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

[Quick Hands]

I don't see what the major issue is.

The issue is that the ARU policy is clearly designed to protect the integrity of the super rugby competition, by ensuring that all Wallaby players are involved. It does this knowing that in some instances the best Australian player might not be eligible for selection because he is playing for a foreign club. All policies have pros and cons, but in this case the pros significantly outweigh the cons, so the policy should be supported. My support of Smith's consideration for selection (not necessarily selection) is based solely on the fact that he is an Australian who is currently plyaing for an Australian super rugby team. If players are not playing super rugby for an Australian team, then they shouldn't be selected for the Wallabies. Players know this when they sign with foreign clubs.

Sometimes enforcing sound policy means making hard decisions and sticking by the policy for the long term good. The Vickerman and Elsom examples should not have happened and Burgess should not play for the Wallabies this season unless he is playing super rugby for an Australian team.

In the case of Smith, if he has indeed notified the ARU in writing of his retirement from test rugby, then Suntory are not obliged to release him for test duty under the IRB regulations.

I am somewhat puzzled by the assertation that he hasn't got an ARU contract and therefore can't play. Surely he would have filled out an ARU registration form to be eligible to play rugby at any level and would thus be an ARU registered player?

 

[Bullrush]

I thought the reasons Elsom and Vickerman didn't end up playing was due to injuries.

If so, then the ARU system worked - if they were fit, they would have played - they had committed to playing in Australia. Why they got selected for the Wallabies without any form or much playing time is a different matter altogether.

The Burgess scenario also shows that the ARU rules work. Burgess is eligible for the Wallabies because he has committed to playing in Australia in the future. Again, whether he should be selected on form etc is totally different to whether he should be eligible.

To me, the rule is there because the ARU wants players to commit to Australian rugby - domestic and international. If the Wallaby jersey is held in high enough regard by Australian players, they will commit. George Smith used to be committed to AUstralian rugby but he isn't anymore so why should the ARU make an exception?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Errrr. You don't think that Smith's employer might just have some input to this?

See the regulation posted by Braveheart - they only get a say if Smith is prepared to make a declaration that he has retired from international rugby

 

[Quick Hands]

I
The Burgess scenario also shows that the ARU rules work. Burgess is eligible for the Wallabies because he has committed to playing in Australia in the future. Again, whether he should be selected on form etc is totally different to whether he should be eligible.

To me, the rule is there because the ARU wants players to commit to Australian rugby - domestic and international. If the Wallaby jersey is held in high enough regard by Australian players, they will commit. George Smith used to be committed to AUstralian rugby but he isn't anymore so why should the ARU make an exception?

How is playing for 3 years in France committing to Australian rugby? Assuming that he was selected, one would assume that this would be on the basis of his Top 14 form, how does this ilustrate that the policy is working?

Surely the policy is to protect the integrity of the super rugby competition? I imagine that TV rights would be a lot less if Wallaby players weren't obliged to play.

 

[Scoey]

Here's a question. Is George at the Brumbies as an Australian player or is he one of their imports?

 

[The Rant]

Errrr. You don't think that Smith's employer might just have some input to this?

- Errrr yes. That's the issue the ARU have to sort out right.

Should have taken Hodgson, who was probably the next best 7 at the time?

Agree

Next time you feel like quoting Eddie Eyebrows with approval, take the time to review his sensational farewell season as a coach of a local team. He managed to destroy the Reds, single-handedly, and it only took four or five matches. He is a dill, with absolutely no credibility as far as I am concerned.

I'm not an eddie fan mate by any means and this really isnt a comment about eddie. His point remains: Deans seems to have a record of mixing personal feelings into selections.

 

[Bullrush]

How is playing for 3 years in France committing to Australian rugby? Assuming that he was selected, one would assume that this would be on the basis of his Top 14 form, how does this ilustrate that the policy is working?

Surely the policy is to protect the integrity of the super rugby competition? I imagine that TV rights would be a lot less if Wallaby players weren't obliged to play.

He has committed to the Rebels next year has he not? He had to commit to Australian rugby to be eligible for the Wallabies so the policy is working. Is there any reason to think that the lure of playing for the Wallabies again didn't play some part in his decision to return to Australia? Or do you think Aussie players don't value the jersey that much? He cannot still be playing in France and play for the Wallabies - he has to have signed with the ARU - the policy is working.

Assuming he was selected, the issue then is whether he should be selected based on form etc - whether he is eligible is not an issue. If, due to a bizarre set of circumstances and injuries, the only choice for half-back was between Burgess and some guy playing Shute Shield who has never played Super Rugby, who would you pick? They are both eligible, the question is based on form, past experience etc. Everyone would pick Burgess on that criteria. So, who do you take over Burgess and say, Nick Phipps?? A lot of people probably think that Burgess' past performances, coupled with whatever form he showed in France, makes him a better selection that Phipps.

 

[terry j]

- Errrr yes. That's the issue the ARU have to sort out right.

(sorry)

just curious, who is your avatar pic?

 

[Gnostic]

(sorry)

just curious, who is your avatar pic?

I'll answer for the Rant - his avatar is 1991 RWC winner Marty Roebuck. Played 15 for the Wallabies winning 23 caps over 3 years.

 

[gel]

I am sure this some sort of Godwin's law thing on this forum and Quade Cooper. 5 pages is about it, I reckon.

Back on topic, I don't think that just because they supposedly broke the rules previously, that the ARU should continue to do so. The concept of only picking players playing here is sound and logical, and regardless of what they did in the past they should endeavour to stick by the rules now and in the future as much as possible.

I would prefer Smith to play the lions, but Hooper (as the incumbent) is a machine and will fill in extremely well. Gill is also performing at an extremely high level.

I just don't think that the situation is not dire enough to require the rules to be broken. There are players capable of filling in very well. (Last year at half back was another matter entirely.)

 

[Quick Hands]

He has committed to the Rebels next year has he not? He had to commit to Australian rugby to be eligible for the Wallabies so the policy is working. Is there any reason to think that the lure of playing for the Wallabies again didn't play some part in his decision to return to Australia? Or do you think Aussie players don't value the jersey that much? He cannot still be playing in France and play for the Wallabies - he has to have signed with the ARU - the policy is working.

.

We'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not the Burgess example shows that the policy is working. We clearly have opposed views.

I have no idea why he is returning to Australia, there could be any number of reasons which may or may not be personal to Luke. His stated reason is that it was time to return home and I take that as being the truth.

I don't generalise as to why players sign with foreign clubs or why they do or don't return to Australia. It's a free country and as professional athletes they have the right to live and play where they want. Similarly I make no value judgement about valuing the jersey or love of country or anything else, it's none of my business why private individuals make lifestyle choices. I fully support and endorse the right of players to move overseas to play rugby and I don't think any less of those who do go as against those who stay in Australia.

My view is that to play rugby for the Wallabies, you should be playing super rugby for an Australian team in that season. As far as I know, that is the intent of the ARU policy and it is a sound policy.

 

[Bullrush]

My view is that to play rugby for the Wallabies, you should be playing super rugby for an Australian team in that season. As far as I know, that is the intent of the ARU policy and it is a sound policy.

Why do you think this is the ARU's intent and why does it matter if he plays this season or next? I'd say that the ARU's intent is to have as many of the best Aussie players playing in Australia as possible.

Let's say that the ARU had said to Burgess - we'll contract you to play for the Rebels but you can't be eligible for the Wallabies until next season after you've played Super Rugby. Burgess gets an offer to play again in France and because he can't play for the Wallabies this year anyway and he doesn't know what will happen next year (injuries, form, up-coming stars etc) he thinks the risks aren't worth it and decides against signing with the ARU and hence, the Rebels. Genia and White go down with injuries (that could never happen right?!) and Nick Phipps is your starting HB with whoever else backing up.

How does that make any sense and how does that maintain Super Rugby integrity?

Instead, he commits to Australian Rugby this year because he probably realises that he has a shot of making the Wallaby squad and possibly the BIL team and the ARU get another good Australian back home, involved in the Rebels for next year and beyond (I don't know how long his contract is for) and possibly another decent 9 for Wallaby duty. The policy is working.

Players simply have to commit to Australian rugby - just because they aren't playing this Super Rugby season doesn't mean they're not committed. I was committed to my wife before I married her.

George Smith's situation is more like he's married to Santory with the Wallabies as his mistress who want him to leave his wife to settle down with them.

 

[Dave Beat]

I just would love to see him play for the Wobs again

 

[The Rant]

(sorry)

just curious, who is your avatar pic?

Marty Roebuck. '91 worldcup winning fullback and one of my heroes when I was first getting into rugby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Roebuck

 

[Sully]

I really can't see a problem here. The ARU have a clear policy in place. If he has an Australian contract he can play. If he doesn't sayonara. The ARU doesn't need to do anything. If Smith wants to play he'll make sure the paper work is done.
What has Smith done to make that happen?
The Brumbies, Suntory and Smith need to work this out. The ARU don't need to do anything and nor should they.
But I'm not going to have a hissy fit if they do.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Torn Hammy]

The ARU withdrew Cooper's contract because he wanted to play a stint in Japan. It would look a bit toxic if they let Smith play given their uncompromising stand towards Cooper.

Given that all three parties involved are showing zero interest in Smith playing, this all seems a bit of a media beat up.

 

[terry j]

thanks gnostic and rant

I thought it was him, looks both younger and smaller (pic) so had a slight doubt. I saw in the wiki that he is listed as a physio back then. It says 'was' but unless he has retired in the last year he should still be. Whenever I do my back in (or my knee..lots of reno's around here) I often get marty as my physio. Was weird, he has obviously aged since the photo so I was kinda 'do I know you?' then the penny dropped.

Did not feel confident to discuss rugby much sadly. And would rather not do my back in again to redeem myself haha.

 

[Paradox]

I just hope the ARU and Robbie have expressed interest in George playing. That has to happen first for Smith to sign with the ARU and drop his Suntory contract. Smith isn't going to end his lucrative contract on the chance he'll be selected. If he hasn't been approached then shame on the ARU and Deans because Oz will be stronger for his presence in the squad. It appears as though he hasn't even been sounded out which is poor IMO

 

[ACT Crusader]

I just hope the ARU and Robbie have expressed interest in George playing. That has to happen first for Smith to sign with the ARU and drop his Suntory contract. Smith isn't going to end his lucrative contract on the chance he'll be selected. If he hasn't been approached then shame on the ARU and Deans because Oz will be stronger for his presence in the squad. It appears as though he hasn't even been sounded out which is poor IMO

The ARU aren't going to put themselves out there on the risk he doesn't terminate his Suntory contract either IMO.

For them it's not just about George Smith, but they know a host of players and agents will be watching closely any movement either side.

 

[Paradox]

The ARU aren't going to put themselves out there on the risk he doesn't terminate his Suntory contract either IMO.

For them it's not just about George Smith, but they know a host of players and agents will be watching closely any movement either side.

I'm sure it could all happen behind closed doors. I just want him sounded out. Could have happened for all we know.