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

Numbahs, just out of interest, why do you say that? If that is indeed the case, then the Shingler eligibility row is solved, I think?

No, the question is whether the 2008 declaration that the u 20's were France's next senior team trumps the resurrection of the French A team in 2010.

Does not matter if they have one now or not it was when the match was played that matters.

Even further than that, Cymroglan, as Glas says, it's what they declared to the IRB in '08, whether they changed that (and were permitted to do so by the IRB), and whether they informed the IRB?

France do not have an A-Team.

Is the arguement here not that this player does not want to play for Wales but does want to play for Scotland ?

Seagultaf wrote: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.

If it doesnt go in favour of Wales then why have IRB rules in the first place?

The IRB tells nations to designate a second team, not every uses the word A team, there are Fiji Warriors, England Saxons, Wales U20, Junior All Blacks, etc, etc.

Realistically it should be a cap for the designated A side ties you to a nation, regardless of the status of the opposition. Why should France U20 count but not England U20? they are both capped games and everyone knows Wales second team is their U20 team, which is inside the IRB rules at the moment.

Personally I think Ireland and Scotland are in the wrong for head hunting Welsh developed players, and the IRB are at more fault for having such a shambolic eligibility system.

The Scottish reasoning is even more farcical. Yes Shingler played for Wales U20, he knew Wales U20 were Wales second team but wanted to keep his options open anyway!
Dan Parks is Australian, played 60-70 games for Scotland, but he didnt really mean it, he was keeping his options open and wants to go and play for Australia now...

SafeAsMilk wrote: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

no you questioned Wales as a 'nation' and you questioned that rugby is the 'national sport'

and answer the damned question then....what has the A team done for England?

As it says that the rules are based on past experiences and they can't foresee all circumstance and this is a different circumstance. Both sides have reasonable arguments in their favour on one side their is Wales who've got the laws on their side however it isn't that simple, you also have the SRU who believe that they're right. How can the u20 side be their next Senior side, by the word senior it cannot be an age grade team.

Because the IRB said they can.

Numbers mate, as with so many rules in rugby, they have do keep up with the fast pace of ever changing professionalism.

The A-Team is a concept that we still hold alive in the six nations, well just about, but it is a dwindling entity.

Not necessarily a good thing in my or many other opinion.

The IRB will have to adapt else these types of incidents like Shinglers', Jarvis' etc will occur from time to time.

I agree, perhaps they should make it that you cannot play for another nation if you play for an A team however at u20 the union have the right to give forms for people to sign asking if they had any intentions of playing for other nations.

Tricky business.

Numbers if you want to play for another nation then you would need to be rather dumb to play for somebody else's designated U20 side especially against France or any other country who does not have a A side.

A sides Saxons 7s U20s or whatever you want to call them all do the same thing they tie the players to that country.
If anything Wales not having a A side are doing other people a favour by making it easier to poach players off us.
If a 18/20 year old does not realise what he is letting himself into then it makes you wonder how they function on a daily basis.

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Is the arguement here not that this player does not want to play for Wales but does want to play for Scotland ?

Often though it's not about what the player wants. Nacewa wanted to play for the All Blacks but couldn't because of his Fiji cap. Ditto Regan King allegedly wanting to play for Wales but having an All Black cap.

Cymroglan wrote:Numbers if you want to play for another nation then you would need to be rather dumb to play for somebody else's designated U20 side especially against France or any other country who does not have a A side.

A sides Saxons 7s U20s or whatever you want to call them all do the same thing they tie the players to that country.
If anything Wales not having a A side are doing other people a favour by making it easier to poach players off us.
If a 18/20 year old does not realise what he is letting himself into then it makes you wonder how they function on a daily basis.

The argument for the addition of qualification of age group rugby would be that currently whilst playing for one nation in a championship you could realistically go and play for another if your previous nation were knocked out....?

I think when you qualify for your national team at any age you are making a choice to honour the money and time and patience that nation grant you and your talent.

The fact that players wish to change their allegiances willy nilly taking the course their "professionalism" choses to take them.

That is a sadder day for international sport...!

How much money did the WRU put in though, they probably don't fund the grassroots clubs, they don't directly pay just for him with the age group side. It won't be too much.
As I've said what I think is wrong is that playing at u20 against one team binds you and against another it doesn't. They need to completely clarify the laws, one rule for all.

If you want one rule for all then should Wales be allowed to poach a Saxsons player or a Ireland A player ?
The rules are there if you play for A teams Saxons or in the case of Wales against somebody else's designated U20s side then you are committed to that country.

Time money and also the fact he took somebody else's place in the Wales U20s squad all adds up.

A lot of hypothesis...!

I am intrigued to see how the IRB address the FACT that their qualification for international honours need a review.

They either have to accept a professionalism in the way a player pledges their allegiance to a nation or condemn it.

The main point that needs to be looked at is IRB rules. You can't have what appears to be different sets of rules depending on what country you play for, if you play at U20 level it needs to be the same rule right across the board either you are tied to that country or you aren't. If the rules are kept as they are and that u20s don't tie you to a country then it is just tough luck to those that decide not to field an 'A' team.

Majestic83 lets have a level playing field why should countries who cant afford to run a A side be penalised or is that still tough luck.
If you want the same rule for everybody then why not just say that you can play for anybody but are only fully committed once you receive a full cap.
That means Morgan could play for the Saxons and still be eligible for Wales but that does not sound so appealing does it.
The countries that do not field a A team far outnumber those that do so really the rule needs to be changed and bring those that have a A side in line with other nations.

Majestic83 wrote:The main point that needs to be looked at is IRB rules. You can't have what appears to be different sets of rules depending on what country you play for, if you play at U20 level it needs to be the same rule right across the board either you are tied to that country or you aren't. If the rules are kept as they are and that u20s don't tie you to a country then it is just tough luck to those that decide not to field an 'A' team.

You certainly can not discriminate against teams that can not afford to have an A-Team. Remember it is a minority of countries in International rugby that still have A-Teams.

Just wondering are you any relation to the other Majestic Members of the board?

How much actual money does it cost to run an 'A' team for a few games a season.....not that much especially compared to some of the big money deals the welsh clubs are paying their foreign imports!! If it is one rule straigh across the board then no nation can complain whether that be make it that is under 20 level or keep it at 'A' team level.
Many of the smaller nations still manage to run 'A' teams no bother, teams as small as poland so to say that teams would be discriminated against by not affording is not correct.
And nope i ain't related to any others on the board.

So are people calling for the laws put down by the IRB to be changed AND back dated just so Scotland can have a half decent fly-half ?

Its because the WRU was terribly run during the 90's and early 2000's. To top that they spent all of the money on the millenium stadium and in fact we're still in debt.

Not having an A team is the WRU's fault and they should have to pay the consequences rather being able to find a loophole. Argentina, Italy and Scotland manage to have A teams and there Unions are probably less wealthy then ours.

The Millennium Stadium was a hell of an investment and is making money.... you do realize how debt and profit work right ?

AlynDavies wrote:

Seagultaf wrote: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.

If it doesnt go in favour of Wales then why have IRB rules in the first place?

The IRB tells nations to designate a second team, not every uses the word A team, there are Fiji Warriors, England Saxons, Wales U20, Junior All Blacks, etc, etc.

Realistically it should be a cap for the designated A side ties you to a nation, regardless of the status of the opposition. Why should France U20 count but not England U20? they are both capped games and everyone knows Wales second team is their U20 team, which is inside the IRB rules at the moment.

Personally I think Ireland and Scotland are in the wrong for head hunting Welsh developed players, and the IRB are at more fault for having such a shambolic eligibility system.

The Scottish reasoning is even more farcical. Yes Shingler played for Wales U20, he knew Wales U20 were Wales second team but wanted to keep his options open anyway!
Dan Parks is Australian, played 60-70 games for Scotland, but he didnt really mean it, he was keeping his options open and wants to go and play for Australia now...

AD, and they'd be very welcome to him

maestegmafia wrote:France do not have an A-Team.

maesteg, I think part of the problem is that France HAVE had an A team in the past: IRB Nations Cup 2009, for example. Now if it is indeed the case that the declaration of a country's second senior team happens every four years on an anniversary of 2000, then France would have made that declaration in 2008 and it should still hold in 2011 - they would be able to change it this year. But heck, I'm as confused as the next person!

That doesn't change the fact that the WRU was a joke and the problems we have now all stem from that period. The point i was making is that the WRU should have to pay the consequences no matter what. I know that millenium stadium is making profit but Wales should have found a way to keep an a team going or lose their players.

What problems exactly ? Its the SRU that have problems if they have to look to other countries for players in Key positions, the WRU youth system seems to be working fine

munkian wrote:What problems exactly ? Its the SRU that have problems if they have to look to other countries for players in Key positions, the WRU youth system seems to be working fine

are you having a laugh? Cos Wales haven't ever done that? 'Cmon, reality check time, all countries do it, some more than other, and it varies thru time, but none of the national unions are

I'm saying the Welsh youth system is producing great young players that rich clubs are willing to pay big money for.

The SRU is....

The SRU are producing a hell of a lot more forwards.

Majestic83 wrote:How much actual money does it cost to run an 'A' team for a few games a season.....not that much especially compared to some of the big money deals the welsh clubs are paying their foreign imports!! If it is one rule straigh across the board then no nation can complain whether that be make it that is under 20 level or keep it at 'A' team level.
Many of the smaller nations still manage to run 'A' teams no bother, teams as small as poland so to say that teams would be discriminated against by not affording is not correct.

It was costing Wales £250,000 a year to run an A-Team in 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/2632733.stm

The IRB can not base a rule of eligibility on something that the majority of the Rugby playing world don't coincide with. Especially as it is the large majority of the world who do not have A-Sides now. THe IRB should amend the rule to make the decision work in a different way that suits everyone.

If it wasn't for the Six Nations A-Team competition, which is currently only a four nation competition, only the Chuchill cup ever sees a Nation enter an A-Team.

I am not saying that an A-Team is not a good idea, I think it is. it is just a minority concept.


Buy the way couldn't find any mention anywhere of your example Poland having an A-Team, do you have a link...?

munkian wrote:I'm saying the Welsh youth system is producing great young players that rich clubs are willing to pay big money for.

The SRU is....

... producing great young players for the first time in years (Grant, MacArthur, Gray, Harley, Fusaro, Wilson, Weir, Jackson, Bennett, Hogg, etc. all at Glasgow, Glichrist, Grant, Denton, McInally, Leonard, Scott, Brown, etc. all at Edinburgh)

Presumably by "rich clubs" you meant English premiership clubs?

maestegmafia wrote:

Majestic83 wrote:How much actual money does it cost to run an 'A' team for a few games a season.....not that much especially compared to some of the big money deals the welsh clubs are paying their foreign imports!! If it is one rule straigh across the board then no nation can complain whether that be make it that is under 20 level or keep it at 'A' team level.
Many of the smaller nations still manage to run 'A' teams no bother, teams as small as poland so to say that teams would be discriminated against by not affording is not correct.

It was costing Wales £250,000 a year to run an A-Team in 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/2632733.stm

The IRB can not base a rule of eligibility on something that the majority of the Rugby playing world don't coincide with. Especially as it is the large majority of the world who do not have A-Sides now. THe IRB should amend the rule to make the decision work in a different way that suits everyone.

If it wasn't for the Six Nations A-Team competition, which is currently only a four nation competition, only the Chuchill cup ever sees a Nation enter an A-Team.

I am not saying that an A-Team is not a good idea, I think it is. it is just a minority concept.


Buy the way couldn't find any mention anywhere of your example Poland having an A-Team, do you have a link...?

Don't forget the IRB Nations Cup and the IRB Pacific Nations Cup?

gowales wrote:The SRU are producing a hell of a lot more forwards.

Well we have Warburton, Lydiate, Faletau, Tipuric, Ian Evans, its front row forwards we need

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

munkian wrote:I'm saying the Welsh youth system is producing great young players that rich clubs are willing to pay big money for.

The SRU is....

... producing great young players for the first time in years (Grant, MacArthur, Gray, Harley, Fusaro, Wilson, Weir, Jackson, Bennett, Hogg, etc. all at Glasgow, Glichrist, Grant, Denton, McInally, Leonard, Scott, Brown, etc. all at Edinburgh)

Presumably by "rich clubs" you meant English premiership clubs?

Um....no...French ?

Aren't the WRU bringing back the A team anyway? so why are people talking about it being redundant Warren Gatland seems to think it would be a useful tool.

This thread has completely gone off on a tangent. See what the IRB ruling is THEN talk about change

maestegmafia
Where do you base your information that 'A' teams are only used in the 6 nations and churchill cup?

I know just from Scotland that they have played in an IRB nations cup which was a tournament for 'A' teams containing scotland, argentina, italy, russia, georgia, romania, namibia and coincidentally France who played in 2009!!

And the reason i know Poland have an 'A' side is that I have friends who have played for them in 'A' tests against the czech republic, germany and the Ukraine!

£250,000 is that not about the salary for Xavier Rush at the Blues?

munkian wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

munkian wrote:I'm saying the Welsh youth system is producing great young players that rich clubs are willing to pay big money for.

The SRU is....

... producing great young players for the first time in years (Grant, MacArthur, Gray, Harley, Fusaro, Wilson, Weir, Jackson, Bennett, Hogg, etc. all at Glasgow, Glichrist, Grant, Denton, McInally, Leonard, Scott, Brown, etc. all at Edinburgh)

Presumably by "rich clubs" you meant English premiership clubs?

Um....no...French ?

Aren't the French nicking your senior players rather than your youngsters?

They were targeting youngsters too- luckily we got contracts for ;Lydiate, Faletau. They were even sniffing after 18/19 Steffan Davies after we beat the Blues at Rodney Parade.

Yea i don't know what hes on about. Phillips 29, Byrne 3, Hook 26

gowales wrote:Yea i don't know what hes on about. Phillips 29, Byrne 3, Hook 26

sorry couldn't help it, that really has made me

lol my bad

Also Richie Gray and Johnnie Beattie were offered big money by French Clubs. Rory Lamont played for Toulon.

It's a well-troden path, gowales - Scott Murray went to Montauban after Embra, Hines went to Perpignan, etc.

Majestic83 wrote:maestegmafia
Where do you base your information that 'A' teams are only used in the 6 nations and churchill cup?

I know just from Scotland that they have played in an IRB nations cup which was a tournament for 'A' teams containing scotland, argentina, italy, russia, georgia, romania, namibia and coincidentally France who played in 2009!!

And the reason i know Poland have an 'A' side is that I have friends who have played for them in 'A' tests against the czech republic, germany and the Ukraine!

£250,000 is that not about the salary for Xavier Rush at the Blues?

The Nations Cup may contain one Tier One Nations select XV, an A-Side or a Baa Baas. Namibia, Romania Georgia etc etc the non Tier one nations are not using their A teams.

A teams are a rare and special entity used as select XVs like the Saxons or Wolfhounds in the Churchill Cup and the four team 6N A-team championship.

The A-Team as a reserve team to the rest of the world is a defunct concept. Therefor the IRB have to allow U20s to be a reason for eligibility.

Regards £250,000 in 2002, which would be a little more cash these days, is probably double the cost of what a region might be playing for a retired All Black to play for them. What a region pays in wages does have little to do with WRU financing as the WRU do not pay wages, we do not have central contracting in Wales. Not really sure why you suggested your point as it has bugger all reference.

Could the WRU afford an A-Team, Yes, they even talked of resurrecting an A-Team for entering the Nations Cup or Churchill cup and everyone in Wales sees the value of it.

That is a debate for a different thread. The debate we are discussing is that the IRB cant base a rule on something that only partially exists.

The fact that only four teams in the world have active A-teams means the IRB have to recognise U20s as well. Their current Law reflects the changing situation.

The main point being about Xavier Rush's wages are that if the welsh rugby union are so heavily in debt and also worried about losing their young talent to other nations why are they forking out money to pay for these ex internationals.
The welsh rugby union claim they can't afford to spend money on an 'A' team but yet find money to spend on other so called luxuries.

Again you are stating that only four teams around the world only have 'A' teams which is by fact totally incorrect.

The current laws do not reflect the changing situation. The only nations who are changing it are Wales and France. The rest have not and this is where the divide can not be. Either the rules are changed so that all nations U20's tie players to that country or the rules are kept the same and it is the 'A' team that ties players to a country. Having a few countries making it u20s and then the rest not having it makes the rules a mockery.

Post a list of current international A-Teams.

The only ones I can find are:

England Saxons
Ireland Wolfhounds
Scotland A
Italy A