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

[Dave Beat]

Strictly, you cant say the ARU policy is irrelevant - they need to "change" it one way or the other if he's to play. No doubt Smith would not want to piss his Suntory masters off so that could influence his position on the matter, and his position could be determinative.

I'm sure Suntory, and Japanese Rugby would be benifiting, taking advantage of his world wide exposure.

 

[Quick Hands]

Strictly, you cant say the ARU policy is irrelevant - they need to "change" it one way or the other if he's to play. No doubt Smith would not want to piss his Suntory masters off so that could influence his position on the matter, and his position could be determinative.

It's irrelevent in terms of the IRB rules.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'd like to see the fine print on that one. The IRB ruling is absolute, clubs must release players for test duty if that test falls within the test match window. ARU policy and Suntory contract are irrelevent.

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. Such declaration will include an affirmation that the Player fully understands the consequences of his decision to retire and that the decision has been made on a voluntary basis and in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9. A declaration will also be required from the Player’s Rugby Body or Club confirming that it has acted in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 9 in connection with the Player’s decision to retire from the International Game.
9.30
If a Player does retire in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 9.29 above, the Player shall not be entitled to play for that Union for a period of 12 months from the date of written confirmation of retirement from the International Game being received by the Union save with the prior written approval of both the Player’s Union and the IRB.


Based on this, I would understand it that any contract George Smith signed with a foreign club would include the fact that he is currently retired from international rugby so it would be up to the club to allow him to 'unretire'.

 

[Joe Blow]

If he is under contract to the Brumbies...and Suntory at the same time, is he not eligible?

 

[Torn Hammy]

Rules are meant to be broken.

Except for when they apply to Quade Cooper.

 

[Quick Hands]

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. Such declaration will include an affirmation that the Player fully understands the consequences of his decision to retire and that the decision has been made on a voluntary basis and in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation 9. A declaration will also be required from the Player’s Rugby Body or Club confirming that it has acted in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 9 in connection with the Player’s decision to retire from the International Game.
9.30
If a Player does retire in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 9.29 above, the Player shall not be entitled to play for that Union for a period of 12 months from the date of written confirmation of retirement from the International Game being received by the Union save with the prior written approval of both the Player’s Union and the IRB.


Based on this, I would understand it that any contract George Smith signed with a foreign club would include the fact that he is currently retired from international rugby so it would be up to the club to allow him to 'unretire'.

I would agree with that (assuming that Smith has signed that declaration). If the contract with Suntory was signed on the basis that he had retired from test rugby, they are under no obligation to release him.

 

[Gnostic]

I posted in the Wallabies 30 Man Squad thread, that the ARU could take the moral high ground with respect to playing Smith if they had no already compromised themselves. They compromised that position by actively pursing Elsom and Vickerman to play for the Wallabies when they hadn't signed with an Australian Province and hadn't played in Australia in the year they were to play. Vickerman did indeed play about 50 minutes with the Tahs before he was selected in the RWC squad.

It is a bit rich for the ARU to say they are taking the moral high ground protecting Australian Rugby from having the Super ranks pillaged by overseas clubs as the lure of the Wallabies jersey can be achieved no matter where you play. The fact remains that they sold that out with their actions for Vickerman and Elsom, the former hadn't even played a professional game in two years before getting an ARU contract and guaranteed Wallaby spot. The ARU has no moral standing, if they refuse Smith, one of 4? Wallaby test centurions, people can rightly ask what is the ulterior motive.

 

[Dave Beat]

They compromised that position by actively pursing Elsom and Vickerman to play for the Wallabies when they hadn't signed with an Australian Province and hadn't played in Australia in the year they were to play. Vickerman did indeed play about 50 minutes with the Tahs before he was selected in the RWC squad..

Elsom is one of the players who chase cash over country.
Smith, he has always served, and respected the gold jersey with distiction.

 

[Braveheart81]

Elsom is one of the players who chase cash over country.
Smith, he has always served, and respected the gold jersey with distiction.

I'm not really sure what correlation there is between going and playing overseas for a year and having respect for the gold jersey.

Elsom played 75 tests and to my knowledge never did anything during his career that would indicate he wasn't respectful of being a Wallaby and being an absolute professional.

He went overseas and got crocked and it didn't work out well for the Wallabies, but I hardly think he did anything disrespectful or didn't represent Australia with distinction.

 

[Scoey]

The ARU has no moral standing, if they refuse Smith, one of 4? Wallaby test centurions, people can rightly ask what is the ulterior motive.

I have no idea. Perhaps they realise that the Elsom/Vickerman business was the wrong thing to do and have learnt from it?

 

[wamberal]

Elsom is one of the players who chase cash over country.
Smith, he has always served, and respected the gold jersey with distiction.

Let's be fair. Elsom got himself into a pretty bad financial situation, so the story went, and he desperately needed to earn some very big NH bucks. Who can blame him?


Rules are okay, when they are exist for the right reasons. But no rule is perfect, no rule is sacrosanct, no rule is eternal.


George also chose cash over country, didn't he? Otherwise he would never have left.

 

[Dave Beat]

I'm not really sure what correlation there is between going and playing overseas for a year and having respect for the gold jersey.

Elsom played 75 tests and to my knowledge never did anything during his career that would indicate he wasn't respectful of being a Wallaby and being an absolute professional.

He went overseas and got crocked and it didn't work out well for the Wallabies, but I hardly think he did anything disrespectful or didn't represent Australia with distinction.

I never said he didnt respect the jersey, I'm sure he did!!
My thoughts only - I was dissapointed he left for the coin instead of staying here and wearing the gold. Just me no need to worry.

 

[Braveheart81]

I have no idea. Perhaps they realise that the Elsom/Vickerman business was the wrong thing to do and have learnt from it?

Elsom and Vickerman had both completed any and all contracts when they returned to Australian rugby.

That means they can sign a new contract with the ARU and be available for selection.

The same will apply for Luke Burgess if he returns next month. He will be available for selction for the Wallabies immediately because he will be contracted to the ARU.

 

[Scoey]

Yeah like I said, I have no idea about the Vicks and Elsom thing.

 

[Scoey]

I gotta say though, I noticed the 'Sign up for Smithy' petition on the side bar a while ago and thought it would be interesting to see how that goes. It says that 38 people have signed it.

That either says a lot about peoples opinions on George playing against the BIL or peoples opinions on online petitions. Probably the former. Case closed.

 

[Gnostic]

Elsom and Vickerman had both completed any and all contracts when they returned to Australian rugby.

That means they can sign a new contract with the ARU and be available for selection.

The same will apply for Luke Burgess if he returns next month. He will be available for selction for the Wallabies immediately because he will be contracted to the ARU.

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).

 

[wobbly]

Nail head firmly struck Gnostic.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Except for when they apply to Quade Cooper.

No - when they apply to him they've already been broken

 

[Scoey]

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.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

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.

for good or evil?
or both?