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

This will drag on and on no doubt.

It's ok though, Graeme Morrison is in the squad, so we don't really need Shingler.

ASBO - I've heard lots of people mention what you have ie "France have changed the designation of their u20's team many times of the past few years" or something along those lines - but I've also heard people quoting the IRB regulations saying you can only change the designation of your A/u20's team every 4 years?

Do you know how these 2 statements work together?

FES - I've been waiting for some Scottish fan to offer us Dan Parks or Ansbro as a straight swop for Shingler - to make it 'fair'

lol

You can't have Ansbro, he can run relatively quickly, but I'd say Dan Parks would be an excellent swap for several reasons:

1. He plays in Wales so Gatland will be happy immediately.

2. It's difficult to figure out who should replace Shane Williams so by playing Parks at 10 you wouldn't actually need to worry about your wingers.

3. I want to see Shaun Edwards have a nervous breakdown at his first defensive session of the season with Parks at 10.

funnyExiledScot wrote:You can't have Ansbro, he can run relatively quickly, but I'd say Dan Parks would be an excellent swap for several reasons:

1. He plays in Wales so Gatland will be happy immediately.

2. It's difficult to figure out who should replace Shane Williams so by playing Parks at 10 you wouldn't actually need to worry about your wingers.

3. I want to see Shaun Edwards have a nervous breakdown at his first defensive session of the season with Parks at 10.

I should have added, despite having 50 caps for Scotland, I'm almost certain the SRU will have lost some paperwork, so I'm pretty sure there's a loophole in the IRB rules that would allow Parks to play for Wales.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:ASBO - I've heard lots of people mention what you have ie "France have changed the designation of their u20's team many times of the past few years" or something along those lines - but I've also heard people quoting the IRB regulations saying you can only change the designation of your A/u20's team every 4 years?

Do you know how these 2 statements work together?

No, I'm as confused as you?

funnyExiledScot wrote:You can't have Ansbro, he can run relatively quickly, but I'd say Dan Parks would be an excellent swap for several reasons:

1. He plays in Wales so Gatland will be happy immediately.

2. It's difficult to figure out who should replace Shane Williams so by playing Parks at 10 you wouldn't actually need to worry about your wingers.

3. I want to see Shaun Edwards have a nervous breakdown at his first defensive session of the season with Parks at 10.

4. You won't need to be worrying about your wing defence 'cos that's where you'll be burying Parks

Poor lad his dream of playing for a poor Scottish side have gone forever, taken away by a nasty Welsh system, how will he ever get over it?

the 4 year thing was my interpretation of the regulation, but whether or not this time limit applies, it seems pretty clear that you have to inform the IRB to make a change. If the IRB hasn't been informed then by definition the change hasn't been made. So the SRU/WRU should simply be able to ask the IRB what the status of France under-20 is and they should be able to quickly give a straight answer one way or the other.

I think everyone is Asbo including the unions - only in rubgy could you have rules as ridiculously unclear as these - why can't it be either a)you use your A team to qualify players and if you haven't got one then tough or b)if you use your u20's you've got to tell the IRB in advance and then ALL u20's games count to qualify players

That would seem a pretty clear rule for everyone to understand - the player, the 'home' union and any other union who thinks the player might be qualified to play for them. Then all those unions need to do is look back through the fixture list to see if that player has ever played a u20's or full international for the country.

Breaking press release:

WELSH RUGBY UNION STATEMENT

The Welsh Rugby Union has today written to the IRB outlining the process
followed to inform all players who represented Wales against France at U20
level in 2011 that their future potential international status was aligned
only to selection for Wales at senior level.

The WRU again emphasised the process followed in relation to the selection
of Welsh international squads at senior, U20’s and Sevens are fully
compliant with IRB regulations. As such all Welsh players can be assured of
their international status once they have represented Wales in any of the
teams relevant for Wales qualification.

By playing for a poor English side instead?

Still doesn't really answer anything.

funnyExiledScot wrote:You can't have Ansbro, he can run relatively quickly, but I'd say Dan Parks would be an excellent swap for several reasons:

1. He plays in Wales so Gatland will be happy immediately.

2. It's difficult to figure out who should replace Shane Williams so by playing Parks at 10 you wouldn't actually need to worry about your wingers.

3. I want to see Shaun Edwards have a nervous breakdown at his first defensive session of the season with Parks at 10.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I think everyone is Asbo including the unions - only in rubgy could you have rules as ridiculously unclear as these - why can't it be either a)you use your A team to qualify players and if you haven't got one then tough or b)if you use your u20's you've got to tell the IRB in advance and then ALL u20's games count to qualify players

That would seem a pretty clear rule for everyone to understand - the player, the 'home' union and any other union who thinks the player might be qualified to play for them. Then all those unions need to do is look back through the fixture list to see if that player has ever played a u20's or full international for the country.

Wow, far too logical there, priest!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

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.

mushroom, apart from the emboldened part, I believe that you are spot on. However, in this case, the part in bold is key.

From today's Herald: "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."

More to run on this one, I think

But thats my point. I agree notification may be plausable if say that he would have been ineligible had it been tied to something less obvious. Something like being tied had he played for the Scarlets U20's or being residentially disqualified. I find it unbelievable that the argument will centre round if he was informed. At the very least he should have asked the question at the time (if the WRU hadnt already informed them as I suspect they had been)? Surely someone who chooses to represent the U20 National side of a country has infact already made that choice.

The message here cant be to U20 players - lets play for a Under 20 side for the television exposure (as most of them have never been heard of before then), then choose the National side we are most likely to represent at Senior level. If shingler felt like he was Scottish he should never have represented the U20's in the first place. I dont buy the argument from him in the slightest and lets be fair he has on numerous occasions refered to himself as Welsh so its a slight to any up and coming Scottish youngster who should have been selected as much as the WRU. Naturally though knowing the IRB to be unable to really enforce any of the big laws the kid will likely be able to play for Scotland, which in context is a joke really.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I think everyone is Asbo including the unions - only in rubgy could you have rules as ridiculously unclear as these - why can't it be either a)you use your A team to qualify players and if you haven't got one then tough or b)if you use your u20's you've got to tell the IRB in advance and then ALL u20's games count to qualify players

That would seem a pretty clear rule for everyone to understand - the player, the 'home' union and any other union who thinks the player might be qualified to play for them. Then all those unions need to do is look back through the fixture list to see if that player has ever played a u20's or full international for the country.

Wow, far too logical there, priest!

Why not make it far more clear cut then that. Any representation at any age group at national level ties you to that country. U16,U18 & U20. Maybe we would see less teams trying to qualify players through residency then...

Funnyexiledscot

We don't need him thanks, but it does seem strange that his born in Wales plays in England and yet he wants to play for the Scots?

Weird!

If he ever becomes a Lion we could all stake a claim on him as our own.

No thats not fair. How about if for example (a made up player called) Gavin Williams lives in Wales all his life but has to move to England with his family from age 18. If he then represented England U18, U20s shouldn't he have the choice of whether he wants to represent England or Wales.

Edit:
Oops and his dad is English so he can qualify for them as well.

HERSH wrote:Funnyexiledscot

We don't need him thanks, but it does seem strange that his born in Wales plays in England and yet he wants to play for the Scots?

Weird!

If he ever becomes a Lion we could all stake a claim on him as our own.

His mother's maiden name was Ireland

I don't think it's odd. Having seen what Wales and England are like, he wants to represent Scotland. I can fully understand that

gowales wrote:No thats not fair. How about if for example (a made up player called) Gavin Williams lives in Wales all his life but has to move to England with his family from age 18. If he then represented England U18, U20s shouldn't he have the choice of whether he wants to represent England or Wales.

Edit:
Oops and his dad is English so he can qualify for them as well.

Simple - he clearly has a choice to make. He can either represent the U18's & U20's for England and tie himself to that country or he can choose to opt out and not represent them at that level. It wouldnt affect his career at club level as he would then still be undecided. Look at Ben Morgan. He didnt choose to commit himself to the Saxons either to keep his options open until he was ready to decide.

And of course its fair. If you know how the rules apply accross the board you cant argue about a unfair system. What we currently have is an unfair system because the rules we have are far to complicated and easily got around.

It cant be right that a nation takes its limited resources to train someone who then goes on to represent another nation, when they could have opted to train someone else in that persons place.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I don't think it's odd. Having seen what Wales and England are like, he wants to represent Scotland. I can fully understand that

But will he be able to understand all the Glasweigian and Edinburgh accents or will he have 'iphone fever'!

Personally I think the WRU are going about this all the wrong way, I think all they need to do is stick some haggis in Shinglers face while talking about all the good things about staying in Wales and the Wales team - that should do make Shingler think twice about choosing Scotland over Wales!

IRB Regulation 8

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.

C.F.

The rationale/philosophy of Regulation 8 is to ensure that Players selected to represent (an Union) have a genuine, close, credible and
established national link with the country of the Union for which they
have been selected. Such a national link is essential to maintain the unique
characteristics and culture of elite international sporting competition
between Unions. The integrity of International Matches between Unions
depends upon strict adherence to the eligibility criteria set out in the
Regulations.

Spot the problem.

It seems that the advice being dished out to the players by the WRU isn't that good, you only have to look at the players like Peel who's career has been destroyed as his tied to Sale all the time, plus the guys who have moved to France why doesn't the WRU communicate with its players before they make a move/play for the U20's etc....

You cant expect an 18 or even 16 year old to make a decision like that. And It's ridiculous to say that he should have to turn down the chance to play for an age group side.

HERSH wrote:It seems that the advice being dished out to the players by the WRU isn't that good, you only have to look at the players like Peel who's career has been destroyed as his tied to Sale all the time, plus the guys who have moved to France why doesn't the WRU communicate with its players before they make a move/play for the U20's etc....

Simple the WRU don't want to take responsibility.

gowales wrote:You cant expect an 18 or even 16 year old to make a decision like that. And It's ridiculous to say that he should have to turn down the chance to play for an age group side.

Spot on, I sense some sour grapes from the WRU

HERSH wrote:

gowales wrote:You cant expect an 18 or even 16 year old to make a decision like that. And It's ridiculous to say that he should have to turn down the chance to play for an age group side.

Spot on, I sense some sour grapes from the WRU

Right. So your argument is that at the age of 16 or 18 people are not capable of making a informed adult decision that shape their futures. People make decisions which shape their future lives even before these ages (ex. College, University etc). What exactly makes Rugby so special?

By that age I had already travelled around Europe for a year and moved into my own place the year after. Picking your Nationality is a somewhat trivial process by comparision.

So again I fail to see what you are basing this on. Are you saying that if someone makes a choice its ok for them to have a redo (or be unaccountable) because that choice was made during the ages of 18 or prior, which was to young to make a educated informed choice?

Yes unless they play for the A teams of any given nation, no A-team then no commitment.

I pity the fools.

Under the IRB rules the WRU are correct... This is the same situation that Jarvis was in earlier last year.

But Jarvis is now free to represent Ireland. That's the case that Scotland are using as an example.

ok well the A team for Wales is U20 - Shingler represented that level so by your reasoning is tied.

How come there are different rules for Wales? Why are they supposedly allowed their U20s to be their A side?

If Wales had a proper A side then none of this controversy would happen!

The IRB let any country do it if they don't have an A team and I don't like it. If the WRU or any other country aren't willing to invest in an A team then why should they be able to use an age grade side as a way to lock in young players.
Don't give me the excuse that they are low on resources and money because the Argentinian union, Italian union and Scottish unions seem to be able to afford it.

Still sounds like sour grapes to me.

Very true gowales. Also if the WRU does win where does it leave Shingler?

Just over 6 weeks ago he was talking about breaking into the Welsh senior side. How could that change in such a short space of time? I'll say what the problem is, brashness, hot-headedness and just general immaturity on Shingler's side. Scotland would probably cap him once or twice and then he'd claim he "didn't sign any declarations" and would want a Wales shirt again. He's probably the playing equivalent of some fickle posters, first he wants one thing, then something else and deep down he really has no clue.

Scotland are short on inside centers, Shingler has been playing there a lot this season so you can see why the Scots are interested.

Why should he have to feel unswerving allegience to any one country?

Surely there are loads of lads out there who would be extremely proud to be asked to represent the country of either of their parents.

I know some people will feel drawn to only one country and that is just fine, but for those who have the option of 2 or more National teams I say let them decide when offered their first senior cap.

Why should a small group of players from a few countries be denied that chance because they played U20 in a Wales v France match when their team mates who played the wales v England/Ireland/Scotland fixture can still keep their options open?

If any Nation wants to tie a player then they should "Call up or shut up!"

Possibly an argument that the WRU have invested in him, coached him, sent him abroad to compete for Wales at youth levels etc...

For him to then leave to play for a different country is a slap in the face. The SRU are unlikely to re-compensate the WRU for their investment.

I don't think this situation will be reversible, even if he is not capped by Scotland, he is now a Scottish player, he has made his decision and anything the WRU attempt to do will only worsen the situation.

Best really to let him go and wish him well.

But the WRU invested no more in Shingler than they did in the lads who played the fixtures against Ireland or England.

If any Nation wants to tie a player then they should "Call up or shut up!"

As I've said it's Shingler who is mainly in the wrong. Or would you say he can't be considered responsible enough to contemplate the consequences beforehand? He should have thought before making silly false speeches about being committed to Wales and quite possibly binding himself to them via the U20's.

As has been repeated, precedent needs to be set, for the benefit of future players so they're aware what they're getting into and for the benefit of Wales. We're not going to leave players open to be nicked at will by other nations just because a declaration wasn't signed.

All he said was "It's a dream to play international rugby", and gave vague answers to questions about Warren Gatland. Any reference to Wales in particular was paraphrasing by the journalist or headline writer. He claims he went out of his way to state his intention to keep his international options open at the time of the under 20s games.

Doing that video in the Wales shirt was stupid though.

MrsP wrote:But the WRU invested no more in Shingler than they did in the lads who played the fixtures against Ireland or England.

THose lads are still representing Wales or regions after with a hope of playing for Wales...

i think the emergence of Matthew Morgan on the Under 20 scene, as well as Steffan Jones may have disheartend him. Once touted as a future welsh number ten, he moved down the ladder... His move to Exciles and the poor season they are having can't have helped his chances with Wales.

I have noticed that a couple of our regular wums from over the border have been having a go at the WRU regarding paperwork.
Don't forget you had a illegal immigrant playing in your league system so your house is not in order either.

The WRU and SRU have reached an agreement. He can play for Scotland but if he scores a try he's definitely Welsh.