It’s all about rebuilding and renewal at Rugby Australia at the minute, but there’s an item that’s due for review that must be retained.
RA must keep the so-called Giteau Law – the rule stipulating that only those players who have played 60 or more Tests for the Wallabies and have served seven years in Super Rugby in Australia can be picked for the Wallabies from overseas clubs.
Michael Cheika ensured it was introduced so he could get Matt Giteau – as well as Drew Mitchell – back for the 2015 World Cup.
It’s copped a fair bit of flak over the years, including recently as fans digest the Aussies’ World Cup failure in Japan and plot ways to fix the mess of the last four years.
Dave Rennie is in as Wallabies coach – excellent recruitment – and Cameron Clyne is out as chairman in March.
A much more distressing loss is one of the Wallabies’ best, Samu Kerevi, who is now ineligible for international duty as he’s clocked up 33 Tests and is contracted to Suntory in Japan.
Earlier in the week, as Rennie was unveiled as the new coach, RA’s director of rugby Scott Johnson said Giteau’s Law would be appraised as part of a full review into the World Cup campaign.
It’s been noted that South Africa won the World Cup without any restrictions on picking overseas-based players, including Faf de Klerk, Cheslin Kolbe, Willie le Roux and Francois Louw.
It worked for the Boks, so RA should get with the times, right?
No.
Leave Giteau’s Law alone.
Of course it’s disappointing that Kerevi has taken off at the age of 26, with many good years ahead. He puts bums on seats at Ballymore for the Queensland Reds and is a class act in a gold jersey too.
(Photo by Lee Warren/Gallo Images/Getty Images)
Rory Arnold and Adam Coleman are two others heading overseas while well below the 60-Test threshold.
But abolishing Giteau’s Law is not part of the solution to spark up Australian rugby. Ensuring there’s still a huge drive for the best young talent to fight for a national jersey by proving their quality at Super Rugby level is crucial. The draw of Wallabies selection for home-bound players shouldn’t be underestimated.
Bear in mind, the rule helped convince Nic White, Matt Toomua, James O’Connor and Luke Jones to return from club stints overseas to chase World Cup selection.
There’s strong financial pull from Japan and Europe for young players to bank big bucks, but Test rugby – and the lure to pull on a Wallabies jersey – is still strong too. Rich clubs provide the bulk of a player’s salary but the appeal of Test rugby remains bright.
Australia doesn’t need players such as Jordan Petaia, Isi Naisarani, Reece Hodge, Taniela Tupou, Jack Dempsey, Rob Valetini, Liam Wright, Tate McDermott and Jack Maddocks darting off overseas at a young age, knowing they’re still in the frame for the national selection. Australian rugby needs them filling stadiums for their Super Rugby teams.
In reality, one would like to believe that any player would need to prove himself in Australia for at least two or three seasons before getting on the radar of Wallabies coaches anyway. It wouldn’t be enough for a youngster carving up at Saracens, Stade Francais or Suntory to be picked for the Wallabies unless he’s got a solid Super Rugby CV to go with it.
But it’s wise to make it black and white and have a clear policy in place. Perhaps if anything, there is scope to lighten the restriction of 60 Tests and seven seasons of Super Rugby, and reduce the limit closer to 40 Tests and four Super Rugby seasons.
Thankfully, it sounds as if Johnson isn’t a fan of ditching Giteau’s Law.
(Photo by Atsushi Tomura/Getty Images)
“The reality is, though, we’ve got a younger group of players that is going to come through that is going to help us change the landscape of Australian rugby so for the large part I’d like them here,” he said on Wednesday.
Whenever there’s failure, there’s demand for change. But Rugby Australia should realise Giteau’s Law has served a purpose and is a powerful factor for any player contemplating a move abroad.
Let’s look at a drop in the threshold as a compromise, but to follow the Springboks and drop the rule altogether isn’t the way to go.
CUW
Roar Rookie
JOC lost pace with constant knee injuries. but he has enuf pace for a center anyways its not as if aussy team picked anyone of real pace for world cup.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
This is only off the top of my head, but I believe it was based on retaining 5 teams. So the $50M was essentially to cover the cost of standard Force grants. The additional $20M was to compensate the SANZAAR partners to ensure they agreed to revising the revised agreement.
piru
Roar Rookie
I don't recall that figure at the time, but fine if that's what it was. The $50 mil plus covering losses would then seem to be a counter offer, wouldn't it? Regardless, we know they weren't going to change the decision for the simple fact that they legally couldn't.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
The senate enquire documents state that he was asked and said $70M. Somebody said that may be too much for even Forrest. I don’t know his motivations so it’s easily possible Forrest was completely sincere. But asking for what it will cost then offering less is a good way to get credit without actually having to deliver.
piru
Roar Rookie
If he was so hell bent on saving the Force why didn’t he come back and offer what was asked (obviously with it all conditions defined to avoid any issues)? What was asked, I recall the issue being that all this was kept secret and no one knew what it was going to take? He ageed to cover all the Force's losses from memory, along with the $50 mil donation to development (or whatever the exact conditions were). Rejected without counter offer, from memory (again) this is when they started talking about 'where was he before?'. You don't like the emotive arguments, and that's fine - I have a little more empathy for them for obvious reasons. I don't like history being rewritten
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Negotiation takes two parties. Forrest (or somebody on his behalf) asked what was required. A figure was given. He came back with something that didn't meet that. If he was so hell bent on saving the Force why didn't he come back and offer what was asked (obviously with it all conditions defined to avoid any issues)? Apparently he has so much money so will spend it on the Force.
piru
Roar Rookie
Would you ever agree to a deal like that? I'd negotiate - which was my point
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
They knocked back an offer to give $50m elsewhere, which they had no control or limited of, but would be required to spend that amount in standard grants. Would you ever agree to a deal like that?
piru
Roar Rookie
Well, they did though didn't they?
Perthstayer
Roar Rookie
Rennie, Twiggy, RC and Johnson are well intended and bright people. They will choose new paths to decipher what WA offers, not just on the park but to the Nation's rugby culture. Rugby is in better hands and their ability to sort Oz rugby off the park.will be apparent in the next 12-24 months. The wounds still hurt but trust is needed in the new leadership group. And I include RC in that given the burden of Cheika has been lifted.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
How is that semantics?
Perthstayer
Roar Rookie
TWAS applying semantics is a sure sign of a faltering counter argument.
Suzy Poison
Guest
Agree Aiden and disagree with Will. Scrap Giteau's law. No use supporting Super Rugby. It's a product on the slow decline. Super Rugby died once they lost the Force. In my not so humble opinion, Super rugby is now just a glorified series of New Zealand selection trial games. Radical opinion, I know, and I will upset some folks. But really watching the Crusaders beat everyone is fun for Crusaders supporters, and no one else. Watching the sunwolves lose is fun for no one. South Africa have turned their attention to the North. The Sharks are negotiating to join the Pro 14 in 2020/2021 season. The Stormers and Bulls are looking to follow. Money talks. Apparently SANZAR have some kind of contingency plan, should all the SA sides walk, involving the US. Who knows? De Kerk, Willie, Vermeulen, Frans Steyn, Vincent Koch, Franco Mostert and most importantly Rassie and Jacque Nienaber, improved as players and coaches from their stints in the North. South Africa tried and failed at their own version of Giteau's law. This strategy is a proven failure. Just because the Aussie Dollar is stronger than the Rand, doesn't mean the exact same result won't happen. It will just happen slower in Australia. The power of the Euro is a slow poison for the Wallaby setup. Oz need to find a way to work with the North, not fight it.
Chris
Guest
Great comment.
AndyS
Guest
No point even talking about the NRC in its current form. If they ever start taking it seriously and turn it over time into a real competition that actually does what it should, it could be considered. But even then, it would still be a better platform on which to place SR than a replacement for it. IMO if you had SR on back of a real professional domestic comp, most if the angst around SR (and probably the Wallabies) would start to fade away.
Simon_Sez
Roar Guru
Hi Will get rid of the Giteau Law and have no rules. Select the best eligible player from anywhere. No more multi million dollars contracts to individual players. Use the $60 million RA it spends on the Wallabies on Super Rugby to sign up all the young guys on stepped up long contracts and professionalise U18, U20 and Club rugby in Australia. There needs to growth from the grass roots if Australia is to stay in touch with the Tier One nations. See my recent article on the Roar.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Bold will have to warm up a new pie then, cos they’ve just eaten the last one :happy:
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
You’re right, the Boks have gutted their domestic comp. We will see how successful that is long term. Other thing to note is the very limited, forward orientated tight gameplan (which the Wallabies will not succeed with). Rassie has even said, from memory, that the players didn’t come from the right environments for a different game plan. And withdraw cups are unique in terms of how much training time coaches get with players. You’re just cherry picking one result, and ignoring wider results and context, to justify your preconceived position.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
Probably, yeah. But I’m not sure of your wider point?
soapit
Roar Guru
Well assuming the increase would happen and would continue, this increase from the Wallabies would take time to build and the decrease in Super rugby would be fairly quick. Not to mention I don’t think there a heap of revenue increase available in the Wallabies, they can only sell 10ish games a year and although we’ve been doing badly we’ve still been doing ok and I can’t see a few wins really being massively transformative I think there’s certainly enough cash on offer to take most of the Wallabies which is what would cause revenue from a domestic comp to dry up. It’s not like the young guys would just take up the cash the Wallabies freed up. Oz doesn’t have a hard core audience that will pay to watch no matter who is in the Jersey