George Smith - Will / Should He Play Against The Lions?

[Slim 293]

anyone got the stats from last night>?

​

According to rugbystats:​

​

Liam Gill​

​

80 mins​

​

10 tackles (2 missed)​

7 runs (16m)​

1 Line break​

5 ruck/maul​

2 turnovers​

​

​

George Smith​

​

78 mins​

​

12 tackles (1 missed)​

1 offload​

8 runs (42 m)​

7 ruck/maul​

1 penalty​

​

​

Note: The turnovers don't indicate pilfers, but when he turned over the ball to the opposition.........​

​

 

[Groucho]

Smith edged the stats, but I think in the game there was nothing to choose between them. Any one of Smith, Gill or Hooper will do fine against the Lions. I'm going for Smith because of his experience but I'd be happy with any.

 

[BDA]

no stat for penalties conceded? I counted at least two for George.

 

[Slim 293]

no stat for penalties conceded? I counted at least two for George.

Yep:

George Smith​

​

78 mins​

​

1 penalty​

 

[Mr Doug]

George Smith is a super rugby player...

Key word in my post was another Super Rugby player, that is, someone other than George Smith....get it?!

 

[suckerforred]

I know I am repeating myself a several others. The issue with George's eligibility is the existance of a current & active forgein club contract. Not is he is registered or contracted with the ARU. If his Suntory contract did not exist the fact that he is playing rugby in Australia, and therefore would be registered with the ARU, would make him available. However, the Suntory contract does exist. The difference with Elsom & Vickerman were that any contracts they had had expired. The difference with Burgess is that his contract will have finished & he is not elligible until then. The issue with Mitchell is that his contract will not have begun so he is elligible until his ARU & Tahs contracts expire either at the end date or through release. Whether or not these 4 players should have or should be selected is an entirely different debate.

On top of this is the fact that George has/had retired, in writing, from international competition. This means that whoever his current club contract is with they have the right not to allow him to play internationally unless he 'unretires' from international competition, in writing. Now I am guessing from his comments that Suntory has a clause saying that if he wants to play anywhere else, including for the Wallabies, then they must sign off on it. They would be mad if they didn't. He has also stated that he has no intention of breaking his contract with Suntory. Technically the Brumbies will also have to sign off on allowing him to play international rugby.

The concern is not if he is worthy or not, it is that the rules that the ARU have had in place since the 'professionalisation' of rugby mean that he is not elligible and therefore they will need to be broken, bent or rewriten to allow him to play. This, IMO will open up a world of hurt for the ARU. As mentioned before there have been players in the not so distant past, and the getting to distant past, who have wnated to play a season in Japan or Europe as a sabatical and have been encouraged strongly by the ARU not to. Some of those players have stayed, some have told the ARU to stick it.

And for those asking, even if he was signed with an NZ or SA team he would be inelligible.

As an aside I think that the ARU needs to sort their shit out in all contracting. The crap that has been going on for the last 1-2 years is not good for the code and something needs to be clarified.

 

[suckerforred]

Oh, and for those saying 'If Hooper &/or Gill get injuried you will change you mind', actually no. I might be bitchin' that we could not select George but I would be still maintaining that the ARU would be in trouble if they bent the rules for one player without making permanant accross the board changes for all players.

This particular rule is actually one thing that the ARU has got right. Certainly it needs to be clarified so that we all know what it is that makes you elligible or inelligible to play for the Wallabies, but it has the long term future of the game in Australia at heart, and for this reason entirely I say that it is better than having our best players play overseas for most of the year and come home only when for the 4-5 games the Wallabies play at home. Socceroos anyone?

 

[terry j]

And for those asking, even if he was signed with an NZ or SA team he would be inelligible.
.

ah thanks. I was one who was asking. So any aussie player, even if still playing in Super Rugby MUST be in Super Rugby with an australian team. Hmm, I think that might just be a tad tooo restrictive but thanks for the clear answer.

 

[suckerforred]

ah thanks. I was one who was asking. So any aussie player, even if still playing in Super Rugby MUST be in Super Rugby with an australian team. Hmm, I think that might just be a tad tooo restrictive but thanks for the clear answer.

They have to be registered as a player with the ARU & not have a current & active contract with a forgein club. They don't HAVE to be playing SupeRugby, they could just be playing club. Highly unlikely though. I believe that NZ is effectively the same although their contracting arrangements are slightly different. SA have the system that player just need to have a contract with a club in SA, Hence the bitchin' about one of the Steyn's before RWC2011. Can't remember which.

I have thought for a while that prehaps we should allow players to play for AR clubs in NZ & SA, but I think that might just push players like Genia, Moore, Horwill out of reach price wise of Australian Rugby. So I am not entirely sure if the rules should be changed or not. All I want is for the rules to be clearly identified & be applied equally accross all players.

 

[terry j]

yeah, sorry, do recall that they can be playing club rugby (from this thread), the main point however that I wanted clarifying was that they played IN australia, for some sort (any sort) of australian team, the bathurst bulldogs for example heh heh. I assume that even tho the buldoggy would not have a contract with the aru, they would be registered with them somewhere.

Where I was 'going' was your final point, I too think/thought that JO'C (as I mentioned) would have a ball that young to live and play in different rugby cultures and nations. This rule most definitely puts a kybosh on that if playing for the national team is a goal.

On your last point (dollars), does anyone know the differing figures players get for playing across the different teams? Is any one country consistently paying their players more than another? What relative differences are we talking here.

What about at a national level, how do those payments stack up? If the difference was great enough, and the waiting time not too steep, a change of citizenship for the real mercenary might be an attractive option.

 

[suckerforred]

IRB regulation 8.1 (c) 'he [a player] has completed thiry six consecutive monthe of resdence immediately preceding the time of playing.' Hence we are all hanging out for Speight to be elligible next year. He can however still choose his union - i.e. Fiji or Australia.

Once you have played for a senior 15's, next senior 15's or senior 7's that is the country you will represent for life. So, for the likes of JOC (James O'Connor) etc they are stuck with Australia.

And, yes the Bathurst Bulldogs would all be registered with the ARU. Those are the form that you all fill out, and sign at the start of the year.

 

[Braveheart81]

IRB regulation 8.1 (c) 'he [a player] has completed thiry six consecutive monthe of resdence immediately preceding the time of playing.' Hence we are all hanging out for Speight to be elligible next year. He can however still choose his union - i.e. Fiji or Australia.

Once you have played for a senior 15's, next senior 15's or senior 7's that is the country you will represent for life. So, for the likes of JOC (James O'Connor) etc they are stuck with Australia.

I wonder when the regulation was last changed? I am pretty certain Jordan Smiler (Brumbies player) played Senior 7s for both New Zealand and Australia.

 

[Slim 293]

Smiler would have to be eligible for Australia too because the Brumbies already have their foreign player spots filled.........

 

[Braveheart81]

Smiler would have to be eligible for Australia too because the Brumbies already have their foreign player spots filled...

Well, he presumably is only eligible for Australia as he played Sevens for us (and was captain at one point) in 2011. Presumably he played 7s for NZ before the rules were changed to make being a 7s representative lock you in to one country for life.

 

[terry j]

I
Once you have played for a senior 15's, next senior 15's or senior 7's that is the country you will represent for life. So, for the likes of JOC (James O'Connor) etc they are stuck with Australia.
.

Ah, of course. Silly me. That'll teach me to just type without thinking.

 

[suckerforred]

One Union rule became effective 1 January 2000. Before this you could play for two unions as long as you had a 36 consectutive month break in between.

Entire regulation is here - http://www.fira-aer-rugby.com/upload/file/1287399004_gfirbregulation8_883.PDF

There are particular criteria that determine if a player is 'deemed' to have played for a Union. Just being named in a touring squad is not sufficient. However playing any games on an international tour that is approved by the IRB does. With seven's it appears that the seven's side that you play against has to be the senior national rep side. That is, if you go on a Wallaby tour to UK for example that has been sanctioned by the IRB, and only play a mid week-match against Munster you have been deemed to have played for Australia and therefore Australia will be you Union. However, if you are in Hong Kong as part of the sevens squad and play a game against the Mudchooks (no offense to the Mudchooks) since they are not a 'National Representitive team' then you are deemed not yet to have played for a union & therefore can make the decision to play for another union.

My understanding anyway. Clear as mud? IRB regulations seem to be just murky as ARU rules in some places...........

 

[suckerforred]

Ah, of course. Silly me. That'll teach me to just type without thinking.

That's alright. I don't mean to preach or make you feel silly. Sorry if I have. Regulations is on of the areas that I tend to read a lot, yes I know I need a life, so that I can understand what the hell is going on. I also do a bit for a club so need to know so that we don't stuff it up for someone.

 

[terry j]

no not at all SFR, on the contrary you answered my questions so thank you.

And yes, I was fully aware of the 'once you play that's it' so it was an honest comment about myself.

thanks for your concern anyway haha!

 

[Stu Andrews]

I would love to see George playing the Lions test, if it's at all possible.

But then, it'd also be awesome to see someone like Gill or Hooper really blast them out of the water, just like George did all those years ago.

And if we're going for hopefulness, how good would it be for a second-rower to come barnstorming into folklore with a last-minute lineout steal.

 

[ACT Crusader]

I would love to see George playing the Lions test, if it's at all possible.

But then, it'd also be awesome to see someone like Gill or Hooper really blast them out of the water, just like George did all those years ago.

And if we're going for hopefulness, how good would it be for a second-rower to come barnstorming into folklore with a last-minute lineout steal.

Not sure about that Stu. I know its been 12 years but I did not think George was overly prominent in that series, actually thought the Big O was the pick of the loosies. Thought George and a few other forwards were exposed somewhat at set piece with the Lions backs making huge inroads in the 9/10 and 10/12 channels. Areas you'd hope you're openside would be hunting. He didn't embaress himself as a rookie though.