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

[Rock Lobster]

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.

Agree 100% with this

 

[Scoey]

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.

It's a great example. Because swap Giteau for Smith and Toulon with Suntory and its the same scenario. Smith isn't going to play a complete season because he wasn't here at the start and regardless of anything else he is on loan.
It matters not what Toulon would be willing to entertain the idea, the point of the post was to remove the sentimental attachment you all seem to have with George Smith and as soon as you do then it's apparently not as good an idea.

 

[Slim 293]

Giteau is playing super rugby?

 

[Merrow]

Smith only missed out on one or two games of this season. There are players in the current Wallabies mix that have missed out on more games than that. You can drag out whatever names you like, but the ARU set the precedent with Vickerman, and he was nowhere near the player that George is. At present, he is the form number 7, is signed for the season with the Brumbies, and would bring a huge amount of experience to the squad v the Lions. I keep hearing you guys wanging on about how you need to have experience in the squad. Well you can't get much more test experience than GS.

 

[Rassie]

Toulon can't interfere if he is selected for Aus. Thanks to the IRB and Argentina for creating regulations preventing them from doing it.

 

[Quick Hands]

Smith only missed out on one or two games of this season. There are players in the current Wallabies mix that have missed out on more games than that. You can drag out whatever names you like, but the ARU set the precedent with Vickerman, and he was nowhere near the player that George is. At present, he is the form number 7, is signed for the season with the Brumbies, and would bring a huge amount of experience to the squad v the Lions. I keep hearing you guys wanging on about how you need to have experience in the squad. Well you can't get much more test experience than GS.

And many of the same people who contend that Smith should not play for the Wallabies, are at the same time saying that Luke Burgess should be able to play for the Wallabies after the 1st of June. We're at round 10 of super rugby and Smith is playing for the Brumbies and Burgess is still playing for Toulouse and is likely to be doing so for another 4 weeks. Go figure that if you can, because I can't.

 

[Scoey]

Giteau is playing super rugby?

Slim, you might've missed a few posts. The scenario was a hypothetical one.

Smith only missed out on one or two games of this season. There are players in the current Wallabies mix that have missed out on more games than that. You can drag out whatever names you like, but the ARU set the precedent with Vickerman, and he was nowhere near the player that George is. At present, he is the form number 7, is signed for the season with the Brumbies, and would bring a huge amount of experience to the squad v the Lions. I keep hearing you guys wanging on about how you need to have experience in the squad. Well you can't get much more test experience than GS.

You can't say he missed the start of the season and then say he is signed for the season.

Toulon can't interfere if he is selected for Aus. Thanks to the IRB and Argentina for creating regulations preventing them from doing it.

Rassie, the issue has never been an IRB one, it is an ARU eligibility rule.

And many of the same people who contend that Smith should not play for the Wallabies, are at the same time saying that Luke Burgess should be able to play for the Wallabies after the 1st of June. We're at round 10 of super rugby and Smith is playing for the Brumbies and Burgess is still playing for Toulouse and is likely to be doing so for another 4 weeks. Go figure that if you can, because I can't.

It's not that you can't figure it out, it's that you won't or simply don't want to. I'll make it really simple. If George Smith terminated his contract with Suntory and had signed on with the Brumbies for 2 seasons, then I would be the first person to say select him. 2 year Super Rugby contract vs Overseas contracted player on loan for part of a season. See the difference there?

No one has answered my question but. Assuming that Toulon was happy to 'loan' Gits to an Aussie Super 15 side for a few games on the proviso that he returns to France after S15, should he be eligible to be selected for the Lions tour? Yes or no?

 

[Rassie]

Slim, you might've missed a few posts. The scenario was a hypothetical one.



You can't say he missed the start of the season and then say he is signed for the season.



Rassie, the issue has never been an IRB one, it is an ARU eligibility rule.



It's not that you can't figure it out, it's that you won't or simply don't want to. I'll make it really simple. If George Smith terminated his contract with Suntory and had signed on with the Brumbies for 2 seasons, then I would be the first person to say select him. 2 year Super Rugby contract vs Overseas contracted player on loan for part of a season. See the difference there?

No one has answered my question but. Assuming that Toulon was happy to 'loan' Gits to an Aussie Super 15 side for a few games on the proviso that he returns to France after S15, should he be eligible to be selected for the Lions tour? Yes or no?

I know that. But why can't he be selected? Why was that rule created by the ARU?

 

[Scoey]

Sorry mate. The rule is in place to try to keep the top talent playing in Australia with the lure of playing for the wallabies.

Without it, players could head overseas and play for years and just come back to Australia for a couple of months when the big tournaments are on then leave again. We can't compete with the overseas $$$ so we need to use Wallaby selection as part of the deal. Without the top talent playing in Australia the game would struggle to maintain interest and would suffer at all levels.

 

[Merrow]

I just think you're arguing a moot point. For someone with Smiths capabilities, exceptions should be made. Even if Gits & Burgess were playing in Oz, there are so many other better players in their positions that would rightly get picked before them. He is the best 7 currently playing in Australia. Don't we want the best players playing the Lions?

 

[Scoey]

I just think you're arguing a moot point. For someone with Smiths capabilities, exceptions should be made. Even if Gits & Burgess were playing in Oz, there are so many other better players in their positions that would rightly get picked before them. He is the best 7 currently playing in Australia. Don't we want the best players playing the Lions?

It's not moot at all. I didn't ask whether he should be picked just whether he should be eligible. Simple question. Yes or no?

 

[Rassie]

Sorry mate. The rule is in place to try to keep the top talent playing in Australia with the lure of playing for the wallabies.

Without it, players could head overseas and play for years and just come back to Australia for a couple of months when the big tournaments are on then leave again. We can't compete with the overseas $$$ so we need to use Wallaby selection as part of the deal. Without the top talent playing in Australia the game would struggle to maintain interest and would suffer at all levels.

That lure will work for NZ but for anyone else you going to have problems and have to adapt. We did. Once you start giving lots of guys a test cap just for the sake of it eg by putting him on the last 10 minutes of a game to get that cape that lure becomes less of a attraction. Cooper holding them ransom also tells you they are struggling.

They must understand that these veterans have to look at their future and they need something to put away once they retire. Only a Wallaby shirt ain't going to feed the mouths once he is retired. But you can't not select your best possible 15 due to some regulations. You are only limiting yourself.

 

[Dave Beat]

And many of the same people who contend that Smith should not play for the Wallabies, are at the same time saying that Luke Burgess should be able to play for the Wallabies after the 1st of June. We're at round 10 of super rugby and Smith is playing for the Brumbies and Burgess is still playing for Toulouse and is likely to be doing so for another 4 weeks. Go figure that if you can, because I can't.

Maybe he will wear a Manly Jersey, would love to see that.

 

[Scoey]

That lure will work for NZ but for anyone else you going to have problems and have to adapt. We did. Once you start giving lots of guys a test cap just for the sake of it eg by putting him on the last 10 minutes of a game to get that cape that lure becomes less of a attraction. Cooper holding them ransom also tells you they are struggling.

They must understand that these veterans have to look at their future and they need something to put away once they retire. Only a Wallaby shirt ain't going to feed the mouths once he is retired. But you can't not select your best possible 15 due to some regulations. You are only limiting yourself.

That's just it Rassie. It does work for us and has for years. If they start making exemptions they diminish the integrity of the policy and it ceases to work well. This is the danger the ARU face right now.
I would never suggest handing out test caps; that's not how it works. But if they have wallaby aspirations they know they must stay in Aus.

 

[Dave Beat]

No one has answered my question but. Assuming that Toulon was happy to 'loan' Gits to an Aussie Super 15 side for a few games on the proviso that he returns to France after S15, should he be eligible to be selected for the Lions tour? Yes or no?

Scoey, my answer is no because the ARU rules don't allow it. Different with Smith and everyone is allowed to view it differently - I see Smith as as an acceptable exemption but as you say I have rose colour glasses. Smith has form, and respect among players, opposition, refs and nobody can deny that.

 

[qwerty51]

Seriously, Smith may have the experience but there's no way you can say with certainty he's playing better than Hooper or Gill atm. Hooper & Gill are freaks, let them rip.

 

[Scoey]

Scoey, my answer is no because the ARU rules don't allow it. Different with Smith and everyone is allowed to view it differently - I see Smith as as an acceptable exemption but as you say I have rose colour glasses. Smith has form, and respect among players, opposition, refs and nobody can deny that.

Spot on Dave. Smith is a different case because of the sentimental side of things. I don't think that anyone arguing against the eligibility of Smith would be doing so because they don't like him or because he's not deserving. They would be arguing that allowing ANY exemption to this policy would be potentially very damaging to Australian rugby. The game is bigger than an individual and it's bigger than one tour.
I'd love to see him play against the Lions. But he's got to do it the right way.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's not that you can't figure it out, it's that you won't or simply don't want to. I'll make it really simple. If George Smith terminated his contract with Suntory and had signed on with the Brumbies for 2 seasons, then I would be the first person to say select him. 2 year Super Rugby contract vs Overseas contracted player on loan for part of a season. See the difference there?

I understand your argument, I just disagree with the foundation on which it's built.

At the half-way point in the super rugby season, 1 player is in Australia playing for the Brumbies and the other is in Toulouse playing Top 14 and not likely to be back in Australia for another 4-6 weeks.

 

[Merrow]

Y

It's not moot at all. I didn't ask whether he should be picked just whether he should be eligible. Simple question. Yes or no?

You're talking about a few games as opposed to virtually the whole season. George only missed the first two games for the Brumbies. As I stated earlier many players will have played less games this season and will still get picked, including Genia, Horwill, Palu, etc. it's not a simple question.

 

[Scoey]

I understand your argument, I just disagree with the foundation on which it's built.

At the half-way point in the super rugby season, 1 player is in Australia playing for the Brumbies and the other is in Toulouse playing Top 14 and not likely to be back in Australia for another 4-6 weeks.

Fair enough. Look at it this way. One is here on a temporary basis for part of the season and the other has committed exclusively to Aus rugby for two years?
The main difference in your eyes is that one is playing in Aus before the tour. I get that. It's the level of commitment that makes Burgess more eligible in my eyes.