another concerning issue for the WRU over Steven shingler

First topic message reminder :


All, I've split a lot of the Shingler debate off the Scottish squad thread and merged it into this one. Unfortunately the board software puts the oldest post as the thread OP, so welsh-matfield's original OP is buried a ways down now. Hence I've quoted his OP post below:

welsh-matfield wrote:
another concerning issue for the WRU over Steven shingler
by welsh-matfield Yesterday at 15:18


Over the past six months Wales have lost three young players under the age of 22 to Ireland and Scotland respectively with James loxton, Matthew Jarvis and now Steven Shingler pledging there international loyaltly elsewhere. why it was only a couple of months ago steven shingler was stating his desire to break into the welsh squad http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15773032.stm. this is a concerning issue, especially as wales pool of depth is often so small and although the acadamies are thriving other nations seem to be taking advantage of this fact

Below here is my original post on the Scottish squad thread

rugbydreamer wrote:He played for the U20's Wales team in the 6N's last year. Now I always get confused with Welsh Qualification, but doesn't that mean he's WQ and can't play for anyone else?

Does anyone know if Wales are still designating the U20s as their "A" side?

Actually, from memory after the Connacht pair's eligilbity debate last year, wan't it decided that "A" games had to be against other country's "A" or full international side to count? I could be totally wrong though

English or half English father perhaps?

Surely the point is that it is unfair of some countries to tie players to their national team at age 19 (or younger) just because they don't have a proper A team.

I think the IRB needs to sort out the rules so that players aren't tied by playing Under 20s regardless of which country they are from.

Also, what is the point in insisting on allegiance? Do you really want someone playing for you who would clearly rather play elsewhere?

We had this issue with Rush and correctly allowed him out of his contract since it was clear he really wanted to stay in Cardiff. One of our better decisions. It seems untenable to me to insist he wait to see if he gets a Welsh call-up.

Cymroglan wrote:If I had the opportunity of wearing the Welsh shirt no bu$$er would get it off me.
And if somebody put a form in front of me asking me to commit myself to the senior side I would wonder why I would even need to be asked.

The IRB rules make it clear players need to understand that they are tying themselves to a country when they play for a representative side.
It's probably something to do with that Isawa case where he was stupid enough to think he would still be allowed to play for New Zealand after playing for Fiji.

For the record Shingler wasn't abandoned by Wales, like Loxton and Jarvis who were released before they took up contracts at Connacht because no Welsh region wanted them.
What happened with Shingler was he wasn't getting much game time and London Irish offered him £46,000 a season, the Scarlets had him on an academy contact and with Stephen Jones and Rhys Priestland they weren't prepared to match that money for their third choice fly half.

MrsP wrote:Surely the point is that it is unfair of some countries to tie players to their national team at age 19 (or younger) just because they don't have a proper A team.

Is that fair though? Welsh Rugby Union money has developed him all the way through his career, yet he can cut and run just because Scotland offer him a quicker route to international rugby. As I said I don;t really care who he plays for based on his talent and the comparative talent Wales has in his position, but I can see why Wales are annoyed.

Or perhaps just the 4 year eligibility rule seeing as he now plays in England.

MrsP wrote:Surely the point is that it is unfair of some countries to tie players to their national team at age 19 (or younger) just because they don't have a proper A team.

I think the IRB needs to sort out the rules so that players aren't tied by playing Under 20s regardless of which country they are from.

Also, what is the point in insisting on allegiance? Do you really want someone playing for you who would clearly rather play elsewhere?

We had this issue with Rush and correctly allowed him out of his contract since it was clear he really wanted to stay in Cardiff. One of our better decisions. It seems untenable to me to insist he wait to see if he gets a Welsh call-up.

MrsP, I know what you're saying by there are plenty of lads around 18, 19, 20 who play for A teams and are then tied in (Saxons, etc). Surely that's not fair on them either?

I think both Wales and Scotland should select him for their starting xv when they play each other and then make him stand in the middle in an England shirt. If he chose England then he would become the most hated person in British rugby.

Of course he should be allowed to play for Scotland if he's as good as people are making out then he would have known that Wales would want him however he refused to commit to Wales and the WRU must know that. He has chosen Scotland over Wales that's his decision.

I was born in England and brought up there, my parents are Scottish and I support Scotland avidly and dislike the English team for their immature exploits and the arrogant way they look down on the Celtic nations. Perhaps he grew up supporting Scotland but for logistical reasons chose Wales at age grade.

There are indeed Griff but you are likely to need to be of a higher standard to be able to make an A team than to just get to the Under 20s.

These are lads who are considered to be the best of a fairly small pool of players which probably only extends to the talent in 2 birth years as opposed to the whole pool of senior players.

I think it allows Wales (in this instance) to tie too many youngsters who will probably never get near a full cap.

But why play for a countries under 20s team and then play for a different countries senior team ?

MrsP wrote:There are indeed Griff but you are likely to need to be of a higher standard to be able to make an A team than to just get to the Under 20s.

These are lads who are considered to be the best of a fairly small pool of players which probably only extends to the talent in 2 birth years as opposed to the whole pool of senior players.

I think it allows Wales (in this instance) to tie too many youngsters who will probably never get near a full cap.

Good point about the small pool of players at age grade, but Wales are not the only team who this applies to. There are a number of nations with no A team. And Wales are not playing hard ball, it's the IRB who decides if a player is 'country tied'. Maybe the IRB needs to rethink their laws?

I can't really believe this, surely the WRU have Shingler on a list?

munkian wrote:But why play for a countries under 20s team and then play for a different countries senior team ?

The only reason is your not good enough to play for your first choice country.
He took a bigger wage and left Wales for London Irish, he knows he won't play for Wales at London Irish, so he's suddenly decided he was Scottish after all.

munkian wrote:But why play for a countries under 20s team and then play for a different countries senior team ?

Say you had been brought up in Wales, gone to school there etc but always wanted to represent your dad/mum's homeland. You would still have to come through the Welsh under age and schools system. The natural progression is the U 20s. Not too many 18 and 19 year olds come to the attention of another nation's selectors.

The real question for me is why are most lads who play for an U 20 team allowed to represent another nations senior team but these few are not given that choice?

Fully agree that the IRB need to sort it out.

AlynDavies wrote:

munkian wrote:But why play for a countries under 20s team and then play for a different countries senior team ?

The only reason is your not good enough to play for your first choice country.
He took a bigger wage and left Wales for London Irish, he knows he won't play for Wales at London Irish, so he's suddenly decided he was Scottish after all.

Have to disagree with you there as i certainly think in time he would of been good enough to play for Wales, he has in my opinion as much talent as the young 10/12's we have coming through. Also his choice to leave The Scarlets for London Irish whether it be for money or not as payed off as he is playing regular first team rugby in a decent premiership side.

I feel a bit for Shingler here as he is only a youngster and maybe the lure and excitement of playing international rugby was to much for him to turn down, most of us would say that we would play for the country of our birth but if push came to shove would we really say no to the first offer?

Apparently the SRU says he didn't sign the agreement saying he would tie himself to Wales...

If this is correct and he can play for Scotland then the WRU really have made a right mess of things!

http://www.scottishrugby.org/content/view/2423/2/

mpc28
I have thought long and hard over that one and there is no way I could play against Wales I would probably end up being the 16th man
For me it would have to be a Welsh cap or nothing.

MrsP wrote:There are indeed Griff but you are likely to need to be of a higher standard to be able to make an A team than to just get to the Under 20s.

These are lads who are considered to be the best of a fairly small pool of players which probably only extends to the talent in 2 birth years as opposed to the whole pool of senior players.

I think it allows Wales (in this instance) to tie too many youngsters who will probably never get near a full cap.

MrsP - Wales can only tie youngsters at U20's level in matches against France, as they are the only other side we play against that also use their U20's as their second team. It doesn't matter if Shingler played against Italy, Ireland, Scotland or England at U20's as these countries all have A teams, so their U20's side doesn't count. France's does though (from what I gather).

Then again there is a misunderstanding whether they were all informed that playing against France would tie them to Wales. I would be surprised if they weren't aware of the situation though.

Cymroglan wrote:His brother was born in England

Ah bingo thank you.
Guess this is what happens in a cosmopolitan World, then again Scotland also had 2 Evans brothers and Lee Jones is another winger, it seems all their talented skillful backs have Welsh surnames.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Apparently the SRU says he didn't sign the agreement saying he would tie himself to Wales...

If this is correct and he can play for Scotland then the WRU really have made a right mess of things!

http://www.scottishrugby.org/content/view/2423/2/

Either Wales and Scotland's rugby union will look very silly after this incident, the Welsh have said he;s tied to them, the IRB rules clearly say you need a played to sign a form agreeing to this, and the WRU has already had egg on it's face over Loxton and Jarvis over this issue, so either they haven't learned their first lesson or Scotland aren't obeying the rules.

ah just seen on the Scotland squad thread apparently he didn't sign the declaration to play just for Wales. Surely the WRU would know this though?

This is a right mess (and with the WRU involved, why am I not surprised!)

Or Dutch!

It'll be the WRU eith egg on their face Alyn, it's always us!

MrsP wrote:

munkian wrote:But why play for a countries under 20s team and then play for a different countries senior team ?

Say you had been brought up in Wales, gone to school there etc but always wanted to represent your dad/mum's homeland. You would still have to come through the Welsh under age and schools system. The natural progression is the U 20s. Not too many 18 and 19 year olds come to the attention of another nation's selectors.

The real question for me is why are most lads who play for an U 20 team allowed to represent another nations senior team but these few are not given that choice?

Fully agree that the IRB need to sort it out.

If we flip your argument on its head you could ask how a player is too young to nail his colours to the mast for
Wales (I.e. the argument that a player is too young at U20) yet is old enough to do so with other countries, as Shingler has just done with Scotland. Surely if he's too young to make that decision in Wales then he's too young to decide on Scotland too?

Cymroglan wrote:mpc28
I have thought long and hard over that one and there is no way I could play against Wales I would probably end up being the 16th man
For me it would have to be a Welsh cap or nothing.

I like to think that id be the same but who knows unless they're put in that situation.

Yeah Dreamer, I remember the "...only if you play against another country with no A team (ie France). " thing from the whole Connacht debacle. For me that just makes the rule even more ridiculous.

What is so bad about just having the national team and the A team counting as full caps?

If a country feel they are losing players through not having an A team then the matter is in their own hands.

rugbydreamer wrote:ah just seen on the Scotland squad thread apparently he didn't sign the declaration to play just for Wales. Surely the WRU would know this though?

This is a right mess (and with the WRU involved, why am I not surprised!)

If the IRB recognised the u20's as Wales 2nd team then surely nothing would need to be signed? it is a bit messy and hope for Shinglers sake it gets sorted out asap.

Why not accept that some countries class their U20s as their A team.
If somebody wants a A team then fine but individual nations should be left to decide how they go about it..

MrsP wrote:Yeah Dreamer, I remember the "...only if you play against another country with no A team (ie France). " thing from the whole Connacht debacle. For me that just makes the rule even more ridiculous.

What is so bad about just having the national team and the A team counting as full caps?

If a country feel they are losing players through not having an A team then the matter is in their own hands.

MrsP, I think it was done because it's generally the least financially well off countries that cannot afford an A team (although this is obviously not the case for Wales and France). For those other countries there's the problem of having players spotted at U20 level, e.g. the junior world cup, and then have them poached by wealthier nations. That would be my guess anyway.

I think he will end up playing for Scotland and I think he is within his rights to do so!

I can see how it could benefit some of the lower level nations right enough but are France and Wales using it to tie in players? It doesn't really explain the ".. against another nation without an A team" thing though.

Griff,

I suppose I think it's a bad idea to insist that an 18 year old has to commit to a Nation as a requirement to play at U 20s.

If they feel they are ready to make that commitment or, like Cymro, feel they have no other allegiance, then great. However, as we have seen with Loxton and Jarvis, getting representative colours for the U 20s by no means guarantees you a contract for your region let alone a Senior cap so it seems unfair to tie those who my feel dual allegiances to one nation. Especially as their colleagues from other nations who played in other internationals that season are still free to choose.

We have a friend who was born and bred here. Goes to school here. But he his ambition is to play rugby for his Father's homeland. If he lived in Wales he would have to decline a chance to play u 20s to keep that chance alive. Yet it is hard to see any way for him to get to play international rugby at that age for his father's nation.

I feel it's like telling a lad that he has to commit to play for his schools Old Boys team if he wants to play on the first XV.



Not that I am drawing comparisons between the Welsh national team and some "Old Boys" side you understand!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Tx61hAvPE

To late Scotland he has pledged his allegiance

Although, it does say,

O caps!

I'm sorry but IMHO once you turn out for a country at any level above schools, then that's your country, this sounds very much like having your cake and eating it "I've had a go for Wales and won't get picked for the senior team, I know I'll play for Scotland", just doesn't seem right to me.
On holiday in Kelso over the new year I picked up David Soles bio in a second hand shop, during his student days at Exeter he was asked to play for England Universities on a tour, he contacted the SRU and was told that playing for any English team would rule him out of ever playing for Scotland, should be the same now.

For Shinglers sake, I hope its the WRU who have messed up, as if hes ineligible for scotland, Wales are now unlikely to cap him.

Imperialbigdave wrote:For Shinglers sake, I hope its the WRU who have messed up, as if hes ineligible for scotland, Wales are now unlikely to cap him.

He's 20, it's simply too early to claim he's unlikely to do anything. And if you're playing U20's then it's normally clear that you're on the right track in that country.

The fact that he played against France U20 seems decisive to me. The rules clearly apply. It can't be up to the player to decide to play for one country then for another, he's presented the circumstances and makes his own bed.

If, as the SRU have stated he signed a disclaimer when he played for the U20s then this is going to be very difficult for Wales to contest. Also I think they should leave the lad make his decision. He is qualified and wouldn't have been selected for Wales so move on and let him go.

So sounds like it boils down to this:

Do you need to sign something confirming your eligibility?

If yes and he did - Wales, if yes and he didn't - Scotland.

On the other hand if he didn't have to sign anything - Wales.

Serious embarrassment for one of the unions today...

McKay, it's not Wales' decision. If he's 'country tied' himself then Wales can't 'relaease' him. Just as Fiji can't 'relsease' Nacewa. It's not our decision to make as the law on residency is set out by the IRB, not Wales.

And, to say that he wouldn't get in the Wales team in future but he definitely would with Scotland is just ridiculous. How can you see into the future to predict that? The lad is only 20.

statement from the WRU:

WELSH RUGBY UNION RESPONSE TO SRU STATEMENT - SHINGLER

The Wales U20 team is currently the WRU nominated side for qualification
which means that players who represent Wales at this level in certain games
are then solely qualified for Welsh senior honours.

All Welsh players who represent Wales at U20 level against nations which
also designate their U20 teams as their qualification sides are informed
that they will then be registered as liable for Wales selection only at
senior level.

Steve Shingler played for Wales U20’s against France in 2011 before
which he was specifically informed, as were his fellow squad members, that
the match would confirm their sole qualification as potential Wales senior
international candidates.

Shingler was told by the U20 team management that if he played in the game
he would become a Wales qualified player and therefore ineligible for
selection for any other nation.

The regulations and guidelines relating to qualification compliance are set
in accordance to IRB regulations and any questioning of these regulations
should be directed to the IRB.

We have made the IRB aware of this issue today and will be returning to it
as a matter of urgency in the morning.

Right.

The WRU are under an obligation to sign every representative player up to a declaration of eligibility

HOWEVER

the obligation is contained within the notes to the regulation, not the regulation itself

AND

there are no provisions for breach apart from the general £100,000 fine for breach of rule 8

IT DOES NOT SAY

that if a player is not signed up, his eligibility remains open ended

RULE 8

Does say that playing for a country bars you from playing for another country

FRANCE

hold the key, notwithstanding that they had an A side in 2010, it depends on the designation they made in 2008.

IF

France designated their u20's as their next national side in 2008 HE IS NOT ELIGABLE

WHETHER

Wales had a form signed or not BUT Wales will cop a fine, as will Scotland unless they can claim EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, which is unlikely as the guidance says that any difficult cases should be referred to the IRB for a ruling BEFORE a player is selected

Their only saving grace is to argue that squad selection does not trigger rule 8.

There is also an interesting principal in the guidance of ties to a particular nation, which Shingler will struggle with given the adverts etc.

I have no problem at all with Scotland "poaching" the odd qualified player, its an importnat part of keeping them compeitive and keeping the 6 nations as the comeptition it is.
But if Shingler was tied to Wales as they are claiming, and from what Im reading in that statement and teh regulations, then the SRU shouldnt be able to pick him. Its the same ruleset that allows them to pick players on dubious qualification grounds ( not so much in this case but Tim Visser will be an interesting one) that also lays down the line as to when its not OK.

Shingler is Welsh. He played for Wales. If that tied him to Wales then its hard for anyone to complain about it. Its not unreasonable of Wales to "defend" the stock of players they have built up, the player numbers are not infinate and teh WRU has invested large sums of money in the acadamies and age group sides to produce these players who then stock up the Jeff and platy for their rivals. Sure Shingler may not have been immediatly on the radar but theres a principle thing here too, once and exception is made where does it end? Seeing Morgan defect back to England probably has sharpened them up a bit too.
If it didnt tie him because of some loophole or if Scotland simply werent aware that he was tied because of a misunderstanding then its hard to critisize them for picking him either. They do have an active policy of seeking these players out to bolster the very thin squad.

statement from the WRU:

WELSH RUGBY UNION RESPONSE TO SRU STATEMENT - SHINGLER

The Wales U20 team is currently the WRU nominated side for qualification
which means that players who represent Wales at this level in certain games
are then solely qualified for Welsh senior honours.

All Welsh players who represent Wales at U20 level against nations which
also designate their U20 teams as their qualification sides are informed
that they will then be registered as liable for Wales selection only at
senior level.

Steve Shingler played for Wales U20’s against France in 2011 before
which he was specifically informed, as were his fellow squad members, that
the match would confirm their sole qualification as potential Wales senior
international candidates.

Shingler was told by the U20 team management that if he played in the game
he would become a Wales qualified player and therefore ineligible for
selection for any other nation.

The regulations and guidelines relating to qualification compliance are set
in accordance to IRB regulations and any questioning of these regulations
should be directed to the IRB.

We have made the IRB aware of this issue today and will be returning to it
as a matter of urgency in the morning.

There is obviously lot of confusion over this but in reports I have read the WRU are saying he qualifies for us because he played in the 2nd Tier 6 Nations tournament which to me is the A Team 6 Nations.

Now I know we don't have an A Side (Why Oh Why Oh Why) and that our U20s are classed as capped but surely the U20s tournamnet is 3rd tier not 2nd.

Its our (WRU) fault we don't have an A Side so I reckon they being very narrow minded, get our A Side back up and running then its simple if you get an A or Full cap then your tied, anything lower than that shouldn't count.

Scottish counter argument

But the Welsh claim that Shingler is their player after he played in the second-string Six Nations last season.

"Steven confirmed that he declined to sign a declaration he was committed solely to Wales," said the SRU.

"Steven has informed us that he made it clear that he wished to leave open his international eligibility as he was also eligible to represent Scotland and England as well as Wales.

"Scottish Rugby believes we have acted in good faith in this matter and have also taken cognisance of an IRB ruling last year concerning two players who played for Wales under-20 against France under-20 in 2010 who now play for Connacht and are eligible for Ireland.

"We are liaising with the IRB on this matter."




If good to know the Two for Connacht are Irish qualified, I thought it was still an ongoing matter.

If the 2 Irish ones can play for Ireland after playing for Wales under 20 against France u20 then Shingler should be ok for Scotland.

The reason I think this happened is Wales designate their u20 side as their 'A' side to the IRB, however I believe that France don't have an 'A' team but don't designate their under 20 team as an 'A' team to the IRB.

under 20's and only tied to the nation when both teams have designated their under 20's as thier 'A' team.

It's not straightforward this one. I just wish the SRU and the WRU had sorted this out with the IRB behind closed doors rather than going down this route of laying the whole thing out in public.

Pretty much every rugby fan wants the qualification rules to be sorted out, currently they are a complete mess, as demonstrated by this spat.

The case of Steven Shingler is particularly odd. When I saw the initial Welsh rebuttal I thought it was a straightforward case of a player flip-flopping and the SRU not having done its homework. However the SRU's latest statement sheds some new light on the issue. Clearly there is room for movement despite the U20 cap and it's telling that he refused back then to sign a written committment to play for Wales.

He's born in Wales, Welsh dad, Scottish Mum and qualifies for England on residency grounds as far as I can tell.

Clearly Scotland will give him the best chance of collecting international caps. Frankly any player at 10/12 who is close to competent will be given the keys to Murrayfield. For professional reasons I can understand the decision.

I just wish all this had been sorted out away from the public spotlight. All this "nation choosing" leaves a bad taste for me. I don't criticise coaches and players for operating within the rules (frankly Scotland need as much help as we can get), but the rules needs to be sorted.

Glas a du wrote:Right.

The WRU are under an obligation to sign every representative player up to a declaration of eligibility

HOWEVER

the obligation is contained within the notes to the regulation, not the regulation itself

AND

there are no provisions for breach apart from the general £100,000 fine for breach of rule 8

IT DOES NOT SAY

that if a player is not signed up, his eligibility remains open ended

RULE 8

Does say that playing for a country bars you from playing for another country

FRANCE

hold the key, notwithstanding that they had an A side in 2010, it depends on the designation they made in 2008.

IF

France designated their u20's as their next national side in 2008 HE IS NOT ELIGABLE

WHETHER

Wales had a form signed or not BUT Wales will cop a fine, as will Scotland unless they can claim EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, which is unlikely as the guidance says that any difficult cases should be referred to the IRB for a ruling BEFORE a player is selected

Their only saving grace is to argue that squad selection does not trigger rule 8.

There is also an interesting principal in the guidance of ties to a particular nation, which Shingler will struggle with given the adverts etc.

All true, Glas, except that the IRB confirmed that the two other Welsh lads that joined Connacht having played for Wales U20 vs France U20 were not bound to Wales - precedent?

from the bbc article which reports the blues/irish HEC match last year.

Before the match, Shingler had spoken of his desire to force his way into the Wales squad, but his dangerous tackle gave him little opportunity to impress coach Warren Gatland as he watched from the stand.

It's an interesting one. I think (based on comments above) that Shingler played his U20 match vs France before the spat over the Connacht pair made the U20 team tying people to Wales common knowledge (if I'm wrong about that, please ignore the rest of this post).

So I'm guessing it's all going to come down to whether or not Shingler was formally told he would be tied in before running out for the U20s. The SRU statement about Shingler not signing a "yes I'm tied to Wales" document is interesting - was that letter sent to the U20 team before they played, in which case I'd say he should be tied to Wales, or was it an attempt to tie everyone in after the fact once the Connacht situation cropped up, in which case Shingler's probably OK to play for Scotland.

Interesting. Or of course I could be completely wrong

From today's Herald:

"As matters unfolded it was becoming clear that his case is the latest to highlight the problems caused by the absence of a clear International Rugby Board (IRB) policy which allows member countries to decide which of their teams are their second-string sides.

Under IRB rules, if a player represents a country in either a Test match or at the level immediately below that against another country's first or second team then he is "captured" by that country.

However, this row centres on whether or not the French designated their under-20 team as their second side last season. Unlike Scotland and England, who have A teams, Wales list their under-20s as their second team, but the only match that could tie Shingler – who has birth qualifications to play for Scotland, England and Wales – would be that meeting with France.

The French Federation has changed its designation several times in recent years and Herald Sport understands that it is under no obligation to advise the IRB of when it does so.

While the IRB ruled against the Welsh (and in favour of Ireland) last year when they claimed that two players, James Loxton and Matthew Jarvis, had been tied to them as a result of playing in the under-20 international against France in 2010, it is unclear what the position is regarding the match played in 2011. However, even if the French did designate their under-20 side as their second-string team last year the matter may not be closed because there would be scope for Shingler to appeal if he felt he had not been properly advised of the full implications of playing in that match."

It all boils down to France!!! Now where is that :gallicshrug: emoticon!