S Shingler is tied to Wales

First topic message reminder :

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

The Jaguars played last year, they were often included in the Churchill Cup. Not sure they play the South American teams as well. Don't follow Argentina rugby other than the big internationals. No idea about the PI teams. Didn't even know they existed. Now the Churchill Cup doesn't exist the Saxons are only going to have a couple of games a year.

I don't like way people seem to think the point of the A team is to tie players to your country. That's rather a shallow reason for it to exist.

If players were not tied via the A team then even less fixtures would be arranged.

I don't think Gats would hold this against SS in any way. He is very pragmatic and was not at all critical of SS personally when this all broke. If Shingler is playing well enough he has every chance of playing for Wales though he'd obviously have better immediate prospects with a Welsh region. Priestland clearly hasn't nailed down the Wales 10 shirt. Even if Gats did bear a grudge Shingler would only be 25 - priestland's age- after the next world cup when gats will probably have moved on. Shingler has a long career ahead and if he's good enough I'm sure he'll be capped at some point and this will all be regarded as an unfortunate mess from the past.

Cymroglan wrote: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.

Yes it does matter.The way most A teams are used is by picking the next best 22 (give or take a few) with potential to give them experience. If Wales decide to do something contrary to that then that is their perrogative.

I have one point to add with regards to this thread and it really isn't very complicated. I have already made this point twice so here goes for a third time and sorry for sounding fed up or god forbid, high and mighty, but if someone is going to start with the whole 'Oh but 18 and 19 yr olds can still play for an A team or for the senior side and therefore there's no difference' I think I will explode. And to be feicin honest this feeling of imminent spontaneous combustion is only getting worse with every drink I have so let's hope I fall asleep soon!

I don't care who's right and who's wrong in this whole debacle and like I say this is my only point. If someone takes exception to my point then I'd prefer they quote me and let me know what's wrong with it rather than just ignoring it or not reading the bloody thread and then posting the 'Age argument' while remaining oblivious. Anyway, I will cut and paste my point from earlier below!

And by the way, cheers this next drink I got since starting to write this is already going down a treat Oh, and by the way apologies I don't know how to quote 2 posts so will just copy and paste my point from earlier below. Have I already said that? Anyway here goes


"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."

Cymroglan wrote:If players were not tied via the A team then even less fixtures would be arranged.

Why?

Irishhoneymonster wrote:

Cymroglan wrote: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.

Yes it does matter.The way most A teams are used is by picking the next best 22 (give or take a few) with potential to give them experience. If Wales decide to do something contrary to that then that is their perrogative.

I have one point to add with regards to this thread and it really isn't very complicated. I have already made this point twice so here goes for a third time and sorry for sounding fed up or god forbid, high and mighty, but if someone is going to start with the whole 'Oh but 18 and 19 yr olds can still play for an A team or for the senior side and therefore there's no difference' I think I will explode. And to be feicin honest this feeling of imminent spontaneous combustion is only getting worse with every drink I have so let's hope I fall asleep soon!

I don't care who's right and who's wrong in this whole debacle and like I say this is my only point. If someone takes exception to my point then I'd prefer they quote me and let me know what's wrong with it rather than just ignoring it or not reading the bloody thread and then posting the 'Age argument' while remaining oblivious. Anyway, I will cut and paste my point from earlier below!

And by the way, cheers this next drink I got since starting to write this is already going down a treat Oh, and by the way apologies I don't know how to quote 2 posts so will just copy and paste my point from earlier below. Have I already said that? Anyway here goes


"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."

i agree with your points and sentiment completly- i was thinking about trying to explain the above, and then gave up, i am not the best at it lol, but you have almost put my point across anyway

Irishhoneymonster
Why cant the individual player make this decision ? The IRB rule state that a player must be 18 or over to be tied to a country.
If a player over the age of 18 does not want to be tied then he should simply declare himself unavailable.

Why don't we do away with tied rules for the 7s Under 20s and A-sides and just say that a player is only tied if they get a full international cap.

Cymrologlann - dont you feel as though there should be a second or reserve international team?

they have them in all almost all team sports- its quite normal. age level sport is also normal, but i cant see the point in tieing a player in at age level

It's not the age level that's the problem it's the age itself.
IRB have said that anybody over the age of 18 can be tied.Scrap the U20s I'm fine with that but also bring a rule in that nobody under 21 can be tied unless they get a full cap.

I would assume the idea of being tied to a Nation has very little to do with age, lack of age or real potential.

Nations are precious about their young players because of the investment they have made in their creation (whether that's as low as school level or as high as a regional academy) Young players are investments made at some national level and to have them change sides, as it were, just as they approach their 'repayment of college loan' period feels like betrayal.

So the idea that players can not be tied down unless given an International cap would make many Unions shiver.

Player ability is only one of the aspects that have Unions fighting with each other to get declarations from promising young men. The more important reason is simply the need for a return of an investment in the creation of the player in the first place.

Maybe some kind of Union compensation system could be introduced when players with dual citizenship who have been brought up in one Nation suddenly throw their allegiances to another Nation.

A country's jersey is not a flag of convenience.At 18 years old you are deemed to be an adult.An adult without issues should know his nationality.It is not unreasonable to expect an 18 year old to declare and abide with a nationality.The idea of what Shingler tried to do and the clear motives for doing so have not endeared him to me,though I am pretty sure he couldnt give a damn.
The idea of a financial levy if a player changes sides is a good one as things stand.
I believe in the old days the WRU paid England to take Dewi Morris!

Cymroglan

Thank god I didn't fall asleep, sorry was watching a Doctor Who episode there. And no, I'm not 12 but 31

I am not completely against full international caps being the only thing that ties a player but we already have a system whereby there are A teams and that is a good thing for development. Also, I don't have a problem with someone who plays for the A team being tied because they are at least in a position where they are nearing full international level.

The problem arises when you start tying in players at U20 level because many of them may not be even close to international level for that particular country. Obviously players need to be tied in some way though, otherwise you have something which becomes akin to club Rugby.

taff its obvious to me that 18 years olds know diddly squat and most have issues!!- so i think we should forget about the term adult at 18 and think about reality. 21 is the better age to declare maturity

Just to add to that to that, I personally think that the you need a balance and the right balance is to have players tied in at A Team level.

mystiroakey wrote:taff its obvious to me that 18 years olds know diddly squat and most have issues!!- so i think we should forget about the term adult at 18 and think about reality. 21 is the better age to declare maturity

So you are saying the laws need to be changed and a 18 year old shouldn't be able to marry, drive, drink, have children, join the army, decide to go to uni or play for their country (as their not mature enough to decide if they want to play for their country or not)

I don't have a problem with someone making the decision at 18 or 19 but only if they are in a position where they have reached A Team or senior level standard which then gives them a good ( or decent) shot at an international career! Good lordy this reallly isn't rocket science, is it?

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:taff its obvious to me that 18 years olds know diddly squat and most have issues!!- so i think we should forget about the term adult at 18 and think about reality. 21 is the better age to declare maturity

So you are saying the laws need to be changed and a 18 year old shouldn't be able to marry, drive, drink, have children, join the army, decide to go to uni or play for their country (as their not mature enough to decide if they want to play for their country or not)

not in the slightest- you can marry at 16, you can drive at 17, you can have children at 16, you can join the army at 16.

dont really understand what your point is- the reality is you can do the above at a younger age than 18- but it doesnt change the reality and truth that 18 year olds these days are not mature on the whole!

my point was based on taffs comment that most 18 year olds without issues are etc!!

my point was simply that most 18 years olds dont have a clue about much let only what they want to do and alot have issues!

Irishhoneymonster wrote:Cymroglan

Thank god I didn't fall asleep, sorry was watching a Doctor Who episode there. And no, I'm not 12 but 31

I am not completely against full international caps being the only thing that ties a player but we already have a system whereby there are A teams and that is a good thing for development. Also, I don't have a problem with someone who plays for the A team being tied because they are at least in a position where they are nearing full international level.

The problem arises when you start tying in players at U20 level because many of them may not be even close to international level for that particular country. Obviously players need to be tied in some way though, otherwise you have something which becomes akin to club Rugby.

Irish,can you not see how someone switching allegiance just because he has a better chance of selection is morally corrupt and devalues the jersey when a hired-gun takes the place of a whole-hearted genuine countryman.You end up with a bunch of mercenaries,a bit like the England Cricket and Rugby sides.

marry - no
drive - the way most of them do? - no
have children - Unmarried mothers of children that mysteriously never had a father because he's off somewhere about to father another one? - then no


...the rest they can do, under supervision

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Irishhoneymonster wrote:Cymroglan

Thank god I didn't fall asleep, sorry was watching a Doctor Who episode there. And no, I'm not 12 but 31

I am not completely against full international caps being the only thing that ties a player but we already have a system whereby there are A teams and that is a good thing for development. Also, I don't have a problem with someone who plays for the A team being tied because they are at least in a position where they are nearing full international level.

The problem arises when you start tying in players at U20 level because many of them may not be even close to international level for that particular country. Obviously players need to be tied in some way though, otherwise you have something which becomes akin to club Rugby.

Irish,can you not see how someone switching allegiance just because he has a better chance of selection is morally corrupt and devalues the jersey when a hired-gun takes the place of a whole-hearted genuine countryman.You end up with a bunch of mercenaries,a bit like the England Cricket and Rugby sides.

No Taff i can't see that because like you have already pointed out it has already happened to a certain extent. And another extension of that is the 'Having lived there for so long and therefore qualifies' rule or whatever it's feicin called.

Not that I'm against that anymore necessarily because I guess if you can be a citizen of a country and you haven't played for anyone else then fair enough. Having said that 15 yrs ago when alot of teams started getting new people from other countries through 'this loophole or that' then I may have felt uneasy at first, but I now accept it and understand it!

One thing I have absolutely no problem with though, and never have done, is someone who's played for an U20 team then declaring for someone else. Never had a problem with that to be honest

Ok A-Team level but with a minimum age of 21 before they are tied in,

If Wales did bring in a A-team they could tie in far more players by playing Ireland Scotland and England every year than they could by just playing against France U20s

Residency rule might have been the one i was looking for But like I say
I don't have a prob with it anymore! I understand it completely!

Cymroglan wrote:Ok A-Team level but with a minimum age of 21 before they are tied in,

If Wales did bring in a A-team they could tie in far more players by playing Ireland Scotland and England every year than they could by just playing against France U20s

Yes they could but the likelihood is that they wouldn't be all (or the majority wouldn't be either) under 20!

Also they'd have reached a level which is very close to breaking through to full international level! That's the feicin point here!

Irishhoneymonster wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Irishhoneymonster wrote:Cymroglan

Thank god I didn't fall asleep, sorry was watching a Doctor Who episode there. And no, I'm not 12 but 31

I am not completely against full international caps being the only thing that ties a player but we already have a system whereby there are A teams and that is a good thing for development. Also, I don't have a problem with someone who plays for the A team being tied because they are at least in a position where they are nearing full international level.

The problem arises when you start tying in players at U20 level because many of them may not be even close to international level for that particular country. Obviously players need to be tied in some way though, otherwise you have something which becomes akin to club Rugby.

Irish,can you not see how someone switching allegiance just because he has a better chance of selection is morally corrupt and devalues the jersey when a hired-gun takes the place of a whole-hearted genuine countryman.You end up with a bunch of mercenaries,a bit like the England Cricket and Rugby sides.

No Taff i can't see that because like you have already pointed out it has already happened to a certain extent. And another extension of that is the 'Having lived there for so long and therefore qualifies' rule or whatever it's feicin called.

Not that I'm against that anymore necessarily because I guess if you can be a citizen of a country and you haven't played for anyone else then fair enough. Having said that 15 yrs ago when alot of teams started getting new people from other countries through 'this loophole or that' then I may have felt uneasy at first, but I now accept it and understand it!

One thing I have absolutely no problem with though, and never have done, is someone who's played for an U20 team then declaring for someone else. Never had a problem with that to be honest

Was never really aware of this switching sides caper til Hugo Ellis Captained England under 20's having played for Wales in the previous year's match.That is just plain daft!!!!!

for me and especially when it comes to brits- i feel as though loads can/should switch if they want(from age level). we are in all intents and purposes one country, we all pay tax to a central government, we have the same passports, ,many of us are dual nationals- and i want all teams to be better- when we get a sportsman that isnt being utilised because of a stupid decision (like the shingler one) how is that helping anyone!!

Taff
So I should have said 10 or 12 years is that what you're saying Taff? Fair enough but my points still stand! Like I say I feel that U20's teams, due to the fact it is not clear that a player is close to full international level, should not be able to tie people in!

Mystiroakey
Can't say I agree with that. We are all separate countries when it comes to Rugby and should have no advantage over countries in other parts of the world with regards to that.

Mystiroakey

Obviously though if someone has dual nationality and hasn't been tied in by another country somehow then they can go ahead and play for whichever country they have citizenship of. Just in case some of you bloody eejits have misconstrued what i just said!

i dont think its an advantage- i mean the law would work if your half kiwi and half english for example- its just that it is allways gonna happen more to uk citizens due tothe fact that there are so many of us that are half english/half scottish etc etc!

more of an outlook in to putting the best rugby players out there rather than wasting talent

Irish,whether a player is close to International selection is an irrelevance.If all 18 year olds signed allegiance to one country this would demonstrate a commitment.To delay this commitment until it is more clear as to which way the wind is blowing is plain shabby.

Well my post above yours agrees with you then as long as a player hasn't been tied to a particular country by play for the A Team or senior side.


This post was directed at mystiroakey by the way, and what he said 2 posts above!

Taffineastbourne wrote:Irish,whether a player is close to International selection is an irrelevance.If all 18 year olds signed allegiance to one country this would demonstrate a commitment.To delay this commitment until it is more clear as to which way the wind is blowing is plain shabby.

It certainly is not irrelevant. The only way to get out of the whole problem of things being morally suspect (as I put earlier) is if you are tying in 18/19 yr olds when they have already reached a standard at or close to full international level - where they have a realistic chance of forging an international career. Otherwise it really is morally suspect and in my view downright wrong.

Irish - somebody's opinion on the U20s being a designated 2nd team is irrelevant. The dispute seemed to be who was in the wrong. And when Shingler was first called up by Scotland and the WRU raised the eligiblilty issue (they were right to as both Unions could have been punished) everyone pointed the finger at Wales as usual and then it esculated. I am for what everyone has only just come to realise. It is the IRB ruling that is the fault. The SRU and Shingler are the ones that helped balls up the situation, the WRU did nothing at all wrong they just complied with the rules.

I cant believe that players are that stupid that they don't realise they will be tied in if they play certain matches.
If a player is eligible to play for more than one country then he needs to decide for himself where his loyalties lie.

Morgannwg

I said a few posts earlier that I am not playing the blame game and don't care who is wrong and who is right regarding this. My only qualm is with those people saying being tied in at U20 level is no different from being tied in at A or Senior level because 18/19 yr olds can play for an A Team or Senior Team. And therefore I have written a few posts disputing this and explaining my reasoning.

Given the SRU have been burnt before I'm surprised they have [edit:n't] thanked the WRU

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/692721.stm

I find it ridiculous that people have to turn their back on one of their countries if they're to represent any of them.

Incompetence. Rules and guidelines. The rules were clear, the guidelines were not part of them. Yet they are by this determination undermining those rules and saying they should be changed. The IRB aren't fit to administer a nursery.

Irishhoneymonster wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Irish,whether a player is close to International selection is an irrelevance.If all 18 year olds signed allegiance to one country this would demonstrate a commitment.To delay this commitment until it is more clear as to which way the wind is blowing is plain shabby.

It certainly is not irrelevant. The only way to get out of the whole problem of things being morally suspect (as I put earlier) is if you are tying in 18/19 yr olds when they have already reached a standard at or close to full international level - where they have a realistic chance of forging an international career. Otherwise it really is morally suspect and in my view downright wrong.

Surely it is not a case of "tying" a player;it is merely getting an honest declaration from them.If they can leave it till they can tell that they are not good enough for country A but would have a chance with country B this is clearly wrong.Two bites of the cherry.You appear to be avocating a chancer's charter.

Can't argue with any of that, Glas.

For the sake of argument, while I agree it should be changed, I don't see how it's wrong in the moral sense if the unions are warning the youth in advance what they're getting themselves into, as the IRB have found was the case with Shingler.

If I was a potential international then technically I'd also qualify for Scotland and France variously through parentage and residence but even if they came a'calling I'd have to decline because I could never play for anyone but Wales in my heart. The way I see it, Shingler is just looking for the quickest and cheapest cap he can get. If England had called him first, which they could have, I'm willing to bet he'd have accepted. I just don't think he cares either way, which is why I don't feel quite so much sympathy as some are feeling for him.

See, HammerOfThunor gets it, why doesn't the SRU/Shingler?

Irishhoneymonster - points taken .

Glas a du wrote:Incompetence. Rules and guidelines. The rules were clear, the guidelines were not part of them. Yet they are by this determination undermining those rules and saying they should be changed. The IRB aren't fit to administer a nursery.

Because they're reviewing their rules? Surely any good organisation should regularly review it's rules.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Irishhoneymonster wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Irish,whether a player is close to International selection is an irrelevance.If all 18 year olds signed allegiance to one country this would demonstrate a commitment.To delay this commitment until it is more clear as to which way the wind is blowing is plain shabby.

It certainly is not irrelevant. The only way to get out of the whole problem of things being morally suspect (as I put earlier) is if you are tying in 18/19 yr olds when they have already reached a standard at or close to full international level - where they have a realistic chance of forging an international career. Otherwise it really is morally suspect and in my view downright wrong.

Surely it is not a case of "tying" a player;it is merely getting an honest declaration from them.If they can leave it till they can tell that they are not good enough for country A but would have a chance with country B this is clearly wrong.Two bites of the cherry.You appear to be avocating a chancer's charter.

Right well let's just tie them all in at birth and be done with it then!

My only point is that there is a difference from being tied in at U20 level as opposed to A team or senior level.

Tying a player in when they are 18 or 19 is wrong unless they can see that they are possibly able to forge a decent international future with the team they are choosing. Have I already said this isn't rocket science?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Glas a du wrote:Incompetence. Rules and guidelines. The rules were clear, the guidelines were not part of them. Yet they are by this determination undermining those rules and saying they should be changed. The IRB aren't fit to administer a nursery.

Because they're reviewing their rules? Surely any good organisation should regularly review it's rules.

True. Bit harsh on the IRB. Every organisation makes mistakes, the important part is learning from them and becoming more efficient. It seems that this review followed by possibly implimenting new ruling will do just that (make the IRB a better run organisation).

My only point is that there is a difference from being tied in at U20 level as opposed to A team or senior level.

Tying a player in when they are 18 or 19 is wrong unless they can see that they are possibly able to forge a decent international future with the team they are choosing. Have I already said this isn't rocket science?

Yes Thor, but read the rules and the guidance. This is not about principals it's about making it up on the hop in a piecemeal fashion, reacting to every crisis. The drafting of the rules is bad, the enforcement is bad and they are mixing the two up. The guidance has a system of forms which don't form part of the rules. What have they said: according to the rules he's a Welsh player, but we feel for him so will probably change the rules in May anyway and we could make an exception for him. Farce.

Why is anyone feeling sorry for this bloke. He played for Wales at every level, he appeared in the adverts, he played for a Welsh club. The whole unfortunate episode smacks of someone who's been badly advised and gone for a quick buck by turning out for Scotland instead of fighting for the Welsh jersey.
Four young men of his age (plus two not much older) were blown to bits in Helmand this week, they were deemed old enough to know what their career would be and who their loyalty was to in a "game" of much higher stakes.
So don't tell me that at 19 years of age you're not responsible enough to decide on something as comparatively minor as which country you'd like to play rugby for.

dont really like the point of your post irish in all fairness!

i know plenty of lads in the army- that signed up and legged it just before there tours, many were taking drugs just to get thrown out at one point!

look i am not in any shape or form trivialising what happened to our soldiers in helmand(thats a different matter)

however kids are kids- many make mistakes, and yes most 18-19 year olds are still kids an all- whatever carrer option they took!

Point I was trying to make was that as a society we allow all young people to make very major decisions at this sort of age - we call them adults (most 19-20 year olds in my workplace would be very offended if they were called kids!) once they reach 18, they have rights and responsibilities, and to a point they are cut some slack by society in recognition of their comparative immaturity.
If you are not responsible enough to choose who you want to play rugby for then how can you allow them to make much more life defining decisions, like having children, joining the uniformed services, leaving home, going to university etc.
As someone above posted at what point should you become responsible - 21, 25, 30?

The reality is irish our sportsmen (esp footballers) are sheltered from the real world- they invariably dont make decisions or make the wrong ones. i just understand that and cant be bothered to sensationalise it- just accept it really and work with it- evolotion not revolotion