Overseas Players - Eligible for theWallabies

[91jmay]

I don't think much of those other 10 options aside from Foley.

 

[FrenchFan]

This is great news for Australian rugby. Potentially Giteau will get a well-deserved recall. They have some much talent out of the country now. This policy of not picking players overseas was so daft.

Clive Woodward wants to see an end to the overseas selection policy as well http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3051028/Stuart-Lancaster-pick-Exiles-England-Australia-drop-ridiculous-overseas-selection-policy.html

"Congratulations to Australia for seeing sense and dropping the ridiculous policy of not selecting their best players if they are playing overseas.

It leaves England looking old-fashioned and they need to react. Stuart Lancaster must be free to pick his best players, no matter where in the world they ply their trade."

I bet England will follow suit so will NZ...

 

[Car]

There used to be similar rules in some countries for association football way back when and they ultimately were scratched.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

No one listens to SCW now not even SCW

 

[Five Meters Out]

Clive Woodward wants to see an end to the overseas selection policy as well http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3051028/Stuart-Lancaster-pick-Exiles-England-Australia-drop-ridiculous-overseas-selection-policy.html

"Congratulations to Australia for seeing sense and dropping the ridiculous policy of not selecting their best players if they are playing overseas.

It leaves England looking old-fashioned and they need to react. Stuart Lancaster must be free to pick his best players, no matter where in the world they ply their trade."

I bet England will follow suit so will NZ...

NZ will be in no hurry to follow Australia. The players who have gone, or are going, are generally past their best or unproven.
However Charles Piatau $$$ is the very large exception. If more of his age, experience and ability head overseas, then the NZRU will be forced to act.
Having said that, Piatau has not played 60 tests so under the Aussie model he would not be invited back.

 

[nickdnz]

New Zealand rugby aren't going to change their position. Funny you have a lot of posters who seem to have very little understanding of how domestic rugby is run in the SH, becoming spurious experts on what they have to do. Clearly the current selection policy for the All Blacks isn't hindering them too greatly.

The reality is that even if we lose players like Piatau, he's not at all irreplaceable. We have so many tiers of rugby that when one drops another will come in, however that system would seriously suffer if we start selecting players from overseas. The decision not to select overseas based players from England is simply one of the more clever decisions they have made in a long time. So England can't select Armitage - how many countless other English players are now playing for English teams on the back of that policy? Is selecting one player for an international team worth losing 20 to domestic rugby? No, it's idiotic.

The reality is that Australia was always negotiating from weakness, and they obviously predicted that the draw of playing for a Australian Super Rugby side and the Wallabies wasn't enough to retain players. Fair enough, it's a poorly run Union truth be told. However the All Blacks can take those occasional losses on the chin, we have more than enough depth to survive without players leaving. Our sabbaticals already allow for a certain amount of give-way for our best players.

 

[TRF_heineken]

New Zealand rugby aren't going to change their position. Funny you have a lot of posters who seem to have very little understanding of how domestic rugby is run in the SH, becoming spurious experts on what they have to do. Clearly the current selection policy for the All Blacks isn't hindering them too greatly.

The reality is that even if we lose players like Piatau, he's not at all irreplaceable. We have so many tiers of rugby that when one drops another will come in, however that system would seriously suffer if we start selecting players from overseas. The decision not to select overseas based players from England is simply one of the more clever decisions they have made in a long time. So England can't select Armitage - how many countless other English players are now playing for English teams on the back of that policy? Is selecting one player for an international team worth losing 20 to domestic rugby? No, it's idiotic.

The reality is that Australia was always negotiating from weakness, and they obviously predicted that the draw of playing for a Australian Super Rugby side and the Wallabies wasn't enough to retain players. Fair enough, it's a poorly run Union truth be told. However the All Blacks can take those occasional losses on the chin, we have more than enough depth to survive without players leaving. Our sabbaticals already allow for a certain amount of give-way for our best players.

This!

Australia uses these sort of announcements to cloud over other more serious questions and problems that Australian Rugby are facing. They try to salvage hope in the little fanbase by implementing this silly rule to get guys who are very close to retirement, to have one last hurrah in the yellow jumper.

I haven't seen one post on this forum all week about the fact that Di Patston is taking the ARU to labour court over the whole Beale-gate scandal. And also what about the poor performance of the Aussie Super Rugby teams in the Super 15. This announcement is also a way to polish a turd in that the Super Rugby teams in Oz are now getting more and more non-aussie players to play for them.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Following from this Tom Wood has urged the RFU to uphold it's policy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...ayers-to-represent-England.html#disqus_thread

Yeh Wood will be under pressure from Armitage but having 2 players speak out already is something.

 

[barkinghooker]

SCW used Wilkinson as an example. Does anyone agree with that ? I know England were a bit edgy but I don't feel Wilkinson was better for England when he moved to France . My memories of the world cup was he was past his best for England . I remember that game with Italy with the monster tackle in the last minute but was he playing in France then ?

I hope it works out alright for the Wallabies.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

The ARU have unveiled the latest weapon in their arsenal to turn back the tide of the Wallabies exodus to cashed-up clubs in Europe and Japan in the form of an updated foreign selection policy.

The landmark ruling states that: "Effective immediately, overseas-based players will now be eligible for Qantas Wallabies selection if they have played more than 60 Tests for Australia and have held a professional contract with Australian Rugby for at least seven years.

Pulver added that: "players returning to Australia from overseas who make a two-year commitment to an Australian Super Rugby Club will also be eligible to represent the Qantas Wallabies."

The full press release can be found here: http://ausrug.by/1yQQpjV

In adddition to this, Australian Rugby CEO Bill Pulver has brought about the implementation of so called 'flexible' contracts – the first of which have been offered to Bernard Foley, Ben McCalman and Israel Folau.

More information about flexible contracts can be found here: http://bit.ly/1GiljnH

Former Wallabies George Smith, Matt Giteau and Drew Mitchell will wake in France tomorrow eligible to reclaim their Wallaby mantle at the Rugby World Cup.

However, with a four-test Rugby Championship and the four-match Pool Stage of the Rugby World Cup the only guaranteed Wallabies tests for 2015, time is fast running out for the players yet to depart Australian shores to maintain their qualification prospects in the future.

Provided the Wallabies reach the World Cup Semi-Finals – ensuring 11 test matches for 2015 – nine top line players will become eligible for the Wallabies regardless where they play their Rugby.

Current qualifiers based overseas

George Smith (111 caps, Australian Contract from 2000-'10 + 2013 – 12 years)
Matt Giteau (92 caps , Australian Contract from 2001-'11 – 11 years)
Drew Mitchell (63 caps, Australian Contract from 2004-'13 – 10 years)

Current qualifiers based locally
Adam Ashley-Cooper (104 caps, Australian Contract since 2004 – 12 years)
Stephen Moore (92 caps, Australian Contract since 2003 -13 years)
Ben Alexander (72 caps, Australian Contract since 2008 -8 years)
Benn Robinson (72 caps, Australian Contract since 2006 – 10 years)

Potential qualifiers based overseas in 2016
James Horwill (58 caps, Australian Contract since 2006 – 10 years)
Will Genia (58 caps, Australian Contract since 2007 -9 years)
Wycliff Palu (54, Australian Contract since 2005 – 11 years)
Quade Cooper (53 caps, Australian Contract since 2007 -9 years)
Sekope Kepu (52 caps, Australian Contract since 2007 – 8 years)

Non-qualifiers based overseas in 2016
Berrick Barnes (51 caps, Australian Contract from 2006-'13 – 8 years)
Digby Ioane (35 caps, Australian Contract from 2006-'13 – 8 years)
Scott Higginbotham (31 caps, Australian Contract from 2007-'15 – 9 years)
Hugh McMeniman (22 caps, Australian Contract from 2006-'09 + '13-'14 – 7 years)
Nick White (19 caps, Australian Contract from 2011-'15 – 5 years)
Ben Mowen (15 caps, Australian Contract from 2006-'14 – 9 years)
Salesi Ma'afu (14 caps, Australian Contract from 2007-'13 – 7 years)
Peter Betham (2 caps, Australian Contract from 2008-'15 – 8 years)
Peter Kimlin (2 caps, Australian Contract from 2007-'13 – 7 years)
Kane Douglas (14 caps, Australian Contract from 2010-'14 – 5 years)
Paul Alo'Emile (0 caps, Australian Contract from 2011-'15 – 5 years)

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/wallabies-exodus-aru-unveil-latest-weapon-in-wallaby-retention/

The ARU did not have much choice really.

 

[j'nuh]

Yeah, I think the ARU have made the best of the situation handed to them.

The 60-cap, 7-year policy gives younger players an incentive to stay around in Australia for the long-term before cashing out in Europe, whilst it also allows them to pick those experienced players who do go overseas. Few players will hit that landmark, so it isn't like you're opening the floodgates.

 

[Gavin]

The only real person I can see getting back is Giteau and he deserves it. 92 caps and was still a young man when he was dropped. Think of the amount of caps he could have won by now.

 

[The big Kangaroo]

This!

Australia uses these sort of announcements to cloud over other more serious questions and problems that Australian Rugby are facing. They try to salvage hope in the little fanbase by implementing this silly rule to get guys who are very close to retirement, to have one last hurrah in the yellow jumper.

I haven't seen one post on this forum all week about the fact that Di Patston is taking the ARU to labour court over the whole Beale-gate scandal. And also what about the poor performance of the Aussie Super Rugby teams in the Super 15. This announcement is also a way to polish a turd in that the Super Rugby teams in Oz are now getting more and more non-aussie players to play for them.

I think your are missing the point the rule change was not made for Matt Giteau to play for the wallabies, it was made so future players who are leaving in the next few years can . Coming from an Aussie I have not herd anything about Di patson suing the aru and I dont see how it is a bigger issue than top players leaving. pretty harsh comments considering ACT and NSW will both play finals imo

 

[Horacito]

I never got why this had to be like that: Brock James never even got the chance to try his luck and wear the golden shirt, and it's a shame.

Now he is too old and doesn't fulfill the requirements to do so. Could he play for France? Damn, he has more reasons to do it than most naturalized players I've seen in some national teams.

Brock James fan, Team Brocke James.

 

[Jaguares]

Brock James hahahahahahahaha

Is it a f*cking joke????? Aussies aren't interested in him

I think this is very positive for Wobs

AAC said:

“I certainly wasn’t expecting for any of those rules to change, but I see it as a great reward for guys who have given either seven years or 60 caps of service to the Australian Rugby Union.

“In the end, I think you’ll see that it will actually retain young players and give them that incentive to reach that criteria and give them an option later on in their career.

“It’s a win-win for the player that’s reached that goal and also for the ARU that’s going to be able to conserve a little bit of money to put into the youth of Australian rugby.â€

I think like him. The ARU will have more money to develop young players, not having to pay wages to top class players and in cases of too many injuries they will have top class backups from Europe.

Besides this will grow the Kiwis exodus in Europe, because top class Wallabies can be called although they are in Europe. Then increase the interest for the Kiwis, because they are the only who are available 100% for European clubs

 

[Shaggy]

Clive Woodward wants to see an end to the overseas selection policy as well http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...rop-ridiculous-overseas-selection-policy.html

"Congratulations to Australia for seeing sense and dropping the ridiculous policy of not selecting their best players if they are playing overseas.

It leaves England looking old-fashioned and they need to react. Stuart Lancaster must be free to pick his best players, no matter where in the world they ply their trade."

I bet England will follow suit so will NZ...

Not a chance, there's no way the NZRU is going to play second fiddle to the overseas clubs, when it comes to the demand for their players

If players play in NZ, the NZRU has control over the number of games players play, and their player development.

...it's also debatable whether those players playing overseas, are still the "best available" after the heavy playing schedule that they have at overseas clubs.

The day that the overseas clubs start paying the NZRU for these players, might see a change in policy, but I can't see it happening otherwise

 

[MotherRucker1]

Could be interesting, and I think it could make a positive difference having three .. maybe four really good players back in the mix. But I'm also a little old school, I believe the bulk of the team should be playing in a uniformed manner. It's all very well doing nicely in the northern hemisphere, but when you back to this part of the world it can be a different story, let alone at International level.

I've said in a few different threads that I think other things need to happen, such as each state in Australia having a uniformed physical conditioning scheme. Their major problem, especially under Deans, was failing to close winable games out in the last few minutes of the second half.

The other thing I've noticed is, a lot of these changes suggested we'll see seem to bolster the backline. Is that really what Aussie rugby needs? Imo they need some world class forwards. If they get a respectable scrummaging prop, a couple of bruising locks back then that might help.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think your are missing the point the rule change was not made for Matt Giteau to play for the wallabies, it was made so future players who are leaving in the next few years can . Coming from an Aussie I have not herd anything about Di patson suing the aru and I dont see how it is a bigger issue than top players leaving. pretty harsh comments considering ACT and NSW will both play finals imo

Here's the links about Patston:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/aru-hit-with-subpoenas-as-di-patston-case-continues-20150421-1mpr8h.html?skin=text-only
http://mobi.supersport.com/rugby/super-rugby/news/150421/SuperWrap_Week_10_2015 - Read the "To Di for" part.

And I get the point of this law change. But at the moment there's only a handful of players that become eligible under this rule change. So my and many others' assumption that only Giteau will benefit from this right now, is pretty much spot on...

 

[MotherRucker1]

The Di Patson thing is important imo, because something weird is going on with the whole team ethos and culture inside the Wallabies camp, and this is just one example out of many over the past few years. From outside perspective it seems like there is a "players know best" mentality; think Giteau and his arguments + childish behavior when Deans was around, the whole Beale thing sending inappropriate texts to Patson, the senior players telling Beale who was originally stood down from training to "come along anyway" despite what management said. The late-night drinking on rugby tours to an unreasonable extent (usually the same culprits). It goes on.

It was a bit of a senior players club even in Larkham and Gregan's day from memory. Then you had the Warratahs butt heads with McKenzie in NSW towards 2008, despite making the final. To be fair Australia hasn't always had the best administrative or coaching management, but the players don't help themselves by having a lack of regard for authority and maintaining this ill discipline.

 

[smartcooky]

Not a chance, there's no way the NZRU is going to play second fiddle to the overseas clubs, when it comes to the demand for their players

If players play in NZ, the NZRU has control over the number of games players play, and their player development.

...it's also debatable whether those players playing overseas, are still the "best available" after the heavy playing schedule that they have at overseas clubs.

The day that the overseas clubs start paying the NZRU for these players, might see a change in policy, but I can't see it happening otherwise

Shaggy

Anyone who thinks the NZRU will just follow suit does not understand the complexity of the situation. In the earlier thread about Wallabie being selkected from overseas, I wrote a summary of an article I wrote for a magazine a couple of years back.

http://www.therugbyforum.com/thread...Based-Overseas?p=719546&viewfull=1#post719546

Its a long post but this is not a subject that can be addressed with byte-sized forum posts. Most people just think its all about player drain, but in reality, it is a whole lot more complicated than that.