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.

[quote="Taffineastbourne"]

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

bsando wrote:

Adam D wrote: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.

I think you're being too harsh on him. I grew up in Aus but i'm Scottish, and when you have that sort of division of nationality then it becomes difficult to choose which one you really are. Most of my mates reckon i'm more Aussie than Scottish but I still have a fierce pride for Scotland, brought on by my Scottish relatives. If I was in his sort of pickle about Aus vs Scotland I'd be pretty annoyed if fans were demanding I must choose Australia becuase that's where I grew up. [/quote
My family moved to England when I was 13.I was Welsh before we moved,I am still Welsh and I cannot see how/why this should/would change.I just dont get it.

TaffinE, it's great that the issue is so clear cut for you, but what if it wasn't for Shingler?

I think that it is very sad on a number of levels.I just hope that Wales are "big" enough to select him if/when he becomes good enough and they let bygones be bygones.

to you and me it may well seem "sad", but maybe not for him? I can't imagine he's feeling particularly kindly disposed towards the WRU at this point tho?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Apologies for stuffing up my last post.It seems that loyalty has gone out of fashion these days.Whem we moved to the midlands I took Wolverhampton Wanderers as my footie team.I have stuck with them through thin and thin for the last 45 years even though I have no biological/geograhical tie.I could have changed allegiance but that would have been plain wrong.

TaffinE, I suspect that your definition of loyalty and mine are pretty similar, but is it not possible that Shingler's is different - cant we just accept that possibility? English father, Scots mum, born in Wales, raised in Wales - I can see he could be confuddled. By his actions, altho not his words, he clearly thought he was keeping his options open. Maybe it is just possible that he felt sufficient affinity to any one of the 3 countries for which he is eligible to play for them? He doesn't have to think like us

Aslongas,yes I can see that.For the life of me,I cannot comprehend belting out our anthem one year in the red jersey and the next year belting out Flower of Scotland in the navy jersey.It is sad if the lad did not feel welcome in Wales like his brother clearly has.Whoever had his ear needs shooting(figuratively speaking!)

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Griff, he did play for Welsh age group sides 14 times, but by his own actions he did not believe this committed him at the senior level - he explicitly acted in a way that he believed left his options open. His words (about ambitions to be a Welsh senior player) may be cheap, but his actions spoke - you can't argue with that.

Also, I'm not clear why folks think that his agent was behind all this and that his agent's motivation was money? I'm not getting the link - can someone pls explain?

Ok As, I will. Nobody knows yet if an agent (or an influential family member) - was invloved. It is pure speculation. Its nowt to do with geld. Yet. But, its sets a precedent for agents, to get involved and use the gaping holes in IRB rules. Rugby is growing into big business. Still harmless financially, when compared to soccerball. But.
Sharks will circle if they see these gaps.

If the IRB are serious about protecting the integrity and credibilty of the game we all love, then they should copper-fasten their rules to prevent it from happening.

I didnt really give a flyin schiit about this, until I thought about the full implications of it all. TBH.

He's only a lad. I dont blame him for trying to find his way. But the paths he can take, at different stages of his rugby Life, should be clearly defined for him.

They obviously - were not.

Cymroglan wrote:Would you employ such a clueless agent ? I would bet my bottom $ that it was the agent that approached Scotland this is what agents do.
During the world cup Gatland put a ban on agents approaching players.

I would add that the SRU were as clueless as his agent then, but that's not much of a defence! . I cannot imagine an agent approaching a national union without his player's say-so and Shingler's actions demonstrate that he believed he could still follow any one of 3 paths at senior international level?

But how do agents gain from this, Gib? It's not like an agent would get paid for introducing him, nor get part of his playing fee, is it? Maybe I'm being naive

[quote="AsLongAsBut100ofUs"]

Taffineastbourne wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

bsando wrote:

Adam D wrote: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.

I think you're being too harsh on him. I grew up in Aus but i'm Scottish, and when you have that sort of division of nationality then it becomes difficult to choose which one you really are. Most of my mates reckon i'm more Aussie than Scottish but I still have a fierce pride for Scotland, brought on by my Scottish relatives. If I was in his sort of pickle about Aus vs Scotland I'd be pretty annoyed if fans were demanding I must choose Australia becuase that's where I grew up. [/quote
My family moved to England when I was 13.I was Welsh before we moved,I am still Welsh and I cannot see how/why this should/would change.I just dont get it.

TaffinE, it's great that the issue is so clear cut for you, but what if it wasn't for Shingler?

I think that it is very sad on a number of levels.I just hope that Wales are "big" enough to select him if/when he becomes good enough and they let bygones be bygones.

to you and me it may well seem "sad", but maybe not for him? I can't imagine he's feeling particularly kindly disposed towards the WRU at this point tho?

What have the WRU done wrong??????

Taffineastbourne wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Apologies for stuffing up my last post.It seems that loyalty has gone out of fashion these days.Whem we moved to the midlands I took Wolverhampton Wanderers as my footie team.I have stuck with them through thin and thin for the last 45 years even though I have no biological/geograhical tie.I could have changed allegiance but that would have been plain wrong.

TaffinE, I suspect that your definition of loyalty and mine are pretty similar, but is it not possible that Shingler's is different - cant we just accept that possibility? English father, Scots mum, born in Wales, raised in Wales - I can see he could be confuddled. By his actions, altho not his words, he clearly thought he was keeping his options open. Maybe it is just possible that he felt sufficient affinity to any one of the 3 countries for which he is eligible to play for them? He doesn't have to think like us

Aslongas,yes I can see that.For the life of me,I cannot comprehend belting out our anthem one year in the red jersey and the next year belting out Flower of Scotland in the navy jersey.It is sad if the lad did not feel welcome in Wales like his brother clearly has.Whoever had his ear needs shooting(figuratively speaking!)

TaffinE, what if that voice in his ear was his Scots mum?

You guys think it was his agent putting him up for it do you?

Makes sense, there are some funny buggers out there trying to make a coin out of players.

Aslongas,if that was the case,hopefully in time he will forgive her.

[quote="Taffineastbourne"]

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

bsando wrote:

Adam D wrote: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.

I think you're being too harsh on him. I grew up in Aus but i'm Scottish, and when you have that sort of division of nationality then it becomes difficult to choose which one you really are. Most of my mates reckon i'm more Aussie than Scottish but I still have a fierce pride for Scotland, brought on by my Scottish relatives. If I was in his sort of pickle about Aus vs Scotland I'd be pretty annoyed if fans were demanding I must choose Australia becuase that's where I grew up. [/quote
My family moved to England when I was 13.I was Welsh before we moved,I am still Welsh and I cannot see how/why this should/would change.I just dont get it.

TaffinE, it's great that the issue is so clear cut for you, but what if it wasn't for Shingler?

I think that it is very sad on a number of levels.I just hope that Wales are "big" enough to select him if/when he becomes good enough and they let bygones be bygones.

to you and me it may well seem "sad", but maybe not for him? I can't imagine he's feeling particularly kindly disposed towards the WRU at this point tho?

What have the WRU done wrong??????

TaffinE, I am guessing but I would imagine that he could feel like they/the IRB have stopped him gaining senior honours for the country of his choosing? Not saying I agree with that line of thought at all, but it's not a stretch to see he might be thinking that?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Apologies for stuffing up my last post.It seems that loyalty has gone out of fashion these days.Whem we moved to the midlands I took Wolverhampton Wanderers as my footie team.I have stuck with them through thin and thin for the last 45 years even though I have no biological/geograhical tie.I could have changed allegiance but that would have been plain wrong.

TaffinE, I suspect that your definition of loyalty and mine are pretty similar, but is it not possible that Shingler's is different - cant we just accept that possibility? English father, Scots mum, born in Wales, raised in Wales - I can see he could be confuddled. By his actions, altho not his words, he clearly thought he was keeping his options open. Maybe it is just possible that he felt sufficient affinity to any one of the 3 countries for which he is eligible to play for them? He doesn't have to think like us

I'm from Edinburgh, starting following pro club rugby while living in Glasgow going to see the Warriors as a student. Now back in Edinburgh last couple of years going to see them play week in week out. Follow both teams through the season but makes it kind of difficult when it comes to the derbies, end up not enjoying it as much cos I fee guilty supporting one over the other!

Definitely don't envy players like Shinger having to make these decisions when it comes to international rugby with much more at stake.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:But how do agents gain from this, Gib? It's not like an agent would get paid for introducing him, nor get part of his playing fee, is it? Maybe I'm being naive

Agents normally get a percentage of the players pay Internationals earn more so that means a bigger cut for the agent.

Taffineastbourne wrote:Aslongas,if that was the case,hopefully in time he will forgive her.

Indeed, she is his ma after all so is allowed a little latitude!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:But how do agents gain from this, Gib? It's not like an agent would get paid for introducing him, nor get part of his playing fee, is it? Maybe I'm being naive

Dont go all MrsP on me. I am talking about the overall principle. Not just this case.

Personally, this case, has bored the schiit out of me. 2 x 2nd-rate nations , arguing over a young player, who may never make it at full International level.

But what comes from this eventual ruling - does interest me.

Cymroglan wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:But how do agents gain from this, Gib? It's not like an agent would get paid for introducing him, nor get part of his playing fee, is it? Maybe I'm being naive

Agents normally get a percentage of the players pay Internationals earn more so that means a bigger cut for the agent.

C, tis true, yes, I see now. So the link would be that a Scottish cap will be easiest to obtain, so go for that - but that would devalue the salary increment for Scots internationals

Gibson wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:But how do agents gain from this, Gib? It's not like an agent would get paid for introducing him, nor get part of his playing fee, is it? Maybe I'm being naive

Dont go all MrsP on me. I am talking about the overall principle. Not just this case.

Personally, this case, has bored the schiit out of me. 2 x 2nd-rate nations , arguing over a young player, who may never make it at full International level.

But what comes from this eventual ruling - does.

Ouch - I think I'll ignore this bit. I can see that there is a wider principle at stake with much greater bearing, but I feel sorry for Shingler right now, defo not the2 national blazers brigades, not the international buffoonery

Ah man. Poetic licence.

How very dare you - we Scots are 3rd rate at best!!

Ok As. Sorry. In a non-flippant, manly type way then.

Yes. This lads future, and his altering choices of that future (young lads change as a matter of nature) - has been limited by imbeciles.

I personally hopes he runs against the wind (via EU Law) . Says goodbye Wales and plays for Scotland.

But, I am an incurable romantic.

Gibson wrote:Ok As. Sorry. In a non-flippant, manly type way then.

Yes. This lads future, and his altering choices of that future (young lads change as a matter of nature) - has been limited by imbeciles.

I personally hopes he runs against the wind (via EU Law) . Says goodbye Wales and plays for Scotland.

But, I am an incurable romantic.

X2

His future was in his hands all he had to do was not play against France in 2011.
Clearly Wales had done everything within the rules or the IRB would have let him go.
The rules in place are very simple and I'm sure Shingler was well aware of them but either he or his advisor thought they would chance their arm as two other players had been released by Wales.
Wales had no option to release the players that had played against France in 2010 but all the players that played against France in 2011 are tied to Wales.

If we are going to protect lads and give them the option of changing their minds then should there be a age limit on A sides or do you think it's acceptable for A sides to tie in 18 year olds.

Cymroglan wrote:His future was in his hands all he had to do was not play against France in 2011.
Clearly Wales had done everything within the rules or the IRB would have let him go.
The rules in place are very simple and I'm sure Shingler was well aware of them but either he or his advisor thought they would chance their arm as two other players had been released by Wales.
Wales had no option to release the players that had played against France in 2010 but all the players that played against France in 2011 are tied to Wales.

If we are going to protect lads and give them the option of changing their minds then should there be a age limit on A sides or do you think it's acceptable for A sides to tie in 18 year olds.

How many times did this guy play for Wales U20....if he got to that level without 'knowing' he was committed to the Welsh shirt then i am pretty sure we don't want him calling the game at 10...fill yer boots Jocks!

Personally I don't see any big deal or confusion here.

Every country has a 1st and a 2nd team. The 1st team is clear and sometimes the 2nd team is not but the country nominates which is their 2nd team. Sometimes we have an A team and its the second team. Because we are a poor country sometimes we can't afford an A team so we nominate another team for example our U20 team.

Someone wasn't paying attention when the team was told that if you play this game you're tied to Wales and now is stuck.


Personally I think you should be allowed to play for whoever you want to play for if they want you. Let the fans and players be their own moral judges not the administrators.

Gibson wrote:.......Nobody knows yet if an agent (or an influential family member) - was invloved. It is pure speculation. Its nowt to do with geld. Yet. But, its sets a precedent for agents, to get involved and use the gaping holes in IRB rules. Rugby is growing into big business. Still harmless financially, when compared to soccerball. But.
Sharks will circle if they see these gaps.

If the IRB are serious about protecting the integrity and credibilty of the game we all love, then they should copper-fasten their rules to prevent it from happening.

I didnt really give a flyin schiit about this, until I thought about the full implications of it all. TBH.

He's only a lad. I dont blame him for trying to find his way. But the paths he can take, at different stages of his rugby Life, should be clearly defined for him.

They obviously - were not.

Mr. Gibson, a terrific and right on comment on the whole situation. Like you, I originally didn't care so much what happened except for the usual not wanting to see a lad mucked about by those 'elder and wiser'. Which, no doubt, he was, whomever they were.

But looking at the bigger picture this is something ripe for more abuse if not fixed and made bullet proof. And for the life of me this should not be too difficult - simple, clear unambiguous criteria.

I understand the actions of the WRU are about protecting their turf against future movements of players they feel are future Wales players. But, to me, they are narrow minded and show zero class. They should let the kid go where he wants, but make improving the rules for national qualification/selection as the price. Then they can look like heroes, protect the kid and future kids, and ensure it doesn't happen again. Of course, the actual criteria for making the choice of which nation to commit one's career to should be consistent and agreed globally.

If the WRU asked him to sign a declaration committing himself to Wales and he refused then in his mind he was doing nothing wrong and keeping his international options open. I don't think any players are going to think to contact the union of their opposition to ask if their U20 is their second nominated side. I don't blame him for informing the SRU that he was still eligible to play for Scotland but they should have done more before Robbo named him in the squad. The SRU are taking it to the Regulations Committee but I doubt the outcome will be different. We'll have to find someone to play 12 elsewhere.

Declarations should be binned; they invite equivocation. The rules are simple; play senior, 2nd team (A or U20) or senior 7s and you are making your declaration.

This whole situation was predictable as soon as he was named in the squad. It is a shame because I don't think he'll ever be capped now. Everyone involved in this wants a slap from Andy Robinson to the boy himself. a thoroughly embarrassing debacle. Can't we have a season where nothing stupid like this happens?

on a side note will this now add a bit more fruit to the Wales - Scotland game?

From this morning's Hootsman: Shingler verdict and ramifications I won't bore you all by posting the whole article, but I thought a couple of sections were quite telling:

"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 was born in Swansea, but his mother, Jeanette Ireland, was born in Dumfries and grew up in Langholm in the Borders, where her family still live.

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 the latter is the case this will end in court, the matter will be settled and precedent will be set

Cymroglan wrote:His future was in his hands all he had to do was not play against France in 2011.
Clearly Wales had done everything within the rules or the IRB would have let him go.
The rules in place are very simple and I'm sure Shingler was well aware of them but either he or his advisor thought they would chance their arm as two other players had been released by Wales.
Wales had no option to release the players that had played against France in 2010 but all the players that played against France in 2011 are tied to Wales.

If we are going to protect lads and give them the option of changing their minds then should there be a age limit on A sides or do you think it's acceptable for A sides to tie in 18 year olds.

I guess things may be less clear that we understand, Cymroglan?

doctor_grey wrote:

Gibson wrote:.......Nobody knows yet if an agent (or an influential family member) - was invloved. It is pure speculation. Its nowt to do with geld. Yet. But, its sets a precedent for agents, to get involved and use the gaping holes in IRB rules. Rugby is growing into big business. Still harmless financially, when compared to soccerball. But.
Sharks will circle if they see these gaps.

If the IRB are serious about protecting the integrity and credibilty of the game we all love, then they should copper-fasten their rules to prevent it from happening.

I didnt really give a flyin schiit about this, until I thought about the full implications of it all. TBH.

He's only a lad. I dont blame him for trying to find his way. But the paths he can take, at different stages of his rugby Life, should be clearly defined for him.

They obviously - were not.

Mr. Gibson, a terrific and right on comment on the whole situation. Like you, I originally didn't care so much what happened except for the usual not wanting to see a lad mucked about by those 'elder and wiser'. Which, no doubt, he was, whomever they were.

But looking at the bigger picture this is something ripe for more abuse if not fixed and made bullet proof. And for the life of me this should not be too difficult - simple, clear unambiguous criteria.

I understand the actions of the WRU are about protecting their turf against future movements of players they feel are future Wales players. But, to me, they are narrow minded and show zero class. They should let the kid go where he wants, but make improving the rules for national qualification/selection as the price. Then they can look like heroes, protect the kid and future kids, and ensure it doesn't happen again. Of course, the actual criteria for making the choice of which nation to commit one's career to should be consistent and agreed globally.

The good doctor, this is perhaps one of the most common sense ideas I've heard on this board

Rugby_Girl wrote:I don't think that U20 team should be able to count as a 2nd team for any country, if a country decides not to have an A team and are going to lose players because of it then that is their own problem
U20 is an age grade team so surely it can't be selected as the next SENIOR representitave team
Feel for Shingler in all of this

Why don't we designate the U18s as the 2nd team? Then we can invite gullible youngsters from other countries with a qualifying grandparent to play and hey, we've got them. Or at least, stopped others from getting them. So we ruin lots of careers but what ever.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:His future was in his hands all he had to do was not play against France in 2011.
Clearly Wales had done everything within the rules or the IRB would have let him go.
The rules in place are very simple and I'm sure Shingler was well aware of them but either he or his advisor thought they would chance their arm as two other players had been released by Wales.
Wales had no option to release the players that had played against France in 2010 but all the players that played against France in 2011 are tied to Wales.

If we are going to protect lads and give them the option of changing their minds then should there be a age limit on A sides or do you think it's acceptable for A sides to tie in 18 year olds.

I guess things may be less clear that we understand, Cymroglan?

You cant base an IRB law on eligibility on A-Teams, there are only four A-Teams that play annually, regularly the others are purely invitational teams. The rule disregards all the nations that either don't have an A-Team or don't use it. So U20s has to be the way forward for all nations to have an equal base.

Alex_Germany wrote:

Rugby_Girl wrote:I don't think that U20 team should be able to count as a 2nd team for any country, if a country decides not to have an A team and are going to lose players because of it then that is their own problem
U20 is an age grade team so surely it can't be selected as the next SENIOR representitave team
Feel for Shingler in all of this

Why don't we designate the U18s as the 2nd team? Then we can invite gullible youngsters from other countries with a qualifying grandparent to play and hey, we've got them. Or at least, stopped others from getting them. So we ruin lots of careers but what ever.

England do the same with their Saxons team, i.e. capping 18 year olds so they can't play for anyone else. There's no difference between that and Wales, apart from the name of the team.

maes,

Personally I don't think U20s should count, its should be A Side and above or nothing, I know we and other countries don't have one but for me thats tough.

Maybe the WRU might get act together and gets ours back now.

As for Shingler I feel sorry for the kid, he is unlikley to get anywhere near the Welsh side unless

a) A Region signs him up and puts his case forward in Wales

b) We have a spate of injuries

For me he is behind Priestland, Biggar, Tovey, Morgan, Jones and Hook in the pecking order to get anywhere near the Welsh squad.

He had a chance to play International rugby and whilst opportunity not gone its a lot further away than if he been given clearance.

I wonder if the WRU will fell now that they have to use him to quell any arguments etc.

I'm happy to let the lad go and play for Scotland, it's obviously where his heart lies. However, this opens up a whole can of worms. It sets a precedent for capped players to rescind their cap and go play for someone else. Suddenly, Isa Nacewa dumps his Fiji cap and plays for who he wants (probably Ireland now), Regan King is no longer tied to the All Blacks, etc., etc. Why would the IRB break or bend their own rules? It would cause even more headaches later down the track.

Beds

I disagree, at 18 years old you can vote, fight for your country, marry you pay taxes, you are old enough to make a decision on which country you should represent.

Certainly in this case where you had so obviously made it publicly clear that you wanted to be future of the Welsh Flyhalf Shirt in a National TV add campaign.

This whole scenario stinks of the type of shenanigans money hungry agents provoke.

The WRU would be very wise to look at Sports Professional representation regarding their players, we have had enough trouble with Hensons advisors, we do not need Shingler going further the same way.

Shingler may be behind a handful of talented flyhalves and inside centers, even fullbacks in Wales that doesn't mean that in a season or two he may not be a far better player.

Remember it was only recently that Rhys Priestland would have figured in most peoples lists behind a number of other players, now he seems almost indispensable

I dont imagine he will stay with London Irish for his full contract. He would be a good player for the Blues, but with his current Agent, I think he will be off to France asap for the cash.

Hense why he is apparently so eager to play in the international spot light so soon.

He hasn't been a sensation in the Premiership.

maes,

My point isn't to do with his age or make decisions I just think only A and Full should count.

If he does have Inetrnational ambitions now than maybe a move back to Wales will be his best option but like I said I wonder if the WRU will use him now sooner than they might given the stink kicked up about his eligability.

maestegmafia.

Why are you still going on about only four teams playing at 'A' level. you bleeted on about this the other day and lots of people commented and told you all the other nations that play 'A' level so your argument doesn't wash at all!
The rule should never be put to U20, it should be kept to 'A' level. There are to many factors that come into play for players that age, they can be restricted where they live due to family, uni etc and not be able to go play for their chosen country. At that age as well players could be forced into decisions they don't want to make and put under severe pressure by unions which does happen! Also u20 is classed as junior rugby not senior!!

But there are so few teams using A teams. Its pointless.

The A team six (four) nations is a great concept but only four teams take part. Two of those teams regularly enter in the Churchill Cup. Otherwise A-Teams or emerging teams or junior teams, play a the occasional touring team like the Lions or a friendly against a PI Nation. I am very for A-Team rugby but most of the Worlds National Unions have no interest in it.

I think both should make you qualify.

Else this situation wont change.

The IRB already see U20s rugby as a valid acceptance of your nationality as this case has proved, it would only be progression to see all U20s rugby made valid qualification.

Majestic83 wrote:maestegmafia.

Why are you still going on about only four teams playing at 'A' level. you bleeted on about this the other day and lots of people commented and told you all the other nations that play 'A' level so your argument doesn't wash at all!
The rule should never be put to U20, it should be kept to 'A' level. There are to many factors that come into play for players that age, they can be restricted where they live due to family, uni etc and not be able to go play for their chosen country. At that age as well players could be forced into decisions they don't want to make and put under severe pressure by unions which does happen! Also u20 is classed as junior rugby not senior!!

Majestic83, are you suggesting then that those nations with A teams such as England and Scotland shouldn't be able to pick players 18-20 years old for the A team, beacuse surely there are 'many factors that come into play for players of that age', as you say?

Maes,

I guess thats now what the IRB should make a ruling over, if one U20s country is classed as qualified then it should be across the board.

Griff wrote:

Majestic83 wrote:maestegmafia.

Why are you still going on about only four teams playing at 'A' level. you bleeted on about this the other day and lots of people commented and told you all the other nations that play 'A' level so your argument doesn't wash at all!
The rule should never be put to U20, it should be kept to 'A' level. There are to many factors that come into play for players that age, they can be restricted where they live due to family, uni etc and not be able to go play for their chosen country. At that age as well players could be forced into decisions they don't want to make and put under severe pressure by unions which does happen! Also u20 is classed as junior rugby not senior!!

Majestic83, are you suggesting then that those nations with A teams such as England and Scotland shouldn't be able to pick players 18-20 years old for the A team, beacuse surely there are 'many factors that come into play for players of that age', as you say?

First Point is it is a FACT that the only teams in the world that have A-Teams playing in any form of regular competition are those in the Six Nations A-Team Championship that has four teams in it.

Second point I agree with Griff is a load of Cobblers, Gerald Davies was at Cambridge University while playing for Wales and it was a lot harder to travel between cambridge and Cardiff for training sessions back then than it is now without a car.

To say that a twenty year old can not chose the country they represent is absolutely ridiculous. I believe you could ask most Six year olds what country they want to play for when they grow up and you would get the same honest answer.

Professionalism in selection of your national representation is a different matter and a sordid one.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Maes,

I guess thats now what the IRB should make a ruling over, if one U20s country is classed as qualified then it should be across the board.

Its technically two, as France is in the same boot.

But also the Junior All Blacks, Emerging Boks etc etc etc have not played any games so realistically most nations could claim eligibility for players in their Under 20s teams.

maestegmafia wrote:

Griff wrote:

Majestic83 wrote:maestegmafia.

Why are you still going on about only four teams playing at 'A' level. you bleeted on about this the other day and lots of people commented and told you all the other nations that play 'A' level so your argument doesn't wash at all!
The rule should never be put to U20, it should be kept to 'A' level. There are to many factors that come into play for players that age, they can be restricted where they live due to family, uni etc and not be able to go play for their chosen country. At that age as well players could be forced into decisions they don't want to make and put under severe pressure by unions which does happen! Also u20 is classed as junior rugby not senior!!

Majestic83, are you suggesting then that those nations with A teams such as England and Scotland shouldn't be able to pick players 18-20 years old for the A team, beacuse surely there are 'many factors that come into play for players of that age', as you say?

First Point is it is a FACT that the only teams in the world that have A-Teams playing in any form of regular competition are those in the Six Nations A-Team Championship that has four teams in it.

Second point I agree with Griff is a load of Cobblers, Gerald Davies was at Cambridge University while playing for Wales and it was a lot harder to travel between cambridge and Cardiff for training sessions back then than it is now without a car.

To say that a twenty year old can not chose the country they represent is absolutely ridiculous. I believe you could ask most Six year olds what country they want to play for when they grow up and you would get the same honest answer.
Professionalism in selection of your national representation is a different matter and a sordid one.

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

I think its crazy to say that an 18 year old who plays for an A side can make his nationality decision but a 20 year old who plays for his country's U20 side is somehow less mature, and bless him, is not worldly wise enough.

Starting to get fed up with people criticising the WRU over this already. What were they supposed to do?

Shingler was told the facts as were all the other players on that side. Darren Edwards was the coach and he has also confirmed as much. The fact that the IRB would like, from a purely administrative point of view, a piece of paper saying so is not the point.

There was a similar scenario the previous season so the players knew exactly what the situation was.

Shingler sounds like an idiot to me. He is born and raised in Swansea, has played age grade rugby and senior rugby in Wales until going to LI a few months ago. He has often spoken of his desire to play for Wales and was still doing so 2 months ago. So don't tell me he has a burning lifelong desire to pull on the Scottish jersey. It is purely about money and enhancing his career, which is fair enough in a way as he could walk in to the Scottish team due to a dearth of decent 10's and 12's, but the rules are there and everyone knew what they were, especially him.

doctornickolas wrote:I think its crazy to say that an 18 year old who plays for an A side can make his nationality decision but a 20 year old who plays for his country's U20 side is somehow less mature, and bless him, is not worldly wise enough.

Starting to get fed up with people criticising the WRU over this already. What were they supposed to do?

Shingler was told the facts as were all the other players on that side. Darren Edwards was the coach and he has also confirmed as much. The fact that the IRB would like, from a purely administrative point of view, a piece of paper saying so is not the point.

There was a similar scenario the previous season so the players knew exactly what the situation was.

Shingler sounds like an idiot to me. He is born and raised in Swansea, has played age grade rugby and senior rugby in Wales until going to LI a few months ago. He has often spoken of his desire to play for Wales and was still doing so 2 months ago. So don't tell me he has a burning lifelong desire to pull on the Scottish jersey. It is purely about money and enhancing his career, which is fair enough in a way as he could walk in to the Scottish team due to a dearth of decent 10's and 12's, but the rules are there and everyone knew what they were, especially him.

doctorN, if you read the extract above, it seems that Shingler would contest this

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.

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

So by the time you are 18 you can legally leave home, vote, learn to drive, drink and smoke, get married, have sex, fight in the armed forces but not make an informed decision about which country you play for