Should u20's count as a countries second team?

It's been announced that Steven Shingler is tied to Wales after playing for them in an u20 match.
As Wales don't have an A team their u20's is their second team. Should u20's count as a second team or should the rule be that if a country decides it doesn't want an A team and they lose players because of that then that's their loss?

Doesn't matter to me, as long as it's the same for everyone and cannot be 'gamed'

I don't think it should count, as the point of these teams isn't to tie players to the country. It was decided that if you played a proper international you couldn't play for another country. They decided that an A team counts as a senior representative team along with sevens. If the U20 don't tie you for all then they shouldn't tie you for any.

I would have no problem as such if the IRB decided all U20 games tied you to a country.

Once its the same for everyone I dont mind.

However I do think its strange an underage team who plays in the Junior RWC can be considered to be a "Senior representative side". The whole point of it being an age level team is that it isnt a Senior team.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Doesn't matter to me, as long as it's the same for everyone and cannot be 'gamed'

+1

AsLong has summed it up - I'm not too worried either way, but the Law should be changed to make the ruling consistent across all Nations. The current situation is crazy, not so much because Welsh players are tied by playing for their U20s, but that they aren't tied by playing against (say) England but are when they play against France.

Either all U20 players should be tied to the nation they represent (provided they are 18 or older when they play, which is the current rule anyway), or it should be considered as similar to any other age group and only 'A team' or senior sides should count for eligibility.

dummy_half wrote:AsLong has summed it up - I'm not too worried either way, but the Law should be changed to make the ruling consistent across all Nations. The current situation is crazy, not so much because Welsh players are tied by playing for their U20s, but that they aren't tied by playing against (say) England but are when they play against France.

Either all U20 players should be tied to the nation they represent (provided they are 18 or older when they play, which is the current rule anyway), or it should be considered as similar to any other age group and only 'A team' or senior sides should count for eligibility.

Anthony Watson is 17 and has played for England U20 (or is that not the rule you're on about?)

Watson would not be tied under the current regulations even if he had playe for wales U20 against france u20. The regulations only apply to 18 year olds and older

I agree, as a fan all we request of the IRB is consistency and simplicity. We all appreciate the game evolves very quickly and it is often hard for the IRB to keep up. But post RWC there is a great opportunity for the IRB to implement the tweaks needed to achieve more consistency.

So the IRB believe that anybody over the age of 18 is old enough to commit himself and that's how it should be.

So long as there is consistency. If Wales U20s tie a player in to Wales, then everyones U20s ties a player to that country. Or no-ones. But I would still prefer they didn't.

It is a bit silly to be honest; it's age-grade rugby. Once U20s caps count, where do you draw the line? Schoolboy level? It's also bad for smaller countries; there'll be plenty of Kiwis with Pacific Islands heritage who would be entirely tied into being All Blacks or nothing for example. It's blocking a lot of players from potentially ever playing international rugby which is wrong.

I think whats happened to Shingler is immensely unfair; not just because he can't now play for Scotland, but because other games he played for the U20s wouldn't have tied him in.

No I don't think so. If a country isn't willing to invest in an 'A' team then that is their descision, they shouldn't be allowed to nominate an age grade team as their second tier to the national senior side.

Its a poor rule and needs to be looked at again.

roddersm wrote:No I don't think so. If a country isn't willing to invest in an 'A' team then that is their descision, they shouldn't be allowed to nominate an age grade team as their second tier to the national senior side.

Its a poor rule and needs to be looked at again.

I agree with this (except possibly for lower-tier sides who really can't afford/justify an 'A' side) However, there's really no justification for any of the Four or Six Nations sides not having 'A' sides.

What bothered me was about the Wales U20 situation was the variability between games, and the reliance on players to investigate the opposition union before they played in order to be sure whether they would be tied.

As it stands:
(For this example, let's assume that Micronesia have no 'A' team, and that the U20s are their designated 'next senior side'.)

Wales U20 play Scotland U20 - players are not bound, as Scotland have an 'A' team
Wales U20 play Micronesia U20 - players are bound, as Micronesia have no 'A' team.
Wales U20 play France U20 - players are bound, even though France have an 'A' team.

In the third instance, a Wales player is required to check whether France have an 'A' team, but that this 'A' team is not the designated 'next senior side'. In reality, he's going to check with the WRU, and will be relying on them to be honest/accurate in their explanation of the situation.

Again, I don't actually mind if Wales U20 can bind their players, but the rule should apply to all games, regardless of opposition.

I'll say this; I would most certainly not be heart broken if the idea of being bound to a nation via playing for the next senior side was done away with altogether.

If I had to make two changes;

1) Only a full test cap ties a player to a nation at test level.
2) Residency period needed to qualify a player is extended to six years instead of three.

The Unions are under instructions to inform the players if selection will bind them in any designated eligibility "capture" game.

The IRB regulations committee panel confirmed: "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."

I would not argue with that suggestion Notch

Cymroglan wrote:The Unions are under instructions to inform the players if selection will bind them in any designated eligibility "capture" game.

The IRB regulations committee panel confirmed: "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."

Why does it have to be so complicated though? It's like some Baa Baa's games are capped and others are not. A bit of consistency and leadership from the IRB (telling rather than advising) would help a lot.

It does not need to be complicated but whatever the B team is called it will still be open to abuse.
Players will still be selected tied in but may never get a full cap.

Should those players be untied after a certain length of time ? for argument sake should players be free to leave after three years if they don't get a full cap.

Notch wrote:I'll say this; I would most certainly not be heart broken if the idea of being bound to a nation via playing for the next senior side was done away with altogether.

If I had to make two changes;

1) Only a full test cap ties a player to a nation at test level.
2) Residency period needed to qualify a player is extended to six years instead of three.

I' make the residency rule 7 years for 21=>'s

Below that age it would be one year residency less per calendar year age

So: Age/residency requirement

20/6
19/5
18/4
17/3
16/2
15/1

<15/0

Long residency periods are fine for those countries with plenty of players to pick from. It keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. Three years is a long enough qualification already.

A player should only be tied to a nation if he gets a full cap and even that shouldn't tie him to that country for life. The practice of capping a player a A level to primarily stop any other country capping him is an insidious practice that is not good for the player or the game.

If the game is to grow it needs more than four nations capable of winning the RWC. That means some of the also rans in those nations supplementing the ranks of the teams below them and by so doing make them more competitive. There should be a rule that a player could switch allegiance if he had no more than say 4 caps and his last one was at least five years ago.

Of course none of the big turkeys are going to vote for Christmas.

Should u20's count as a countries second team?

No.

Should u20s count as a country's second team?

If we want to tie a person to a country (we don't have to) and we think that something less than a full cap should tie you (many here suggesting not) and a country doesn't have an A team (as many don't) then YES.

BUT...
We could just let people change countries like we let them change club
We could just make if full caps only
We probably can't force every rugby playing nation have an A team