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

[Bowside]

I think once you have played as many tests as George has you should be able to take sabbaticals provided you come back and prove yourself in super rugby before the test season.

Do I think that a bloke like Gill who has played less than 10 tests should be able to? No, but a centurion like Smith is a different matter.

 

[Quick Hands]

Using that logic Giteau could come back and play a few games for the Brumbies, play against the Lions then head back to France and somehow that would be good for AUS Rugby?!?!

It wouldn't be, which is exactly why the Burgess example is far worse in my opinion that the Smith example. In the Brugess example, he is not even going to play super rugby this season in Australia.

 

[Braveheart81]

It wouldn't be, which is exactly why the Burgess example is far worse in my opinion that the Smith example. In the Brugess example, he is not even going to play super rugby this season in Australia.

No, but Burgess is going to play the next two seasons of Super Rugby in Australia (I believe his Rebels contract is two years) and is solely committed to the ARU for that time. Is Super Rugby the only medium by which you can judge someone's form?

I'm not sure how you don't see that someone who is signed to an overseas club and is playing in Australia on loan and potentially making themselves available for only 3 tests of our 14 test season creates a dangerous precedent for key players deciding they can become part time Wallabies and pick and choose when they want to play for the Wallabies and just chase coin the rest of the time.

I think the fact that George Smith is a Wallaby legend is irrelevant to this debate. Maybe in the future they could have a rule regarding sabbaticals for people who have played a certain number of tests, but at this stage that rule doesn't exist.

 

[Dave Beat]

No, but Burgess is going to play the next two seasons of Super Rugby in Australia (I believe his Rebels contract is two years) and is solely committed to the ARU for that time. Is Super Rugby the only medium by which you can judge someone's form?

I'm not sure how you don't see that someone who is signed to an overseas club and is playing in Australia on loan and potentially making themselves available for only 3 tests of our 14 test season creates a dangerous precedent for key players deciding they can become part time Wallabies and pick and choose when they want to play for the Wallabies and just chase coin the rest of the time.

I think the fact that George Smith is a Wallaby legend is irrelevant to this debate. Maybe in the future they could have a rule regarding sabbaticals for people who have played a certain number of tests, but at this stage that rule doesn't exist.

BH using this thread as an example. We can see;
Japanese season deosnt conflict with our.
Santory have been very professional in there dealings.
Japan can draw big name players and pay plenty of yen.
Japan are 2019 RWC hosts.
Funding is an issue for our 3T, ask them to fund it and have them provide / include a development team in the 3T for the 2019 RWC.

 

[Slim 293]

I think we need to wait and see whether or not the ARU approach George, whether he's interested, and if both parties are keen how the ARU will go about it whether they bend/ignore the rules or if they amend them to accomodate George without opening the floodgates.......

 

[Scoey]

It wouldn't be, which is exactly why the Burgess example is far worse in my opinion that the Smith example. In the Brugess example, he is not even going to play super rugby this season in Australia.

I didn't mention Burgess. I was talking about Giteau. Just curious to know where exactly the line is. He's played 92 tests so he's done his time in the Gold jersey hasn't he? He was on Total Rugby the other night saying he'd love to play for the Wallabies again. How many games would he need to play for a S15 team on a loan basis whilst still being contracted to Toulon to qualify for an exemption?

 

[Joe Blow]

I didn't mention Burgess. I was talking about Giteau. Just curious to know where exactly the line is. He's played 92 tests so he's done his time in the Gold jersey hasn't he? He was on Total Rugby the other night saying he'd love to play for the Wallabies again. How many games would he need to play for a S15 team on a loan basis whilst still being contracted to Toulon to qualify for an exemption?

He would need to be playing for an Australian Super rugby side under a contract for the season and he should be available during that contract period. But the reality is that he could not entertain, and Toulon would not entertain, a brief stint in Super rugby while he is playing for them. Not a great example.

If Deans wants him he will be able to select him(GS). Deans should want him as he could easily be the difference between winning the series or not.

 

[Braveheart81]

He would need to be playing for an Australian Super rugby side under a contract for the season and he should be available during that contract period. But the reality is that he could not entertain, and Toulon would not entertain, a brief stint in Super rugby while he is playing for them. Not a great example.

If Deans wants him he will be able to select him(GS). Deans should want him as he could easily be the difference between winning the series or not.

A player contracted in France could come back and play the last four or five Super Rugby games 'on loan' if a side had a spot available (and many do by that stage of the season due to a player suffering a season ending injury that isn't replaced). They could then play for the Wallabies in the Rugby Championship in the same way that George Smith might play for the Wallabies against the Lions.

I personally don't think this should be allowed to happen which is why I don't think Smith should be selected.

The ARU still needs to change their policy on Wallaby eligible players before Deans can select George Smith. Currently he is not available for selection.

 

[Joe Blow]

The difference in the two scenarios is that George is now playing a complete Super rugby season, a portion of which is before the Lions series and a portion after and he never had his eye on the Lions series when he agreed to play with the Brumbies. This is not an elaborate scheme devised by him to play for the Wobs again.
In your scenario the player returning from France would have completed his brief contract in Australia and would presumably be heading back to France. He would no longer be contracted to an Australian side when TRC was being played and thus would not be eligible for national selection.

It is obviously something that is not completely set in stone and should be addressed by the ARU pronto. If it is set in stone then the policy needs to be clarified because there are many different perceptions of the policy itself and what should happen in this instance.

 

[Braveheart81]

The difference in the two scenarios is that George is now playing a complete Super rugby season, a portion of which is before the Lions series and a portion after and he never had his eye on the Lions series when he agreed to play with the Brumbies. This is not an elaborate scheme devised by him to play for the Wobs again.
In your scenario the player returning from France would have completed his brief contract in Australia and would presumably be heading back to France. He would no longer be contracted to an Australian side when TRC was being played and thus would not be eligible for national selection.

It is obviously something that is not completely set in stone and should be addressed by the ARU pronto. If it is set in stone then the policy needs to be clarified because there are many different perceptions of the policy itself and what should happen in this instance.

The policy is set in stone though. George Smith is not currently eligible for selection unless they change the policy.

The eligibility requirements the ARU has is that you must be signed with the ARU. George Smith isn't.

 

[Quick Hands]

A player contracted in France could come back and play the last four or five Super Rugby games 'on loan' if a side had a spot available (and many do by that stage of the season due to a player suffering a season ending injury that isn't replaced). They could then play for the Wallabies in the Rugby Championship in the same way that George Smith might play for the Wallabies against the Lions.

I personally don't think this should be allowed to happen which is why I don't think Smith should be selected.

The ARU still needs to change their policy on Wallaby eligible players before Deans can select George Smith. Currently he is not available for selection.

My support of Smith being considered is only on the basis that he is currently playing super rugby for an Australian team. Burgess isn't.

As far as I am aware the ARU earns most of its money from TV rights for super rugby and tests. In my opinion this means that the integrity of the super rugby teams is paramount. I don't believe that necessity, or prior long service should come into it or the cut off date of contracts.

I believe that the policy should be much clearer than it is. You can't play test rugby for Australia unless you are playing rugby for an Australian super rugby team in that season. If a foreign contract before or after prevents you doing so, then you shouldn't be considered because you wouldn't be playing super rugby.

I don't begrudge Luke Burgess, Matt Giteau, George Smith or anyone else the right to earn money playing rugby anywhere in the world. For example, I don't believe that Luke Burgess should be considered for tests in 2013 until every other contracted half who is currently playing super rugby for an Australian team is injured. Then he could be picked from the club competition on the same basis as all other club players.

France is a much more popular destination for Australian players than Japan. What would stop Genia for example signing to play in France for 2 years and then coming back on the 1st of June and going straight into the Wallabies if the Burgess precendent is set?

You keeps saying that Smith is not contracted to the ARU so he is ineligible, but surely to play for the Brumbies he must have filled in an ARU registration form? Isn't this a legal requirement prior to playing rugby in Australia at any level? And having filled in such a form, would he not be just as eligible as a player who is currently playing Shute Shield who is not contracted to the ARU, but has filled in an ARU registration form?

 

[Braveheart81]

My support of Smith being considered is only on the basis that he is currently playing super rugby for an Australian team. Burgess isn't.

As far as I am aware the ARU earns most of its money from TV rights for super rugby and tests. In my opinion this means that the integrity of the super rugby teams is paramount. I don't believe that necessity, or prior long service should come into it or the cut off date of contracts.

I believe that the policy should be much clearer than it is. You can't play test rugby for Australia unless you are playing rugby for an Australian super rugby team in that season. If a foreign contract before or after prevents you doing so, then you shouldn't be considered because you wouldn't be playing super rugby.

I don't begrudge Luke Burgess, Matt Giteau, George Smith or anyone else the right to earn money playing rugby anywhere in the world. For example, I don't believe that Luke Burgess should be considered for tests in 2013 until every other contracted half who is currently playing super rugby for an Australian team is injured. Then he could be picked from the club competition on the same basis as all other club players.

France is a much more popular destination for Australian players than Japan. What would stop Genia for example signing to play in France for 2 years and then coming back on the 1st of June and going straight into the Wallabies if the Burgess precendent is set?

You keeps saying that Smith is not contracted to the ARU so he is ineligible, but surely to play for the Brumbies he must have filled in an ARU registration form? Isn't this a legal requirement prior to playing rugby in Australia at any level? And having filled in such a form, would he not be just as eligible as a player who is currently playing Shute Shield who is not contracted to the ARU, but has filled in an ARU registration form?

Your view is opposite to what the current policy is.

George Smith is merely on a temporary contract with the Brumbies and is effectively on loan from Suntory. He is not signed with the ARU and Suntory is completely allowed to dictate terms in regards to what he is allowed to do and not do.

There is no precedent to be set by Burgess if he plays rugby for the Wallabies this year. This has happened several times in the past with Rocky Elsom and Dan Vickerman two examples. Many people were not happy with this at the time but the ARU policy hasn't changed and they have at least remained consistent with their approach.

George Smith will absolutely set a precedent if he plays for the Wallabies this year because it will be the first time a player who is currently contracted to a foreign club (with the contract running over the period in which they are to play for the Wallabies) is selected.

 

[Quick Hands]

Your view is opposite to what the current policy is.

George Smith is merely on a temporary contract with the Brumbies and is effectively on loan from Suntory. He is not signed with the ARU and Suntory is completely allowed to dictate terms in regards to what he is allowed to do and not do.

There is no precedent to be set by Burgess if he plays rugby for the Wallabies this year. This has happened several times in the past with Rocky Elsom and Dan Vickerman two examples. Many people were not happy with this at the time but the ARU policy hasn't changed and they have at least remained consistent with their approach.

George Smith will absolutely set a precedent if he plays for the Wallabies this year because it will be the first time a player who is currently contracted to a foreign club (with the contract running over the period in which they are to play for the Wallabies) is selected.

I could accept (although not completely agree with) the ARU ruling Smith out on the foreign contract grounds if players weren't allowed to return from France/Europe and be eligible to represent the Wallabies without playing super rugby in that season. To me there is a massive inconsistency between allowing one and not allowing the other. Vickerman and Elsom were bad precedents IMO and the ARU has a chance to rule a line in the sand and not allow that situation to continue with Burgess. You seem to agree with this in post #188.

By the way News Ltd papers are reporting today that the ARU have said Smith is now eligible to be picked because he will be playing the entire super rugby season.

 

[Braveheart81]

I could accept (although not completely agree with) the ARU ruling Smith out on the foreign contract grounds if players weren't allowed to return from France/Europe and be eligible to represent the Wallabies without playing super rugby in that season. To me there is a massive inconsistency between allowing one and not allowing the other. Vickerman and Elsom were bad precedents IMO and the ARU has a chance to rule a line in the sand and not allow that situation to continue with Burgess. You seem to agree with this in post #188.

By the way News Ltd papers are reporting today that the ARU have said Smith is now eligible to be picked because he will be playing the entire super rugby season.

The quotes in Rugby Gold are by Jeff Miller who is a former ARU high performance manager. His comments are just his opinion, not an official comment from the ARU.

I had no problem with Elsom or Vickerman being selected. I don't see the need to base all selections off Super Rugby form. I think where the player contracted going forward is more important. The players are committed to playing rugby in Australia from that time forward therefore they should be eligible for selection.

Players confirmed as leaving at the end of the year are also eligible as they are contracted during that period. Often they aren't selected and are released early (so the ARU doesn't have to pay them).

 

[JSRF10]

Jumping in near the end of this one but thought I'd add my two cents, apologies if the below has been raised. I'd have to agree that selecting Smith would set a dangerous precedent and the ARU need to come out publicly, draw a line under this and say what the protocol will be if this arises in the future.

Personally I wouldn't bend the rules for Smith, I could understand if this was a position where Australia didn't have much world class talent(eg tighthead ,lock) or he was the only 7 available. However you guys have two other young, hugely talented blokes who, lets be fair, would walk onto the Lions team. What message does it send to them if Smith is parachuted in ahead of them for 3 test matches but come the time when BNZ/SA rock up they are number 1. Getting rid of 2 of the 3 amigos would have helped the morale in the Wallaby dressing room, however this selection could have some blokes questioning the fairness of it which could lead to it becoming a serious issue in the camp.

 

[Quick Hands]

I had no problem with Elsom or Vickerman being selected. I don't see the need to base all selections off Super Rugby form. I think where the player contracted going forward is more important. The players are committed to playing rugby in Australia from that time forward therefore they should be eligible for selection.

Players confirmed as leaving at the end of the year are also eligible as they are contracted during that period. Often they aren't selected and are released early (so the ARU doesn't have to pay them).

We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose. I think that the present is just as important than the future. With respect, I think that you place too much emphasis on what might happen in the future as opposed to what is currently happening. Always good to have a sensible and polite discussion though.

IMO the ARU could put everything beyond doubt by having 2 criteria as to eligibility for Wallaby selection.

1. Must be playing for an Australian super rugby team in the current Australian season.
2. Cannot be contracted to a foreign club.

No exceptions for long service or percieved need because of injuries. Everyone knows where they stand and more importantly there is a consistent approach to preserving the integrity of the super rugby competition which is not only the breeding ground for Wallabies, but also brings in significant revenue to rugby in this country. To me as it stands, if Vickerman, Elsom & Burgess are ok and Smith is not, the position turns on contracts rather than the reality of what is currently happening and is not consistent or defendable.

 

[Rassie]

From my view is to be selected for a national side you need to ask yourself the following questions:

Is he a Australian? Yes
Is he performing well? Yes
Is he performing consistently week in week out? Yes

Select him. Simple

Did a stint in Europe suddenly revoked his Australian citizenship?

 

[Blue]

Your view is opposite to what the current policy is.

George Smith is merely on a temporary contract with the Brumbies and is effectively on loan from Suntory. He is not signed with the ARU and Suntory is completely allowed to dictate terms in regards to what he is allowed to do and not do.

There is no precedent to be set by Burgess if he plays rugby for the Wallabies this year. This has happened several times in the past with Rocky Elsom and Dan Vickerman two examples. Many people were not happy with this at the time but the ARU policy hasn't changed and they have at least remained consistent with their approach.

George Smith will absolutely set a precedent if he plays for the Wallabies this year because it will be the first time a player who is currently contracted to a foreign club (with the contract running over the period in which they are to play for the Wallabies) is selected.

Dated policy. The Game is professional. Time to move on.

(Even if the policy is changed I think very few overseas players will be picked.)

Smith paid his dues. ARU should make a plan. Change the policy. Make an exception. Whatever.

He is needed against the Wildlings. They have just started climbing the walls and soon they'll be South. May the new and old gods help us all. Send the ravens.

 

[suckerforred]

When Will Genia has played 100 tests then he can ask for a sabbatical. He's been in the Wallabies 4 years. Take the case to the Players Association.

Love the bloke as a player but it's not up to him to be making public proclamations about selection decisions. He's not a selector or an administrator and it's not a good look.

Genia would do himself a favour if he STFU and left his talking on the field.

Fari enough. But my point was that you have to be careful when you a bending the rules, or you just might shoot yourself in the foot....

 

[Torn Hammy]

Gill, Link, Genia....

Just waiting for Greg Martin and Tim Horan to chime in...

Last year the ARU, for 5 months, stonewalled both Cooper and Genia who both wanted to play a one off season in Japan after the present S15 season. They were both told that their choice was ARU contract OR Japan rugby. Not both.

Link, the Qld franchise and it's players, held their breath while the ARU played this game of extreme brinkmanship with their two star players. Thankfully Genia and Cooper blinked, and maybe the ARU should be admired for sticking to their principles.

Iif the ARU gives George Smith an ARU contract and then lets him flit off to Japan, Blind Freddy could see that a fair amount of apoplexy will eminate north of the border. And so much for principles.

That the Brumbies demanded that any money that Cooper made from his charity boxing match be added to the Qld salary cap also probably won't endear Link et al to the idea of Smith, with his $1 million+ Japanese contract, playing for the Wallabies.