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

[kiap]

So now, the ball has landed in the ARU's court, so they can have a hit, if they want.

Free hit?
Unlimited "mulligans"?

 

[Dave Beat]

Sharpe's ARU contract last year would've ended 31.12.12, his retirement would be a verbal, "don't pick me".

I thought it would have been as simple as that, he told the ARU he's retire at the end of the Super Season.
ARU accepted that.
They needed him so they asked and he said yes.

Oh well Brumbies / Jake has negotiated with Suntory that Smith stays for the remained of the Super Season whilst ARU hasnt appeared to do anything?
Now he's staying - what happens now;
if form warrants can he be picked?
or are there still loop wholes?

 

[Brumby Runner]

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.

By my reading, so long as a twelve month period had elapsed after signing the retirement document, the player would again be eligible if selected and the club would be obliged to release him.

 

[Braveheart81]

The NZRU selected SBW for the All Blacks knowing he'd only play a handful of tests. If Smith signed with the Brumbies for 2013 and ARU till the end of lions series, would anyone have an issue with that? Obviously he would need to end his current Suntory contract and have another ready to go post Lions series.

If Smith's Suntory contract was ceased and he signed with the ARU then absolutely no issues. That fits perfectly well with the current policy.

Oh well Brumbies / Jake has negotiated with Suntory that Smith stays for the remained of the Super Season whilst ARU hasnt appeared to do anything?
Now he's staying - what happens now;
if form warrants can he be picked?
or are there still loop wholes?

The ARU still needs to change their policy to make people with existing foreign contracts eligible to play for the Wallabies. The fact that Suntory have allowed him to stay in Australia during the June test series doesn't change the fact that the ARU would need to change their policy to select him.

In my opinion they shouldn't change their policy because I don't think they can legitimately make a one off exception for George Smith without it having more wide reaching consequences.

If they do allow him to play for the Wallabies as a non ARU contracted player, then they have the issue that more players will want to go and play in Japan with a Japanese contract saying they can play in Australia for a Super Rugby team between March and August and then based on the George Smith decision there would be an expectation that those players should be available for the Wallabies for part of the year.

The biggest danger in terms of Australian rugby losing players is not that they won't play Super Rugby at all. It's that they will play Super Rugby with an existing foreign contract and decide that getting paid $500k plus to play in Japan and still playing Super Rugby is a better option than being available for the Wallabies for half the year.

 

[Dave Beat]

The ARU still needs to change their policy to make people with existing foreign contracts eligible to play for the Wallabies. The fact that Suntory have allowed him to stay in Australia during the June test series doesn't change the fact that the ARU would need to change their policy to select him.

In my opinion they shouldn't change their policy because I don't think they can legitimately make a one off exception for George Smith without it having more wide reaching consequences.

Braveheart thanks for your response, and the detail you went into - Policy.
I'm in an industry that has strict policiy.
When there are mitigants things proceed outside of this policy without the need to change it.
The ARU policy, and the purpose it is in place serves a good purpose and I do think it should remain.

Mitigants;
Form.
110 tests.
Experience.
Team, Opposition, Referree respect.

How many players could state a case as strong as George?

 

[Braveheart81]

Braveheart thanks for your response, and the detail you went into - Policy.
I'm in an industry that has strict policiy.
When there are mitigants things proceed outside of this policy without the need to change it.
The ARU policy, and the purpose it is in place serves a good purpose and I do think it should remain.

Mitigants;
Form.
110 tests.
Experience.
Team, Opposition, Referree respect.

How many players could state a case as strong as George?

None could state a case as strong as George Smith.

The reality though is that we have Michael Hooper who on average was our best test player last year and Liam Gill who has been in incredible form this year.

The case for changing the ARU policy is more about providing a fairytale return to test rugby for George Smith than it is about digging the Wallabies out of a hole after the injury to Pocock. We have two excellent options available without the need to bring George Smith in.

I'm a big George Smith fan as well, but I feel like most of the impetus behind fans wanting to see him play for the Wallabies again is more about sentimentality than it is about the Wallabies being in a desperate position where we need him to play.

 

[ACT Crusader]

I must be naive. I read that as saying it has only just come to pass that he can even be here when the Tests are on. Which was the Brumbies' problem to sort, as they had the agreement with Suntory. So now, the ball has landed in the ARU's court, so they can have a hit, if they want.

Isn't it funny that when a fact comes to the surface like this, it puts some of the ill directed criticism of the ARU in perspective.

Perhaps the ARU knew all along of the restraints that were in place between Smith, Suntory and the Brumbies loan. Just a thought...

 

[BDA]

Wait I'm confused. the media seems to be reporting that he is now eligible and that Suntory have advised that they are happy for Smith to stay and play for the Brumbies as well as the Wallabies if they so choose to select him. Is this not the case? Is the media being a bit cute by not stating the policy which still stands in his way? Anyone care to explain this to me? I am a lay man when it comes to ARU rules and policies. Even from a lay mans point of view this seems like positive news for the Brumbies (and possilby the wallabies too?)

 

[suckerforred]

OK, my view -

My understanding of the 'ARU rule' is that for a player to be available to be selected for the Wallabies is that they must be playing rugby (no restriction on level) in Australia and NOT have a current and active contract with a foreign club or Union. You only have to be a registered player, you do not have to be contracted to the ARU to be available. So technically, yes Mr Timms, BarBar & all other people who run out this weekend in Clubland are available for selection for the Wallabies.

Smith - Retired in writing from international rugby in 2009/2010. He had to do this for the ARU to release him from his then contract with them which from memory still had a year to run. Certainly more then 12 months ago so he can now 'un-retire' if he wants to but he must do this in writing. The problem is that he has a current & active contract with Suntory which procludes him from being available for selection.

Now before you all howl Burgess, Elsom, Vickerman & Mitchell, European and Jananese contracts, run to the end of their season(s).

So in Burgess's case June, if Touluse make the Top14 final. After that he has every right, and I guess probably will be playing in some form in Australia, i.e. club rugby somewhere. To be available for selection he needs to be playing in / available to play in Australia, it does not have to be SupeRugby, and NOT have a current & active contract with a foreign club. Although it has not happened recently, players have been picked straight from clubland to play for the Wallabies. Not likely in the current professional world, but if it is to happen I guess Brugess may be one. Does anyone know if he has said club wise where he is going to play?

Elsom & Vickeram returned to Australia and did not have a current active contract with a foreign club. Technicalities I know. And from memory were available and did, play club rugby or SuperRugby (may have only been 40 mins or so), prior to selection.

Mitchell's contract does not start until 'later this year'. I am guessing the clause there will be 'when his current contractual obligations are finished', i.e. either after the international season at the end of this year or earlier if the ARU release him. Guessing the Tahs won't release him before the end of their involvement in SupeRugby.

Hewat - My understanding was that, yes the insurance for short term contract for the Brums last year was prohibitively expensive. He was not being considered for Wallaby selection. (However with our run on 10's last year.....) I would also hazzard a guess that his injury history is/was a whole lot more different from George. I really can't remember George having any significantly long term or cronic injuries. George just lucky I guess.

My personal views about the above -

Smith - I don't think that he should be elligible for Wallaby selection. He has a current contract with a foreign club, which he has stated that he is not going to break. Therefore I am sure he is fully aware that this makes him inelligible & it should stay this way.

Elsom & Vickerman - I was uneasy when these two were selected, particularly Vickerman. As stated before the substancial reason that they had not played in Australia prior to being selected was injury related rather that contracts or other availability questions. IMO, this alone should have restricted their selection. I have the same view about TPN & Palu.

Mitchell - legally his contract does not finish until 31/12/13 or until the ARU & Tahs agree to release him.

Burgess - As long as he is playing somewhere is Australia he is available. How do you make the call? You are going to have to look at his form in Europe. No other option.

Sorry 50 cents worth rather than 2 cents.

 

[suckerforred]

Just another comment about the Elsom situation. I believe it was his situation that brought about the tri-party contract system. He had signed a contract with the ARU but had not signed a contract with a SupeRugby franchise, so they were looking at a situation where he would be obligated to play in Australia by/for the ARU, but would have had to play in Clubland. This was before he signed with the Tahs.

This, and the views above, are of course my understanding of the situations. Happy to be proved wrong.

 

[Dave Beat]

The reality though is that we have Michael Hooper who on average was our best test player last year and Liam Gill who has been in incredible form this year.
I'm a big George Smith fan as well, but I feel like most of the impetus behind fans wanting to see him play for the Wallabies again is more about sentimentality than it is about the Wallabies being in a desperate position where we need him to play.

Having Smith involved in the squad will provide benifit to the whole team - even Pockock was of the same opinion prior to his injury.
Fairy tail ending yes - but if his form warrants it - why not as theres the extras;
he has the skill of hooper / gill / pockock combined.
then the experience factor.

 

[Jagman]

Long time reader, first time post.

Just a comment on what transpired with Vickerman. I believe his situation was a little different due to the fact he was not playing rugby overseas unless you count Cambridge university. Also Vickerman featured for Sydney Uni in both 2010 and 2011 as well as playing 20 minute cameo off the bench for the Tahs in 2011.

On the other side though I was under the impression that a World Cup year had different expectations than a normal year. For example a player is expected to play super rugby in the season leading up to the RWC, but in a normal year they are expected to have signed on to the following year if they want to play RC and EOYT. That at least was always my impression.

 

[Braveheart81]

Just another comment about the Elsom situation. I believe it was his situation that brought about the tri-party contract system. He had signed a contract with the ARU but had not signed a contract with a SupeRugby franchise, so they were looking at a situation where he would be obligated to play in Australia by/for the ARU, but would have had to play in Clubland. This was before he signed with the Tahs.

This, and the views above, are of course my understanding of the situations. Happy to be proved wrong.

The controversy with Elsom was that he played for Leinster in the 2009 Heineken Cup Final and then signed with the Brumbies and ARU for 2010 and 2011. He was then selected for the 2009 EOYT and was made Wallabies captain.

The only real controversy leading up to the 2011 RWC was that he was crocked for most of 2011.

 

[suckerforred]

Having Smith involved in the squad will provide benifit to the whole team - even Pockock was of the same opinion prior to his injury.
Fairy tail ending yes - but if his form warrants it - why not as theres the extras;
he has the skill of hooper / gill / pockock combined.
then the experience factor.

No doubt that he would benefit the squad. I hope, since he will be around, that he can benefit the squad with some coaching sessions & passing on his knowledge. I just don't want the ARU making exceptions for players when we a perfectly adequate candiates for selection. That is just a slap in the face for the guys who are here following the rules. Just my opinion.

 

[suckerforred]

The controversy with Elsom was that he played for Leinster in the 2009 Heineken Cup Final and then signed with the Brumbies and ARU for 2010 and 2011. He was then selected for the 2009 EOYT and was made Wallabies captain.

The only real controversy leading up to the 2011 RWC was that he was crocked for most of 2011.

Oh, yes, and I had an issue with that at the time, but I would say that his contract with Leinster had finished once the final had been played, therefore was no longer an impediant. His selection & captaincy is a whole other issue. Had he played any club between finishing in Ireland & being selected with the Wobs? I can't remember.

Also I was talking about at the end of 2011. He had a year to run on his ARU contract but no Super Franchise.

 

[Braveheart81]

Oh, yes, and I had an issue with that at the time, but I would say that his contract with Leinster had finished once the final had been played, therefore was no longer an impediant. His selection & captaincy is a whole other issue. Had he played any club between finishing in Ireland & being selected with the Wobs? I can't remember.

Also I was talking about at the end of 2011. He had a year to run on his ARU contract but no Super Franchise.

He hadn't played any rugby in Australia after his stint at Leinster, but he'd also just won the Heineken Cup and been player of the final and best player in Europe that year. After he'd re-signed with Australian rugby (and the Brumbies), why wouldn't you select him?

Whilst it was an unusual situation, surely the fact that he had a 2011 contract and was contracted to the ARU in 2012 made the fact that he didn't have a Super Rugby contract a bit meaningless. The situation is now reversed where you have to sign your Super Rugby contract before getting the ARU contract confirmed, but in that situation where we had more Wallabies on multiple year contracts, it could have easily happened more often that players were between Super Rugby contracts (i.e. still dealing with finding a new franchise or re-signing with the old franchise) and were still contracted to the ARU.

 

[Brumby Runner]

If Smith's Suntory contract was ceased and he signed with the ARU then absolutely no issues. That fits perfectly well with the current policy.




The ARU still needs to change their policy to make people with existing foreign contracts eligible to play for the Wallabies. The fact that Suntory have allowed him to stay in Australia during the June test series doesn't change the fact that the ARU would need to change their policy to select him.

In my opinion they shouldn't change their policy because I don't think they can legitimately make a one off exception for George Smith without it having more wide reaching consequences.

If they do allow him to play for the Wallabies as a non ARU contracted player, then they have the issue that more players will want to go and play in Japan with a Japanese contract saying they can play in Australia for a Super Rugby team between March and August and then based on the George Smith decision there would be an expectation that those players should be available for the Wallabies for part of the year.

The biggest danger in terms of Australian rugby losing players is not that they won't play Super Rugby at all. It's that they will play Super Rugby with an existing foreign contract and decide that getting paid $500k plus to play in Japan and still playing Super Rugby is a better option than being available for the Wallabies for half the year.

Is there really any problem with this? Other than it might offend some people's senses of rightousness (or fair play)?

 

[en_force_er]

Mitchell - legally his contract does not finish until 31/12/13 or until the ARU & Tahs agree to release him.

Some might remember JPaul starting his contract earlier than expected when he was unwanted in international rugby.

These kind of contracts are pretty flexible as to their starting time.

 

[ACT Crusader]

None could state a case as strong as George Smith.

The reality though is that we have Michael Hooper who on average was our best test player last year and Liam Gill who has been in incredible form this year.

The case for changing the ARU policy is more about providing a fairytale return to test rugby for George Smith than it is about digging the Wallabies out of a hole after the injury to Pocock. We have two excellent options available without the need to bring George Smith in.

I'm a big George Smith fan as well, but I feel like most of the impetus behind fans wanting to see him play for the Wallabies again is more about sentimentality than it is about the Wallabies being in a desperate position where we need him to play.

Good post Braveheart.

No doubt Smith has tremendous credibility in the bank and him playing well just adds to the mystique, but IMO this will essentially come down to a commercial decision for him ie big Japanese contract vs smaller short term contract, then going to negotiate another one thereafter etc.

 

[Bardon]

I don't know if Smith will play against us but he certainly should be in the mix. Any contractual stuff should be easy to sort out pretty quickly if Deans want him in his squad. The only reason for the contractual stuff to be an issue would be as an easy out for either Deans or someone at the ARU who didn't want him playing for whatever reason.

If he's in the squad I certainly don't think he'd be an automatic selection. Hooper did really well in the November internationals and he's forms improving as he settles in at the Tahs. The fact the Tahs form seems to be on a upward curve will help him too. Gill has had an excellent season so far and the Reds have had a much better start than last year. Smith has been excellent, but he was excellent in all those years he's been away from Aus rugby too, so I'm not surprised by that. He's a class act.

I think Australia would be very fortunate to have Smith, Gill and Hooper all pushing each other to perform better to win that starting spot. Although Hooper did so well no ones name is on the shirt, as might be the case had Pocock not got injured, so hopefully each of them has a genuine chance of getting the start and whoever makes it to the bench will be ready to make a real impact. Based on their current form and purely on a rugby basis (putting any contractual or political BS aside) I can see all 3 playing a big part over the 3 tests.