S Shingler is tied to Wales

First topic message reminder :

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

I agree that it's not the strongest proposition Dreamer, but surely it should come down to the positive. Where is the positive in this decision or in the wrangling by both Unions.

No one has gained and everyone has lost. What is the point in tying people in at age grade level, even when they don't sign the relevant paperwork? If they want to play for someone else, will they ever play whole-heartedly for the country that is trying to constrain them? No.

No country should be able to use the under 20's as a representative team, so I agree the IRB should have stopped this sooner, but he knew that playing in that game was going to tie him to Wales, and if there was a shred of doubt in his mind, he should have pulled out. It's just a shame it has come to this really.

Ozzy3213 wrote:dreamer, 17 year olds play in the U20's if they are good enough. At 10 I didn't know my orse from my elbow.

Whilst the WRU have breached no laws here, I think morally and ethically they have not come out of this smelling of roses.

17 year old centre Jack Dixon from the Dragons will be making his debut for Wales U20 this weekend.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

The WRU should have had him sign the form is how I interpret that?

How's that? As far as I know the form is a courtesy one for Wales records. Nothing official.

That the WRU actually bothered to have forms in the first place is commendable. People need to get their facts staright on this.

The WRU have not a put a single foot wrong here. And I am no fan of the WRU.

Just a fan of talking through your hoop eh Chunkster

rugbydreamer wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:What animosity Chjw?

From all I've seen, Welsh posters on here were disappointed that he might have gone off to Scotland, as he's been such a huge prospect here in Wales. We were gutted at the thought of losing him.

EDIT - just seen some animosity form Alyn.

Alyn, seriously, trecherous snake? Just seems to be much more misguided to me. If anyone is to take a lot of the blame, in my eyes it's Derwyn Jones.

As you point out yourself dreamer, terms like 'parasites' and 'treacherous snake' are to my mind hardly expressions of 'disappointment' in my eyes.

I can practically guarantee you that the use of those terms will not be widely used here in Wales. As a Scarlets fan I know how upset we all were when he left to go to LI, and there was huge disappointment when it came out he wanted the chance to play for Scotland despite only speaking out a few months ago at wanting to play for Wales. The guy is a huge talent. Regardless of whether this current coaching regime uses him, I would hope, if he keeps improving, he gets a chance in a Wales shirt later on in his career. I am sure there are many other who feel that way also

I wouldn't say for one minute that is the wide-spread view held in Wales, or that those terms are used. I agree entirely. What I was pointing out were some of the comments on this post, which you yourself did indeed go on to highlight. I joined this fourm and participate precisely because it isn't like the old 606, and we should all try and keep it that way in my opinion.

rugbydreamer wrote:I honestly can't agree with people on here who are saying that when you play for the U20's you're too young to make the decision to play for your country. If you are unsure, from a Welsh pov you opt out of the France match. It's as simple as that. I honestly can't understand the issue with that.

Agreed, that would have been the correct route, dreamer, safe as houses. Unfortunately Shingler seems to have believed that not signing the doc was the equivalent - the iRB have clarified that it was not. Do you think he'll take it to Geneva? If the iRB are now chaning their rules, does it leave those caught previously open to challenge their past findings like this? What do you feel about the WRU effectively being denied a second senior side in terms of eligibility now?

Chjw131 wrote:I agree that it's not the strongest proposition Dreamer, but surely it should come down to the positive. Where is the positive in this decision or in the wrangling by both Unions.

No one has gained and everyone has lost. What is the point in tying people in at age grade level, even when they don't sign the relevant paperwork? If they want to play for someone else, will they ever play whole-heartedly for the country that is trying to constrain them? No.

Not sure what you mean by 'what's the point' .Under IRB law Wales had to have a 2nd senior side and that automatically fell as the U20's one. And I would argue if at the age of 18 and 19, you know which country you want to represent.

If people are going to stick with the whole 'oh they are too young to make up their mind' perhaps an age restraint should be put on the senior game. For instance, as people seem to keep thinking U20's can't make up their mind, you have to wait until you're 21 to play for the senior side?

Can't have it both ways.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:dreamer, that's being silly, nobody is suggesting that the WRU broke the laws, but clearly there's a young lad here who believed that by not signing a document could keep his international options as a senior player wide open - there's at best been a misunderstanding?

I think your sort of missing the point though.
Prior to the Shingler case, we had the Loxton and Jarvis case, where the same players agent Derwyn Jones took 2 players from the Welsh age grade system and made them decide they were Irish.

It caused a bit of a stink in Wales and those players only got away with it, because the Wru breached the rules and didn't tell the players they would be tied to Wales if they played against France U20's. they only actually told Toby Faletau at the time, as they weren't aware of Jarvis or Loxton's duel eligiblity.

This time they made sure all the players knew if they played in the French match they would be Welsh, Shingler knew and played anyway. Everything else is irrelevant.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:But clearly not in his own

Possibly but in life you can rarely have your cake and eat it. ~As has been proven now Shinglers international career in the short term has gone down in flames.

rugbydreamer wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:I agree that it's not the strongest proposition Dreamer, but surely it should come down to the positive. Where is the positive in this decision or in the wrangling by both Unions.

No one has gained and everyone has lost. What is the point in tying people in at age grade level, even when they don't sign the relevant paperwork? If they want to play for someone else, will they ever play whole-heartedly for the country that is trying to constrain them? No.

Not sure what you mean by 'what's the point' .Under IRB law Wales had to have a 2nd senior side and that automatically fell as the U20's one. And I would argue if at the age of 18 and 19, you know which country you want to represent.
If people are going to stick with the whole 'oh they are too young to make up their mind' perhaps an age restraint should be put on the senior game. For instance, as people seem to keep thinking U20's can't make up their mind, you have to wait until you're 21 to play for the senior side?

Can't have it both ways.

dreamer, I think Shingler did know and felt that he wasn't certain and could keep his options open by not signing the doc? As we nnow know, he was in erro

AlynDavies wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:dreamer, that's being silly, nobody is suggesting that the WRU broke the laws, but clearly there's a young lad here who believed that by not signing a document could keep his international options as a senior player wide open - there's at best been a misunderstanding?

I think your sort of missing the point though.
Prior to the Shingler case, we had the Loxton and Jarvis case, where the same players agent Derwyn Jones took 2 players from the Welsh age grade system and made them decide they were Irish.

It caused a bit of a stink in Wales and those players only got away with it, because the Wru breached the rules and didn't tell the players they would be tied to Wales if they played against France U20's. they only actually told Toby Faletau at the time, as they weren't aware of Jarvis or Loxton's duel eligiblity.

This time they made sure all the players knew if they played in the French match they would be Welsh, Shingler knew and played anyway. Everything else is irrelevant.

AD, it doesn't really matter whether I'm missing the point or not, what is more important is that Shingler clearly missed the point! He thought that the doc was the key piece, wrongly, and I've no idea who advised him of that or why he thought that

It's the kid I feel sorry for. Wether or not it was bad advice, cloudy rules, The WRU being stubborn, the SRU not doing their homework or operating under bad advice themselves is irrelivent frankly.

Shingler wants to play test match rugby and due to a combination of the things mentioned above this whole saga has become a shambolic farce that is delaying a talented youn NH player from making the jump to the next level.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:I agree that it's not the strongest proposition Dreamer, but surely it should come down to the positive. Where is the positive in this decision or in the wrangling by both Unions.

No one has gained and everyone has lost. What is the point in tying people in at age grade level, even when they don't sign the relevant paperwork? If they want to play for someone else, will they ever play whole-heartedly for the country that is trying to constrain them? No.

Not sure what you mean by 'what's the point' .Under IRB law Wales had to have a 2nd senior side and that automatically fell as the U20's one. And I would argue if at the age of 18 and 19, you know which country you want to represent.
If people are going to stick with the whole 'oh they are too young to make up their mind' perhaps an age restraint should be put on the senior game. For instance, as people seem to keep thinking U20's can't make up their mind, you have to wait until you're 21 to play for the senior side?

Can't have it both ways.

dreamer, I think Shingler did know and felt that he wasn't certain and could keep his options open by not signing the doc? As we nnow know, he was in erro

No offence intended As, but I htink he's holding on to the not signing of the doc as a tenuous link. The WRU and IRB have agreed that all players were clearly informed, whether they signed or not, that playing against France for the U20's, they were tied to Wales. There is no confusion there, other then perhaps Shinglers agent trying to spin it that way/look for a loophole.

No one comes out smelling of roses from this really . I can't say I like players deciding to make a career under a flag of convenience but Shingler was/is a very young man and the problem with the under 20's disqualification is as I understand it other under 20's games against countries that run A teams would not disqualify you . A bit too convoluted that.

Best thing he could do is knuckle down now and it will have to be his playing that will force him back into Welsh consideration .

As I say Dreamer the too young to decide concept is not one I would underpin my argument with. What I have said above is that the aim in these disputes should be to find the equitable solution.

As a trained lawyer myself I can wholeheartedly say that every single 'law' can be challenged and indeed should be in some cases. Those simply blithely relying on the 'laws' are entirely missing the point in this case. It is not black and white, and indeed there are a number of factors which should have been taken into account in this instance that either were ignored or not given enough weight.

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.

rugbydreamer wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:I agree that it's not the strongest proposition Dreamer, but surely it should come down to the positive. Where is the positive in this decision or in the wrangling by both Unions.

No one has gained and everyone has lost. What is the point in tying people in at age grade level, even when they don't sign the relevant paperwork? If they want to play for someone else, will they ever play whole-heartedly for the country that is trying to constrain them? No.

Not sure what you mean by 'what's the point' .Under IRB law Wales had to have a 2nd senior side and that automatically fell as the U20's one. And I would argue if at the age of 18 and 19, you know which country you want to represent.
If people are going to stick with the whole 'oh they are too young to make up their mind' perhaps an age restraint should be put on the senior game. For instance, as people seem to keep thinking U20's can't make up their mind, you have to wait until you're 21 to play for the senior side?

Can't have it both ways.

dreamer, I think Shingler did know and felt that he wasn't certain and could keep his options open by not signing the doc? As we nnow know, he was in erro

No offence intended As, but I htink he's holding on to the not signing of the doc as a tenuous link. The WRU and IRB have agreed that all players were clearly informed, whether they signed or not, that playing against France for the U20's, they were tied to Wales. There is no confusion there, other then perhaps Shinglers agent trying to spin it that way/look for a loophole.

Do we know that for sure?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:It's the kid I feel sorry for. Wether or not it was bad advice, cloudy rules, The WRU being stubborn, the SRU not doing their homework or operating under bad advice themselves is irrelivent frankly.

Shingler wants to play test match rugby and due to a combination of the things mentioned above this whole saga has become a shambolic farce that is delaying a talented youn NH player from making the jump to the next level.

Exactly Radge that is exactly the view which should have persevered. We can all sit here and argue the text and sub text but ultimately young talent should be allowed to demonstrate it's abilities for whoever in the great game of rugby.

Chjw131 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:It's the kid I feel sorry for. Wether or not it was bad advice, cloudy rules, The WRU being stubborn, the SRU not doing their homework or operating under bad advice themselves is irrelivent frankly.

Shingler wants to play test match rugby and due to a combination of the things mentioned above this whole saga has become a shambolic farce that is delaying a talented youn NH player from making the jump to the next level.

Exactly Radge that is exactly the view which should have persevered. We can all sit here and argue the text and sub text but ultimately young talent should be allowed to demonstrate it's abilities for whoever in the great game of rugby.

+1

rugbydreamer wrote:EDIT - just seen some animosity form Alyn.

Alyn, seriously, trecherous snake? Just seems to be much more misguided to me. If anyone is to take a lot of the blame, in my eyes it's Derwyn Jones.

Well were all entitles to our opinions to be honest.

In my eyes there are many young guys who would of loved the chance and the honor to represent Wales at U20 level, yet this kid accepted the chance, then dropped a turn on Wales as soon as he got another offer.

I can appreciate he might want to be an international but it would of been far more respectful to fight for a Welsh place in the short term first, after all it was WELSH rugby that put all their time and investment into him.

From my point of view, if you spend ages in the kitchen making a cake, then when your out of the room someone goes into your house and eats it, you would be annoyed. Likewise when you spend years investing and teaching a talented young man to play rugby and just when he's getting close to being ready for Wales, a so called friend comes in and attempts to steal all that investment and hard work, I think you have a right to be angry.

To me this is a lot different to a lot of cases where a player has failed to make the grade in New Zealand and comes over here so he can be a professional, and then decides to qualify for a country on residency. In this case a Union maliciously tried to steal a young player who was being groomed by Wales as a future star.

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!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:I agree that it's not the strongest proposition Dreamer, but surely it should come down to the positive. Where is the positive in this decision or in the wrangling by both Unions.

No one has gained and everyone has lost. What is the point in tying people in at age grade level, even when they don't sign the relevant paperwork? If they want to play for someone else, will they ever play whole-heartedly for the country that is trying to constrain them? No.

Not sure what you mean by 'what's the point' .Under IRB law Wales had to have a 2nd senior side and that automatically fell as the U20's one. And I would argue if at the age of 18 and 19, you know which country you want to represent.
If people are going to stick with the whole 'oh they are too young to make up their mind' perhaps an age restraint should be put on the senior game. For instance, as people seem to keep thinking U20's can't make up their mind, you have to wait until you're 21 to play for the senior side?

Can't have it both ways.

dreamer, I think Shingler did know and felt that he wasn't certain and could keep his options open by not signing the doc? As we nnow know, he was in erro

No offence intended As, but I htink he's holding on to the not signing of the doc as a tenuous link. The WRU and IRB have agreed that all players were clearly informed, whether they signed or not, that playing against France for the U20's, they were tied to Wales. There is no confusion there, other then perhaps Shinglers agent trying to spin it that way/look for a loophole.

Do we know that for sure?

It's what the WRU have said what happened. From what I can tell the IRB seem to have agreed with them on that

I was interested to read Craig Chalmers' view in a recent Rugby World. He was bang on. Anybody who says 20 is no age is wrong in my opinion. Personally I'm glad this has reached this outcome again, as he isn't Scottish and anybody who tries to point out his Scottish Mother, well how come he didn't give her a second thought when he obviously wanted to play for Wales.

In my mind, he's no worse than an international mercenary, willing to pledge allegiance to whoever wants him. He's Welsh, wanted to play for Wales from the start and committed himself to play for Wales.

Instead of criticising the WRU for not being able to afford a second team, why don't people criticise the SRU for not developing their own.

I will agree that nobody comes out of this well though.

Has I have already said, I have little sympathy, as Shingler knew what he was doing and changing allegiances illustrates self greed and nothing else....


...but, there is one thing that has been eluded on these posts, which I'm unsure if it is correct or not.

The replies elude to the WRU asking the players to sign commitment papers to the WRU before the match, which Shingler refused to. Now this poses a question, which would change my opinion.

The question is, when where the papers presented and asked to be signed. If they where presented in the changing room before kick off, then that does smack of WRU incompetence. In this case, if someone refuses to sign (as Shingler did), how come he was allowed to play. Surely the WRU should have said your not playing then. Trouble is, under that scenario, I can see the coach saying, ok play the game we'll sort it later...

Of course, I would have hoped the WRU issued the papers in the training sessions prior to the game. That being the case, why didn't they ask for the signed paper work way before match day, and if you ain't signed, you don't play. That brings out 2 possibilities, 1 being the WRU incompetence in enforcing these papers or 2 Shingler trying it on, like loads of kids do... "err I haven't done them yet, I'll bring them tomorrow".

If it was the first case, ie. papers before the KO, then my sympathies go out to the lad, as no one should be made to make a career decision with no time like that. If the second case, papers presented days before, then I'm concerned for the WRU administration that they didn't take a stronger stance with the kid, but have no sympathy for Shinkler as he knew what he was doing.

Suppose we will never know which, but the WRU's admin process needs a good looking at either way, as they should never have got themselves into this position.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:It's the kid I feel sorry for. Wether or not it was bad advice, cloudy rules, The WRU being stubborn, the SRU not doing their homework or operating under bad advice themselves is irrelivent frankly.

Shingler wants to play test match rugby and due to a combination of the things mentioned above this whole saga has become a shambolic farce that is delaying a talented youn NH player from making the jump to the next level.

Exactly Radge that is exactly the view which should have persevered. We can all sit here and argue the text and sub text but ultimately young talent should be allowed to demonstrate it's abilities for whoever in the great game of rugby.

+1

He is still allowed to demonstarte his abilities at international level

AlynDavies wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:EDIT - just seen some animosity form Alyn.

Alyn, seriously, trecherous snake? Just seems to be much more misguided to me. If anyone is to take a lot of the blame, in my eyes it's Derwyn Jones.

Well were all entitles to our opinions to be honest.

In my eyes there are many young guys who would of loved the chance and the honor to represent Wales at U20 level, yet this kid accepted the chance, then dropped a turn on Wales as soon as he got another offer.

I can appreciate he might want to be an international but it would of been far more respectful to fight for a Welsh place in the short term first, after all it was WELSH rugby that put all their time and investment into him.

From my point of view, if you spend ages in the kitchen making a cake, then when your out of the room someone goes into your house and eats it, you would be annoyed. Likewise when you spend years investing and teaching a talented young man to play rugby and just when he's getting close to being ready for Wales, a so called friend comes in and attempts to steal all that investment and hard work, I think you have a right to be angry.

To me this is a lot different to a lot of cases where a player has failed to make the grade in New Zealand and comes over here so he can be a professional, and then decides to qualify for a country on residency. In this case a Union maliciously tried to steal a young player who was being groomed by Wales as a future star.

Even if that cake has the right to be eaten by someone else due to the fact its ingredients were supplied by another who COULD have rights over them? What you're missing here is his RIGHT to play for another country due to his parentage. It's not as if he's received a job offer from another Union entirely.

And as has already been pointed out, if he had been ill for that France game he could have played for Scotland regardless of how much cake mix that WRU had ploughed into him!

rugbydreamer wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:I agree that it's not the strongest proposition Dreamer, but surely it should come down to the positive. Where is the positive in this decision or in the wrangling by both Unions.

No one has gained and everyone has lost. What is the point in tying people in at age grade level, even when they don't sign the relevant paperwork? If they want to play for someone else, will they ever play whole-heartedly for the country that is trying to constrain them? No.

Not sure what you mean by 'what's the point' .Under IRB law Wales had to have a 2nd senior side and that automatically fell as the U20's one. And I would argue if at the age of 18 and 19, you know which country you want to represent.
If people are going to stick with the whole 'oh they are too young to make up their mind' perhaps an age restraint should be put on the senior game. For instance, as people seem to keep thinking U20's can't make up their mind, you have to wait until you're 21 to play for the senior side?

Can't have it both ways.

dreamer, I think Shingler did know and felt that he wasn't certain and could keep his options open by not signing the doc? As we nnow know, he was in erro

No offence intended As, but I htink he's holding on to the not signing of the doc as a tenuous link. The WRU and IRB have agreed that all players were clearly informed, whether they signed or not, that playing against France for the U20's, they were tied to Wales. There is no confusion there, other then perhaps Shinglers agent trying to spin it that way/look for a loophole.

Do we know that for sure?

It's what the WRU have said what happened. From what I can tell the IRB seem to have agreed with them on that

Do you have a link?

will see if I can find anything As. It may not have the exact wording that you will be after, but I do remember reading that they said the clearly explained to all the players that if they played in the France match they were tied to Wales

MajorRoadWorks wrote:Has I have already said, I have little sympathy, as Shingler knew what he was doing and changing allegiances illustrates self greed and nothing else....


...but, there is one thing that has been eluded on these posts, which I'm unsure if it is correct or not.

The replies elude to the WRU asking the players to sign commitment papers to the WRU before the match, which Shingler refused to. Now this poses a question, which would change my opinion.

The question is, when where the papers presented and asked to be signed. If they where presented in the changing room before kick off, then that does smack of WRU incompetence. In this case, if someone refuses to sign (as Shingler did), how come he was allowed to play. Surely the WRU should have said your not playing then. Trouble is, under that scenario, I can see the coach saying, ok play the game we'll sort it later...

Of course, I would have hoped the WRU issued the papers in the training sessions prior to the game. That being the case, why didn't they ask for the signed paper work way before match day, and if you ain't signed, you don't play. That brings out 2 possibilities, 1 being the WRU incompetence in enforcing these papers or 2 Shingler trying it on, like loads of kids do... "err I haven't done them yet, I'll bring them tomorrow".

If it was the first case, ie. papers before the KO, then my sympathies go out to the lad, as no one should be made to make a career decision with no time like that. If the second case, papers presented days before, then I'm concerned for the WRU administration that they didn't take a stronger stance with the kid, but have no sympathy for Shinkler as he knew what he was doing.

Suppose we will never know which, but the WRU's admin process needs a good looking at either way, as they should never have got themselves into this position.

Good points, MajorRW

rugbydreamer wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:I agree that it's not the strongest proposition Dreamer, but surely it should come down to the positive. Where is the positive in this decision or in the wrangling by both Unions.

No one has gained and everyone has lost. What is the point in tying people in at age grade level, even when they don't sign the relevant paperwork? If they want to play for someone else, will they ever play whole-heartedly for the country that is trying to constrain them? No.

Not sure what you mean by 'what's the point' .Under IRB law Wales had to have a 2nd senior side and that automatically fell as the U20's one. And I would argue if at the age of 18 and 19, you know which country you want to represent.

If people are going to stick with the whole 'oh they are too young to make up their mind' perhaps an age restraint should be put on the senior game. For instance, as people seem to keep thinking U20's can't make up their mind, you have to wait until you're 21 to play for the senior side?

Can't have it both ways.

Actually you can have it both ways. 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.

rugbydreamer wrote:will see if I can find anything As. It may not have the exact wording that you will be after, but I do remember reading that they said the clearly explained to all the players that if they played in the France match they were tied to Wales

Not during work hours, or your mother will have your guts for garters! Ah well, blame me!

rugbydreamer wrote:
He is still allowed to demonstarte his abilities at international level

Not by the current Welsh coach. Gatland won't pick him due to his lack of loyalty. As I said before I don't blame Gatland for being like that. To be honest if I were in Gatland's position I would only select him as a last resort. Herin lies the problem Shingler has borne the brunt of a terrible chain of circumstance and his International Career lies in tatters.

"The WRU welcomes the IRB announcement which confirms that proper procedures were followed when informing the 2011 Wales U20 team to play France they would be solely Wales qualified at senior level after taking part in the game"

http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/news/20677.php


it's not the one I was actually after though so will keep looking...

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:
He is still allowed to demonstarte his abilities at international level

Not by the current Welsh coach. Gatland won't pick him due to his lack of loyalty. As I said before I don't blame Gatland for being like that. To be honest if I were in Gatland's position I would only select him as a last resort. Herin lies the problem Shingler has borne the brunt of a terrible chain of circumstance and his International Career lies in tatters.

I'm sorry, but do you know for a fact that Gatland won't pick him? Has he come out and said that? (forgive me if he has, but I don't recall reading it anywhere)

"The Panel noted that, in accordance with IRB Regulation 8, playing in a designated capturing match was the key determining factor with regard to the player's eligibility. In this respect the Panel accepted the evidence of the Welsh Rugby Union that although Shingler had not signed the Union eligibility confirmation form he had been fully advised by the WRU that playing in the France Under 20 v Wales Under 20 match during the 2011 Under 20 Six Nations would capture him for Wales."

http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/news/21524.php

There ya go!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:AD, it doesn't really matter whether I'm missing the point or not, what is more important is that Shingler clearly missed the point! He thought that the doc was the key piece, wrongly, and I've no idea who advised him of that or why he thought that

The point I was making is EVERY rugby fan in Wales knows what the rules are and certainly the players.
This was covered in a very public manner only a few months before in the Loxton and Jarvis case.

The WRU got a lot of flak for losing those 2 players to the Irish because it did not tell those 2 players that by playing France U20's in 2010 that they would be committing to Wales and only Wales. During that time they only told Toby Faletau. The WRU took the Loxton and Jarvis case to the IRB and lost. the only reason the WRU lost was because it admitted it wasn't aware of the layers duel Irish nationality and so didn;t tell them they'd be locked to Wales if they played. In this instance the WRU told Shingler he would be tied to Wales and he played in the game.

None of this should be a shock to anyone in Wales because the Loxton and Jarvis case was so public, hell Shingler knew all of this, he was living in Wets Wales not the moon, and being involved with rugby and with the SAME agent he should of known what his choices meant. Shingler tried to pull a fast one and got caught out.

Hang on , has anyone from the WRU actually said 'we won't pick him due to his lack of loyalty.' ?

If we didn't have some squad depth at the moment he probably would be given a chance.

I wouldn't mind him at the Dragons. He just needs to get his head down and keep playing.

I don't think any country's U20 team guarantees a place in the senior team does it ?

Irishhoneymonster wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:I agree that it's not the strongest proposition Dreamer, but surely it should come down to the positive. Where is the positive in this decision or in the wrangling by both Unions.

No one has gained and everyone has lost. What is the point in tying people in at age grade level, even when they don't sign the relevant paperwork? If they want to play for someone else, will they ever play whole-heartedly for the country that is trying to constrain them? No.

Not sure what you mean by 'what's the point' .Under IRB law Wales had to have a 2nd senior side and that automatically fell as the U20's one. And I would argue if at the age of 18 and 19, you know which country you want to represent.

If people are going to stick with the whole 'oh they are too young to make up their mind' perhaps an age restraint should be put on the senior game. For instance, as people seem to keep thinking U20's can't make up their mind, you have to wait until you're 21 to play for the senior side?

Can't have it both ways.

Actually you can have it both ways. 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.

honey, also a good point - countries that can designate their U20 side as their second senior side are at an advantage to those that have an A side due to the frequency of fixtures - I expect the iRB's ruling will be challenged and this could be the basis of that

1. Shingler played in a u20 game after being told it would tie him to Wales as they were playing France, another country which had nominated their u20's as their 2nd side. He chose to play.

2. Once he played, it was not for the WRU or SRU to 'let it go', it was not their decision. It's a strict liability matter, he played therefore he is tied to Wales. It may not be equitable but he was made aware of the position before playing. Not signing a form is completely irrelevant (just like his agent was in his playing days).

3. The correct decision has been made under the rules. Whether the rules are fair is another matter however to say that someone over 18 should not have to make a decision as to nationality is ridiculous. At 18 you can vote, marry, buy a property and join the army and kill and be killed for your country so surely you are able to decide who you want to play rugby for!

4. I'm a Scarlet supporter and I for one sincerely hope that Shingler knuckles down and becomes a class player. If he does I hope Gatland/WRU have the good sense and good grace to bring him into the Welsh set up and put all this behind them.

AlynDavies wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:AD, it doesn't really matter whether I'm missing the point or not, what is more important is that Shingler clearly missed the point! He thought that the doc was the key piece, wrongly, and I've no idea who advised him of that or why he thought that

The point I was making is EVERY rugby fan in Wales knows what the rules are and certainly the players.
This was covered in a very public manner only a few months before in the Loxton and Jarvis case.

The WRU got a lot of flak for losing those 2 players to the Irish because it did not tell those 2 players that by playing France U20's in 2010 that they would be committing to Wales and only Wales. During that time they only told Toby Faletau. The WRU took the Loxton and Jarvis case to the IRB and lost. the only reason the WRU lost was because it admitted it wasn't aware of the layers duel Irish nationality and so didn;t tell them they'd be locked to Wales if they played. In this instance the WRU told Shingler he would be tied to Wales and he played in the game.

None of this should be a shock to anyone in Wales because the Loxton and Jarvis case was so public, hell Shingler knew all of this, he was living in Wets Wales not the moon, and being involved with rugby and with the SAME agent he should of known what his choices meant. Shingler tried to pull a fast one and got caught out.

AD, maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but it still doesn't explain why he (incorrectly as it turns out) thought that not signing the document was ensuring he wasn't bound

rugbydreamer wrote:I'm sorry, but do you know for a fact that Gatland won't pick him? Has he come out and said that? (forgive me if he has, but I don't recall reading it anywhere)

I can assume you Gatland is a wily old man, and if Steven Shingler is good enough for Wales, then he will pick him, have Steve sat by him in a press conference, blame a misunderstanding on all sides and tell the Welsh public to forgive and forget.

Lets be honest if we can welcome all those Rugby League traitors Scott Gibbs, Allan Bateman, David Young, Jonathan Davies, Scott quinell etc back with loving open arms and adulation then I'm sure we will forgive Shingler.

If a player gives 100% on the field then the Welsh public will forgive anything.

SubsBench wrote:1. Shingler played in a u20 game after being told it would tie him to Wales as they were playing France, another country which had nominated their u20's as their 2nd side. He chose to play.

2. Once he played, it was not for the WRU or SRU to 'let it go', it was not their decision. It's a strict liability matter, he played therefore he is tied to Wales. It may not be equitable but he was made aware of the position before playing. Not signing a form is completely irrelevant (just like his agent was in his playing days).

3. The correct decision has been made under the rules. Whether the rules are fair is another matter however to say that someone over 18 should not have to make a decision as to nationality is ridiculous. At 18 you can vote, marry, buy a property and join the army and kill and be killed for your country so surely you are able to decide who you want to play rugby for!

4. I'm a Scarlet supporter and I for one sincerely hope that Shingler knuckles down and becomes a class player. If he does I hope Gatland/WRU have the good sense and good grace to bring him into the Welsh set up and put all this behind them.

+1. Spot on.

rugbydreamer wrote:"The Panel noted that, in accordance with IRB Regulation 8, playing in a designated capturing match was the key determining factor with regard to the player's eligibility. In this respect the Panel accepted the evidence of the Welsh Rugby Union that although Shingler had not signed the Union eligibility confirmation form he had been fully advised by the WRU that playing in the France Under 20 v Wales Under 20 match during the 2011 Under 20 Six Nations would capture him for Wales."

http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/news/21524.php

There ya go!

Unfortunately Dreamer that really tells us very little. Apart from the fact that a) evidence was 'accepted from the WRU' as to the procedures which were explained and how that was done.

Was this evidence allowed to be challenged? Was it entirely accurate in respect of all the U20 players? What actually is 'fully advised'? Does this mean he had advice from an independent advisor regarding it's validity. Was he told as he was lacing up his boots? Was he informed as he was handed a form he didn't sign? Was it put in writing to him days before the match? Did he truly understand it?

The list could go on and on and on. All it tells us is that perhaps some effort was made to inform him. It tells us neither the timing, quality or acceptance by Shingler of such a statement. It also utterly fails to take into account two things:

a) The true penalty imposed on young Shingler

b) The fact that the rules are going to be changed as regards this sort of 'claiming'.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

AlynDavies wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:AD, it doesn't really matter whether I'm missing the point or not, what is more important is that Shingler clearly missed the point! He thought that the doc was the key piece, wrongly, and I've no idea who advised him of that or why he thought that

The point I was making is EVERY rugby fan in Wales knows what the rules are and certainly the players.
This was covered in a very public manner only a few months before in the Loxton and Jarvis case.

The WRU got a lot of flak for losing those 2 players to the Irish because it did not tell those 2 players that by playing France U20's in 2010 that they would be committing to Wales and only Wales. During that time they only told Toby Faletau. The WRU took the Loxton and Jarvis case to the IRB and lost. the only reason the WRU lost was because it admitted it wasn't aware of the layers duel Irish nationality and so didn;t tell them they'd be locked to Wales if they played. In this instance the WRU told Shingler he would be tied to Wales and he played in the game.

None of this should be a shock to anyone in Wales because the Loxton and Jarvis case was so public, hell Shingler knew all of this, he was living in Wets Wales not the moon, and being involved with rugby and with the SAME agent he should of known what his choices meant. Shingler tried to pull a fast one and got caught out.

AD, maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but it still doesn't explain why he (incorrectly as it turns out) thought that not signing the document was ensuring he wasn't bound

I would look right to his agent for that misunderstanding, As

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.

rugbydreamer wrote:"The Panel noted that, in accordance with IRB Regulation 8, playing in a designated capturing match was the key determining factor with regard to the player's eligibility. In this respect the Panel accepted the evidence of the Welsh Rugby Union that although Shingler had not signed the Union eligibility confirmation form he had been fully advised by the WRU that playing in the France Under 20 v Wales Under 20 match during the 2011 Under 20 Six Nations would capture him for Wales."

http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/news/21524.php

There ya go!

Yup, I think we've all read that bit. As I've said before tho, it doesn't explain why Singler thought he wasn't bound if he didn't sign the doc? Dont think anyone is disupting that the WRU said "play and you're bound" or similar

AlynDavies wrote:
The point I was making is EVERY rugby fan in Wales knows what the rules are and certainly the players.
This was covered in a very public manner only a few months before in the Loxton and Jarvis case.

The WRU got a lot of flak for losing those 2 players to the Irish because it did not tell those 2 players that by playing France U20's in 2010 that they would be committing to Wales and only Wales. During that time they only told Toby Faletau. The WRU took the Loxton and Jarvis case to the IRB and lost. the only reason the WRU lost was because it admitted it wasn't aware of the layers duel Irish nationality and so didn;t tell them they'd be locked to Wales if they played. In this instance the WRU told Shingler he would be tied to Wales and he played in the game.

None of this should be a shock to anyone in Wales because the Loxton and Jarvis case was so public, hell Shingler knew all of this, he was living in Wets Wales not the moon, and being involved with rugby and with the SAME agent he should of known what his choices meant. Shingler tried to pull a fast one and got caught out.

A bit off topic here but have Wales actually lost these guys or is it just that they've been confirmed as Irish eligible and their contract with Connacht depends on them not declaring for anyone else.In theory should they leave Connacht and go to a non Irish team then they'd be fine to play for Wales as I don't think either of them has been capped for Ireland A.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:AD, maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but it still doesn't explain why he (incorrectly as it turns out) thought that not signing the document was ensuring he wasn't bound

The only answer is both he and his agent are idiots.

The exact rules were all over the Welsh press for months, and a quick look on the IRB website can tell him what he needs to know.
The point is the WRU told Shingler if he decided to play in the game, he would be Welsh, Shingler played, end of story.

In my mind there is no potential for misunderstanding because we all knew in Wales that the WRU lost Loxton and Jarvis only because they did not tell them that playing against France U20 would tie them to Wales. They told Shingler so there is no room for misunderstandings.

AlynDavies wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:I'm sorry, but do you know for a fact that Gatland won't pick him? Has he come out and said that? (forgive me if he has, but I don't recall reading it anywhere)

I can assume you Gatland is a wily old man, and if Steven Shingler is good enough for Wales, then he will pick him, have Steve sat by him in a press conference, blame a misunderstanding on all sides and tell the Welsh public to forgive and forget.

Lets be honest if we can welcome all those Rugby League traitors Scott Gibbs, Allan Bateman, David Young, Jonathan Davies, Scott quinell etc back with loving open arms and adulation then I'm sure we will forgive Shingler.

If a player gives 100% on the field then the Welsh public will forgive anything.

SubsBench wrote:1. Shingler played in a u20 game after being told it would tie him to Wales as they were playing France, another country which had nominated their u20's as their 2nd side. He chose to play.

2. Once he played, it was not for the WRU or SRU to 'let it go', it was not their decision. It's a strict liability matter, he played therefore he is tied to Wales. It may not be equitable but he was made aware of the position before playing. Not signing a form is completely irrelevant (just like his agent was in his playing days).

3. The correct decision has been made under the rules. Whether the rules are fair is another matter however to say that someone over 18 should not have to make a decision as to nationality is ridiculous. At 18 you can vote, marry, buy a property and join the army and kill and be killed for your country so surely you are able to decide who you want to play rugby for!

4. I'm a Scarlet supporter and I for one sincerely hope that Shingler knuckles down and becomes a class player. If he does I hope Gatland/WRU have the good sense and good grace to bring him into the Welsh set up and put all this behind them.

I hate to correct you here but it's not a strict liability matter at all. That's a truly absurd statement. Further, how can you attempt to claim this as a strict liability matter, site the 'laws' as they are as matter of plain fact and then claim that signing a form stating such is irrelevant. You're argument is totally incoherent.

Chjw131 wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:"The Panel noted that, in accordance with IRB Regulation 8, playing in a designated capturing match was the key determining factor with regard to the player's eligibility. In this respect the Panel accepted the evidence of the Welsh Rugby Union that although Shingler had not signed the Union eligibility confirmation form he had been fully advised by the WRU that playing in the France Under 20 v Wales Under 20 match during the 2011 Under 20 Six Nations would capture him for Wales."

http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/news/21524.php

There ya go!

Unfortunately Dreamer that really tells us very little. Apart from the fact that a) evidence was 'accepted from the WRU' as to the procedures which were explained and how that was done.

Was this evidence allowed to be challenged? Was it entirely accurate in respect of all the U20 players? What actually is 'fully advised'? Does this mean he had advice from an independent advisor regarding it's validity. Was he told as he was lacing up his boots? Was he informed as he was handed a form he didn't sign? Was it put in writing to him days before the match? Did he truly understand it?

The list could go on and on and on. All it tells us is that perhaps some effort was made to inform him. It tells us neither the timing, quality or acceptance by Shingler of such a statement. It also utterly fails to take into account two things:

a) The true penalty imposed on young Shingler

b) The fact that the rules are going to be changed as regards this sort of 'claiming'.

I can't answer any of that!
I will say this though, as soon as it was announced Shings was in the Scotland squad, I immediately raised the concern that he wasn't eligable to play for them. If I had even the slightest inkling that he couldn't play for them, then surely it would mean that people involved in rugby and the set up and actually play the gosh darn game at national level would know a heck of a lot more about it then me! I just don't see how he couldn't have understood. To me it seems the whole "oh I didn't sign the document" is being picked up on as an excuse.

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