Can someone explain this for me?

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2061322.html

what does reserve their judgement mean?

Pass the port, sure we can drag this committee out for another lunch and dinner

They will give a judgement at a later time..

What it means is that they want to drag it on as much as possible because they can claim more expenses.

Avizandum. Standard legal procedure, if you're Scottish.

Ah, so basically they're announcing that they have not made a decision yet?

What is "regulation 2"?

123456789 wrote:Ah, so basically they're announcing that they have not made a decision yet?

What is "regulation 2"?

The right to appeal

So Scotland are appealing under the rules that they can appeal this is fairly obvious otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to appeal.

I have to be honest I'm not sure I agree with the WRU trying so hard, they have nothing to gain, even if he's stopped from playing for Scotland will he get picked for Wales and would he accept?

It's all getting a bit ugly, and the WRU should thank him for the representation and wish him luck in the future, that would be the decent thing to do in my opinion!

123456789 wrote:Ah, so basically they're announcing that they have not made a decision yet?

What is "regulation 2"?

Correct they've reserved their judgement to have a think about it, therefore clearly not clear cut.

I support Scotland and I'm not sure on this Tbh, if he's a good player and he honestly wants to play for Scotland then I want him to play. I believe the SRU have acted correctly because they should always be looking to strengthen their position. At the same time Shingler played in the match therefore by the laws of the game he is tied to Wales as well as that players moving between countries devalues the international game and Wales and Scotland are relatively small nations and Wales possibly needed to send a message out, mainly to England, saying "hands off our players".

thebluesmancometh wrote:I have to be honest I'm not sure I agree with the WRU trying so hard, they have nothing to gain, even if he's stopped from playing for Scotland will he get picked for Wales and would he accept?

It's all getting a bit ugly, and the WRU should thank him for the representation and wish him luck in the future, that would be the decent thing to do in my opinion!

No because it will set a precedent.He is either tied to Wales or he is free to go but that decision needs to be made using the existing laws.

+1 Cymro. All we need is clarity the current laws are not clear and open to interpetation, so let's get it sorted

Right this is effectively a test case. It clearly fits into a very grey area in the wording of the regulations versus their intent, rightly they are taking their time to make clear decision and review all the evidence carefully to ensure that the regulations are applied properly to what actually happened.

Its long been stated that they wont make a final decision till after the 6 nations, that may be a political move to avoid it blowing up mid tournament.

Peter I cant see them backtracking on their initial decision that he was tied to Wales all the boxes should have been ticked when they said he was already tied to Wales..
What I think will happen is that there will be a new set of rules regarding players being tied to a particular nation.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I have to be honest I'm not sure I agree with the WRU trying so hard, they have nothing to gain, even if he's stopped from playing for Scotland will he get picked for Wales and would he accept?

It's all getting a bit ugly, and the WRU should thank him for the representation and wish him luck in the future, that would be the decent thing to do in my opinion!

But the WRU can't play god and rescind a cap. If they did, then that would set a precedent and you'd have other nations, maybe the poorer nations like Fiji, being put under pressure by players with 1 cap who now want to play for the All Blacks (for example - not saying that they do this). I've used this example before, but Wales can't just 'scrap' a cap no more than Fiji could have scrapped Isa Nacewa's cap even though the player requested it. We've been there in the past with players representing 2 countries and these current laws were brought in to stop it.

Bluesman,

The issue is one pf precedent. If they didnt fight this case it would lead others to cite that as why they should be allowed to break the rule ( if it was broken)

Wales were very upset about the two defections to Ireland, and thought they had sorted out the situation so it wouldnt happen again.

As for Shingler, Im sure hed jump a chance of a cap for Wales given the chance despite probably being upset by being caught up in this. Noone honestly believes he wouldnt much rather play for them than Scotland. problem is of course its very unlikely he'll get the chance...and hed probably spit at them if they formed an A team and picked him for that

I hope the ruling, whenever it comes, addresses the bigger picture issue. And to me that is ensuring the same requirement is applied to all countries regarding eligibility and when someone commits to a country. Wales claim their U20 as their "B" side. Some other countries do, some don't. This needs to be consistent one way or the other.

I feel committing at U20 is too young.
But if the ruling goes that way, then at least we have one fair and even system. If the ruling goes the other way, then teams without "B" sides lose out. But again, a system which is clear and easy to understand.

And thats most important of all - simplicity.

I agree that that would very simplistic and easy for everyone to understand. The thing is though that an A team can still cap a player aged 20 or under (Tuilagi ad the Saxons (sounds like a kids book!)), so it doesn't remove the argument used by many that these lads are 'too young to have to decide on their nationality'.

Could somebody please explain me the full situation regarding Shingler.

I am too lazy to go do research on the situation.

thanks.

Think he qualifies for England, Scotland and Wales through birth/parentage (not sure exactly what's what there).

He played several games for Wales Under-20s, which is Wales' designated second team, however none of these matches were against other nations' designated second teams (as they all had A teams).

Until Wales played France. France, who also didn't have an A team designated their under-20s as their second team, so Wales U20s Vs France U20s was a match between both nations' second teams and therefore tied all the players playing, including Shingler, into representation only the country they represented that day.

Now Shingler wants to play for Scotland.

My view of how it SHOULD work is that Under-20s and below should not count and ANY senior team should count. However I am aware that this isn't how it is worded and I don't know what the IRB's decision would be, regardless of the outcome I'd be looking at clarifications and possibly changes. Even if the IRB decided that Under-20s should count, I think it should then be all Under-20s matches.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:As for Shingler, Im sure hed jump a chance of a cap for Wales given the chance despite probably being upset by being caught up in this. No-one honestly believes he wouldnt much rather play for them than Scotland. problem is of course its very unlikely he'll get the chance...and hed probably spit at them if they formed an A team and picked him for that

PSW, I do! Wouldn't he simply just not have declared his hand to Scotland if he really wanted to hold out for a Welsh cap? I know there's the mercenary angle n'all, but he could have stuck with Wales?

robbo277 wrote:Think he qualifies for England, Scotland and Wales through birth/parentage (not sure exactly what's what there).

He played several games for Wales Under-20s, which is Wales' designated second team, however none of these matches were against other nations' designated second teams (as they all had A teams).

Until Wales played France. France, who also didn't have an A team designated their under-20s as their second team, so Wales U20s Vs France U20s was a match between both nations' second teams and therefore tied all the players playing, including Shingler, into representation only the country they represented that day.

Now Shingler wants to play for Scotland.

My view of how it SHOULD work is that Under-20s and below should not count and ANY senior team should count. However I am aware that this isn't how it is worded and I don't know what the IRB's decision would be, regardless of the outcome I'd be looking at clarifications and possibly changes. Even if the IRB decided that Under-20s should count, I think it should then be all Under-20s matches.

robbo has it bang on, biltong. Here's what the SRU had to say recently about the situation:

{quote]Scottish Rugby notes the IRB’s statement issued tonight 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. You can read the IRB's statement below.

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

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

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

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

The SRU and WRU may wish the IRB Regulations Committee to consider this matter formally in accordance with IRB Regulation 2. The Unions are aware of the requirements of such a review.[/quote]The SRU launched an appeal on the players' behalf.

robbo277 wrote:Think he qualifies for England, Scotland and Wales through birth/parentage (not sure exactly what's what there).

He played several games for Wales Under-20s, which is Wales' designated second team, however none of these matches were against other nations' designated second teams (as they all had A teams).

Until Wales played France. France, who also didn't have an A team designated their under-20s as their second team, so Wales U20s Vs France U20s was a match between both nations' second teams and therefore tied all the players playing, including Shingler, into representation only the country they represented that day.

Now Shingler wants to play for Scotland.

My view of how it SHOULD work is that Under-20s and below should not count and ANY senior team should count. However I am aware that this isn't how it is worded and I don't know what the IRB's decision would be, regardless of the outcome I'd be looking at clarifications and possibly changes. Even if the IRB decided that Under-20s should count, I think it should then be all Under-20s matches.

Thanks robbo, but then what I don't understand is when clyde rathbone represented SA in the junior world cup, he left for Australia and represented them. I can't remember whether he had to do a residency period before he did though.

Couple of questions for those arguing Wales shouldnt have th right to nominate their U20s as ther A team and tie players:

If you consider the players are too young to decide then should teenagers with "proper" A caps not be tied? Full caps? Or do we change the logic for that?

And whats to stop a Union only picking players aged under 20 for their A team and agreeing with the opposition to do the same?

The system is sensible. Whats needed is registartion for all tied players signed by that player to state he was aware that the game would tie him, held centrally by the IRB where it can easily be checked by any sides with doubts about eilgability before they call up a dual national.
The rules I dont have a problem with, its a system where noones sure if he agreed to be tied or not thats caused this problem.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Couple of questions for those arguing Wales shouldnt have th right to nominate their U20s as ther A team and tie players:

If you consider the players are too young to decide then should teenagers with "proper" A caps not be tied? Full caps? Or do we change the logic for that?

And whats to stop a Union only picking players aged under 20 for their A team and agreeing with the opposition to do the same?

The system is sensible. Whats needed is registartion for all tied players signed by that player to state he was aware that the game would tie him, held centrally by the IRB where it can easily be checked by any sides with doubts about eilgability before they call up a dual national.
The rules I dont have a problem with, its a system where noones sure if he agreed to be tied or not thats caused this problem.

PSW, agree, that as the rules stand, it makes sense. What is slightly less clear in this case is how the rules were applied, i.e. had France A advised the IRB that the U20 was their designated 2nd XV side, did the WRU properly inform Shingler that if he played, not matter when he signed the eligibility document, that he would be tied, etc.? It's these smaller points on which this particular case hangs, I believe

Yep hence my last point for the need for everything to be clealry documented and signed by the player then registered. I really cant understand why this isnt done, and why eleigability isnt checked as a matter of course.

We all thought the lessons had been learnt from grannygate and the farce of the ERC writeing their loan players regulations incorrectly. Apparently not.

PSW
My understanding is that the WRU informed Shingler and the other U20 players that playing in the match v France was committing them to Wales. Additionally, from recollection of what was mentioned on the previous long thread, Shingler filled out the relevant form, which confirmed his eligibiilty to represent Wales but did not sign it, having previously advised the WRU that he wished to keep his options open for senior team eligibility - As already mentioned, he is eligible for Wales by birth (unless someone has moved Swansea), by England through his father and Scotland through his mother.

To me, it seems fairly clear, especially given the way the eligibility laws are worded, that by participating in the game* Shingler is tied to Wales regardless of whether all the paperwork is in order.

* With the proviso that the appeals panel concur with the initial decision that France U20 was correctly being given the status of the 'next senior' team.

Right...which begs the questions:

Why have the paperwork if it doesnt need to be signed, registered or checked?
Why not have the paperwork be signed regsitered and checked so that everyone clealry understands the implications of their decisions
Why not have a system where the SRU could check his eligability rather than having to rely on asking him ( Shane Howarth). Obviously theres reasons why they wouldnt want to have to approach the WRU, so why couldnt they go to the IRB ( or indeed be compelled to with any player called up) A simple register available online would solve this without excessive administartion costs.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Right...which begs the questions:

Why have the paperwork if it doesnt need to be signed, registered or checked?
Why not have the paperwork be signed regsitered and checked so that everyone clealry understands the implications of their decisions
Why not have a system where the SRU could check his eligability rather than having to rely on asking him ( Shane Howarth). Obviously theres reasons why they wouldnt want to have to approach the WRU, so why couldnt they go to the IRB ( or indeed be compelled to with any player called up) A simple register available online would solve this without excessive administartion costs.

PSW, you've convinced me - I nominate you for 606v2's representative with the IRB with immediate effect - congratulations. Oh hang on, what you suggest is far too sensible, sorry, your application has been rejected

Cracking thread guys. Thanks. I feel properly informed now.

Agreed that this is a cracking thread with a lot of very well considered arguements.

The reason for the IRB delaying their verdict is, in my opinion, 2 fold.
As mentioned above, this is a first precedent case. Whatever decision they make in regard to this will have far reaching consequences in relation to any eligibilty issues down the line - which ever way they call it.

Secondly, eligibility rules and the destinction between U20 and "next senior team" status will need to be clearly defined alongside any ruling on the Shingler case.

PSW - I think you have nailed it. The current model - based on eligibility is open to dispute and abuse. Registration on the other hand is far more secure.

Designating U20 as next senior needs to be done away with. Based on the current model of eligibility it only muddies the waters and if things stay as they are this will not be the first issue of this type.

Red Right, I suspect you have it spot on. I wonder if they have actually reached a decision, but will not release it until they are also ready to release a whole new ruling on the topic, with supporting guidelines and have procedures in place to be able to support it as well?

i can see the consequences of ruling in favor of Scotland will have nation's scouts running to every junior wolrd cup dishing out contracts left right and center.

It might be worth while then not to enter your young guns in the tournament if you want to hold onto them as the SH cash strapped countries will lose a ot of talent.

Exactly Biltong. The rule about 2nd designated teams wasn't brought in for Wales and France but for the smaller poorer nations who can't afford to run A teams (Wales can afford one, we're just being tight!). They run the risk of their U20 players being cherry picked at the junior world cup and whisked off to richer countries. For them this 2nd team counting as capped is vital to stop player drain. The system is fine as long as everyone knows where they stand. As long as someone announces to the players, e.g. use a large megaphone or similar, that the game is capped then there's not too much to get confused about.

Biltong,

If it does go in Scotlands favour it woudl depend on the reasoning.
If its simply that Farnce/Wales didnt follow the correct protocols to tie Shingler then the consequences wont be so bad. If they rule that under 20's teams shouldnt tie players because they worded it worng then itll open up a massive can of owrms.

Whatever happens they need to tighten up the system to ensure uncertainty doesnt happen again.

biltong, your man clyde had an aussie grandma, from the father's side

At the same time Shingler played in the match therefore by the laws of the game he is tied to Wales as well as that players moving between countries devalues the international game and Wales and Scotland are relatively small nations and Wales possibly needed to send a message out, mainly to England, saying "hands off our players"..

How many Welsh born players in the current England squad? Now, how many English born players in the Welsh squad?

Wales need to protect their youngsters from being poached but it's not England that are nicking them.

To be fair Sam, its mostly Scotland who pinch England age grade players.

Erm, Tom Palmer?! Stuart Lancaster?!

Erm, Tom Palmer?! Stuart Lancaster?!

Born Harringay London. Born Penrith Cumbria. We were stealing them back!

To be fair Sam, its mostly Scotland who pinch England age grade players..

True. Big Jim Hamilton being a prime example. Brought up in the West Midlands, Barkers Butts RFC, Tigers academy, England age grade and then Scottish international.

Evans Evans and err the dutch lad?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Erm, Tom Palmer?! Stuart Lancaster?!

Palmer never played for a Scotland representative side, just New Zeland schoolboys.

Tom Palmer

Are you not thinking of Martin Johnson? Did he have a Scots granny??

http://www.rfu.com/SquadsAndPlayers/EnglandElite/TomPalmer

Apologies then he did also play for scotland, but you lot poached him off New Zealand first

And he wasnt born in any of those countries....

I know, just yanking yer chain

Red Right wrote:Agreed that this is a cracking thread with a lot of very well considered arguements......
....Designating U20 as next senior needs to be done away with. Based on the current model of eligibility it only muddies the waters and if things stay as they are this will not be the first issue of this type.

I agree. What ever the rule is going forwards it needs to be simple. For me, I prefer making representation in any non-age group national team the criteria.