Releasing of International Players

August 22, 2013
Posted by


Much have been said about the release of international players after an article was publish this morning on Toulon wanting Brian Habana being release from Springbok duty so that he will be available for his club.

To take out only certain bits and pieces of the IRB Regulation 9 are exactly what politicians like to do during election campaigns. We will be able to pull the regulation to pieces so that it suit anybody’s perspective on the issue at hand.

The plain and simple explanation of this is that any player that is selected for a National team in any age group must be released for international duty. Both club and national team benefits from this as the player adds value to both organisations by playing for his country’s national team. The Castle rugby Championship falls under the IRB tournaments as do the 6 Nations, British and Irish Tours and end of year tours.

A player can go back to his club when he is not selected for a match, 23 or injured. The national team can however release a player during a bye, but this is at the discression of the national team.

If you want to read the full 26 pages document on Regalation 9, you can download it http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf

Hope that clears up a few concerns

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to MySpace

18 Comments

  1. avatar bryce_in_oz says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 4:32 am

    The keywords above are ‘must’… the keywords in reality are ‘only if the player wants to’… as we have seen with FDP, when big money is involved it’s not all that simple…

    I’d rather have had FDP for every away game than home… and let a greenhorn in from the bench at home…

  2. avatar Mug Punters Organisation of South Africa says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 5:48 am

    @bryce_in_oz: like Samoa at RWC?

    HM is creating a nightmare precedent , we have FDP cameo and now if Habdonna does not get his way there will be unfair treatment of players mindset. If you give one player benefits and not others creates discords in the team.

    Blah blah consistency in selection…funny for part timers who only play games of their choice are viewed as consistent.

    Maybe we can have home and way teams like payer strips or maybe I don’t feel like it this week team?

    Hard decisions are now going to be made because of HM. Ok hard hat on…

  3. avatar biltongbek says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 7:48 am

    If people can’t see this is going to pose a problem and are happy with one off little performances here and there, then I don’t know.

    But it seems most south African supporters are fine with that.

    We can do a special report on Boots and all before every test match.

    “Guess who will make a guest appearance for this test”

  4. avatar Craven says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 7:58 am

    Well with the limited test window, and guys like du Preez only being released for limited games, is this really the road we want to travel down?

    We are creating a myriad of problems for ourselves here that can be dealt with off course, but do you really want to select your teams around different club schedules around the world with certain players being available for certain games but not others?

  5. avatar Jacques(Bunny) says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 8:07 am

    @Craven: I may be wrong but as I understand sit Fourie is a special case. If South Africa wants to select him, they can, but then they need to pay his Japanese club insurance money which I suspect is a shit load. They agree with his club only to use him therefore in the home games.

  6. avatar biltongbek says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 8:21 am

    @Jacques(Bunny): Jaques it is still a problem, because now there are complications and additional costs involved in selecting these players.

  7. avatar Jacques(Bunny) says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 8:27 am

    @biltongbek: Get you

  8. avatar JT_BOKBEFOK! says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 8:32 am

    @Jacques(Bunny):

    special cases are not allowed:
    9.4 Subject to Regulation 9.18, no Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club
    may require any payment or other benefit from or impose conditions
    relating to a Player’s participation in a National Representative Team
    and/or attendance at a National Squad session of his Union when such
    participation and/or attendance has been requested in accordance with the
    provisions of this Regulation 9.

  9. avatar Jacques(Bunny) says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 8:36 am

    @JT_BOKBEFOK!: JT I think as I understood it was something to do with his insurance if he get injured, like I said I am unsure but are trying to find out the true story.

    To believe the media is to believe Mugabe will allow England to invest in Zim.

  10. avatar biltongbek says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 8:42 am

    @JT_BOKBEFOK!: I also read that it had to do with the insurance cost.

  11. avatar JT_BOKBEFOK! says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 8:48 am

    @biltongbek:

    Still can’t be on the back of SA union – lets say Habana was Austrian and Austria select him for a RWC Qualifier and Toulon expects Austria to pay the insurance!? That is impossible for a union like Austria – Habs insurance is double the yearly budget of the Austrian union!

    hence this paragraph:
    9.4 Subject to Regulation 9.18, no Union, Association, Rugby Body or Club
    may require any payment or other benefit from or impose conditions
    relating to a Player’s participation in a National Representative Team
    and/or attendance at a National Squad session of his Union when such
    participation and/or attendance has been requested in accordance with the
    provisions of this Regulation 9.

  12. avatar biltongbek says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 8:51 am

    @JT_BOKBEFOK!: I realise that Bok, I will se if I can find the article that spoke about it.

    Whether they got it wrong I don’t know.

  13. avatar JT_BOKBEFOK! says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 8:56 am

    @biltongbek:

    maybe SARU sent Marinos over to Japan to negotiate :roll: :soek:

  14. avatar biltongbek says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 8:59 am

    @JT_BOKBEFOK!: Can’t find it, but I distinctly remember it was one of the obstacles in the negotiations.

  15. avatar JT_BOKBEFOK! says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 9:17 am

    @biltongbek:

    but that is my point – there should be NO negotiation – if a country selects a player that is NOT retired or injured they can not stand in the way of him playing for his country.

  16. avatar Jacques(Bunny) says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 9:18 am

    Weird but I got the answer, Most of the players in the Japanese league sign deals with the clubs in which they say they will not make themselves available for their country, which I believe they get then more money. This is the case with Fourie and Jacques Fourie.

    SARU can force the clubs to release the players if they want to be nasty and the clubs will have no choice in releasing these players.

    The reason SARU did not do it with Fourie is not to mess up the relationship for both player and them with the club.

    HM also decided only to use Fourie in the home games.

    So at the end clubs have no real say in this and can be force but it will have a bit of a sour taste I think for players and club relationship

  17. avatar Jacques(Bunny) says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 9:21 am

    @Jacques(Bunny): I heard this from a reliable source but have to come and kill you all if I told. :whistling:

  18. avatar biltongbek says:
    August 23rd, 2013 at 9:46 am

    @Jacques(Bunny): Better get my dusty bullet proof army vest out of storage then. :lust:

Switch to our mobile site