another concerning issue for the WRU over Steven shingler

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu 05 Jan 2012, 11:04 am

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 Headscratch

by Knowsit17 Mon 09 Jan 2012, 10:59 pm

How do all of you know that it hasn't always been his ambition to play for Scotland, maybe that was something in their house that he sided with his Mum or something along those lines. He diplomatically said it was his ambition to play International rugby[b] in an interview again leaving his options open.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/15773032.stm

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 10 Jan 2012, 9:05 am

Knowsit, let me take the liberty of re-interpreting young Shingler's words for you from the BBC piece:

"London Irish back Steven Shingler says he is hoping to use Friday's Heineken Cup game against Cardiff Blues to get himself in the ~~Wales~~ (should have read Scotland - lazy BBC journalism) reckoning.

The former Scarlets fly-half has played for Wales Under-20s and is hoping to make the move into the senior squad (insert "Scotland's" - omission).

The Exiles travel to Cardiff hoping to put behind them last weekend's opening Heineken Cup defeat by Edinburgh

"It'll be nice to go back to Wales and put down a marker (insert "for Scotland" - again, lazy journalism and not reading between the lines properly)," Swansea-born Shingler, 20, told BBC Radio Berkshire.

Shingler signed for London Irish in January, having made four appearances for the Welsh region.

Primarily signed as a fly-half, he has spent much of the season playing at centre and says he is looking forward to going 'home' this weekend.

"It was a big decision to leave Wales and move away from home. Mike Catt (backs coach) is here and I felt I need to move here to reach my goals (insert "of playing for Scotland")

"I'll go home for the weekend and it'll be nice to go back and see the family and hopefully it'll be an enjoyable weekend instead of a depressing one," he said.

"It'll be nice to show that I'm still here and in the mix and hopefully I can put in a good performance and get people talking about how well I performed and show them that I am one for the future (insert "in Scotland" - typo).

"It was a big decision to leave Wales and move away from home. Mike Catt (backs coach) is here and I felt I need to move here to reach my goals ("of playing for Scotland" was what he actually said).

"It is a dream to play international rugby and what you aspire to do. I've not had any contact and I know it is tough to get into the ~~Wales~~ (replace with "Scotland" - sloppy journalism putting words in his mouth like that) reckoning when you move away but I am playing every Saturday and that is what I enjoy.

"It's worked well (the move) and my form is pretty good and I've had a lot of game time. I've managed to play well enough to keep my place.

"Mike Catt has pushed me and tested new boundaries and it's worked out."

Irish will be hoping to come away from Cardiff with some points following their disappointing opening-game defeat by Edinburgh at the Madejski Stadium.

Shingler added it would be extra special for him to beat the Blues considering his roots to Llanelli and Swansea, saying: "It would be lovely to stick one on them." "

Hope that's cleared all that up Wink

by Knowsit17 Wed 11 Jan 2012, 9:46 pm

Well that levels it out then, considering all AR did was wear a Gatland mask and adopt a NZ accent when meeting Shingler as well as informing him that Wales had changed its name to Scotland Smile

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Jan 2012, 8:08 am

Knowsit, you've got it - total ~~Scots~~English duplicity, I'd expect nothing less Wink

From today's Herald, an interesting take on the affair:

"Shingler affair brings shame on all our rugby unions

by Kevin Ferrie, Senior Sports Writer.

If the International Rugby Board (IRB) panel hearing the Steven Shingler case believes that the then teenager was asked to sign paperwork committing him to the Welsh Rugby Union last season and he refused to do so, they should have little trouble in deciding he is now eligible to play for Scotland.

The very fact that Shingler was asked to put his signature to a piece of paper indicates one of two things. Either the Welsh officials were themselves not sure that playing for Wales Under-20s against France Under-20s was sufficient to "capture" him (as unpleasant as that word sounds, it is the terminology used by the sport's lawyers) or a deliberate attempt was being made to dupe him.

If it is the first of those scenarios, it highlights just how unsatisfactory rugby's rules are in this area. If it is the latter, then it is beyond cynical.

Further supporting Shingler's case is that he had, the previous season, been a Wales Under-20s team-mate of two players that they had attempted to "capture" in exactly the same fashion, only for the IRB to rule against them.

Legally, the situation may have changed, because France chop and change which of their teams is designated to be their second XV on an annual basis.

It is utterly ludicrous that Shingler can have played against the other two teams he is eligible to play for in the course of a competition without affecting his right to change allegiance thereafter, yet in the course of the same competition he can be "cup-tied" by playing against another country.

Those struggling to follow what they have read here so far have my sympathy. The basics so far are as follows:

* Players representing either a senior international team or a country's designated second team are committed to play for that country as soon as they play in a match for one of those sides against another senior international team or another designated second team.

* Every rugby union is entitled to nominate which team is its second XV. In the case of Scotland and England, that is their A team. In the case of Wales, they have decided to make it their Under-20s because they do not field an A team. In the case of France, they have swopped repeatedly between their A and Under-20 sides in recent seasons, apparently depending on their fixture list.

* Steven Shingler played for Wales in the Under-20 Six Nations Championship last season. Playing against Scotland and England – both of whom he is qualified to play for through his parents – did not affect his eligibility to play for either. However, because France apparently decided last season that their Under-20 team was their second XV, the Welsh case is that Shingler was "captured" when he played against them.

Further adding to any confusion in the player's mind is that he was a team-mate of two players who, the previous season, found themselves in exactly the same situation. Then, the IRB ruled that James Loxton and Matthew Jarvis were not committed to play for Wales that season because France had fielded an A team that year.

A touch of irony is added to all of this by the fact that Matt Scott, the Edinburgh centre, could be the man to benefit from this as a player with a similar skill set who is on the fringe of the Scotland squad.

He is juggling his first season as a full-time professional player with his studies for a legal degree. Perhaps if Shingler had been doing the same he might have been expected to understand all of this, but he is simply a kid who is at the start of his working life.

While the legalities of all of this may be moot, the morality of the Welsh position will be repugnant if they are prepared to push this all the way. At the very best, they are using this young player, whom they have no intention of putting anywhere near their Test squad in the foreseeable future, to provide themselves with a precedent case. At worst, they are merely being spiteful towards both the Scottish Rugby Union and the lad himself. None of which in any way absolves the SRU from the fact that it has failed Shingler and his family in this case.

I know that Andy Robinson, Scotland's head coach and Mark Dodson, the new chief executive, are deeply embarrassed by what has happened, and rightly so. However, neither of them should have had to be responsible for getting the paperwork in order here.

After Scotland's many mistakes in this sort of area in the past (names such as Budge Pountney and Dave Hilton spring to mind), procedures should have been in place to ensure that every 'i' was dotted and every 't' crossed before Robinson unveiled his big surprise when naming Shingler in his Scotland squad last week.

For years, I have questioned why Murrayfield has employed the army of administrators it does, draining resources that should be spent on getting players on to pitches. If they cannot get something like this right then it only reinforces the point."

by Guest Thu 12 Jan 2012, 9:08 am

[quote= "While the legalities of all of this may be moot, the morality of the Welsh position will be repugnant if they are prepared to push this all the way. At the very best, they are using this young player, whom they have no intention of putting anywhere near their Test squad in the foreseeable future, to provide themselves with a precedent case. At worst, they are merely being spiteful towards both the Scottish Rugby Union and the lad himself. None of which in any way absolves the SRU from the fact that it has failed Shingler and his family in this case. "[/quote]

I don't get all of this blaming Wales nonsense. Wales don't have the power to play God, we can't decide to rescind a cap, we can't change the IRB laws. How are we being spiteful? Does this journalist actually think that Wales are able to say to any capped players "OK, lad it didn't work out for you so you can go and play for another country. Thanks for your time". It is the IRB who has the ultimate say, surely? Wales cannot rule on this because they are not the rule makers.

by Glas a du Thu 12 Jan 2012, 9:10 am

The very fact that Shingler was asked to put his signature to a piece of paper indicates one of two things. Either the Welsh officials were themselves not sure that playing for Wales Under-20s against France Under-20s was sufficient to "capture" him (as unpleasant as that word sounds, it is the terminology used by the sport's lawyers) or a deliberate attempt was being made to dupe him.

Wrong! It is IRB guidance to regulation 8 that Unions should get ALL players who represent their national and next national team for the first time to sign a declaration - the schedule to the regulation even gives a sample form for use!

At the very best, they are using this young player, whom they have no intention of putting anywhere near their Test squad in the foreseeable future, to provide themselves with a precedent case. At worst, they are merely being spiteful towards both the Scottish Rugby Union and the lad himself.

Or a third option, trying their best to follow inadequate and contradictory 'guidance' and procedures from the IRB.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Jan 2012, 9:22 am

Glas a du wrote:
The very fact that Shingler was asked to put his signature to a piece of paper indicates one of two things. Either the Welsh officials were themselves not sure that playing for Wales Under-20s against France Under-20s was sufficient to "capture" him (as unpleasant as that word sounds, it is the terminology used by the sport's lawyers) or a deliberate attempt was being made to dupe him.

Wrong! It is IRB guidance to regulation 8 that Unions should get ALL players who represent their national and next national team for the first time to sign a declaration - the schedule to the regulation even gives a sample form for use!

At the very best, they are using this young player, whom they have no intention of putting anywhere near their Test squad in the foreseeable future, to provide themselves with a precedent case. At worst, they are merely being spiteful towards both the Scottish Rugby Union and the lad himself.

Or a third option, trying their best to follow inadequate and contradictory 'guidance' and procedures from the IRB.

This seems most likely to me, Glas

by Glas a du Thu 12 Jan 2012, 11:01 am

When are Loxton and Jarvis playing for Ireland again? Have they played for Connacht yet?

by Effervescing Elephant Thu 12 Jan 2012, 12:16 pm

Blimey, just read all 11 pages in one sitting. My eyes are bleeding. So, what's happening then?....

by gowales Thu 12 Jan 2012, 12:36 pm

[quote="Glas a du"]

The very fact that Shingler was asked to put his signature to a piece of paper indicates one of two things. Either the Welsh officials were themselves not sure that playing for Wales Under-20s against France Under-20s was sufficient to "capture" him (as unpleasant as that word sounds, it is the terminology used by the sport's lawyers) or a deliberate attempt was being made to dupe him.

Wrong! It is IRB guidance to regulation 8 that Unions should get ALL players who represent their national and next national team for the first time to sign a declaration - the schedule to the regulation even gives a sample form for use!

Interesting. Most people don't seem to realise that or are completing ignoring it.
Doesn't this mean that in this case Shingler is right?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Jan 2012, 12:38 pm

go, unbelievably, I think it's still not clear cut! Just makes you want to Crying or Very sad

and then

by gowales Thu 12 Jan 2012, 12:41 pm

Indeed

by Glas a du Thu 12 Jan 2012, 12:52 pm

Go - the RULE is very clear cut:

If you play for an Union's top three teams (2 15 a side and the 7 a side teams) against one of another Union's top three teams, you can not play for any other Union's top three teams.

Then you have the GUIDANCE

The question for the IRB is whether the obligations created in the guidance forms part of the rule. If so he can't play for Scotland and Wales and France are in breach (Scotland wont be until they put his name on the team sheet of one of their top three teams)

UNLESS the IRB decide he's such a nice boy and its not his fault really and Scotland need an inside Centre whereas Wales have three or four and...etc and allow it.

by dummy_half Thu 12 Jan 2012, 1:54 pm

glas
My interpretation is that the Rule is the part that is binding, and the explanatory guidelines are to prevent problems in the interpretation and operation of the rules.

Given the wording in Rule 8.2, it appears to me that participating in a match (which falls under the definitions in Rule 8 regarding 'next senior' teams) amounts to a declaration of eligibility.

The guidance (note 4) includes the following (regarding potential dual qualification):
"Accordingly, if a Player is deemed to have played for such a
team, even if he is able to satisfy one or more of the eligibility criteria set
out in Regulation 8.1, he will not be able to play for any other Union.
... Once a Player has committed himself to a particular
Union, through participation in one of the Matches or Tours identified in
Regulations 8.3 or 8.4, he is unable to change his “Rugby Nationality”
which becomes fixed."

This seems to be quite clear that participation in the game against France is a declaration of eligibility for Wales (assuming the France side is considered their 'next senior' team).

Having said that, guidance note 20 can provide a rather different interpretation:
"20. What must Unions do to ensure (and demonstrate) compliance
with the eligibility Regulations?
Unions must ensure that before a Player is selected for the first time for its
senior or next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team or its
senior National Representative Sevens Team the Player completes the
standard form declaration attached to these Explanatory Guidelines at
Schedule [1]. In addition, before selecting a Player, Unions must ensure
that they obtain valid/authentic documentation and such other evidence
that may be necessary to prove, definitively, a Player’s eligibility to play
for that Union. Each Union must notify the IRB of the names of all
Player’s selected for its senior and next senior National Representative
Team and its senior National Representative Sevens Team on an annual
basis. ... On 1 December each year, each Union must certify to the IRB that each Player selected to represent the senior or next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of the Union or its National Representative Sevens Team during the past year has completed, in full, the declaration form and that each Player was eligible to represent the Union in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 8."

Seems to me Wales could find themselves in a spot of bother over the selection of a player who had not completed the correct Eligibility form (noting that the motivation of this form appears to be to ensure that the player is correctly eligible to play for their selected country so as to avoid the sorts of issue that occurred for Howarth, Sinkinson, Hilton etc,).

by Glas a du Thu 12 Jan 2012, 2:16 pm

Yes, which I acknowledge. But if you can find where it says "and if they do not the effect on the player's eligibility will be..." you're a better man than I because I can't find it. Its one thing to create obligations, but the consequences of breach must be set out also. They are not.

My view is that on any interpretation the filling of forms or otherwise is irrelevant, what was the status of France under 20 when he played them? If it was "next national side" then he is not eligible for Scotland UNLESS the IRB bend their own rules.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Jan 2012, 2:22 pm

dummy_half wrote:glas
My interpretation is that the Rule is the part that is binding, and the explanatory guidelines are to prevent problems in the interpretation and operation of the rules.

Given the wording in Rule 8.2, it appears to me that participating in a match (which falls under the definitions in Rule 8 regarding 'next senior' teams) amounts to a declaration of eligibility.

The guidance (note 4) includes the following (regarding potential dual qualification):
"Accordingly, if a Player is deemed to have played for such a
team, even if he is able to satisfy one or more of the eligibility criteria set
out in Regulation 8.1, he will not be able to play for any other Union.
... Once a Player has committed himself to a particular
Union, through participation in one of the Matches or Tours identified in
Regulations 8.3 or 8.4, he is unable to change his “Rugby Nationality”
which becomes fixed."

This seems to be quite clear that participation in the game against France is a declaration of eligibility for Wales (assuming the France side is considered their 'next senior' team).

Having said that, guidance note 20 can provide a rather different interpretation:
"20. What must Unions do to ensure (and demonstrate) compliance
with the eligibility Regulations?
Unions must ensure that before a Player is selected for the first time for its
senior or next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team or its
senior National Representative Sevens Team the Player completes the
standard form declaration attached to these Explanatory Guidelines at
Schedule [1]. In addition, before selecting a Player, Unions must ensure
that they obtain valid/authentic documentation and such other evidence
that may be necessary to prove, definitively, a Player’s eligibility to play
for that Union. Each Union must notify the IRB of the names of all
Player’s selected for its senior and next senior National Representative
Team and its senior National Representative Sevens Team on an annual
basis. ... On 1 December each year, each Union must certify to the IRB that each Player selected to represent the senior or next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of the Union or its National Representative Sevens Team during the past year has completed, in full, the declaration form and that each Player was eligible to represent the Union in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 8."

Seems to me Wales could find themselves in a spot of bother over the selection of a player who had not completed the correct Eligibility form (noting that the motivation of this form appears to be to ensure that the player is correctly eligible to play for their selected country so as to avoid the sorts of issue that occurred for Howarth, Sinkinson, Hilton etc,).

For me, this is the critical piece - had France 'registered' their U20 side as their second senior XVs side?

by Glas a du Thu 12 Jan 2012, 2:28 pm

If they had would the IRB allow the de facto position cloud the issue? That is whatever the declaration made or not made, would the resurrection of the France A side in 09-10 mean all bets are off?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Jan 2012, 2:58 pm

Glas a du wrote:If they had would the IRB allow the de facto position cloud the issue? That is whatever the declaration made or not made, would the resurrection of the France A side in 09-10 mean all bets are off?

Why do you say 'resurrection', Glas? I thought that it had always been existence, but lapsed after the 2010 Churchill Cup or IRB Nations Cup?

by Glas a du Thu 12 Jan 2012, 3:02 pm

Flip knows what the Flip Flip France are Flip doing though do they, for Flip's sakes!

by formerly known as Sam Thu 12 Jan 2012, 3:32 pm

I don't get all of this blaming Wales nonsense. Wales don't have the power to play God, we can't decide to rescind a cap, we can't change the IRB laws. How are we being spiteful?

Well I think the journo was saying Wales could have not challenged the call up if they had no interest in capping the lad. The whole thing is a mess and needs to be sorted out properly and quickly.

When do the IRB intend to rule on this? I presume it will be before the 6N.

by Smirnoffpriest Thu 12 Jan 2012, 3:47 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:
I don't get all of this blaming Wales nonsense. Wales don't have the power to play God, we can't decide to rescind a cap, we can't change the IRB laws. How are we being spiteful?

Well I think the journo was saying Wales could have not challenged the call up if they had no interest in capping the lad. The whole thing is a mess and needs to be sorted out properly and quickly.

When do the IRB intend to rule on this? I presume it will be before the 6N.

But if Wales do that they set a precident and the next player to go could be the next Adam Jones or Martyn Williams just before they've been capped at full int status.

by Glas a du Thu 12 Jan 2012, 3:48 pm

In which case the IRB could haul Scotland over the coals when it finally woke up half way into the 6 Nations!

by formerly known as Sam Thu 12 Jan 2012, 3:56 pm

But if Wales do that they set a precident and the next player to go could be the next Adam Jones or Martyn Williams just before they've been capped at full int status.

Then cap them. There are summer tours etc and if Wales were that fussed they'd form an actual A team and put the case to bed by once every couple of years taking all the prospects on an A league tour. The whole nominate a second team thing is a dodgey ruling. Though not the WRU's fault as they are only following the dodgey guidelines given to them.

by dummy_half Thu 12 Jan 2012, 4:12 pm

glas / ASBO

I'm interpreting it the same as you - the failure to have a signed eligibility form for Shingler is a failing of the WRU's record keeping, but has no relevance to whether Shingler has tied himself to Wales (as the Rule only talks about representing the side in applicable games). The crux of the judgement is whether France U20s are their 'next senior' side by their registration with the IRB. If they are, Shingler is tied to Wales regardless of the paperwork, and if they aren't then Shingler would be free to represent Scotland regardless of whether he had correctly submitted an eligibility form for Wales.

by dummy_half Thu 12 Jan 2012, 4:16 pm

Oh, and just as another thought, what happens if the IRB only make the judgement that Shingler is committed to Wales after Scotland have fielded him in a game?

Obviously Scotland cop a big fine for fielding an ineligible player, but is Shingler then elligible to play for Wales in the future?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Jan 2012, 4:18 pm

If that is the case, dummy, I hope so for his sake

by Smirnoffpriest Thu 12 Jan 2012, 4:20 pm

I agree I suppose Sam - was actually writing a bit of a rant in response until I re-read your post and noticed you were saying the same things I was about to type about the dodgy IRB rulings.

by Smirnoffpriest Thu 12 Jan 2012, 4:49 pm

That's a good point Dummy - I can only hope (and maybe even pray) that the IRB have the sanity and good sense (hence the praying) to not allow Shingler to play any international games until this situation is resolved (so that Scotland can't get into the mess Dummy mentioned, but also the WRU couldn't pull a fast one and try and cap him in the full XV while Scotland are waiting on a decision, not saying the WRU would)

by Guest Thu 12 Jan 2012, 5:17 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:
I don't get all of this blaming Wales nonsense. Wales don't have the power to play God, we can't decide to rescind a cap, we can't change the IRB laws. How are we being spiteful?

Well I think the journo was saying Wales could have not challenged the call up if they had no interest in capping the lad. The whole thing is a mess and needs to be sorted out properly and quickly.

When do the IRB intend to rule on this? I presume it will be before the 6N.

If Wales chose not to mention the call up, sweep it under the carpet, and then Scotland capped him, if it transpires that his Wales appearance means he's capped for Wales then Scotland would get in a lot of hot water. Perhaps a massive fine? Cup tied players in football get their clubs massive fines when the mistake is found out. Why risk it? Better to bring it to the attention of the law makers so that they can decide.

What sort of professional organisation would just sweep it under the carpet and hope the laws that be wouldn't find out? Silly idea.

by Adam D Thu 12 Jan 2012, 6:16 pm

just posted on twitter - cant see any press release yet though:

heelsonhalfway Sarah Mockford
IRB rule in Wales' favour in Steve Shingler debate so he can't play for Scotland in Six Nations

by Adam D Thu 12 Jan 2012, 6:19 pm

from the IRB website:

The International Rugby Board has been requested by the Scottish Rugby Union and Welsh Rugby Union to clarify the eligibility status of Steven Shingler.

Under IRB Regulation 8 a player is tied to a country if he or she has played for the senior national fifteen-a-side national representative team or the next senior national representative team or the senior national representative Sevens team against opposition of the same designation. The national Under 20 team can be designated as the next senior national team under the Regulation.

It is the right of a Union to choose whatever team it wishes to be designated as its next senior national representative team. It is also the sole responsibility of a Union to ensure that players selected to play for the teams designated with IRB Regulation 8 are eligible to do so.

The IRB has reiterated to both Unions that during 2011 both Wales and France officially designated their Under 20 team to be the next senior national team. As the IRB has been advised that Shingler represented Wales Under 20 against France Under 20 in 2011 it would therefore indicate that he is tied to Wales and ineligible to play for any other Union.

The SRU and WRU may wish the IRB Regulations Committee to consider this matter formally in accordance with IRB Regulation 2. The Unions are aware of the requirements of such a review.

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2060955.html#shingler+eligibility+clarification

Oops - SRU look a bit silly!

by Cymroglan Thu 12 Jan 2012, 6:24 pm

Good find Adam ,, well that's sorted then.

by Glas a du Thu 12 Jan 2012, 6:27 pm

Oh no. Oh no, no, no.

by Scot Abroad Thu 12 Jan 2012, 6:53 pm

So I guess the IRB rule regarding changing your second nominated team every 4 years is redundant. I wonder what other rules can be bent/ignored?

by munkian Thu 12 Jan 2012, 6:58 pm

Jog on Sweaties thumbsup

by Scot Abroad Thu 12 Jan 2012, 7:00 pm

munkian wrote:Jog on Sweaties

by Cymroglan Thu 12 Jan 2012, 7:02 pm

Scot Abroad wrote:So I guess the IRB rule regarding changing your second nominated team every 4 years is redundant. I wonder what other rules can be bent/ignored?

The French must have changed it in 2011 as the 2010 match did not count towards tying players to Wales.

by munkian Thu 12 Jan 2012, 7:06 pm

Scot Abroad wrote:
munkian wrote:Jog on Sweaties

My bad, you can have Parks back soon, there you go, all better cake

by gowales Thu 12 Jan 2012, 7:09 pm

Got this from scrum.com
http://www.espnscrum.com/six-nations-2012/rugby/story/157470.html

In response to the IRB's statement, the SRU confirmed that they wanted the organisation to adjudicate formally on the matter. The SRU statement read: "We remain fully supportive of the player and his sincere desire to represent Scotland and we intend to refer this matter to the IRB's Regulations Committee in order that it can consider the case formally in accordance with IRB Regulation 2."

What does this mean?

by Cymroglan Thu 12 Jan 2012, 7:11 pm

It means they want it to drag on but I can't see the IRB changing their mind.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 12 Jan 2012, 7:36 pm

No, me either, they cant afford to look any stupider than they already do

by KickAndChase Tue 17 Jan 2012, 10:16 pm

In 2015 when we we meet in the knockout stages Shingler will end up getting a red or something. Incidentally Scotland will still end up losing.

by Sponsored content