Thundercat
Frank Row (1)
Agreed completely with the idea that his test level experience is invaluable and simply having him in the squad is a no brainer. I would still agree even if he was not in the top form that he is now
George Smith - Will / Should He Play Against The Lions?
- Thread starter jay-c
- Start date
- Status
The Red Baron
Chilla Wilson (44)
Hedging your bets eh? The first part of that bolded paragraph precisely echos my argument. But I really don't think you feel that way, considering the position you have been arguing from.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
No what you'll get is players going overseas to make bigger money for a couple of years and coming back maybe 12 months out from the RWC signing with the ARU. If they are an Elsom or Vickerman they will be signed to the ARU if they haven't got a Provincial contract and nobody appears to want them or they haven't played professional rugby at all for two years and have serious fitness issues. But all that is OK because they are special.
Consider that Super sides will lose a hell of a lot of flexibility in contracting as they push for longer contracts from players they know will be in demand OS. Those players are likely to go play for a year or two and then come back just in time for the RWC.
I can certainly see players of the standing of JOC (James O'Connor), Pocock, Palu etc being able to do just that.
That has been my objection to the sophistry of the ARU process. If the ARU really wants to protect Australian Rugby the eligible players must be contracted to play super Rugby in the calendar year they are to represent the Wallabies. If they do that they can play any or all of the tests they are selected for.
The current "system" they have has been abused by them for their own purposes and I can see why Smith and those supporting his bid would think he should be able to come back in and play as well. Do I think he should be able to play for the Wallabies, now that he has signed a full term contract with the Brumbies for the whole season, yes. He certainly given more to Australian Rugby in 2013 than Elsom and Vickerman did in the respective years they were selected to play.
Consider that Super sides will lose a hell of a lot of flexibility in contracting as they push for longer contracts from players they know will be in demand OS. Those players are likely to go play for a year or two and then come back just in time for the RWC.
I can certainly see players of the standing of JOC (James O'Connor), Pocock, Palu etc being able to do just that.
That has been my objection to the sophistry of the ARU process. If the ARU really wants to protect Australian Rugby the eligible players must be contracted to play super Rugby in the calendar year they are to represent the Wallabies. If they do that they can play any or all of the tests they are selected for.
The current "system" they have has been abused by them for their own purposes and I can see why Smith and those supporting his bid would think he should be able to come back in and play as well. Do I think he should be able to play for the Wallabies, now that he has signed a full term contract with the Brumbies for the whole season, yes. He certainly given more to Australian Rugby in 2013 than Elsom and Vickerman did in the respective years they were selected to play.
I was really just laying out the two options that I saw as viable. Either you go down the line of the European countries or South Africa and make everyone eligible or you restrict it to ARU contracted players.
I absolutely think the status quo should be maintained and that all Wallaby eligible people are signed with the ARU and playing rugby in Australia.
I have no problems with that eligibility being able to start part way through the year as is the case for players returning to Australia.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Its funny, I have been reflecting on history a bit this week and I can recall quite clearly the same arguments being made about protecting Australian Rugby in 80's and early 90s about players like Campese, Ella, Fitzsimons et al playing Club Rugby (and shall we say working 
) in Italy and France and coming back to play with the Wallabies.
Maybe if the ARU hadn't been asleep at the wheel they would have come up with a fully wrought system that left no ambiguities, and regardless of the views of some those ambiguities are what has led to the current situation and the strong possibilities of players doing the NH hop in the interim between RWC.
) in Italy and France and coming back to play with the Wallabies.Maybe if the ARU hadn't been asleep at the wheel they would have come up with a fully wrought system that left no ambiguities, and regardless of the views of some those ambiguities are what has led to the current situation and the strong possibilities of players doing the NH hop in the interim between RWC.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
People arguing against the inclusion of George are arguing based on a ridiculous technicality.
Somehow Drew Mitchell should be eligible but Smith shouldn't? If the player has just played a Super 15 season they should be eligible. Jake White gave a fairly good indication that he could be available for the Wallabies too if we so desire.
Somehow Drew Mitchell should be eligible but Smith shouldn't? If the player has just played a Super 15 season they should be eligible. Jake White gave a fairly good indication that he could be available for the Wallabies too if we so desire.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
Yep. Why should Australian rugby shoot itself in the foot?
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
I have to agree with Jake White on this one. Deans would be mad(that is for another thread) not to bring him into the fold.
Start him at 7 with Hooper or Gill on the bench with MMM.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...-and-irish-lions/story-e6frf4qu-1226623793778
Start him at 7 with Hooper or Gill on the bench with MMM.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...-and-irish-lions/story-e6frf4qu-1226623793778
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
again?
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Like again,
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
You seem to be placing all your emphasis on "existing foreign contract", when surely the issue is whether or not the player is playing super rugby in Australia in the current season. You talk of floodgates being opened, but you seem to think it's ok for Burgess to go and earn good money in France and then come straight back and be selected for the Wallabies without playing a minute of super rugby for 3 years. Isn't this a more dangerous precedent that the Smith example? The French season is twice the length of the Japanese and is far more attractive for Australian players on the available evidence.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Ditto - it is called an exemption to policy. Good mitigants, and good reasons support him wearing the gold jersey again.
The policy in place is good - his form created the thought, and how many players could state a case as strong as Smith, that'll own what he will add to the playing group.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Players that have played in AUS for the past 10 years ie Drew Mitchell but who are leaving, most certainly should be eligible to play if selected. This is an entirely different proposition to selecting a player who is simply 'on-loan' from and overseas club for a short stint in the year one of the biggest tours is on. It is amazing that some can't see the difference!
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?!?!
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?!?!
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
He could try, however Giteau is not a worthy exemption to policy (in my bias eyes anyway).
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Yes there are reasons you could grant and exemption. But the reasons you wouldn't still outweigh the perceived benefits. We simply don't need him that badly that we should set such a dangerous precedent. Take the rose coloured glasses off for one second and you'll see that.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
That is precisely the point. What makes one worthy is as subjective an assessment as you could make.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Scoey, one of the joys with this game is we can wear these glasses and share our thoughts - I'd like him there.
In the same way I'd have Cooper as one of my first chosen, how he delivered toxic last year - yeah there could have been better ways however I think he was is 100% correct.
Saturday night - MOM George Smith, & Reds by 10.
Scoey, yeah I'm talking up George and think shit the Deans game plan made Cooper look crap, hope he doesnt wreck a magnificent career for George.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
But the absence of either Gill or Hooper to injury before or during the Lions tests would be an unavoidable crisis if the ARU does the right thing and settles the eligibility question asap. It would then be up to Deans and selectors as to whether George plays or not if all are available.
This is one side of the problem that the ARU will potentially create if they adjust the policy and let George Smith play.
The other side is that current Wallabies will decide that it is worth not going on the EOYT so they can play the majority of the season in Japan. By missing four tests each year, our top players could earn an extra $500k-$800k without any dramas by going to Japan.
If some of our best players like Genia, JOC (James O'Connor), Pocock, Ioane etc. decide that there is extra money that can be earned and demand that they're given that sort of flexibility by the ARU, it will be difficult for the ARU to deny them if they set the precedent by letting George Smith play against the Lions.
If Australian rugby was in a desperate position for players then I think the argument to let George Smith play would be a stronger one. We just aren't in that position though. Changing the rules for one person will invariably lead to it happening for more people. The ARU is still subject to employment laws and whilst they can set their rules like they currently have, if they break that rule for one person, another person can potentially make a claim of restraint of trade if they don't allow them to do something similar.
- Status