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

[Braveheart81]

Now any reasonable person would say that means playing Super Rugby in the year they wish to play for the Wallabies. It would have been easy to have this requirement, but they did not and so they sold out the very intent of having the rule in place.

Why is this so black and white that 'any reasonable person' would say that you have to have played Super Rugby to play for the Wallabies that year? People play rugby elsewhere and once their contract expires they can sign a new contract with the ARU.

Surely it would be more reasonable to assume that for a player to be eligible to play for the Wallabies they need to have signed a contract with the ARU and not have an existing contract with a foreign club.

Players can be picked on form elsewhere and previous track record.

You are saying the ARU is taking the moral high ground on this issue except that they're not. They're just keeping their existing rule as it is.

The existing rules didn't need to be changed in Elsom or Vickerman's situation and they won't need to be changed if Burgess becomes an option for the Wallabies this year.

To allow Smith to play for the Wallabies the ARU would clearly need to change their stance on players with foreign contracts.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Surely it would be more reasonable to assume that for a player to be eligible to play for the Wallabies they need to have signed a contract with the ARU and not have an existing contract with a foreign club.

I agree very strongly with this being the test.
In itself this creates some additional flexibility, I think.

 

[cyclopath]

Careful there Inside Shoulder. I don't think the forum can handle a George Smith/ARU/Robbie Deans/Quade Cooper thread. You're likely to create some kind of vortex.

That thread would make the Large Hadron Collider look like a 3rd grade science experiment. On the up side, it would most likely annihilate itself in an instant, and none of us would be any the wiser.
And Moses would need to get a new server.

 

[Braveheart81]

That thread would make the Large Hadron Collider look like a 3rd grade science experiment. On the up side, it would most likely annihilate itself in an instant, and none of us would be any the wiser.
And Moses would need to get a new server.

Until we start that thread, the Dingo-Cooper Particle is only theoretical.

 

[cyclopath]

Until we start that thread, the Dingo-Cooper Particle is only theoretical.

And who understands the Quad-dean physics anyway?

 

[Quick Hands]

I have said it before, but it is worth saying again, whilst the ARU played the game and met the criteria to the letter they neatly sidestepped the intent and spirit of the Rule which was to ensure that players who wanted to be Wallabies eligible played their Rugby for an Australian province. Now any reasonable person would say that means playing Super Rugby in the year they wish to play for the Wallabies. It would have been easy to have this requirement, but they did not and so they sold out the very intent of having the rule in place.

So now we have a situation where a former Test player is playing in Australia, is arguably the form player in his position cannot be picked because they see they have to make a moral stand because he also has a contract with an overseas club. At the same time a player who hasn't played a single minute of Super Rugby can be selected for the Wallabies this year because they have signed for the 2014 season.

I am not the only one who looks at the ARU and sees a management group devoid of ethics and accountability. The systems are not robust or transparent and they can seriously be questioned on so many aspects of their management of the code since 2008 (if not before).

Spot on. We're told the intent of the rule is to stop players heading overseas by giving them a choice of staying and playing for the Wallabies or leaving and earning more money. As I understand it that is the spirit of the rule/policy. Rules are meant to be interpreted according to their spirit, when organisations try to use rules to suit themselves, you have. . . the ARU.

I find it bizarre for example that Burgess is not allowed to play for the Rebels in 2013 but is eligible for the Wallabies in 2013.

That said, if Smith has retired in writing, then Suntory are not obligated to release him as per Braveheart's post showing the IRB regulations.

 

[Shiggins]

He is committed to his Japanese clup. The NZ commentators asked him
B4 the game and he said he is going back to Japan.

 

[Sully]

How is the ARU using this to suit themselves?

 

[Braveheart81]

Spot on. We're told the intent of the rule is to stop players heading overseas by giving them a choice of staying and playing for the Wallabies or leaving and earning more money. As I understand it that is the spirit of the rule/policy. Rules are meant to be interpreted according to their spirit, when organisations try to use rules to suit themselves, you have. the ARU.

I find it bizarre for example that Burgess is not allowed to play for the Rebels in 2013 but is eligible for the Wallabies in 2013.

That said, if Smith has retired in writing, then Suntory are not obligated to release him as per Braveheart's post showing the IRB regulations.

Why does the world of rugby need to operate on a calendar year basis. The Top 14 finishes on the 1st of June. Why wouldn't a player be able to sign a new contract after that if their current contract expires?

Super Rugby teams are limited to squads of 35. Burgess would be able to play for the Rebels in 2013 if they lost a player due to injury. Why is it bizarre that he can't play for them this year?

By the same token, players returning to Australian rugby from Japan have been allowed to start playing immediately in Australia. Their contract with Japanese Rugby ends in February or March and they can then return to Australia and play Super Rugby straight away. There is no requirement that they wait until the start of the next year. I don't see how this is any different.

 

[Slim 293]

He is committed to his Japanese clup. The NZ commentators asked him
B4 the game and he said he is going back to Japan.

Well, he was obviously going to say that he was planning on heading back to Japan when his contract was done as to not piss off Suntory.........

The Brumbies are currently talking to Suntory about extending his contract for a few more games, but that only applies to the Brumbies and not the Wallabies.........

 

[Quick Hands]

Why does the world of rugby need to operate on a calendar year basis. The Top 14 finishes on the 1st of June. Why wouldn't a player be able to sign a new contract after that if their current contract expires?

Super Rugby teams are limited to squads of 35. Burgess would be able to play for the Rebels in 2013 if they lost a player due to injury. Why is it bizarre that he can't play for them this year?

By the same token, players returning to Australian rugby from Japan have been allowed to start playing immediately in Australia. Their contract with Japanese Rugby ends in February or March and they can then return to Australia and play Super Rugby straight away. There is no requirement that they wait until the start of the next year. I don't see how this is any different.

The difference is that he is apparently able to play for the Wallabies without playing Super Rugby in that same rugby season. Isn't this the very thing that the ARU policy seeks to prevent?
If you don't think it's bizarre then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Nothing to do with the calendar year it's got to do with the Australian rugby season.

 

[Gnostic]

Alright I'll sign an ARU contract commencing June 2014. I am not available for any Super side until as I am earning the bigger dollars in the northern hemisphere. That's OK the ARU will guarantee my Wallaby selection and top up regardless.

Do you see the issue with that?

The whole purpose of the rule prohibiting selecting players contracted outside of Australia was to ensure that the best players were available for Super Rugby as it was recognised early on that under professionalism the Super teams wouldn't be able to compete dollar wise with the NH. The neat sidestepping of the rules for select cases really has brought this whole question up. Do you honestly think that if the ARU hadn't allowed the Elsom and Vickerman cases there would be any question of Smith playing? I am sure some would still press for Smith to play but they would have far less traction with their case.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Spot on. We're told the intent of the rule is to stop players heading overseas by giving them a choice of staying and playing for the Wallabies or leaving and earning more money. As I understand it that is the spirit of the rule/policy. Rules are meant to be interpreted according to their spirit, when organisations try to use rules to suit themselves, you have. the ARU.

I find it bizarre for example that Burgess is not allowed to play for the Rebels in 2013 but is eligible for the Wallabies in 2013.

That said, if Smith has retired in writing, then Suntory are not obligated to release him as per Braveheart's post showing the IRB regulations.

Non-release due to retirement
9.29
If a Union having exercised its rights pursuant to this Regulation is informed that a Player is not so released and/or is unwilling to participate on the grounds that they have retired from International Rugby then the Player shall be required to confirm his retirement in writing to his Union and sign a declaration.

My reading of this is that nothing needs to be put in writing until the club refuses to release the player on the ground that he has retired - then he must confirm it in writing and sign the declaration.
So, unless Smith has previously been secretly called up, there is nothing in existence at this point: that poses some interesting retrospective questions in relation to the call for Burgess to be drafted last year.
Maybe the ARU asked him - he said no but nothing was formalised so that he would not have to sit out for a year. Intriguing.
Braveheart81 where did the regs come from?

 

[Braveheart81]

Braveheart81 where did the regs come from?

This is IRB Regulation 9

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf

 

[Braveheart81]

Alright I'll sign an ARU contract commencing June 2014. I am not available for any Super side until as I am earning the bigger dollars in the northern hemisphere. That's OK the ARU will guarantee my Wallaby selection and top up regardless.

Do you see the issue with that?

The whole purpose of the rule prohibiting selecting players contracted outside of Australia was to ensure that the best players were available for Super Rugby as it was recognised early on that under professionalism the Super teams wouldn't be able to compete dollar wise with the NH. The neat sidestepping of the rules for select cases really has brought this whole question up. Do you honestly think that if the ARU hadn't allowed the Elsom and Vickerman cases there would be any question of Smith playing? I am sure some would still press for Smith to play but they would have far less traction with their case.

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.

 

[The Rant]

I still don't understand how the brumbies could afford Smith in the first place as just a 'backup' (before pocock went down). They couldn't afford the insurance on Peter Hewitt last year and Im assuming the insurance on Smith would be 4 times hewitt. ?
Dodgy deals?

That said - if the ARU can't find a way to allow him to play against the lions they're useless dipshits. Personally I don't think Robbie is working to hard to make it happen as Im sure there is some history there. No doubt for me that deans is the reason we went to the 2011 worldcup with one 7 and ended up with mccalman playing 7 against the irish.

Eddie Jones made the good point about deans and cooper that he hopes he is not holding grudges or making it personal, but then had a dig saying he (deans) doesn't have a good history of that...

 

[jay-c]

the brumbies didnt pay much for smith- it wasnt about the money

 

[wamberal]

That said - if the ARU can't find a way to allow him to play against the lions they're useless dipshits.

Errrr. You don't think that Smith's employer might just have some input to this?

Personally I don't think Robbie is working to hard to make it happen as Im sure there is some history there. No doubt for me that deans is the reason we went to the 2011 worldcup with one 7 and ended up with mccalman playing 7 against the irish.

Should have taken Hodgson, who was probably the next best 7 at the time?

Eddie Jones made the good point about deans and cooper that he hopes he is not holding grudges or making it personal, but then had a dig saying he (deans) doesn't have a good history of that.

Next time you feel like quoting Eddie Eyebrows with approval, take the time to review his sensational farewell season as a coach of a local team. He managed to destroy the Reds, single-handedly, and it only took four or five matches. He is a dill, with absolutely no credibility as far as I am concerned.

 

[Brumbieman]

Eh, really?


I remember them doing really well for the first 3-4 games, beating the Hurricanes and a couple of other good sides, before it all fell apart when every forward in the squad got injured.

 

[Gnostic]

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?