What will Happen to Shingler?

Just a quick opinion poll on what you think will happen to Steve over the next few years.

1. Play for Scotland
2. Blocked by Wales but never end up playing for Wales full team
3. Blocked by Wales and makes full debut in the future.

Lets hear what you think will happen.

it will be 2 I know it will, probably the least satisfactory outcome



And we trust these people to administer our game!

"Shingler was told by the U20 team management that if he played in the game he would become a Wales-qualified player and therefore ineligible for selection for any other nation."

That's all good, but that just sounds like hear say. Where is the written and acknowledged proof? They'll need it if they want to keep him, otherwise shingler can simply say "No I wasn't told that."

I don't care who he plays for but it is important that this is carried out correctly and the lads career is not jeopardized. I think the SRU have a more solid case from what I've read so far.

bsando wrote:"Shingler was told by the U20 team management that if he played in the game he would become a Wales-qualified player and therefore ineligible for selection for any other nation."

That's all good, but that just sounds like hear say. Where is the written and acknowledged proof? They'll need it if they want to keep him, otherwise shingler can simply say "No I wasn't told that."

I don't care who he plays for but it is important that this is carried out correctly and the lads career is not jeopardized. I think the SRU have a more solid case from what I've read so far.

I agree. Wouldn't it just be a lot more straight forward if the IRB said if you play for any U20 team then that's it. If your old enough to play professional rugby (which you are at 18/19) then your old enough to make the decision. It would certainly take this grey area away.

I voted that I think he will end up playing for Scotland as unless there is a written deceleration that he understood then it could end up in the civil courts. Then it's a your word against my word case.

I think it will be 1, if shingler is to be believed the wru have no written proof.

I put 1
Unless the WRU got him to sign the form saying he would only play for Wales then all he has to say is he wasn't aware that the game would mean he could only play for Wales.
I hope he does get to play for Scotland because we need a good centre & Wales aren't going to put him in their squad any time soon

But no player needs a written declaration stating who they will be playing for - it's all on the rules and if the player doesn't understand the rules then that's no-ones fault but his own.

Ignorance isn't an exuse - the problem being that the law is so complicated and convoluted that the SRU have read it one way (very understandable) and the WRU have read it another way (very understanable) - it all depends on if the u20's game was seen as Wales (and France's) 2nd XV - it won't then matter if Shingler has signed anything

Whatever the outcome, and I think it should be 3 (if he is good enough) then the IRB need to sort this once and for all. You would have thought after a similar scenario last year that it would have been water tight now, but that is not the case it seems.

Personally I think all U20 games should count whoever they are against.

As mentioned on this forum, at 20 people have been officially adults for 2 years, can drive a car, get married, have kids, vote, fight in wars, have a job, mortgage, be on a jury etc. Its just ridiculous.

My mother and grandmother are English but I knew at about 5 years old that I would never under any circumstances represent anyone other than Wales if I ever got the chance.

We need to stop treating them like children, players get full caps at anything from about 17 onwards so these guys know the score.

I disagree, mate. Yes at age 19 these guys are adults. But still young adults and without sufficient information or life experience to make worldly decisions. And this is a lifelong decision. To me, the time to make that decision is when a kid hits 21, or if he plays for a national team before then. The good thing is this really impacts a fairly small number of players, at least now.

In which case the residency rule needs to change to 3 years after the player is 18. Before then they don't decide where they live.

Doctor Grey - if thats true then people under 20 shouldn't be able to marry, sign up to the army, live on their own etc. As you need a lot more 'worldly experience to decide who you love, whether you want to fight or if your responsible enough to live on your own than which country you feel patriotic to - which I would have thought is a pretty easy decision.

I mean I've lived in Wales all my life but qualify for England and Ireland through my grandparents but have never once questioned the fact that I am Welsh through and through and would only ever want to represent them. I have friends who have lived here (Wales) since they were small yet were born in England to English parents and definately consider themselves English and would never dream of pulling on a Welsh top. Similarly my brother in law was born in Ireland, raised in Zimbabwe during his earlier years to South African parents and lived in South Africa from 8-16 years old and then moved to England and lived there until his late 20's - he now qualifies for Australia on residency, yet he's always been definate that he'd only play for South Africa.

It's not a difficult decision at all - unless your moving for unpatriotic reasons.

priest, I know what you say and feel very similarly myself, but I think that we have to recognise that there are plenty of young folk with (for want of a better word) ambiguous allegiance that would consider representing different countries - that's no slight on there character, simply a reflection of the Heinz-57 society that we live in today

Yes but eventually they have to make a choice on who they want to represent - and what better time than the start of the career just as they've come out of the development system?

If their that undecided then their old enough to know so and choose not to play in an u20's game to 'keep their options open'

Found this article on the 6 nations website.

Published on Monday 9 January 2012 18:17

Steve Shingler has been "badly affected" by the row over his eligibility for Scotland's RBS 6 Nations Championships squad according to his London Irish club coach Toby Booth.

The Swansea-born 20-year-old centre, who played for Wales Under-20s last year but has a Scottish mother, played well for Irish in their 21-19 Aviva Premiership win over Sale Sharks in Reading and that was "credit to him", said Booth, after a week where his international future was called into question.

Booth explained why the club were shielding Shingler from explaining the situation, saying: "When it all broke and there were some questions over it, it affected him quite badly."

The International Rugby Board have been contacted about the situation by both the Scottish and Welsh Rugby Unions.

Wales claim his appearance for the Under-20s makes it impossible for Scotland to select him, while the Scots say Shingler has "declined to sign a document declaring himself to Wales".

All this happened while Shingler was preparing with Irish for this weekend's game, where he was due to be on the bench but eventually started when England ace Shontayne Hape suffered a late injury.

Booth added: "As far as we are aware - and there is some stuff around from his agent - Steve Shingler is qualified for Scotland and will be taking up that unless he is advised or informed by the IRB not to do so.

"It is a massive distraction along with, by his own admittance, an ordinary performance (against Bath) the week before.

"So he was back in his more familiar position today and played well. But I'm sure people will understand the situation we are in.

"His agent and him are taking legal advice about the whole situation and I've just told Steve to concentrate on what he does week in and week out." (The Scotsman)

Ah a agent involved and it was probably the agent that convinced the SRU that Shingler was eligible probably chanced his arm because the other two lads went over to Ireland.

i hope for whatever happens this does not ruin his international career, a very promising talent. i jst hope wales come a calling in due time

123456789 wrote:I think it will be 1, if shingler is to be believed the wru have no written proof.

Out of curiousity, since when did anyone need written proof?

Voting option 2 is ludicrous given Shinglers talent and versatility. I can only assume that was a few bitter Scot fans selecting that option?

Preferably if he's blocked from Scotland the WRU will judge it to be the mistake of a reckless young lad, not unlike the Nacewa-Fiji debacle and keep an open mind on him. With a little luck a region can lure him back in the next few years if he's developed well at LI, he can win a cap or two and we'll see how it goes from there.

That would be what's ideal imo, if he ends up playing for Scotland the WRU will need to sort out the mess of the second team system.

Morgannwg wrote:

123456789 wrote:I think it will be 1, if shingler is to be believed the wru have no written proof.

Out of curiousity, since when did anyone need written proof?

Voting option 2 is ludicrous given Shinglers talent and versatility. I can only assume that was a few bitter Scot fans selecting that option?

Or Welsh fans bitter at his rejection of them?!

Or Welsh fans in pessimistic mode as to the whole affair:

it will be 2 I know it will, probably the least satisfactory outcome



And we trust these people to administer our game!

i put 3

only cause if he doesnt play for scotland - he'll probably play for us due to our lack of in form 10s at the moment and that he is a very talented player who i think will cut it at international level

17 got it wrong then.

Not being an international will increase the chances of him keeping his day job with Irish.

You forgot the 4th option - he will back away from all this and will then qualify for England under residency rules...

Ha ha Mr

Mr Bounce
He was already elligible for England through his father. Not sure if playing for London Irish helps him qualify for Ireland though

What about France and Italy? Grandparents maybe?

Well, I understand he likes pizza and pasta, so that's qualification for Italy sorted.

Oh, and I have just had confirmation that he once bought a Guiness, so is clearly elligible for Ireland

Not sure about his qualifications for France, although I understand he was once accused of being a cheese-eating surrender monkey...

dummy_half wrote:Mr Bounce
He was already elligible for England through his father. Not sure if playing for London Irish helps him qualify for Ireland though

Wasn't his mother's maiden name "Ireland".

Job done

It's total nonsense! My son has been honored to play at under 20's WC. Would he play for anyone else, not a chance.

Once you have played in these situations your committed, like it or not.

Yes! We should start a campaign, make it easy for the IRB, if you play for your country at international level for the main team, A team or under 20's you are committed to that country, no matter who the opposition.

I think the majority of the Welsh public will trust Gatland. Assuming the WRU win the case and Shingler deserves a call up then Gatland will simply announce it's water under the bridge and the fans will forgive him.

Hell they forgive all the guys who went to rugby league in the 90's and came home when the game went professional.

We were spitting venom at Jonathan Davies, Scott Gibbs, Alan Bateman, Scott Quinell, David Young, Richard Webster and about 20 others not long ago for walking out on Wales. But we were more than happy for them to come back in!

Roger Lewis will probably read out some pre-planned corporate speech which is over the heads of normal Welsh people, and life will go on...

He'll never play for Scotland. It doesn't matter what he thought or didn't think. He's not eligible now. Didn't Nacewa have a similar argument? He didn't know the rules. That excuse didn't do him any good.

doctornickolas wrote:

Personally I think all U20 games should count whoever they are against.

As mentioned on this forum, at 20 people have been officially adults for 2 years, can drive a car, get married, have kids, vote, fight in wars, have a job, mortgage, be on a jury etc. Its just ridiculous.

.

However what if a 17 year old player - good enough at 17 or even 16 to play in the under 20 team?

Think it should be the A team and this is it - age groups are not full adualt teams so should not count - final and clear

Maybe you could say that only players aged 18 and over can play for the u20s - then you're saying it's a team for adults just like the A team is (which can at the minute also call up players who usually represent u20s and which some posters here have said are too young to make these decisions

i think the wru should let him play. they might have the letter of the law on their side but they are being needlessly picky

But then that will set a president and Matthew Morgan could be the next, or Aaron Shingler could have gone as well, as well as quite a few other Welsh players - I mean lets face it there must be a high proportion of Welsh people/players who have parents from one of the other home nations, or if they live close to the border there are many Welsh children to Welsh parents, who have grown up and been educated in Wales all their life yet they were born in England coz the nearest hospital was say Shrewsbury.

If we allow Steven to play (which we couldn't anyway coz it's not upto us, it's upto the IRB ruling) then any other player/union could turn around and use the Steven Shingler case to defend their actions.

The IRB has confirmed that the SRU has made a formal request for a review of the Shingler case. A spokesman said: “A formal submission has been received from the SRU and a panel comprising three Regulations Committee members will now review the submission in accordance with Regulation 2 and address any questions raised. That Panel has been convened.”

That took long enough! Anyone know when the official ruling is due for?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:The IRB has confirmed that the SRU has made a formal request for a review of the Shingler case. A spokesman said: “A formal submission has been received from the SRU and a panel comprising three Regulations Committee members will now review the submission in accordance with Regulation 2 and address any questions raised. That Panel has been convened.”

The way I read it is that the IRB are going to explain in detail why Shingler is tied to Wales.
I cant see them changing their mind on this one.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/club-rugby/scots_u20s_pluck_player_from_welsh_ranks_1_2102984

Interesting

For those that are interested, I believe that the Scottish case may go something like this:

Was the player concerned not properly informed of the situation by the relevant representative body?

WRU have stated, in evidence in support of their claim, that their procedures ensure that each player is properly informed of the situation prior to the players taking the field. If the WRU are telling the truth then they have the evidence to prove that they followed their own procedures - the paper allegedly signed by Shingler. If the WRU cannot produce the evidence then they have misled the IRB, either by stating that they followed their own procedures or by stating that they have such procedures in place.

Shinlger's stance is that he was informed that if he did not sign the piece of paper then he would not be tied to Wales. Shingler claims that he did not sign any such paper the WRU asked him to sign. The WRU have not produced any evidence to counter this position but relied only on the IRB rules as they see them and their claim that both WRU and FFR had declared their U20s to be the national 2nd XV within the rules as they existed at the time the game was played.

If the WRU produce the paper and it is authenticated then case closed, Shingler is Welsh. If they cannot then Shingler is a free agent simply because it cannot be proved that Shingler was properly informed of his changed circumstances if he took to the field, even on the balance of probability.

I guess the key is whether the declaration of the 2nd XV was included in the player contract for players to play the match concerned and whether the player signed the contract indicating to the effect that he understands the contents of the contract and accepts the conditions of the contract.

Only if the WRU can prove that Shingler was properly informed and signed to that effect does the matter of the declaration rules come into play.

If Scotland rely on the IRB rules argument, I can only see us losing, cos the every 4 years declaration thingy is in the FAQ section, which the IRB clearly state are only guidelines.

Cymro - that is interesting and slightly annoying because he was being developed by the Ospreys but I think it's different from Shingler in that the player - Terrence, was South African and qualified for Wales through his Welsh mother, but at the sametime and in the same way qualified for Scotland through his father.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:For those that are interested, I believe that the Scottish case may go something like this:

Was the player concerned not properly informed of the situation by the relevant representative body?

WRU have stated, in evidence in support of their claim, that their procedures ensure that each player is properly informed of the situation prior to the players taking the field. If the WRU are telling the truth then they have the evidence to prove that they followed their own procedures - the paper allegedly signed by Shingler. If the WRU cannot produce the evidence then they have misled the IRB, either by stating that they followed their own procedures or by stating that they have such procedures in place.

Shinlger's stance is that he was informed that if he did not sign the piece of paper then he would not be tied to Wales. Shingler claims that he did not sign any such paper the WRU asked him to sign. The WRU have not produced any evidence to counter this position but relied only on the IRB rules as they see them and their claim that both WRU and FFR had declared their U20s to be the national 2nd XV within the rules as they existed at the time the game was played.

If the WRU produce the paper and it is authenticated then case closed, Shingler is Welsh. If they cannot then Shingler is a free agent simply because it cannot be proved that Shingler was properly informed of his changed circumstances if he took to the field, even on the balance of probability.

I guess the key is whether the declaration of the 2nd XV was included in the player contract for players to play the match concerned and whether the player signed the contract indicating to the effect that he understands the contents of the contract and accepts the conditions of the contract.

Only if the WRU can prove that Shingler was properly informed and signed to that effect does the matter of the declaration rules come into play.

If Scotland rely on the IRB rules argument, I can only see us losing, cos the every 4 years declaration thingy is in the FAQ section, which the IRB clearly state are only guidelines.

By refusing to sign in my opinion is a declaration that you are aware that you would be tied to Wales if you played in that particular match.
Is there anything in the rules that says that a player must sign a form before they play ?

As far as I know Cymroglan the declaration has no bearing on eligiblity and it's the players responsibilty to find out whether he's tying himself to a country.
The WRU were just covering themselves and trying to show thay they'd made all the players aware that they would be tying themselves to Wales. I'm still shocked that Shingler played the game regardless of the declaration as if he's not planning on representing Wales then why is he going out there in a Wales top - particularly if he knows there could be eligablity problems.

dogtooth wrote:i think the wru should let him play. they might have the letter of the law on their side but they are being needlessly picky

Smirnoffpriest wrote:But then that will set a president and Matthew Morgan could be the next, or Aaron Shingler could have gone as well, as well as quite a few other Welsh players - I mean lets face it there must be a high proportion of Welsh people/players who have parents from one of the other home nations, or if they live close to the border there are many Welsh children to Welsh parents, who have grown up and been educated in Wales all their life yet they were born in England coz the nearest hospital was say Shrewsbury.

If we allow Steven to play (which we couldn't anyway coz it's not upto us, it's upto the IRB ruling) then any other player/union could turn around and use the Steven Shingler case to defend their actions.

Good point smirnoff, I was of the opinion that the WRU were being a bit petty standing in the way of a player's wishes, even if they do have the letter of the law on their side- but you've changed my view.