IRB advise Steven Shingler ineligible to play for Scotland

First topic message reminder :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/16428283.stm

Steve Shingler is ineligible to play for any other country than Wales, the International Rugby Board has advised.

The 20-year-old fly-half was named in Scotland's Six Nations squad despite playing for Wales Under-20s against France in the 2011 Six Nations.

Shingler's eligibility to play for Scotland was examined by the IRB after it was questioned by the WRU.

"He is tied to Wales and ineligible to play for any other Union," a IRB statement advised.

But the IRB statement went on to say: "The SRU and WRU may wish the IRB Regulations Committee to consider this matter formally in accordance with IRB Regulation Two.

"The Unions are aware of the requirements of such a review."

The IRB ruling was made despite Shingler saying he "declined to sign a declaration" committing to Wales.

The IRB investigated after being contacted by both Wales and Scotland.

Continue reading the main story
Steven has informed us that he made it clear that he wished to leave open his international eligibility as he was also eligible to represent Scotland and England as well as Wales
Scottish Rugby statement
Wales believed that playing for their Under-20s against France Under-20s in 2011 means that he could only represent them in the future.

Neither Wales nor France run an A side and under IRB regulation eight meant that in 2011 their Under-20 teams were also considered to be their 2nd XVs.

And as the match was sanctioned by the IRB as a "next senior XV-a-side national representative team", any player on the field would have committed his future to that country for the rest of his international career.


Scotland were confident that Shingler, who has a Dumfries-born mother, was eligible to play for them despite playing full-back for Wales Under-20s.

They cited the example of two players who represented Wales Under-20s against France Under-20s in 2010 but subsequently declared for Ireland.

However, Wales claimed the situation was different with Shingler because the game in 2011 had a different status to the one the year before.

On 6 January the WRU said they had written to the IRB to outline how they had informed relevant players, including Shingler, that they were entitled "only to selection for Wales" following the Under-20 match against France.

And 24 hours earlier the Welsh board said: "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."


However, Shingler claimed he "declined to sign a declaration" and is therefore able to choose to play for Scotland.

The SRU said: "Steven has informed us that he made it clear that he wished to leave open his international eligibility as he was also eligible to represent Scotland and England as well as Wales."

It added that when picking Shingler it had taken into account the ruling by the IRB last year that former Wales Under-20s players James Loxton and Matthew Jarvis are eligible to play for Ireland, despite facing France Under-20s in 2010.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:maes, most 6-yr old don't have the same background as Shingler - one parent born in one country, the other in a different country, and being born and raised in a third country - to pretend that this situation is run of the mill and not at all complex is naive imo

It is not a regular situation, though a poster earlier in this thread was trying to tout how common place this scenario is these days in Britain. Maybe with such complexities the IRB would need to be consulted for such delicate matters.

True, and I imagine it will only become more commonplace as geographic mobility is on the rise

Full of contradictions eh...!

The situation has got to be made clearer. For instance, in the current rules (as the WRU see understand them) England U20's could play Wales U20's and only the Welsh players be tied - or have I got this wrong?

I'm a bit confused.

I've no doubt that if the lad involved wants to take this further the IRB would not have a leg to stand on - especially if he could prove that he made every effort to ensure that he was still keeping his options open and was mislead by the U20 officials on the day.

Let the SRU have him if we can have Weir, being able to play two props with footballing skills would be interesting

TrailApe wrote:The situation has got to be made clearer. For instance, in the current rules (as the WRU see understand them) England U20's could play Wales U20's and only the Welsh players be tied - or have I got this wrong?

I'm a bit confused.

I've no doubt that if the lad involved wants to take this further the IRB would not have a leg to stand on - especially if he could prove that he made every effort to ensure that he was still keeping his options open and was mislead by the U20 officials on the day.

More confusing still. The Welsh lads might not be tied because England have the Saxons.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:maes, most 6-yr old don't have the same background as Shingler - one parent born in one country, the other in a different country, and being born and raised in a third country - to pretend that this situation is run of the mill and not at all complex is naive imo

It is not a regular situation, though a poster earlier in this thread was trying to tout how common place this scenario is these days in Britain. Maybe with such complexities the IRB would need to be consulted for such delicate matters.

True, and I imagine it will only become more commonplace as geographic mobility is on the rise

It's already quite commonplace down-under - 20-25% of NZ's population was born outside NZ. And 1/5th of all New Zealanders live in Australia. The RWC saw the Auckland-born (and UK based) Tagicakibau brothers turn out against each other in Samoa vs Fiji. I'm pretty sure the Yachvilli brothers have played against each other in tests, the Bachop brothers did, I can't remember if the Tuilagis have.

munkian wrote:Let the SRU have him if we can have Weir, being able to play two props with footballing skills would be interesting

very good, munk

Shingler appears to be taking the soft option in attempting to change horses as selection for Scotland would be more easily accomplished.Whilst this a fairly commonplace trait it is hardly an indicator of a top class international sportsman.Adversity and challenges inspire people like Redgrave and Pinsent to overcome them and prevail.Steven Shingler didnt fancy his chances so he sold out those that had helped him develop.In a team game this degree of self-centredness and quitting when things seem a bit tough do not enhance his reputation.

In all honesty I'm not sure if I feel pity for Shingler or not. Can't really blame the lad for trying to get international exposure for any of the nations he "potentially" could represent.

However if he has played 13 or so games for Wales u20s I would have to argue that he has perhaps made his bed, but was not sure if he wanted to lie in it.

We all have mothers or had them at some point and I'm sure we all know how persuasive they can be.

He is going to look like a muppet if he ever gets called up for Wales.......

It looks like its a right mess by all parties.

Shingler - has been badly advised by all parties. He's was old enough to make the decision and he knew about the rules as he mentioned in articles about not wanting to be tied.

SRU - they knew of him and and were in contact with the Shingler at a young age (link) but was left in the welsh system, probably as there was restricted space in their set-up so it was easier to leave him in his home town to develop and when he's ready to decide he could move. Robbo had the right to call him up to test the water to see if he was eligible. Leave him or bring it out into the open before he announced the squad and he could have went on to be selected for the other 2 teams. Damned if he did, Damned if he didn't.

FFR - swapping between U20 and 'A' teams from 2000 as their second team and possibly contravening the 4 year rule; How do I know which team is a Union’s next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team? (link) - Reg 8, EXPLANATORY
GUIDELINES, section 6. Which, if the case of Jarvis and Loxton in being un-tied in 2010 would mean that the expiry date would be 2012 meaning he would still be free.

WRU - If he made the comment to the welsh selector that he didn't want to be tied then the WRU should have advised that playing France would void it. If not he should have sat out the game. I don't agree with it being the U20 as the next senior team but that's what the WRU have decided so can't argue.

IRB - for having Poopie rules and not enforcing all unions to abide by them!

So as i said a complete mess and one for the lawyers to sort out. This will run and run

Adam D wrote:for me, this smacks of lack of national pride.

If he felt he was Scottish, he should have played for Scotland A/ U20.

He didnt.

Dear Might Founder. I'm interested to know whether you consider that Martin Johnson, who played for the NZ U20 side also has a lack of national pride?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

munkian wrote:Let the SRU have him if we can have Weir, being able to play two props with footballing skills would be interesting

very good, munk

Only messing, Weir is decent, just a bit of a lump for a 10, only 20 and looks like a forward- born old !

Poor Kid. If this sticks, will Wales ever cap him now - knowing that he wanted to go the Scots way?

I do think its wierd that Wales and France dont have an 'A' side. I can understand it when times are tough, but hasnt the WRU started making good profit again after paying off the Millen Stad? Wales 'A' should be reinstated.

France have no reason for scrapping the 'A' side.

All 6N 'A' sides should participate in an enlarged Churchill Cup with the standard Canada/USA + any 2nd tier Eorpean nations.

That is a competition that I am sure a lot of people would watch on TV - lots of money there too (like comments during the WC about Russian funding ect.)

Article from the Scotsman

QUOTE:
The Welsh RU are happy with the ruling but a review is exactly the route that their Scottish counterparts now seek. The SRU insist that Shingler was not “captured” by Wales in that under-20 game because he was told by Welsh officials that the match would not tie him, but refused to go into any detail about the case they have submitted to the IRB.

A short statement read: “Scottish Rugby notes the IRB’s statement in respect to Steven Shingler. 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.”

The case has provoked anger both in Wales and Scotland, and it is known that Shingler is furious with Welsh officials. The player was not available for comment last night, preferring to remain silent until the issue reaches a conclusion, but The Scotsman understands that he went to great lengths when selected for Wales last year to ascertain whether he would become a Welsh player for good.

........

Shingler spoke enthusiastically last week of his annual visits to the ‘Muckle Toon’, and of his pride in competing in the Langholm Games athletics event. It is understood that as a result of that affinity he was always keen to keep the Scotland door open and was assured by Welsh coaches last spring that that remained the case even with under-20 selection.

It is claimed that when Welsh officials produced a document prior to the French game requesting that he sign his future over to Wales, he refused and again asked whether playing would tie him.

He duly played believing that he was not tied.

-----

If that is the case then he's probably got a case with the IRB and/or the Court of Arbitration for Sport

propdavid_london wrote:Poor Kid. If this sticks, will Wales ever cap him now - knowing that he wanted to go the Scots way?

I do think its wierd that Wales and France dont have an 'A' side. I can understand it when times are tough, but hasnt the WRU started making good profit again after paying off the Millen Stad? Wales 'A' should be reinstated.

France have no reason for scrapping the 'A' side.

All 6N 'A' sides should participate in an enlarged Churchill Cup with the standard Canada/USA + any 2nd tier Eorpean nations.

That is a competition that I am sure a lot of people would watch on TV - lots of money there too (like comments during the WC about Russian funding ect.)

It's not just Wales and France though. The Junior All Blacks (i.e. their A side - not to be confused with the Baby Blacks - the U20s team) haven't existed since 2009, South Africa and Australia don't have one. In fact, could someone list all of the teams that do? Why do we have to have one?

Also to add that you can't just turn up and play in the Churchill Cup. It's invitation only, which is why the same A teams don't play each year (only USA, Canada and England are there every year). Therefore, Wales just creating an A team does not mean that we'll be accepted into the Churchill cup. We struggle enough at regional level during 6N due to call ups so I guess this is one reason the WRU do not want to enter a team into the 6N A-team championship - there'd be no b*gger left in the regions!

Hmmm... poor Shingler. The beachball nobody really wants but because there are beautiful girls the other side of the net, they keep slapping him anyway.

Scotland: We want him
Wales: Can't have him, he's ours
Scotland: Then you should have his signature
Wales: We don't need his signature. He played for us. He's ours
Scotland: Let's see what the IRB has to say.
IRB: We say Wales own him
Scotland: Ok then. Take him
Wales: Who? Him? We don't want him.

Shingler's confidence must be on a high.

He'll end up going to Scotland through the IRB panel review meeting thingy, but then this will open the door for others. As the IRB has already said that he has been capped by Wales and that it counted (hence the whole argument), if they allow him to dump his cap then surely it opens the flood gates for other???

'But Fiji told me it wouldn't count, I was duped your honour, I neeeeeeeeed to be an All Black' - Mr I Nacewa, July 2012.

A welsh player, playing in England for London Irish who was selected by Scotland.

You could probably argue about his personal code of ethics all day, it sounds like the start of a joke.

I'd be very surprised if the WRU didnt have this sorted out after the Loxton/Jarvis debacle, even they arent incompetent enough to make the exact same much publicised mistake twice in a row.

"Ireland NEED me, your honour!!! (theatrical tears helped on by some peeled onions in his lapels) and I can say things now like... "Like".
Like I'm just after saying, like. And I know about things like JOEEEEE Duffy! and Miriam O'Legs and like the bit of craic when I'm not preparing for a game"

Mr. Nacewa, July 2012

Griff - Ah, wasnt aware that the Tri-Nations teams had scrpped their A sides too.

Yeah - obviously the format of the Churchill cup would change to an anual comp (non invitational).
I understand what you say about there being a lack of players to fill the national grades - but surely the U16, U18, U20's squads dont affect he regions that badly - surely those squads are filled from the school/or local clubs.
The playing numbers in Wales arent that bad.

I just think that a regular (Churchill Cup like) competition that included the 2nds for the 6N sides would really help to give exposure and expand the game in the 2nd tier nations (isnt that a primary objective of the IRB).

If sky or bbc or whoever decided to cover it then I would watch it - would love to see the derbys between russia/georgia/romania on a regular basis (on the rugby pitch that is).

It would probably also be a good stepping stone between U20's and Senior squad - rather than straight from age grade to full international.

Steve "Gregor" Shingler has dreamed of playing for Scotland since he could first walk and talk and now his dreams have been shattered. Will he appeal against this decision or will he now make a summer transfer to Edinburgh or Glasgow for 3 years to gain residency. If he is as patriotic to his beloved nation as we all think, then he will do this. Even if he has to wait 3 years it will be worth it just to play for his homeland.

Shingler even participated in a rugby advert for BBC Alba (Scottish language channel). He looks great in a Scotland shirt.

youtube.com/watch?v=dVcxDpfjKPE&feature=related

propdavid_london wrote:Griff - Ah, wasnt aware that the Tri-Nations teams had scrpped their A sides too.

Yeah - obviously the format of the Churchill cup would change to an anual comp (non invitational).
I understand what you say about there being a lack of players to fill the national grades - but surely the U16, U18, U20's squads dont affect he regions that badly - surely those squads are filled from the school/or local clubs.
The playing numbers in Wales arent that bad.

I just think that a regular (Churchill Cup like) competition that included the 2nds for the 6N sides would really help to give exposure and expand the game in the 2nd tier nations (isnt that a primary objective of the IRB).

If sky or bbc or whoever decided to cover it then I would watch it - would love to see the derbys between russia/georgia/romania on a regular basis (on the rugby pitch that is).

It would probably also be a good stepping stone between U20's and Senior squad - rather than straight from age grade to full international.

Prop, it wasn't filling the age grades I was on about but the A team. U20s players on the whole aren't that established in the regions, you're right there. However, a new A team would draw directly from the regions. I think one reason that we don't have an A team is that, as we play through the 6N and the regions struggle as it is, then to have an A team which took away the next 30 top players (after the senior 6N squad has taken the first 30 top players for their squad) would make the regions struggle even more. Personally I'm up for it, and it will help more young talent be given a shot at the regions when the Wales team and A team members are away, but I'm just looking at this from the point of view of the WRU and the regions and maybe that's the reason we they don't want it/haven't brought it back?

I am assuming that the first 13 caps were played when the U20's were not the official second side and therefore don't count as a tie.

If he did state in clear terms that he wanted to keep his options open, then I believe the Wales u20's management knowing how he felt, had an obligation to tell him that by playing against France he was committing to Wales.

I agree that stipulating a junior age group side is the official A side is wrong, at 18 or 19 you do not always know what you want to do or what your options are going to be.

right, can we all stop saying at 18/19 you dont know what nationalisitc pride you feel.

at 18 you can vote, get married, have kids, drive, drink alcohol, smoke and you're classed as an adult. You're free to do what you want. you're feeling of national pride isnt some sacred magical feeling. He'd played 14 times for Wales u20s, not just the once, and stated his ambitions recently to play for Wales senior test team.

Can we stop saying "its a complicated family history or decision to make" - his words and actions are cheap, he got himself (or let himself get) into this mess, i literally have no sympathy for him.

Comfort wrote:right, can we all stop saying at 18/19 you dont know what nationalisitc pride you feel.

at 18 you can vote, get married, have kids, drive, drink alcohol, smoke and you're classed as an adult. You're free to do what you want. you're feeling of national pride isnt some sacred magical feeling. He'd played 14 times for Wales u20s, not just the once, and stated his ambitions recently to play for Wales senior test team.

Can we stop saying "its a complicated family history or decision to make" - his words and actions are cheap, he got himself (or let himself get) into this mess, i literally have no sympathy for him.

Can I also add that those with A teams can, and do, pick 18 year old upwards so if they can decide to commit to England or Scotland at 18/19/20 then they can do the same in Wales surely?

Griff, has anyone suggested that they can't? Isn't the point here that the lad seems to have genuinely thought he was NOT making that commitment but rather keeping his options open?

Well Past It

The first 13 U20 caps were played against teams who are not considered their country's 'next senior' team - easy enough to understand in the cases of England and Ireland, where there are the Saxons and Wolfhounds as A sides. As such, playing a match against the England or Ireland U20s has no effect on tying a player to either side.

The biggest cause of confusion in this case was the status of the France U20 side. As far as I understand, the FFR had nominated their U20 side as their 'next senior' side (for the 4 year period of 2008 to 2012), but in 2010 also fielded an A side (which did not play in 2011). As such, I assume the Wales to Ireland lads argued that the France U20 side of 2010 should not be considered their 'next senior' side and as such participation in the Wales V France U20 match in 2010 did not have any effect on future dual elligibility (I probably should check this, as it appears to be in conflict with the rules as written). However, as the France A side did not exist in 2011, their U20s reverted to being the 'next senior' side.

A couple of asides:
1 - The tying of a player to their chosen country only applies for players of 18 years old or over. A 17 year old playing for the U20 or even the senior side is not committed to that country.
2 - The elligibility form is really a document to prove that a player is elligible for the country they are representing (in this case, a copy of Shingler's birth certificate would accompany the form to show that he was born in and hence is elligible for Wales) rather than a declaration of allegiance.

I suspect we'll see a couple of changes to the IRB proceedures and Rules following this case. Firstly, there has to be consistency over whether an U20 player is tied to the country they represent - should be either all or none rather than the stupid situation at the moment.
Secondly, I suspect the rules on submitting an elligibility document will be tightened up, so that the document has to be filed with the IRB prior to the player's apparently binding appearance. If the other rule change is not undertaken, at the very least the IRB should issue, through the national Unions a list of the 'next senior' teams, highlighting which U20 matches would have an effect of tying a player to their country, and this should be forwarded to each player selected for such a match.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Griff, has anyone suggested that they can't? Isn't the point here that the lad seems to have genuinely thought he was NOT making that commitment but rather keeping his options open?

As, lots of people have said that 18 is too young for a player to decide. My only point is that they're tied in at the age to other countries too (those with A teams), so what's the difference?

Does anyone have any idea on what percentage of lads who play for a national U20s side, actually end up with a senior cap?

To be one of the best in your country out of probably a 2 year cohort is no where near the same as getting picked for an A side, where you have to be the best maybe 5 players in your country of any age. You are not only playing against senior players but more importantly competing with senior players for your place.

That for me is the issue. Not that the lad is necessarily too young to decide (although he might be) but more that by tying all the lads you have on your U20s you cast the net far too wide.

Surely the IRB feel that those underage lads need a certain level of protection otherwise their regulations would designate that all U 20 players are tied.

As for the "....only if you play against ..." clause???

Totally ridiculous.

Who has all this helped?

WRU? No

SRU? No

IRB? no

Player? Absolutely not!

If the lad wants to play for Scotland, pat him on the back and wish him every success in his career.

I wonder whether Stephen Shingler or his agent wanted to get press for the player?

He has been the topic of hot debate in most newspapers throughout, England, Wales and Scotland.

Raising his profile, not for rugby reasons much higher than his performances for London Irish.

Ooh, maes, you auld cynic, you

So... you think ending his chances of any international representation was a ploy?

Alyn,

Saxons is an 'A' just branded the Saxons. And it is a proper 'A' team in the sense that it is used for full senior players to ease them back in post injury/keep a potential injury replacement match fit etc.

Ireland's 'A' team is now called the 'Wolfhounds'.

In South Africa said team is called the Emerging Springboks, but I'm fairly sure it isn't limited age wise. Australia have Aus 'A'.

The Kiwi's have it both ways though, the Baby Blacks are the'r offcial 2nd team, but the ustilise the NZ Maori almost as much outside of competition but this does not restrict players if they have not been capped at Baby Black or All Black level.

No, I know that any press is good press when you are relatively unknown. Sad case of affaires in my opinion, according to his club Coach Booth, he has been rather effected by the whole situation.

I don't like the interference and bad advice that can be given to vulnerable youngsters in sport, music the arts.

Some agents harbour ambitions to suit their own financial gains far more than their clients personal interests.

I hope Shingler does push for Wales selection. He showed skill from a young age, he can develop in a variety of different positions and is a decent size lad too with pace.

He could, if he works hard become a very useful Welsh international.

This whole thing is nonsence...U-20's is age grade rugby, the rules should be the same across the board. If you don't want to fund and field an 'A' side the that is fair enough but if you chose not to then you forfeit the right to a 2nd string. The idea that your U-20's can be designated as a 2nd string for your senior side is bollix and thats were the confusion comes in.

Shingler was pretty stupid to accept the call up to the u-20s if he wanted to keep his options open but the rules need changed.

Surely we should be looking the other way at this - once you accept an invitation to play for a country at any level above schools/U18s* then you are commited to that country in perpetuity, anyone at the age of majority is old enough to make life and career defining decisions on just about every other area of life so why is Rugby different?
The idea of playing for one nation and presumably having pride in the jersey, the team and the anthem and then deciding a year later I'm not going to be Welsh anymore I'm going to be Scots and then will wear that jersey with equal pride jsut doesn't seem right to me.
All this about nations "tying down young players", I'm sorry playing international sport for your country is (or should be) the greatest accolade in your career, not a moveable feast to suit your bank balance and "profile".
* schools/under 18 exempt due to at this point you are usually living with your parents and circumstances may prevent you from travelling to your "home" nation.
Re Martin Johnson; reading between the lines of his biography his time in New Zealand was pretty much a pre-professional era attempt to poach him.

MrsP wrote:So... you think ending his chances of any international representation was a ploy?

How is he doing that?

He can play for Wales. The country of his birth, where he was raised, where he has spent all his life, the country he has declared several times in interviews that he dreams of representing, for whom he has taken part in advertising campaigns and for whom he has played at age grade level including 14 times over 2 seasons for the U20 side, being Wales's officially designated, documented and well known second 15 side (which it has been for about 10 years).

"The idea of playing for one nation and presumably having pride in the jersey, the team and the anthem and then deciding a year later I'm not going to be Welsh anymore I'm going to be Scots and then will wear that jersey with equal pride jsut doesn't seem right to me."

Do you question how Robbie Deans could coach the Crusaders and then Australia? Or GH Wales, then NZ? Or Kirwan be an All Black then coach Italy, or Nick Mallet? Or how Martin Johnson could play for the NZ U20's then captain England? or Shontayne Hape could play League for NZ then rugby for England? or Flutey could play for the Maori against the Lions, then the Lions against South African, then England against New Zealand? or any of the other plethora of examples?

Why are there so many people trying to force people into a box of being X nationality, or Y nationality. People move around, make their lives in other places. If you can get residency then why not represent the country?

Do you think Wales will cap him now?

And I agree that playing sport for your country is a huge honour.

But what if your personal circumstances have lead you to a place where you would be hugely honoured to be asked to play for either of the countries that your parents were born in?

I know that some folks have a very singular desire to play for the nation they call home, but some people feel that way about more than one country. That isn't a sign of disloyalty, just a consequence of the mobility we all have now.

miteyironpaw wrote:"Do you question how Robbie Deans could coach the Crusaders and then Australia? Or GH Wales, then NZ? Or Kirwan be an All Black then coach Italy, or Nick Mallet? Or how Martin Johnson could play for the NZ U20's then captain England? or Shontayne Hape could play League for NZ then rugby for England? or Flutey could play for the Maori against the Lions, then the Lions against South African, then England against New Zealand? or any of the other plethora of examples?

Why are there so many people trying to force people into a box of being X nationality, or Y nationality. People move around, make their lives in other places. If you can get residency then why not represent the country?

Firstly - no problem whatsoever with a coach earning their living plying their trade anywhere they can get work - they are there to train a national team to represent the nation, not to be the representatives themselves.

IMHO none of them should be allowed to play for another nation - I wonder if Johnson would have done it if he's known it meant he would never play for England ? The whole Shontayne Hape deal is a complete embarresment and I'm not going near the can of worms that means you can be a "Maori" but not a New Zealander

No-one is forcing anyone into "boxes", your nationality should be something that is dear to you and a source of pride, not something to whore around the sportsfields of the world. In terms of residencey, certainly if you are a resident and citizen then by all means welcome aboard, if you have not represented any other country at sport.

Maybe it is old fashioned in the modern world but given that representing your country is something that just about every person on this board would happliy trade a kidney for (and they all know exactly which nation that would be), it strikes me that the alternative eventually leads to the 6 nations turning into the Jeff versus the Robocop v Top 14...

Well said !

your nationality should be something that is dear to you and a source of pride, not something to whore around the sportsfields of the world. In terms of residencey, certainly if you are a resident and citizen then by all means welcome aboard, if you have not represented any other country at sport.

But what about those who feel they have more than one legitimate nationality? With the political climate in the UK being what it is, a large number of folks have legitimate claim to being both Scottish and Welsh, or Irish and English or Irish and Scottish, or whatever. We're told we're support to be "British", but then this kind of thing happens. It's illogical.

What the hell does the political climate have to do with playing in a countries designated A team , appearing in an advert celebrating that countries rugby playing past present and future, saying you want to fight your way into that countries senior team then bending over tfor the first trick who says you are a special girl and will make you a star ?

Adam D wrote:for me, this smacks of lack of national pride.

If he felt he was Scottish, he should have played for Scotland A/ U20.

He didnt.

He is no more Scottish than he is English. He wants to play in front of a huge crowd at international level (nothing wrong with that).

He doesnt care who its for (a lot wrong with that IMO).

I hope he becomes good enough to play for Wales as he obviously wants to play for a national team. Hope he also comes out and explains why he acccepted the Scottish offer.

+1

As a Scot I don't want him on our side. "I've always known about Scotland" is the best he could say when he was selected for the squad. I'd be f***ing buzzing.

For the record I'm eligible for England, Ireland & Scotland but would only ever dream of playing for the latter even if I had Dan Carter skills.

munkian wrote:What the hell does the political climate have to do with playing in a countries designated A team , appearing in an advert celebrating that countries rugby playing past present and future, saying you want to fight your way into that countries senior team then bending over tfor the first trick who says you are a special girl and will make you a star ?

Irish Londoner
With you on a lot of the points you make. Maybe in an ideal world, you'd have a Welsh coach of Wales (or an English coach of the England football team), but the coaching position is that of an employed professional, and so their national affiliation is less significant than that of the players.

Johnno would not have been elligible for the NZ U20s under current regulations, so that discussion is moot (he was only there for 2 years).

I'm not too happy with Hape, Vainikolo or Henry Paul having been capped by England RU having previously played for the NZ RL side - strikes me as opportunism in the extreme especially for big Les where the RFU co-financed his code switch (although in LVs defence, he has been resident in England for over 10 years and is bringing up his family here).

Similarly, Flutey having played for the NZ Maoris but not being tied to NZ as a result does seem a little lax, especially as the Maoris seem to sometimes be a de facto NZ A side.

However, none of the above have any bearing on a case like Shingler's, where he has a legitimate claim to represent 3 of the home nations (English father, Scottish mother but born and raised in Wales). I'm sure he has a preference, and my guess would be that his ties to Wales are the strongest, but in the modern and professional world he inhabits I can understand the desire to keep his options open.

How about Mapusua (NZ), Parisse (Arg), Armitage (Fra).

They lived in countries that they're parents weren't from. Should that have restricted them from being able to represent their home countries.

Did they play in other countries capped rugby teams ?

TycroesOsprey wrote:The person at the centre of this isnt the SRU, WRU or Shingler. Its the agent giving the lad advice that tried to chance his arm.

No, it's Andy Robinson because and the SRU because they tried to poach someone they knew wasn't eligible, maybe Wales did them a favour, what would of happened if Scotland had played him, then the IRB ruled he wasn't allowed to play?

Scotland could of easily got clarification of the player quietly from the IRB before making themselves look like muppets, in public.

Alyn, to be fair on the SRU, all they technically need is proof from the player that he qualifies for that particualr country, you would assume they asked the question on whether he was elligible, and he answered 'yes'. They wouldnt (and shouldnt) need to assume the player was lying, as I believe in this case, he was*.

I put this down to the player (and whoever he took his advice from).

(*due to his 14 appearances for wales u20's, appearing in commercial adverts on welsh rugby and stating not more than a few months ago before moving to Ldn Irish he stated his intention and ultimate desire to play for the Wales senior side).