S Shingler is tied to Wales

First topic message reminder :

Confirmation of the IRB hearing: Shingler case Shame for the lad

Putting aside what did happen for a second.

Should the WRU or FFR be allowed to claim the U20s as their next representative Senior side. To me the notion is laughable.

You have a team who is capped by age level and competes in a Junior tournament. How can it be a senior team.

Again this is the IRBs fault - not Wales, Scotland or Frances.

[And what true penalty? He is still eligable to play international rugby for the nation he has represnted through out each age grade in rugby so far.

And if the rules are cleared up and clarified as a result of this mess, then that can only be a good thing [/quote]

Simply not relevant under the iRB rules, he could have represented 10 different countries at age-group level and it wouldn't count for sh1t. It's unfortunate for Wales in this instance, as time and effort has been invested in him, but had he not played in this single game (as indeed he should not have), then all that would have been for nothing, wouldn't it? Perhaps the whole 'document' thing is just a red herring as you say




EDIT by RD: oops, error, I edited this post instead of quoting it, apologies for messing it up

One question though, if it was the in the IRB laws that the under 20 game tied him to the Welsh camp, what was the point of the signed paper - that alwasy smacked me as a bit of funny juice to me

HOWEVER - I think the SRU come out of this looking much worst (and I am Scottish), and I hope that we can put it to bed and focus on the next round of bizzar AR selections - where we excel at

I think Schingler was badly advised and a little silly

red_stag wrote:To me it is very simple.

No country should ever ever ever be allowed to have an age level team that competes in the JUNIOR Rugby World Cup to be its next SENIOR representative team.

I honestly can't believe that it could be allowed.

WRU did nothing wrong though. It is the iRB who have created a nonsense situation involving ifs and maybes. IF the Welsh U20 play then you PROBABLY wont be tied to them UNLESS you play France in which case you MIGHT be tied to them.

Ridiculous but its not the fault of Shingler, Scotland or Wales. Just the IRB.

Agree 100% Stag. People saying 'Wales should just let it go', they couldn't. The IRB are the law makers, not Wales. We don't get to say which laws other nations can break. At least it was discovered early. If Wales had said nothing then Scotland could have been fined a lot of money further down the track if they'd capped and played an already capped player.

My big fear is that the repercussions of this change in law, that U20 will not be allowed as the 2nd team, will harm most those that it was designed to protect. The poorer rugby nations can't afford an A team, and are perhpas more susceptible to losing youngsters to the lure of cash in bigger, richer countries. Their players will now be open to cherry picking at junior world cups as no-one at that tournament will now be tied. We've essentially just opened up a big free market for the best of the young world talent from those nations without A teams to be tapped up after show casing themselves on the world stage. Cue an influx of youngsters to European and S15 clubs after the next Junior world cup.

I think we all know that if Shingler were announced in the next Welsh squad it would render us all completely dumb-founded. Relying on that as a get out for the actual penalty is just not going to hold water.

The document issue is not one of an 'excuse'. What it does is go to the man's mindset prior to playing the game for Wales. It says this: i'm not certain who I wish to play for internationally and I don't necessarily want to be forced into such a decision. That's the salient point here.

It's all very well saying he shouldn't have played, but if he's undecided he's likely to take the opportunity anyway, as most of us would.

Chjw131 wrote:I think we all know that if Shingler were announced in the next Welsh squad it would render us all completely dumb-founded. Relying on that as a get out for the actual penalty is just not going to hold water.

The document issue is not one of an 'excuse'. What it does is go to the man's mindset prior to playing the game for Wales. It says this: i'm not certain who I wish to play for internationally and I don't necessarily want to be forced into such a decision. That's the salient point here.

It's all very well saying he shouldn't have played, but if he's undecided he's likely to take the opportunity anyway, as most of us would.

There speaks the lawyer.

Right, work to do, oh alright then, pretend to do - good debate, thanks all

i feel sorry for the would-be turncoat.

as others have said, he still has a chance to play for wales. its not like our 10's are nailed on for the next 10 years. biggar, priest, tovey (who we havent even seen yet) they will all have dips in form, periods of unavailablity.

singler needs to get on with his job. international calls will or will not come. that has never really been in his power to decide.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:[And what true penalty? He is still eligable to play international rugby for the nation he has represnted through out each age grade in rugby so far.

And if the rules are cleared up and clarified as a result of this mess, then that can only be a good thing

Simply not relevant under the iRB rules, he could have represented 10 different countries at age-group level and it wouldn't count for sh1t. It's unfortunate for Wales in this instance, as time and effort has been invested in him, but had he not played in this single game (as indeed he should not have), then all that would have been for nothing, wouldn't it? Perhaps the whole 'document' thing is just a red herring as you say




EDIT by RD: oops, error, I edited this post instead of quoting it, apologies for messing it up [/quote]



Right, hope I haven't messed this up again this time....

Not saying it's relevent, just that people are going on about the penalty he has to play. The guys is still eligable to play international level rugby, just for one country now, instead of two

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Before the match when the lad was given the documentation to sign, none of "his agent, the SRU and the iRB" were in the room, I would hazard a guess, but somehow he returned the document stating that he did not want to sign it and tie himself to Wales

Yet he was clearly happy to put the jersey on knowing he would be tied to Wales.

Ozzy3213 wrote:The issue is that you are dealing with kids in essence dreamer, and making them make a career decision about their future at too young an age. Most of them at that age seem to struggle deciding what to have for dinner tomorrow let along where to pledge their entire future to.

Ozzy at that age the 'kids' are old enough to drink, smoke, get married and have kids themselves. Not to mention old enough to vote, and have a say in what happens to the country. So to be honest they are not 'kids'.

Ok then, if they're too young to make the decision then I think we should un-tie Tuilagi from his England caps. At 19 how was he able to make the decision to play for England? He probably felt pressured into it as he was living here and had a club contract, etc., etc. boo hoo.

Griff wrote:[qAgree 100% Stag. People saying 'Wales should just let it go', they couldn't. The IRB are the law makers, not Wales. We don't get to say which laws other nations can break. At least it was discovered early. If Wales had said nothing then Scotland could have been fined a lot of money further down the track if they'd capped and played an already capped player.

My big fear is that the repercussions of this change in law, that U20 will not be allowed as the 2nd team, will harm most those that it was designed to protect. The poorer rugby nations can't afford an A team, and are perhpas more susceptible to losing youngsters to the lure of cash in bigger, richer countries. Their players will now be open to cherry picking at junior world cups as no-one at that tournament will now be tied. We've essentially just opened up a big free market for the best of the young world talent from those nations without A teams to be tapped up after show casing themselves on the world stage. Cue an influx of youngsters to European and S15 clubs after the next Junior world cup

Clearly the biggest problem here is the IRB's rules are a shambles.
On their website, it clearly tells each Union to designate a second team, it does not give any other information with regards to age groups, though it does say that caps for that team only count in tying players in provided a capped games takes place against another nations second team.

I don't agree with the poorer nations comment because even the "poor" islanders have Fiji Warriors, Samoa A and Tonga A, so if they can afford to run A sides then surely Wales could too. The Welsh A team was disbanded due to costs in the late 90's, however the Welsh regions do not want to lose more players to international call ups during the 6 Nations. That is the Real reason Wales do not have an A side.
France do have an A side, yet still choose to have their U20 as their second team, which simply causes more confusion.

Basically the bottom line is the IRB needs to tighten up it's rules to avoid these problems, as careers are being damaged and investment in players could be jepordised in the future.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Ozzy at that age the 'kids' are old enough to drink, smoke, get married and have kids themselves. Not to mention old enough to vote, and have a say in what happens to the country. So to be honest they are not 'kids'.

Yup not to mention join the army and go to war, and get killed...

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Before the match when the lad was given the documentation to sign, none of "his agent, the SRU and the iRB" were in the room, I would hazard a guess, but somehow he returned the document stating that he did not want to sign it and tie himself to Wales

Yet he was clearly happy to put the jersey on knowing he would be tied to Wales.

Man, Chunky, I worry about you - the lad says he DIDN'T know that (whether he should have is neither here nor there - either he genuinely didn't and thought the doc had more importance than it does, or else he's telling porky pies - and I for one don't know which, so will give him the benefit of the doubt)

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:I think we all know that if Shingler were announced in the next Welsh squad it would render us all completely dumb-founded. Relying on that as a get out for the actual penalty is just not going to hold water.

The document issue is not one of an 'excuse'. What it does is go to the man's mindset prior to playing the game for Wales. It says this: i'm not certain who I wish to play for internationally and I don't necessarily want to be forced into such a decision. That's the salient point here.

It's all very well saying he shouldn't have played, but if he's undecided he's likely to take the opportunity anyway, as most of us would.

There speaks the lawyer.

Right, work to do, oh alright then, pretend to do - good debate, thanks all

Yes thanks AsLongAs! I will also have to take my leave to pretend to do some work now as well. I can understand Welsh poster's frustrations regarding his so called 'loyalty' but to my mind the most important thing here are not the rigid rules and regulations (being changed anyway!!) but the fact a young man in all likelihood will never play international rugby. If he pulls a senior Welsh jersey on then I will gladly implode with my own self righteousness!

Griff wrote:Ok then, if they're too young to make the decision then I think we should un-tie Tuilagi from his England caps. At 19 how was he able to make the decision to play for England? He probably felt pressured into it as he was living here and had a club contract, etc., etc. boo hoo.

Oh and George North (being younger than Shingler) can go play for England next season too.

AlynDavies wrote:

Griff wrote:[qAgree 100% Stag. People saying 'Wales should just let it go', they couldn't. The IRB are the law makers, not Wales. We don't get to say which laws other nations can break. At least it was discovered early. If Wales had said nothing then Scotland could have been fined a lot of money further down the track if they'd capped and played an already capped player.

My big fear is that the repercussions of this change in law, that U20 will not be allowed as the 2nd team, will harm most those that it was designed to protect. The poorer rugby nations can't afford an A team, and are perhpas more susceptible to losing youngsters to the lure of cash in bigger, richer countries. Their players will now be open to cherry picking at junior world cups as no-one at that tournament will now be tied. We've essentially just opened up a big free market for the best of the young world talent from those nations without A teams to be tapped up after show casing themselves on the world stage. Cue an influx of youngsters to European and S15 clubs after the next Junior world cup

Clearly the biggest problem here is the IRB's rules are a shambles.
On their website, it clearly tells each Union to designate a second team, it does not give any other information with regards to age groups, though it does say that caps for that team only count in tying players in provided a capped games takes place against another nations second team.

I don't agree with the poorer nations comment because even the "poor" islanders have Fiji Warriors, Samoa A and Tonga A, so if they can afford to run A sides then surely Wales could too. The Welsh A team was disbanded due to costs in the late 90's, however the Welsh regions do not want to lose more players to international call ups during the 6 Nations. That is the Real reason Wales do not have an A side.
France do have an A side, yet still choose to have their U20 as their second team, which simply causes more confusion.

Basically the bottom line is the IRB needs to tighten up it's rules to avoid these problems, as careers are being damaged and investment in players could be jepordised in the future.

Good points, AD

Griff wrote:Ok then, if they're too young to make the decision then I think we should un-tie Tuilagi from his England caps. At 19 how was he able to make the decision to play for England? He probably felt pressured into it as he was living here and had a club contract, etc., etc. boo hoo.

I though he already made that decision when he jumped off the boat and tried to swim back to Samoa?

Bloudy hell if you cant decide which country you want to play for by the age of 18 then I'm sure its the least of your concerns.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Before the match when the lad was given the documentation to sign, none of "his agent, the SRU and the iRB" were in the room, I would hazard a guess, but somehow he returned the document stating that he did not want to sign it and tie himself to Wales

Yet he was clearly happy to put the jersey on knowing he would be tied to Wales.

Man, Chunky, I worry about you - the lad says he DIDN'T know that (whether he should have is neither here nor there - either he genuinely didn't and thought the doc had more importance than it does, or else he's telling porky pies - and I for one don't know which, so will give him the benefit of the doubt)

He knew. He refused to sign a form that said the game would tie him to the Union.

If he forgot, the he's got one hell of a memory problem.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Griff wrote:Ok then, if they're too young to make the decision then I think we should un-tie Tuilagi from his England caps. At 19 how was he able to make the decision to play for England? He probably felt pressured into it as he was living here and had a club contract, etc., etc. boo hoo.

Oh and George North (being younger than Shingler) can go play for England next season too.

Yep. But look, I was being a bit facetious. Of course it's ridiculous to say that we'll untie those youngsters who chose to play for a senior team at 18 or 19, but it's almost as ridiculous as saying that someone is too young to commit to Wales at 19 but is not too young to commit to someone with an A team! You're either old enough at that age or not.

Chjw131 wrote:

Red Right wrote:Probably the right decision. Most importantly it looks like the IRB are going to review the rules regarding eligibility and hopefully nail it down to a particular team or age group.

Wales were right to fight for this - they need to look after their own interests. Its unfortunate for Shingler but in sport as in life there are test cases - in this case he was it. Hopefully the rules get sorted and we don't see this again.

Why do they need to 'look after their own interests' at the expense of a young man's entire international career. The detriment to him is in no way outweighed by some greater good for the WRU. Indeed it now seems it's going to be changed in respect of the Welsh U20's anyway!

Chjw - there is a perfect example in the world of sport at the moment - Northern Ireland. Any young player worth a dam in the North seems to be declaring for the Republic.....because they can. Many have played under-age for NI but declare for RoI for senior. Young McClean is not the first - this goes back years. The first player I can remember was Alan Kernaghan and there have been plenty of defections since. (For the sake of this arguement I am going to ignore any political/religous issues). Some have made it and some have not but this must be hurting NI football. As much as I love to see McClean playing for RoI as he looks like he could become a truely class player another part of me things the whole thing is a bit wrong.

Wales do have a right to look after their own interest. Their biggest asset is that they have some exceptional young players - but on the whole the player base is small. They have an issue in that they cannot at this time compete financially with many of the other clubs or unions when it comes to players salaries so I do believe that they need to make some kind of stand so as to prevent setting an adverse precedent.

As I said this is unfortunate for Shingler and it is a pity that a young guy looking to play test rugby might have his chances of achieving this ruined due mainly poorly structured governance on behalf of the IRB.

But I do have another view on this which is far more cynical - rugby as a professional sport is in its infancy. The IRB, many Unions, clubs/provinces/regions are still bedding into to the process and how it works. Many clube/national managers are similarly "new" to the concept. This is not the same for players personal managers or sports agents who know well how to generate cash from players actions. I believe that there are a lot of young players who are subject to head turning by individuals looking to make a decent commission off of any deal that they can generate. The IRB need to make sure that they have sufficient governance in place to deal with this. As it stands I do not believe that the IRB's ruling would hold up to any kind of legal scrutiny, this is a professional game and when money is involved you can be guaranteed that someone somewhere will look to make money out of such loop holes in what ever way they can.

So this means that Wales and others who use the under 20s as their "second team" now have an advantage in that any player who plays for their under 20s is tied to them - but for other countries who have A sides they cannot. Thus putting them (the A team countries) at a disadvantage.

Unless of course u are France in which case u can have an A team and an under 20 and use the under 20 as your so called second team.

Now we will likely see ;-

1. the end of A teams,
or
2. everyone following the french example
and certainly
3. the under 20 selectors being rewarded for picking different squads as often as possible to secure a larger player base - thus devaluing the competition altogether.

if so what a total farce.

Chjw. Just seen your reply to my earlier post but my phone is playing up and I cant quote it. Regulation 8 is a strict liability regulation, it specifically states so in the regulation. The fact that Shingler was told it would tie him just goes to undermine any argument in equity. He played, he's tied. If he had then gone on to play for Scotland and the issue came to light then, Scotland would have received a minimum £100,000 fine.

Personally I want Wales to have an A team and then this issue is resolved, or alternatively the IRB pulls its finger out from its nether region for once and bans u20's as being your next senior side. As Stag says, it doesnt really make sense. However I stand by the point that you really should be able to decide your nationality by 18. Thats why any game you play under the age of majority is ignored.

alive555 wrote:So this means that Wales and others who use the under 20s as their "second team" now have an advantage in that any player who plays for their under 20s is tied to them - but for other countries who have A sides they cannot. Thus putting them (the A team countries) at a disadvantage.
Unless of course u are France in which case u can have an A team and an under 20 and use the under 20 as your so called second team.

Now we will likely see ;-

1. the end of A teams,
or
2. everyone following the french example
and certainly
3. the under 20 selectors being rewarded for picking different squads as often as possible to secure a larger player base - thus devaluing the competition altogether.

if so what a total farce.

alive, no, not at all, quite the reverse in fact. Shingler is a done deal, unless the SRU appeal on his behalf to the iRB Council or Shingler takes them to the Sports Arbitration body in Switzerland. However, the iRB seems set to agree to a recommendation that age-group sides cannot be second senior sides

It's worth noting that while NZ hasn't run an A side for 2 or 3 years the NZRU hasn't nominated the Baby Blacks as their 2nd side - if someone decides they would rather represent Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Wales, England, Scotland, France, Ireland, Italy or Canada we generally wish them well.

Admittedly if they <cough Quade cough> opt for Australia we sometimes get tetchy

Griff wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Griff wrote:Ok then, if they're too young to make the decision then I think we should un-tie Tuilagi from his England caps. At 19 how was he able to make the decision to play for England? He probably felt pressured into it as he was living here and had a club contract, etc., etc. boo hoo.

Oh and George North (being younger than Shingler) can go play for England next season too.

Yep. But look, I was being a bit facetious. Of course it's ridiculous to say that we'll untie those youngsters who chose to play for a senior team at 18 or 19, but it's almost as ridiculous as saying that someone is too young to commit to Wales at 19 but is not too young to commit to someone with an A team! You're either old enough at that age or not.

Please go and read my post made at 2:32PM on page 2.

Age is not the only deciding factor.
Actually hang on will just copy and paste most of what I said below, not sure how to quote multiple posts.


"The issue is that by designating U20's as the A Team you are tying in a whole raft of youngsters who may never get near the senior side for the particular country in question (but who may get near the senior side of another country).

However, if an 18 or 19 year old is good enough to play for the senior side then tying them in by letting them play is less morally suspect because they have reached a level deemed good enough to play full international Rugby and therefore have a better chance of at least attempting to forge an international career. This is true also if a country has a properly designated A Team because it takes in all age groups and you therefore have to be closer to international standard at least (as opposed to the level at U20) in order to get a game.

Sorry but there is a difference here where you have to factor in playing level as well as age. I don't understand how some people are unable to grasp this concept. Instead they just think there is no difference between U20 level tying in younger players and an A team or senior team doing the same thing. There is a difference, and I do think the idea of an U20 Team being the 2nd designated team is morally suspect at best.

Either way, looking at the committee quotes above in this thread it looks like the rules are going to change and U20 level will longer be designated as a 2nd team that can tie players in. Looks like Wales will have to make a decision about a properly designated A team at some point."

SubsBench wrote:Chjw. Just seen your reply to my earlier post but my phone is playing up and I cant quote it. Regulation 8 is a strict liability regulation, it specifically states so in the regulation. The fact that Shingler was told it would tie him just goes to undermine any argument in equity. He played, he's tied. If he had then gone on to play for Scotland and the issue came to light then, Scotland would have received a minimum £100,000 fine.

Personally I want Wales to have an A team and then this issue is resolved, or alternatively the IRB pulls its finger out from its nether region for once and bans u20's as being your next senior side. As Stag says, it doesnt really make sense. However I stand by the point that you really should be able to decide your nationality by 18. Thats why any game you play under the age of majority is ignored.

SubsBench, having read regulation 8 you are indeed correct. My problems with this are numerous. Firstly, the imposition of a legal concept of such restriction to a game's regulations is absurd. There are no benefits to either side on this matter in relation to dual parentage/qualification. The welfare and choice of the player should come first, and the fact that it doesn't as far as the IRB regulations go is deplorable.

Secondly, the decision in simple fact by the IRB panel is correct and I have not and do not challenge it on that basis. Although why such submissions were heard and taken into account I cannot fathom. If they're going to stand by the strict liability concept the fact that he did play for Wales U20 was never in contention and thus no appeal or panel needed to have been convened on that basis.

Thirdly, there is no indication as to the quality of the information the WRU game him as to be tied and as such I don't accept the point that there is no case to consider in equity. On that basis I feel some measure of his intention and the relative opionions in regard to U20 A side designation should be taken into account.

Finally, the matter is not closed and can be overturned at any point by the IRB council. Thus I don't accept the argument that he's tied and that's the end of the story. It clearly isn't as the Council may make any decision regarding the case it sees fit, and for all the reasons i've set out in my previous statements (the player's career and parentage being paramount in this case) I feel they should make such a judgment. Likewise I do lay blame at the door of the WRU for taking a stance on a matter from which ultimately no individual benefits.

Kiwireddevil wrote:It's worth noting that while NZ hasn't run an A side for 2 or 3 years the NZRU hasn't nominated the Baby Blacks as their 2nd side - if someone decides they would rather represent Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Wales, England, Scotland, France, Ireland, Italy or Canada we generally wish them well.

Admittedly if they <cough Quade cough> opt for Australia we sometimes get tetchy

Kiwi, I may be wrong but now that the All Blacks have designated the baby blacks as their second designated team (i.e. for the last 2 or 3 years as you say), if you cap a player at this level then they are capped for New Zealand, no going back, just like the Shingler case. You can't 'wish them well' and let them go to represent another as they're capped. I don't think a nation can decide that. Or am I misunderstanding you (could be, been a long day!)

Griff wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:It's worth noting that while NZ hasn't run an A side for 2 or 3 years the NZRU hasn't nominated the Baby Blacks as their 2nd side - if someone decides they would rather represent Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Wales, England, Scotland, France, Ireland, Italy or Canada we generally wish them well.

Admittedly if they <cough Quade cough> opt for Australia we sometimes get tetchy

Kiwi, I may be wrong but now that the All Blacks have designated the baby blacks as their second designated team (i.e. for the last 2 or 3 years as you say), if you cap a player at this level then they are capped for New Zealand, no going back, just like the Shingler case. You can't 'wish them well' and let them go to represent another as they're capped. I don't think a nation can decide that. Or am I misunderstanding you (could be, been a long day!)

I think you've misread me Griff, to the best of my knowledge the All Blacks have not designated the baby blacks as their second designated team. So until there are some more games scheduled for the Junior All Blacks (aka New Zealand A) NZ doesn't have a second designated team.

red_stag wrote:Putting aside what did happen for a second.

Should the WRU or FFR be allowed to claim the U20s as their next representative Senior side. To me the notion is laughable.

You have a team who is capped by age level and competes in a Junior tournament. How can it be a senior team.

Again this is the IRBs fault - not Wales, Scotland or Frances.

Totally Agree!! I've been annoyed with the IRB from the very start of this whole ridiculous and unnecessary dispute.

I don't agree with tying players to a single country full stop. I understand what it's there to stop and it's possibly the simplest way of doing it but to my mind it's totally ridiculous.

On this articular issue. The right outcome as I don't believe he didn't know. I don't believe anyone in Wales, never mind involved in Welsh rugby, didn't know about that.

i feel for the lad in fairness- made some bad decisions and this could spell the end of his international carrer- is this fair!?

It's not over yet - if you read the last 3 paragraphs of the IRB announcement carefully - to paraphrase:
- we note the recommendation of the IRB Rugby & Regs Committee that the U20s should not be allowed to be the next senior team.
-the full IRB Council will be deciding on that matter BEFORE they ratify the Shingler decision.
- we have made our decision based on the facts as they stand now but if you ratify the recommendation that the U20s cannot be the next senior team then you can overturn our decision on Shingler retrospectively if you choose to

While I'm not devoid of feeling for Shingler, I feel this is the right decision all round. I maintain that he brought this primarily on himself, now that the committee has found that the WRU warned the players in advance regarding eligibility (the written agreement is redundant, it shouldn't be part of the process tbh) and considering Shingler seemed to verbally pledge himself to Wales mere weeks before the Scottish selection. Hopefully this'll send out the message to players to be both 100% committed and certain of what they're doing.

However, the IRB are right to want to kick out age-grade qualification. The WRU will now hopefully have no other option but to look into setting up a legitimate second side. That also counts for France and anyone who doesn't have one already (provided they can afford one).

malky1963 wrote:It's not over yet - if you read the last 3 paragraphs of the IRB announcement carefully - to paraphrase:
- we note the recommendation of the IRB Rugby & Regs Committee that the U20s should not be allowed to be the next senior team.
-the full IRB Council will be deciding on that matter BEFORE they ratify the Shingler decision.
- we have made our decision based on the facts as they stand now but if you ratify the recommendation that the U20s cannot be the next senior team then you can overturn our decision on Shingler retrospectively if you choose to

Only just spotted that. Well pointed out. I reckon they'll stop the U20 thing and then allow Shingler to play for Scotland

HammerofThunor wrote:

malky1963 wrote:It's not over yet - if you read the last 3 paragraphs of the IRB announcement carefully - to paraphrase:
- we note the recommendation of the IRB Rugby & Regs Committee that the U20s should not be allowed to be the next senior team.
-the full IRB Council will be deciding on that matter BEFORE they ratify the Shingler decision.
- we have made our decision based on the facts as they stand now but if you ratify the recommendation that the U20s cannot be the next senior team then you can overturn our decision on Shingler retrospectively if you choose to

Only just spotted that. Well pointed out. I reckon they'll stop the U20 thing and then allow Shingler to play for Scotland

Would be a good result all round - nobody really loses face, clarifies unambiguosly the rules for every country and it does not screw up a young lad's international chance.

mystiroakey wrote:i feel for the lad in fairness- made some bad decisions and this could spell the end of his international carrer- is this fair!?

There are several players who have received one cap just to tie them in is that fair? and Scotland could possibly have done that.
Wales have been very fair with him they have given him the opportunity to represent us and show us what what he potentially can do at international level.
It was his (agent) choice to jump ship and possibly this has stalled his international career but hopefully he will improve to warrant a full cap with Wales.

malky1963 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

malky1963 wrote:It's not over yet - if you read the last 3 paragraphs of the IRB announcement carefully - to paraphrase:
- we note the recommendation of the IRB Rugby & Regs Committee that the U20s should not be allowed to be the next senior team.
-the full IRB Council will be deciding on that matter BEFORE they ratify the Shingler decision.
- we have made our decision based on the facts as they stand now but if you ratify the recommendation that the U20s cannot be the next senior team then you can overturn our decision on Shingler retrospectively if you choose to

Only just spotted that. Well pointed out. I reckon they'll stop the U20 thing and then allow Shingler to play for Scotland

Would be a good result all round - nobody really loses face and it does not screw up a young lad's international chance.

They wont backdate it Wales did everything needed to comply with the current rules.

Cymroglan wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:i feel for the lad in fairness- made some bad decisions and this could spell the end of his international carrer- is this fair!?

There are several players who have received one cap just to tie them in is that fair? and Scotland could possibly have done that.
Wales have been very fair with him they have given him the opportunity to represent us and show us what what he potentially can do at international level.
It was his (agent) choice to jump ship and possibly this has stalled his international career but hopefully he will improve to warrant a full cap with Wales.

no thats not fair either. lifes not fair is it, but slightly fairer than from just playing in an under 20's game! Something about lads making mistakes at a young age gets to me. Maybe i made to many myself i dunno! however i just think its a horrid situation, because he has turned his back on wales and that seems to be the only team he can play for but i would also understand wales telling him to get lost an all,

the fact is - wales dont need him, scotland want him, and he wants to play for scotland- whats the problem!!!

i understand we do not wanna set a presedent- however most teams do not treat there under 20 team as a second team- therefore no real presedent could be set in this case anyway!

Cymroglan wrote:

malky1963 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

malky1963 wrote:It's not over yet - if you read the last 3 paragraphs of the IRB announcement carefully - to paraphrase:
- we note the recommendation of the IRB Rugby & Regs Committee that the U20s should not be allowed to be the next senior team.
-the full IRB Council will be deciding on that matter BEFORE they ratify the Shingler decision.
- we have made our decision based on the facts as they stand now but if you ratify the recommendation that the U20s cannot be the next senior team then you can overturn our decision on Shingler retrospectively if you choose to

Only just spotted that. Well pointed out. I reckon they'll stop the U20 thing and then allow Shingler to play for Scotland

Would be a good result all round - nobody really loses face and it does not screw up a young lad's international chance.

They wont backdate it Wales did everything needed to comply with the current rules.

I think they will otherwise Shingler will be a unique and very unfair case and could probably cause the IRB a lot of problems - EU courts, bad publicity etc etc.
Have you read the full text of the last few paragraphs of the IRB ruling - I think it's very clear what the Shingler committee is suggesting the full Council should do (assuming they ratify the recommendation that the U20s can no longer be the next senior team).

Outsider view

No winners.

Scotland lose obviously.

But also Wales, that called in their claim on him (and I'm not debating the rightness or wrongness of it) also lose; as I'm sure the WRU heads and Shingler himself will hardly want to set foot in the same room much less ever talk again about any International prospect for him.

And of course Shingler loses. Can't now be an International for Scotland (not debating whether he was right or wrong to shift allegiances either) - and almost certainly won't ever be an International for the Nation that lays claim to him, Wales.

A principle won perhaps and perhaps that's all that ever meant anything to those who battled. But the human in the middle has had any International pretentions wiped from his future. So on a purely human level, it's a sad ending

"This decision is binding on the parties until it is endorsed or overturned by the IRB council"
Round 3...

mystiroakey wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:i feel for the lad in fairness- made some bad decisions and this could spell the end of his international carrer- is this fair!?

There are several players who have received one cap just to tie them in is that fair? and Scotland could possibly have done that.
Wales have been very fair with him they have given him the opportunity to represent us and show us what what he potentially can do at international level.
It was his (agent) choice to jump ship and possibly this has stalled his international career but hopefully he will improve to warrant a full cap with Wales.

no thats not fair either. lifes not fair is it, but slightly fairer than from just playing in an under 20's game! Something about lads making mistakes at a young age gets to me. Maybe i made to many myself i dunno! however i just think its a horrid situation, because he has turned his back on wales and that seems to be the only team he can play for but i would also understand wales telling him to get lost an all,

the fact is - wales dont need him, scotland want him, and he wants to play for scotland- whats the problem!!!

i understand we do not wanna set a presedent- however most teams do not treat there under 20 team as a second team- therefore no real presedent could be set in this case anyway!

It looks like the IRB have recognised the inherent unfairness of this and will stop teams doing this at their next meeting on 15 May.

It's just as likely to go the other way as only Ireland Scotland England and Italy use their a-sides.

Ozzy3213 wrote:
So because the WRU have been in control of the situation in tying a whole host of young players to them that makes doing it right does it?

Ozzy, another baffling comment by you . Your posts on this subject stand out for me. Of course it is right, as it is IRB law. WRU complied, isn't that the right thing to do, comply with the law of RU's overall governing body?

maestegmafia wrote:It's just as likely to go the other way as only Ireland Scotland England and Italy use their a-sides.

Well since the recommendations are that U20 cannot be nominated as the second side I don't see how it's just as likely to go the other way. Argentina also use their A team. As AlynDavies has already pointed out Tonga, Samoa and Fiji also use their A teams.

maestegmafia wrote:It's just as likely to go the other way as only Ireland Scotland England and Italy use their a-sides.

I don't think it is at all likely that it will go the other way as the IRB Rugby and Regulations Committee has already made its recommendation
'that the designation of the Under 20 side as the next senior national representative team should no longer be sustained. This issue will be considered by the IRB Council at its Special Meeting on May 15, 2012.'

They are then looking at the Shingler situation after this and at that point they have the opportunity to overturn the IRB Regulations Committee Panel decision on his eligibilty.
If they have ratified the first decision (re the u20s not being the next senior team) then it is very easy to say - yes you made the right decsion based on the rules at the time but we are going to overturn it in the interests of fairness.

Hammer, I'm interested to know when did any of those A teams last play an official match? I may be wrong, but I'm sure that I read that once you dedicate a proper A team (as in not the U20s) then it is valid for 2 years? Could suit the WRU just to arrange a single A game this summer.

Does it matter if it's the A team or under 20s unless you also say that nobody under the age of 21 can be tied if they play for the A side.

There is nothing in the rules that say that Wales or anybody else cant select 22 under 21 year olds for their A team.
Changing the name of the team does not solve the issue of players allegedly not being ready to commit to a particular nation.

And of course Shingler loses. Can't now be an International for Scotland (not debating whether he was right or wrong to shift allegiances either) - and almost certainly won't ever be an International for the Nation that lays claim to him, Wales.

If the WRU chiefs deserve their positions then this won't be the decisive factor of Shingler's int'l prospects. While I don't respect Shingler's course of action it can be conceded that he's young and therefore perhaps not fully appreciative of the full meaning of national allegiance (not that all young people are like this but it can be considered). If the IRB decision holds strong then Wales ought to keep an open mind on him and if he earns selection then give it to him. I'd like to think that we don't live in a world where ignorance merits whipping and total destruction of one's potential future.