirely until the start of the new season. If the selectors consider one of these players worthy of being selected for the Wallabies then I don't see what the major issue is.
You honestly don't see the issue? The whole reason for the Rule on eligibility rule to start with was to ensure that players wanting to play for the Wallabies played in Australia. What the ARU has done circumvents that except in the most literal terms of the contractual wording. It neat avoids the whole reason the Rule was put in place. Where was player X's support for Australian Rugby in the example I gave. Sure they have signed for 2014, whoopee, the purpose of the Rule as it was brought in was for the player in question to support the Australian system in the season they play for the Wallabies.
Let me make my position clear, it is my strong belief that Elsom and Vickerman should never have been eligible for the Wallabies in the respective years they returned to Australia as neither had any form in Super Rugby and had not been available for selection in an Australian side in those seasons, they were certainly given deferential treatment and both proved less than successful investments, to justify that. With regard to Smith, he has played for an Australian Province and
IF he was willing to seek a release from Suntory and be contracted to the Brumbies for 2013 then he should be able to be selected. If he isn't willing to do this then he shouldn't be selected.
The price of acting in an ethical manner is sometimes short term pain. The ARU has created a mess by their prior actions, I ask again, do you really think that if the ARU hadn't acted as they did with Elsom and Vickerman anybody could come up with a credible argument for selecting Smith?