Japanese Rugby Contracts vs English/French

 Can anyone explain why the Japanese are able to block players from representing their country in test internationals?

As I understand it, surely it is a breach of the IRB regulations to block players.

If someone is called up when playing in say France, as long as they want to play their club cant stop them.

Why they are the Japanese able to do this? What incentive or sanction do the Japanese have over their club players, that makes it prohibitive to represent their country during the international season. 

Surely this should be reported to the IRB.

If for example part of the players wages are deducted, or given a bonus for not playing it is  a breach of the international code?

 It's simple,  they don't get paid if they get injured when playing for any team but their club.  The players won't  risk injury,  so they make themselves unavailable for the Boks.

So thats the reason - thanks Dbd.

Back to the point then. They prefer the boodle to the Bok jersey and rightly so given the precarious nature of their profession. So LOGIC dictates we pick overseas players who are available if we need them. You cant beat this unless some finances can be found. Hence the soundness of Meyers position as against the shoot oursleves in the foot brigade saying only pick SA players. If its 50/50 pick the SA player.

Meyers logic just shines through.

 Ddraad, thanks for confiming that.

Although this does raise another question, why don't the English and French clubs have the same contract that only pays when not injured.

It makes economical sense for the club, I just wonder if this is a breach of the IRB regulations.

@sharkbok,
 

there is an IRB ruling which stipulates that clubs must release their players for international duties if called upon by their countries, but this only covers certain periods. for example, clubs must release their players for when the 6 nations & june test series are on, but for some reason when the IRC is on, clubs do not have to release players, thats why IRB gave argentina a speciall pass where clubs could not refuse puma players if requested.

very pro NH BS rule. bottom line should be very simple, if a nation needs players for their games, then they mus be given priority every single time.
lucky for NZ we dont have that problem, cos we dont select players based outside of NZ.

@sasuke- would it not make sense for French/English clubs to only pay when players are not injured? In this way, they players would make themselves not eligible for the boks.

It seems somewhat inhumane. What happens if a players gets injured at the start of a season, and gets ruled out for the remainder of the season.

Why are the Japanese the only clubs that do this, what is the motivation(i.e. to stop international players still representing their country and getting double pay?

-

At the Sharks we specialize in recruiting has beens at the end of their careers. Marius Joubert and Butch James spend most of their time injured but we just pay them anyway.

Sorry if I gave the impression that my comment was fact, it is a mixture of fact and my opinion. The kind of money some of these guys earn is staggering and I suspect that there's quite severe penalties when they get injured while not playing for their club.

In Hockey....Sorry. For you Southern Hemisphere guys; ICE Hockey. The owners of the pro teams pay insurance on the contracts of the players that go to play for their countries. It's expensive, but not as expensive as paying a guy 6 million a year to NOT play.

I actually think they even have insurance for all of the players just in case of long term injuries.