Play nzherald.co.nz's rugby Pick the Score competition - go to: pickthescore.nzherald.co.nz
KEY POINTS:
Supposedly Dan Carter's injury has disastrous ramifications for the New Zealand Rugby Union.
The NZRU should feel suitably remorseful their ingenious 'Carter Clause' was no such thing, that they sanctioned a needless risk and are paying the price. Really?
It's more like this whole episode couldn't have worked out more neatly for the NZRU. It's not that anyone wanted to see Carter injured or to lose him for some of the Tri Nations.
But the NZRU want to deter other big-name players from taking playing sabbaticals and Carter's ruptured
Achilles can help strengthen their case against European sojourns.
Whatever the NZRU say about their desire to offer leading players flexible contracts, Carter was always a special case. What was good for that particular goose was not going to be deemed good for the gander.
For the past four years the NZRU - through the belligerence of All Black coach Graham Henry - have put welfare near the top of their agenda.
They warned repeatedly of the dangers of individuals playing too much and have pushed to extend the off-season. And yet, in letting Carter go to Perpignan a week after he had played at Twickenham for the All Blacks, they sanctioned him having no off-season as he tried to make it through 18 months of top-level football.
It wasn't that the NZRU were oblivious to the risks, they simply weighed up the cost of letting him go against not letting him go and decided the former was a smarter move.
If Carter hadn't gone to Perpignan in December for six months, he would have gone there, or to another overseas club, for two years with no guarantee of coming back.
There was always a chance Carter would be injured but as long as he's restored to form later this year, the NZRU will live with that.
But they are not so keen to see other players granted the same leeway. Playing 18 months without a break is not advisable and while there is no empirical data proving it increases the likelihood of injury, common sense, and indeed Carter's presence on the operating table, says it does.
The tricky part is that the NZRU said yes to Carter and don't really want to say yes to anyone else. Ali Williams, Tony Woodcock, Mils Muliaina and Rodney So'oialo are all coming off contract at the end of this year.
The latter two have endured major workloads in the past five years. They were rarely rested during rotation. As they approach 30, the NZRU's extended contracts offer paid leave to rest and recover.
Non-playing sabbaticals are very much the NZRU's preference.
"Yes, I think that is probably fair," says chief executive Steve Tew, "but we will continue to treat each player on a case-by-case basis. A couple of senior players coming off contract have played a lot of rugby in the last six years and we believe they would benefit from some time off if they were to commit to New Zealand. But we will still consider all options."
Neither Muliaina nor So'oialo are likely to put up much of a fight as time off appeals to them. The same is thought to be true of Woodcock who will still be well placed to head offshore after the 2011 World Cup should he extend his contract this year.
Williams might be harder to convince. He'll turn 28 this year, still relatively young for a lock. A short-term contract in Europe next year would sort out his bank balance, give him new challenges and let him return to New Zealand in time to play a full role in the All Blacks' test programme.
The danger, though, is that he's already plagued by niggling injuries. He's starting to feel the hits more than he used to and a European sabbatical could do untold damage. Not in the sense that he might suffer a one-off injury, more that it would see compound fatigue build-up and potentially see him lose much of his mobility and athleticism.
Certainly, the only other player to have the offshore sabbatical option in his contract already, Richie McCaw, has his concerns about the effects of so much football.
"I would definitely be worried about playing for so long without a break," says the All Black skipper.
"I found 12 months was hard enough and it will be interesting to hear from Dan how he found carrying on playing after the end-of-year tour. I would be interested to know if his injury was a one-off incident or whether he felt it was something that built up as a result of playing and training for so long."
The NZRU can now use the example of Carter as a deterrent. They can backtrack as much as they like - they have Carter contracted until 2011 which is all they ever wanted.
And as much as they would rather have the world's best No 10 fit and available for the Tri Nations, Carter's injury will allow Stephen Donald an extended run to assess whether he really is the right back-up.
With the public so set against rotation, Donald's opportunities in the really big games will be minimal when Carter is fit.
So far from being a disaster, Carter's situation has given the NZRU an escape route from a precedent they were reluctant to set.
