Wilson
Rod McCall (65)
The ambiguous part of the poaching law is the section on sanctions - the way it's written the FRU (who are also a beneficiary of the poaching) could give La Rochelle a slap on the wrist and then claim it's all good. There's no detail around what constitutes appropriate sanctions, any mention of compensation for the original union and nothing that actually prevents the poaching or invalidates the contract. I definitely don't mean to absolve the French clubs of responsibility here though, it looks pretty clear they're operating outside the letter and spirit of the law.I don't think its that ambiguous. French clubs can't approach young Australian rugby players without Rugby Australia giving authorisation to do so.
It's the French clubs who are behaving inappropriately here
Rugby Australia have followed the regulations as written.
View attachment 21169
It's unfortunate for the player and his family, but this part is just wrong under WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) regulations. He has a current Union (Australia). If he wants to play under a new Union (France) there are processes that need to be followed.
This delay is what happens when you don't follow the process
The major issue is definitely enforcement and management of the release systems. Ambiguity in the language of the laws exacerbates the problem, but the problem would still exist if the laws were perfectly written and World Rugby continued with their approach.