Ricky Stewart's Comments?

Question

In case people don't know, Ricky Stewart made some comments concerning the representative future of players moving overseas for bigger money. He basically said that Michael Crocker would never play rep footy as long as he is overseas.

If he made that comment concerning Crocker, then the same can be said for other players going to super league. Why is it that the NRL is the only sport in Australia where aussie players overseas do not get a chance to play for their contries? If what Stewart said was applied to all forms of sport, then we wouldn't be that competition in world sporting events. Would we really deny Harry Kewell to play for socceroos? Would we deny aussie basketballers to represent us in th Olympics? It is only the NRL that has an issue with this. I personally would like to see aussies playing overseas who are in form playing for Australia.

Answer 1

He is a wanker and always has been

Answer 2

Disagree with Ricky, his opinion is baseless, as nrl does not have a policy regading selection of overseas based players. However, highly likley nrl will blindly listen to him.

Answer 3

Exactly, Stuart is a wanker, what on Earth gives this idiot the right to decide who is eligible and whos not? If I were in that position, eligible and playing OS and NOT considered because of his remarks, i'd sue him and the NRL for restriction of trade, they are wankers!

Answer 4

It's the same for Union

Answer 5

i'm not a fan of stuart's but he has a point. if players leave the country they shouldn't be picked for any rep side. it's their choice to leave so they should forfeit the rite to play rep. think of the money the state sides or the arl would fork out to fly them half way round the world to play a game. there is plenty of players here in aust to choose from anyway and they would do just as will. give a **** that other countries,codes or sports do it.

Answer 6

I agree that Stewart's comments are ridiculous but the truth of the matter is that they are also false. The ARL along with QRL and NSWRL's who select the representative teams don't actually have an official rule that overseas based players are ineligble for selection. For some reason it's just the standard practice that domestic based players are preferred by the selectors. The only exception ever was Langer's return for Queensland.

The only sport that has an actual official ruling on this is actually Rugby Union which has the policy of only selecting players who are competing in the Super 14. If an Australian Union players goes elsewhere (Europe, Japan, etc) then they are ineligble for Wallabies selection.

It's an annoying situation in LEague that no official policy exists but from time to time the best team is not selected because Super League based players are overlooked. The Kiwi's select from both NRL and Super League based players so why don't we?

Answer 7

We;ve seen it before with our soccer players not being able to play for their country. If you are playing for a club overseas you have a contract with them , and they expect you to fullfill that obligation. Just like we all do at work.

If i am paying a player millions of dollars the last thing i want is my best player to miss out on club matches, to fly all the way back to Australia play a match, possibly get injured.

Yes it sucks that you cant play, but i'm sure if the players were in the off season they would be allowed to represent their country. Is there any problem in blooding new players anyway. The old blokes arent goin to be around for ever.

Answer 8

because we already have a great variety of players to chose from to fill in the positions and favoring someone who has stuck to our code is the right thing to do in my opinion.... we aren't reliant on any players in the NRL like we are in soccer... If they had the pick of the liter like we do they would do the same thing

Answer 9

No No No! This rule is the best rule you will find! It stops players leaving the NRL.

If you haven't realised the NRL is the premier competition in the world, not the international test matches. They are more important to players than playing against England. Think about it! There are 26 games + finals every year and how many test matches a year? Not many! Thats why that rule is in place, so that players stop deserting the NRL for bigger money, we want to keep our players here to keep our competition as exciting and hard as it always is.

CROCKER, is a grub anyway, who cares if he doesnt play for Australia again, he is absolute rubbish!!

Answer 10

ref Scouzer's comments. My understanding is that it is actually official policy not to select players for Aust, nsw or qld selection if at the time of the game, ie. test match or state of origin, that player is contracted to play in another competition ( ie Super League ). So in the case of Mick Crocker & Danny Buderis, they are eligble for state of origin selection tomorrow, cause at the time of the 3 rd origin game they are still playing in Aus under an NRL contract. But, neither will be eligle to play in the world cup cause for both at that point of time their NRL contracts will have expired and they will be under contract to Super league clubs.

Answer 11

The mercenaries (because that's what they are, chasing money) know the position taken by the national selectors when they sign these overseas contracts and are essentially turning their backs on their country.