Should English players be punished for joining foreign clubs?

When it was announced a few weeks ago that three Wasps players were leaving to join French clubs, it didn't take long for a letter from the RFU to wing its way to England's elite training squad.

Players were informed that if - like Haskell and Flutey - they intended to sign for foreign clubs, they would be putting their chances of representing their country in jeopardy. The letter began logically, advising players to check the release dates in their contracts to ensure they would be available for England training.

It became more contentious, however, when it stated that Martin Johnson and his coaching team would not be travelling to watch any foreign club matches. It went on to put uncertainty and doubt into the minds of the players by informing them that if they were in competition with a player of the same standard contracted to a Premiership side, the man playing in England would get the nod.

So, while leaving it intentionally vague, the letter from the RFU does not state that players will not be picked for England by moving abroad (as this might raise unwanted legal issues), but creates enough fear for players like Haskell to seriously consider reversing their decisions.

He and Flutey must be wondering how on earth Johnson will judge whether the overseas players are in better form than their Premiership counterparts if they never come to watch them play. They will no doubt worry about being branded as "of the same standard" as other England-based players regardless of their form for their clubs on this basis, leading to their being overlooked.

You can understand where the RFU is coming from in its desire to keep the best of British on these shores. It is good for fans, the Premiership and upcoming England players to see their national team grinding it out for English clubs during the week, but should the game's governing body be allowed to hamstring players into staying here for the prime of their playing careers?

In other countries the authorities have been far stricter. The Australian Rugby Union (ARU) has a firm policy that foreign-based players cannot represent the Wallabies. Until very recently, they also banned their four Super-14 teams from fielding players who were ineligible for the Wallabies (they can now select two foreign players if they choose).

Perhaps the RFU should have been clearer with its letter, deciding whether players would or would not be picked if they went abroad. The benefit of a strict policy like the ARU's is that the choice, while perhaps not a desirable one, is at least left firmly in the player's hands.

The RFU's deliberately vague position means that players will be left in a world of uncertainty, hampering their chances of finding confidence and success if they do choose to go abroad.

Do you think that's fair?