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

I'm sorry I can't buy this "at 18 you don't know what nationality you are", that's a complete load of Jane Horrocks, if you can vote,breed, get a passort,go to Afghanistan and shoot at people, apply for a mortgage, etc. then you know enough to decide who you want to play international rugby for.
School rugby I can understand as you play where your parents live but once you are old enough to make the above decisions then it stands, otherwise you are just a sporting whore.

Irish Londoner wrote:I'm sorry I can't buy this "at 18 you don't know what nationality you are", that's a complete load of Jane Horrocks, if you can vote,breed, get a passort,go to Afghanistan and shoot at people, apply for a mortgage, etc. then you know enough to decide who you want to play international rugby for.
School rugby I can understand as you play where your parents live but once you are old enough to make the above decisions then it stands, otherwise you are just a sporting whore.

Glas a du wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:I'm sorry I can't buy this "at 18 you don't know what nationality you are", that's a complete load of Jane Horrocks, if you can vote,breed, get a passort,go to Afghanistan and shoot at people, apply for a mortgage, etc. then you know enough to decide who you want to play international rugby for.
School rugby I can understand as you play where your parents live but once you are old enough to make the above decisions then it stands, otherwise you are just a sporting whore.

Agreed

Just to add to the above and agree with it: young players are deemed old enough to commit their entire future to those nations with an A team, and this has happened in Saxons games (Tuilagi was 19 I believe), and could happen to Shingler at 20 if he gets capped, etc., so why not to a nation without an A team? Someone suggested before that it was because getting an A cap was harder and was from a bigger group of players, etc., etc., but the argument now seems to be about being old enough at that age to make decision. I say if you can decide for to commit at 18, 19, 20, etc. to England, Scotland, Ireland, NZ, etc. they you're old enough to decide to commit to Wales.

If not, then there will have to be a new law brought in where anyone with dual nationality/qualification can switch allegiance up to the age of 23, or something ridiculous like that.

Maybe this will encourage Wales to re start the A-Team

maestegmafia wrote:Maybe this will encourage Wales to re start the A-Team

Where do I sign up to agree to that Maes.

Ask whats his name who does the petitions about the regions... Joe something.. Maybe he could write a petition worth signing....?

It doesn't make sense. How can a 'nation' that professes to have rugby as its 'national' sport not have an 'A' side.

Beggars belief, it truly does!

Why does it beggar belief? What's the difference between playing week in week out in the Pro12 with and against seasoned internationals than playing a couple of matches a season for the A side.
A games are not played on a regular basis so the best place to see these young potential internationals play is either in the Pro or under 20s.
The older players will be be regular assessed at their regions you will see one of the Welsh coaching staff in attendance at most if not all games.
I can understand that countries who still use the traditional club system would need to have a A side due to the fact that their Union would have far less input on selection and playing position and also their reluctance to introduce youngsters into the system at a early age.

Cymro, I think you've just outlined many of the problems with the regional model having to fall between two stools and not being a coherent entity.

Add that to the eligibility problems outlined above and it's a bit of a mess.

Coherent:- Origin

"mid 16th century (in the sense 'logically related to'): from Latin cohaerent- 'sticking together', from the verb cohaerere"

maesteg, please don't get involved. I wasn't replying to you.

Please don't try and turn this into an argument again.

Thanks.

Cymroglan wrote:
I can understand that countries who still use the traditional club system would need to have a A side due to the fact that their Union would have far less input on selection and playing position and also their reluctance to introduce youngsters into the system at a early age.

I agree, there is less necessity to have an A-Set up in Wales. France have also opted against it, most of the Southern Hemisphere teams have also dropped their A-sides. It is really only England, Scotland, Ireland and Italy that still carry the tradition on.

Most Southern Hemisphere teams? None of them have dropped it have they? It looks like the only teams that have dropped it are Wales and France.

SafeAsMilk wrote:It doesn't make sense. How can a 'nation' that professes to have rugby as its 'national' sport not have an 'A' side.

Beggars belief, it truly does!

No money?

How much dis it cost to run an A side? Probably less than Rush, etc earn in a season.

What does a A side achieve ? all you are doing is pitting your second or third choice players against more often than not players with even less ability.
You would get a better idea of how good or bad they are if you played probables against possibles.

Morgannwg wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:It doesn't make sense. How can a 'nation' that professes to have rugby as its 'national' sport not have an 'A' side.

Beggars belief, it truly does!

No money?

deja vu safe, yet another Childish dig.

'Wales', a nation in the UK, doesn't profess to have rugby as its national sport, it most definitely is its national sport.

Rather like yours appears to be anti Welsh digs. Grow up.

Instead of cheap shots try analysing the issue; what good has the A side done for England? please answer that directly.

gowales wrote:Most Southern Hemisphere teams? None of them have dropped it have they? It looks like the only teams that have dropped it are Wales and France.

SA, NZ and the Wallabies have all disbanded theirs'.

Gatts wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:It doesn't make sense. How can a 'nation' that professes to have rugby as its 'national' sport not have an 'A' side.

Beggars belief, it truly does!

No money?

deja vu safe, yet another Childish dig.

'Wales', a nation in the UK, doesn't profess to have rugby as its national sport, it most definitely is its national sport.

Rather like yours appears to be anti Welsh digs. Grow up.

Instead of cheap shots try analysing the issue; what good has the A side done for England? please answer that directly.

I can't see it happening myself - cheap digs and tired wums are all I've seen sour post

Just remembered that Cuthbert was born and raised in England but with a Welsh mother like Shingler. No one seems to question him...

I do, he's shoite.

gowales wrote:Just remembered that Cuthbert was born and raised in England but with a Welsh mother like Shingler. No one seems to question him...

Why would anybody need to question him? His only representative team has been Wales so there is no comparison.

Gatts,

Please stop trying to turn this into an argument. I only questioned why Wales don't have an 'A' side for their national sport.

It appears that some think they should and some don't. There's nothing sinister at play here

He was probably not good enough for the England age groups.

But he was developed as a player in England. Hartpury College to be exact which has very strong links to Gloucester.

Im directing this at the people who are criticising players for leaving the countries they were 'developed' in. Are they up in arms about Cuthbert as well or only Shingler because hes leaving Wales.

The difference is that Shingler has already represented Wales and the criticism is aimed at the rules rather than the player.

Not by most people on this forum and certainly not by the media.

I'm questioning the rules....

Extract from IRB Rules:
8.3 For the purposes of this Regulation, a Player is deemed to have played for
the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team or the next senior
fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of a Union if:
(a) He is selected for such team to play in an International Match against
the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team or the next
senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of another Union
(or in a fifteen-a-side international Match against another Union’s
senior or next senior Touring Squad during an IRB approved
International Tour) and is present at the Match played by that team
either as a replacement, substitute or a playing member of that team
and has, at the time of the Match, reached the age of majority;

I can't see where Scotlands case is based. He played for Wales next Senior 15-a-side team agaist France's next 15-a-side team. He was over 18 so over the age of majority. The rules say nothing about signing declarations.

You need to read the whole regulation AND the guidance AND the notes

I have, and the IRB declaration that Scotland must get Shingler to sign includes a declaration that he has not played for the Senior 15 or next senior 15 of any other national side. See link (declaration is towards the end).

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/060924gfirbregulation8_883.pdf

Scotlands case seems to be based on the fact that Wales did not get Shingler to sign this declaration when he played for them. But the onus is on the player and the fact remains he did play for Wales next 15, so he cannot tick the box to say he did not.

Where is the ambiguity?

As I understand it most of the ambiguity is around whether the French team were the recognised 2nd team at the time of the match and some confusion around IRB designation as such. The IRB should be able to rule on this quickly.

Anyone got any idea when we are likely to get a decision?

justified sinner wrote:As I understand it most of the ambiguity is around whether the French team were the recognised 2nd team at the time of the match and some confusion around IRB designation as such. The IRB should be able to rule on this quickly.

Anyone got any idea when we are likely to get a decision?

The operative word?!?! Sometime in the next 6 months?!

Then of course we have the possibilities of appeals to either CAS, or via courts based on restraint of trade, or similar.

Watch this space.

From today's Herald in Sunday:

"SRU play it poorly in Shingler row

Alasdair Reid
Rugby reporter

In an age of lightning communications, snap judgments and instant responses, there is something quaintly reassuring in the knowledge that there are some cul-de-sacs so far removed from the information superhighway's fast lanes that you can still get away with having the reaction times of a root vegetable.

Sadly, however, one of those enclaves of inertia can now be found at Murrayfield, home of the Scottish Rugby Union, whose residents displayed the speed off the mark of a family of arthritic slugs in their failure to anticipate the furore that erupted last week over the selection of Steven Shingler for Scotland's Six Nations squad.

How else could you explain the absence of any reference to Shingler's previous involvement with the Wales Under-20 side when the player was named by Andy Robinson? Given that the Welsh are convinced that Shingler is their player, the one certainty in the whole messy business was that a row would soon erupt, but the stushie that inevitably ensued seemed to catch the SRU on the hop.

The rights and wrongs of the affair are due to be debated by the International Rugby Board. As that organisation tend to be no more fleet-footed in their deliberations than their counterparts in Edinburgh, Shingler's chances of making his Scotland debut against England next month are receding fast, but it is already clear that the SRU have missed a golden opportunity to drive the debate forward on their terms.

Instead, by sweeping Shingler's past under the carpet, they gave the distinct impression that they knew there was something to hide. The 20-year-old's arrival in the squad was trumpeted with the news that he had a host of relations in Langholm and he enjoyed his annual trip to the town's Common Riding festival; the fact he had played umpteen times for the Wales Under-20 team merited not one mention.

Within a few minutes of last week's announcement I had received the first of three phone calls that alerted me to the notorious S4C advert in which Shingler pulls on the Wales No 10 shirt worn by such Welsh luminaries as Cliff Morgan, Barry John and Phil Bennett. All good knockabout stuff, but within a couple of hours the phone was buzzing with news of a more serious twist to the tale – namely that the Welsh Rugby Union were preparing a statement claiming Shingler was eligible to play only for them.

Whatever happened to the old rugby principle of getting your retaliation in first? Far from leading the debate, the SRU were bouncing off the ropes, obliged to put out a hasty statement explaining that Shingler had refused to sign a WRU document that would commit him to Wales for all time. It was a complete red herring. Shingler's binding commitment would be established by participation in certain games, not his signature.

The saddest part of all this is that the Scottish governing body have also passed over the chance to win an important moral argument that has become lost in the regulatory fudge. The question that the whole sport should be asking is not whether Shingler should be able to play for Scotland, but whether Wales should be allowed to designate an age-grade team as their "next senior" side for the purposes of establishing sole Test eligibility.

Wales – and a few other countries – are effectively putting young players into limbo this way, tying them up for all time. Realistically, Shingler had little hope of breaking into the Wales team, but he could now be bound to a country that doesn't want him. Had the SRU taken the initiative they could have set the moral agenda. It's not just the Scotland team who don't take their chances."

Not good news for the SRU if they are losing the battle in their own media. Anyway, thought I'd quote the article in full principally cos I love the word 'stushie' - pure, dead gallus

There isnt much of a battle to lose and Wales havent actually done anything wrong, they invested in a young player, and it's been well established under current IRB rules that Wales have designated Wales U20 as their second team.
Isa Nacewa got tied to Fiji after playing for them, so I can't what Wales have done wrong here.
The real issue is why are Scotland and Ireland trying to poach Welsh developed players? Are their own players not good enough?

For the same reason Wales tried to poach Morgan, unions should always be trying to get the best players and as a fan I would expect nothing less. What I think is wrong is that some countries gain a hold of players at u20 and others can't, I think it should be clarified and neither union is in the wrong. I personally think he should be allowed to play for Scotland but afterwards the IRB should make the rules very clear.

123456789 wrote:For the same reason Wales tried to poach Morgan, unions should always be trying to get the best players and as a fan I would expect nothing less. What I think is wrong is that some countries gain a hold of players at u20 and others can't, I think it should be clarified and neither union is in the wrong. I personally think he should be allowed to play for Scotland but afterwards the IRB should make the rules very clear.

I dont agree because Ben Morgan could not get any kind of pro or semi pro contract with an English club in fact the only club who gave him a chance was Ebbw Vale as an amateur, the Scarlets then gave him a development contract and he went through the region, Ben Morgan is someone who has come through the WELSH system.

Shingler, the Ruddock Brothers, Loxton, Jarvis, etc have all come through the Welsh age groups and been approached by other countries to go and play for them, there is a difference.

Yes, but that's not my point. If at the age of 18 Dan Carter discovered a Welsh grandparent I'm pretty sure you would advocate approaching him.

And should Mapasua (NZ), Parisse (Arg), Armitage (Fra), Martin Johnson (NZ) not have had the right to choose the countries they were elegible for because they played age group rugby in other countries.

Rules are rules and if the rules said they are committed to that country then no they should not be eligible it's not rocket science.
Age grade is on thing but playing for a A side or if the U20s is the designated second team is then another story.
There is no excuse for not knowing what you are letting yourself in for.

123456789 wrote:For the same reason Wales tried to poach Morgan, unions should always be trying to get the best players and as a fan I would expect nothing less. What I think is wrong is that some countries gain a hold of players at u20 and others can't, I think it should be clarified and neither union is in the wrong. I personally think he should be allowed to play for Scotland but afterwards the IRB should make the rules very clear.

Agreed. While I don't think it is right to tie multi qualified under 20's to one country, if the IRB decide that then so be it. What we need is clarity and a level playing field. Why should Wales and possibly France be able to decide this is the case for them, but not other nations?

Current IRB reg's need a rethink.

justified sinner
There is nothing stopping other countries doing it if they designate their U20s as the second team.
Wales could have given him and several other 18 year olds 2 min game time for the A side that would have tied them to Wales so what is the difference ?

justified sinner wrote:
Agreed. While I don't think it is right to tie multi qualified under 20's to one country, if the IRB decide that then so be it. What we need is clarity and a level playing field. Why should Wales and possibly France be able to decide this is the case for them, but not other nations?

Current IRB reg's need a rethink.

I think it's more a case of Wales and France simply declaring that for them, that's the entry point. It's up to the other Unions to choose their way. It's not one law for us, one for the others - more 'this is our law, the rest can decide for themselves'

Having said that, I also think that given that the rules are non-distinct between Unions, this young player should be allowed play for the Nation he wants to play for but more strict rules need to then be set in place...as I'm sure the Welsh are just trying to address the principle and the individual player is the unfortunate man in the middle.

Cymroglan, valid point. My view, perhaps not expressed lucidly enough, is that the IRB regs should be the same for every nation, thus avoiding the (ridiculous) sort of confusion we have here.

justified sinner wrote:Cymroglan, valid point. My view, perhaps not expressed lucidly enough, is that the IRB regs should be the same for every nation, thus avoiding the (ridiculous) sort of confusion we have here.

They are

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

justified sinner wrote:Cymroglan, valid point. My view, perhaps not expressed lucidly enough, is that the IRB regs should be the same for every nation, thus avoiding the (ridiculous) sort of confusion we have here.

They are

Agreed. There is no ambiguity, the rule is exacly the same for every rugby playing nation. Wales chosen second 15 is the under 20s. Shingler knows this, SRU and WRU know this. But don't hold your breath for a similarly clear response from the IRB.

THe IRB will have to adapt, reform and rewrite the rule as few teams have A-Teams these days. I think it is only England, Ireland, Scotland and possibly Italy that still have an A-side.

And currently france