another concerning issue for the WRU over Steven shingler

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

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?

Adam D wrote: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.

rugbydreamer wrote:It's not about him wanting to play for another country FES, or the WRU "allowing him", if the WRU let this go it's setting a precendent where we could potentially lose a lot more of our young players who the WRU have helped develop over their entire careers.

Clarity is needed by the IRB to help stop these sorts of situations re-occurring.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:It's not about him wanting to play for another country FES, or the WRU "allowing him", if the WRU let this go it's setting a precendent where we could potentially lose a lot more of our young players who the WRU have helped develop over their entire careers.

Clarity is needed by the IRB to help stop these sorts of situations re-occurring.

dreamer, precedent has already been set, I'm afraid, by the cases of Loxton and Jarvis - they also played for Wales U20 vs France U20, but the year before Shingler in 2010

Glas a du wrote:There is a central IRB register which is why the Unions "have" to submit a return every year of players who have signed their eligibility forms and every four years confirm who their "next senior side" is. However this appears in the guidance and not the regulation and there is no sanction for breach. Unions are told to refer to the IRB for guidance in grey area cases and guess what? Wales haven't done their paperwork properly and Scotland have not followed the guidance.

rugbydreamer wrote:It's not about him wanting to play for another country FES, or the WRU "allowing him", if the WRU let this go it's setting a precendent where we could potentially lose a lot more of our young players who the WRU have helped develop over their entire careers.

Clarity is needed by the IRB to help stop these sorts of situations re-occurring.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:So if Morgan doesnt play in the 6 nations and then Faleteau dies in a freak hair accident you think Gatland wouldnt send him a christmas card?

Scotland didnt have any trouble getting Thom Evans motivated to play against England depsite him having played for them already.

Noones going to imagine that Shinglers taken the Scottish callup because he hates Wales and always wanted to play for Scotland anymore than theyd beleive that Waldrom wouldve turned down the all blacks because he'd always dreamed of playing for England.

If he does turn out to be tied to Wales and then he goes on to be good enough to warrant selection I cant see this affecting him any more than his brother having played cricket for England would.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I agree Peter Seab... except for the fact that his brother of course played for the England and Wales cricket team (how I hate that name).

GoWales as you and Pete say we don't know how he views himself (Welsh, Scottish, English or Mongolian) but that's besides the point - If he's tied himself to Wales by playing for the u20s then it doesn't matter what nation he's patriotic to he can only play for Wales.

The big question is - has he tied himself to Wales?

10. How will the eligibility criteria be assessed?
Ordinarily, the task of assessing whether a Player satisfies any of the
eligibility criteria set out in Regulation 8.1 is straightforward. However, as
a result of professionalism, greater mobility and societal family change
this is not always the case. Difficult cases have arisen and may continue to
emerge. The responses to the questions set out below are intended to
provide further clarification as to how each eligibility criterion in
Regulation 8.1 will be applied.
The questions and answers should be regarded as guidelines. They have
been prepared on the basis of operational experience to date. It is not
possible to anticipate all scenarios that may arise and a degree of
flexibility in the application of the Regulations will be maintained.
Moving forward, in the event that there is any uncertainty or the need for
clarification in relation to the application of the eligibility criteria in
particular circumstances, then the Regulations Committee may be asked
by the IRB to make a ruling on a Player’s eligibility. In relation to any
such adjudication, the Regulations Committee will always have in mind
the rationale behind Regulation 8. The aim of the Regulations Committee
in each case where clarification may be required, is to establish whether,
in all the circumstances, a Player has, by reference to the eligibility criteria
in Regulation 8.1, been able to demonstrate a genuine, close and credible
national link with the country that the Player wishes to represent. It is
anticipated that over time a body of rulings by the Regulations Committee
may develop which may, in turn, assist in providing further guidance to
Unions in relation to eligibility matters.
11. When should any uncertainty over a Player’s eligibility
be clarified?
It is essential that eligibility issues are clarified before a Player represents
the senior or next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of a
Union or a Union’s senior National Representative Sevens Team. This is
particularly important in light of the one Union only rule. Accordingly, if
a Union has any doubt over a Player’s eligibility status it must take all
steps necessary to clarify the position before selecting the Player to play
for its senior or next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team or
its senior National Representative Sevens Team.

Glas a du wrote:The motivation question is relevant though:

10. How will the eligibility criteria be assessed?
Ordinarily, the task of assessing whether a Player satisfies any of the
eligibility criteria set out in Regulation 8.1 is straightforward. However, as
a result of professionalism, greater mobility and societal family change
this is not always the case. Difficult cases have arisen and may continue to
emerge. The responses to the questions set out below are intended to
provide further clarification as to how each eligibility criterion in
Regulation 8.1 will be applied.
The questions and answers should be regarded as guidelines. They have
been prepared on the basis of operational experience to date. It is not
possible to anticipate all scenarios that may arise and a degree of
flexibility in the application of the Regulations will be maintained.
Moving forward, in the event that there is any uncertainty or the need for
clarification in relation to the application of the eligibility criteria in
particular circumstances, then the Regulations Committee may be asked
by the IRB to make a ruling on a Player’s eligibility. In relation to any
such adjudication, the Regulations Committee will always have in mind
the rationale behind Regulation 8. The aim of the Regulations Committee
in each case where clarification may be required, is to establish whether,
in all the circumstances, a Player has, by reference to the eligibility criteria
in Regulation 8.1, been able to demonstrate a genuine, close and credible
national link with the country that the Player wishes to represent. It is
anticipated that over time a body of rulings by the Regulations Committee
may develop which may, in turn, assist in providing further guidance to
Unions in relation to eligibility matters.
11. When should any uncertainty over a Player’s eligibility
be clarified?
It is essential that eligibility issues are clarified before a Player represents
the senior or next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of a
Union or a Union’s senior National Representative Sevens Team. This is
particularly important in light of the one Union only rule. Accordingly, if
a Union has any doubt over a Player’s eligibility status it must take all
steps necessary to clarify the position before selecting the Player to play
for its senior or next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team or
its senior National Representative Sevens Team.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:It's weird though as there's a link earlier in this thread to a video showing him in a Wales shirt with a load of other Welsh greats saying he could be the next big thing and seen a few interviews with him saying he hopes he can work hard enough to force his way into the Wales team.

So seems he was quite intent on getting a spot in the Wales squad but who knows...

LondonTiger wrote:Frankly it is a mess.

First it is crazy that playing U20 Rugby for one country will tie you in, but not for another, oh and only if you play against a specific country. It should be all U20 rugby or none - the fact that Wales do not run an A side is their choice.

Secondly it is crazy that France can have an A side - yet officially designate their U20s as their second team.

Thirdly crazy that WRU failed to get the paperwork completed when Shingler played against France.

Fourthly crazy that SRU did not check properly before a major press conference.

Mind you the farce is wonderful a welshman, playing for London Irish, who are based in Reading not London, representing Scotland.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Glas a du wrote:The motivation question is relevant though:

10. How will the eligibility criteria be assessed?
Ordinarily, the task of assessing whether a Player satisfies any of the
eligibility criteria set out in Regulation 8.1 is straightforward. However, as
a result of professionalism, greater mobility and societal family change
this is not always the case. Difficult cases have arisen and may continue to
emerge. The responses to the questions set out below are intended to
provide further clarification as to how each eligibility criterion in
Regulation 8.1 will be applied.
The questions and answers should be regarded as guidelines. They have
been prepared on the basis of operational experience to date. It is not
possible to anticipate all scenarios that may arise and a degree of
flexibility in the application of the Regulations will be maintained.
Moving forward, in the event that there is any uncertainty or the need for
clarification in relation to the application of the eligibility criteria in
particular circumstances, then the Regulations Committee may be asked
by the IRB to make a ruling on a Player’s eligibility. In relation to any
such adjudication, the Regulations Committee will always have in mind
the rationale behind Regulation 8. The aim of the Regulations Committee
in each case where clarification may be required, is to establish whether,
in all the circumstances, a Player has, by reference to the eligibility criteria
in Regulation 8.1, been able to demonstrate a genuine, close and credible
national link with the country that the Player wishes to represent. It is
anticipated that over time a body of rulings by the Regulations Committee
may develop which may, in turn, assist in providing further guidance to
Unions in relation to eligibility matters.
11. When should any uncertainty over a Player’s eligibility
be clarified?
It is essential that eligibility issues are clarified before a Player represents
the senior or next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of a
Union or a Union’s senior National Representative Sevens Team. This is
particularly important in light of the one Union only rule. Accordingly, if
a Union has any doubt over a Player’s eligibility status it must take all
steps necessary to clarify the position before selecting the Player to play
for its senior or next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team or
its senior National Representative Sevens Team.

So, Glas, by explicitly stating to the WRU that he wanted to keep his options open, knowing that he qualified for 3 countries, does that become relevant?

gowales wrote:Perhaps Shingler or his family should have contacted a lawyer around the time he got selected. Its very unfair to put this kind of pressure on a boy. I think the IRB should only allow tier 2-3 countries to designate u20s as their second team

rugbydreamer wrote:A player might not feel the obligation SafeAs, but the WRU will certainly look at them as players they've developed and invested a lot of time, money and effort in and would understandably prefer those players to make themselves available for Welsh selection.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:A player might not feel the obligation SafeAs, but the WRU will certainly look at them as players they've developed and invested a lot of time, money and effort in and would understandably prefer those players to make themselves available for Welsh selection.

My point was really that at 20 years old (a young and unproven player), and playing professional rugby outside of Wales, I don't think the WRU can get too much of a hump on, despite the fact that he grew up there. I don't know the reason why he left the Scarlets, but I'm guessing it had something to do with not being offered first team rugby. Can Wales really get grumpy when players leave because they can't get into the 1st XV? He's hardly had any career yet, so I thought the "entire career" point was slightly overstating it. Had the Scarlets kept him on or offered him something he couldn't turn down, or had the WRU got him a slot at the Dragons or something similar, then perhaps there would have been a case for calling for loyalty, but I don't see it as a strong factor in this instance. Given Gatland's position on players playing outside of Wales, perhaps he felt he didn't have much hope of playing for Wales.

I don't know. It's not an easy situation really. I'm sure that there have been conversations between the WRU and Shingler that we don't know about.

munkian wrote:Its not about whats fair or pride - its about the laws that IRB have set down - if they consider the Welsh U20s squad as Wale's A team then he's only eligble for the Welsh Senior Squad.

Thats the only issue here - everything else is just debating whether the law is fair/justified etc

MrsP wrote:I think that is unfair Glas.

Is it really impossible for anyone to feel equally connected to 2 different countries and so be in a position where they would be proud to represent either one?

If that is how he feels then he should be allowed to make that choice, no?

Now that rugby is professional these lads have to be able to give their all for their club whether it is their "home" club or not so I don't see why they can't be fully committed to the national team who gives them a chance.

MrsP wrote:I think that is unfair Glas.

Is it really impossible for anyone to feel equally connected to 2 different countries and so be in a position where they would be proud to represent either one?

If that is how he feels then he should be allowed to make that choice, no?

Now that rugby is professional these lads have to be able to give their all for their club whether it is their "home" club or not so I don't see why they can't be fully committed to the national team who gives them a chance.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

munkian wrote:Its not about whats fair or pride - its about the laws that IRB have set down - if they consider the Welsh U20s squad as Wale's A team then he's only eligble for the Welsh Senior Squad.

Thats the only issue here - everything else is just debating whether the law is fair/justified etc

Sorry, Munkian, simply not true

munkian wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

munkian wrote:Its not about whats fair or pride - its about the laws that IRB have set down - if they consider the Welsh U20s squad as Wale's A team then he's only eligble for the Welsh Senior Squad.

Thats the only issue here - everything else is just debating whether the law is fair/justified etc

Sorry, Munkian, simply not true

How so ? Either is eligable by law or not - whether his heart is in it etc has nothing to do with the IRB's ruling

munkian wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

munkian wrote:Its not about whats fair or pride - its about the laws that IRB have set down - if they consider the Welsh U20s squad as Wale's A team then he's only eligble for the Welsh Senior Squad.

Thats the only issue here - everything else is just debating whether the law is fair/justified etc

Sorry, Munkian, simply not true

How so ? Either is eligable by law or not - whether his heart is in it etc has nothing to do with the IRB's ruling

Welshmushroom wrote:The reason it didnt end up applying to the other 2 (Jarvis & Loxton) is that originally the WRU thought the same. They had represented Wales U20 which is the nominated A side for Wales.

But what the IRB stated is that in order for someone to be tied the Wales A side would have had to play another teams A side for registration to apply.

The argument however this time the WRU are putting forward is that France A side is also registered as their U20's. Shingler played in that game. Given this is the case I can't see how he is now eligible to play for Scotland.