Ireland take Wales to IRB over Loxton and Jarvis eligibility row

Ive been wondering whats been going on with this issue. Connaght recently poached a academy player each off the Ospreys and Blues with the view of them playing for Ireland due to Irish ancestry instead of Wales. The WRU pointed out after the players had signed that both players have Wales U20 caps and Wales have classified the U20 as their A team with the IRB, hence both players are locked to Wales.
Ireland now intend to take the WRU to the IRB to rule on the issue of whether Wales can class their u20 team as their A team.
Personally I think Wales will win this issue as it common knowledge Wales class their U20 team as their A team.
Regardless of whether you Call it an U20 team or an A side each country has to nominate their second team and Wales along with several other countries including France use their U20 team.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/rugbynatio ... -28885563/

Toby Faletau is unwittingly at the centre of an eligibility row between Wales and Ireland.

The Wales No 8, who made his debut against the Barbarians a fortnight ago, finds himself embroiled in an eligibility dispute which the International Rugby Board has been asked to rule on.

Two of Faletau’s Wales Under-20s team-mates, Matthew Jarvis and James Loxton are dual-qualified for Wales and Ireland.

Former Ospreys back Jarvis and Blues rookie Loxton agreed contracts with Irish province, Connacht, earlier this year only on the understanding they were eligible to play for Ireland.

But the Welsh Rugby Union stepped in and notified their Irish counterparts at the Irish Rugby Football Union that the two youngsters were already committed to Wales, having played alongside Faletau for the Wales Under-20s.

The WRU claim that the Wales Under-20 side is now their second-string side, with the A-team being disbanded, and that any player who plays at that level commits themselves to Wales.

But it is claimed that Faletau, who was born in Tonga but has resided in Wales since the age of seven, was the only player told his appearance for Wales Under-20s committed his Test future to Wales.

While Loxton, who qualified for Ireland through his mother, and Jarvis, who qualifies via an Irish grandmother, claim they were never told playing for Wales Under-20s committed them to Wales.

Jarvis and Loxton played for the Wales Under-20s against France in February of last year.

But the crux of the matter is whether the WRU notified the players at under-20 level, in writing or otherwise, that they would be committed to Wales.

The French Rugby Federation could also hold the key to the resolution of an increasingly bitter dispute and whether they deem their under-20s to be their second-string or A-side in the match against Wales.

If the French agree their under-20s were not their second string, it means Jarvis and Loxton are eligible to play for Ireland and, of course, still Wales.

But whatever the reason behind both players being cleared to take up their contracts in Ireland, it does raise questions when the WRU decided the under-20’s are their designated second team and how they notify their players?

Gerry Kelly, Connacht chief executive, has revealed he believes Faletau was told he would commit himself to Wales by playing in the game, while Jarvis and Loxton claim they weren’t.

“Everybody knows that if you play for a national side or the A side of a country you are then committed to that country,” said Kelly.

“It transpires that these lads played for the Wales Under-20s, when Wales did not have an A-team.

“Wales claim the under-20s were their next senior team and that would have made the two boys, who played for them, ineligible.

“However, for that to happen, you must play against another team, which is an under-20s side which has been declared as that country’s second team.

“It appears that didn’t happen.

“They were also suppose to inform the boys that they would be no longer eligible for any other country if they played in that team.

“I understand they did inform one player – Toby Faletau – who played but they didn’t tell James of Matt.

“James and Matt and their parents are very anxious that they can play in Ireland and we are assuming that will happen.

“Cardiff and the Ospreys are letting the boys come to us with their blessing but the hold up here is at WRU level.

“But this is good for Wales and Ireland because the boys still have dual eligibility for both countries.”

A WRU spokesperson claimed that the Wales Under-20s was a ‘designated’ second team since Wales A had been disbanded.

“The Wales Under-20s has been the WRU’s officially stated ‘second senior registered team’ since the Wales A-side was disbanded in 2003,” said a WRU spokesperson.

“Under IRB rules, Regulation 8, a player is nationalised for Wales by playing for the U20 team against any other nation which has also designated the U20 side as their ‘second senior registered team’.

“Players are also automatically Welsh qualified by representing either the senior XV or senior 7’s team in a recognised international.

“It is common practice for nations without senior A teams to nominate U20 teams as second senior registered teams and the Wales U20 team has been the sole second senior registered team option for Wales since the A team was disbanded.

“The regulatory committee of the WRU will consider any IRB finding or recommendation related to a review of individual inquiries before deciding on any concluding course.”

But Kelly also revealed that the pair – Jarvis and Loxton – had unofficially been given the all clear by the IRFU to take up their contracts with Connacht.

He admitted the WRU was dragging it’s feet over the issues but the IRB is expected to ratify the players dual nationality for Wales and Ireland.

“My understanding is that the IRB has cleared the boys to play and that they are still eligible for Ireland and Wales,” said Kelly.

The IRB refused to comment on the issue until a final decision has been reached and is ratified by a full council meeting in the next month.

Did France not send their "A" team to the Churchill cup a couple of years ago? Maybe I'm just dreaming that but I thought they did so surely then that's their "second team" if you like and therefore the two boys are still dual-qualified.

It's a very messy situation anyway especially for Connacht who's whole pre-season will be dragged on and messed up because of it. It's not very likely they'll ever play for the senior team but I don't blame the WRU for attempting to keep their players. It's what I'd want the IRFU to do if the situation was reversed but France have definitely had an A team recently so I presume the Welsh will lose this particular argument.

I don't think anyone particurlarly cares about the players involved. not meaning to sound disrespectful but also being very frank, there is no way Connaght is going to tempt any half decent players off the Blues or Ospreys.

There's about as much chance of that as Swindon Town signing Fabio and Raphael off Man Utd...

I think the prima facie of this one will be the fact that age group rugby cannot by definition be classed as senior rugby.

Connacht win.

AlynDavies wrote:I don't think anyone particurlarly cares about the players involved. not meaning to sound disrespectful but also being very frank, there is no way Connaght is going to tempt any half decent players off the Blues or Ospreys.

There's about as much chance of that as Swindon Town signing Fabio and Raphael off Man Utd...

How very dare you?!

AlynDavies wrote: There's about as much chance of that as Swindon Town signing Fabio and Raphael off Man Utd...

I'll have you know Fabio is bombing up the left wing for Swindon town in Fifa11 with my good self at the helm as "gaffer"!

France had an A-team in 2009 and 2010 according to their web site so their eligibility should be ok for Ireland, still doesn't explain why Ireland are poaching players off Wales though, pretty disgusting really, we expect this type of behaviour from the English, but not the Irish. especially as they aren't that good.

mrsuperclear wrote:

AlynDavies wrote: There's about as much chance of that as Swindon Town signing Fabio and Raphael off Man Utd...

I'll have you know Fabio is bombing up the left wing for Swindon town in Fifa11 with my good self at the helm as "gaffer"!

Thats ok in Fm2011 I put Swindon as an affiliate club of Manchester United and give myself Fabio, Rafael, Ritchie De Laet, Oliver Norwood, and Federico Macheda on loan for the season.

As mentioned, the bigger aspect of this is how an U20 side can be classed as a senior side given it's restrictions on age.

France 'A' were in the Churchill Cup last year, so their U20 side could not have been their second senior side. Therefore I guess that both will be eligible for Ireland.

MBTGOG wrote:As mentioned, the bigger aspect of this is how an U20 side can be classed as a senior side given it's restrictions on age.

France 'A' were in the Churchill Cup last year, so their U20 side could not have been their second senior side. Therefore I guess that both will be eligible for Ireland.

Ethically, it's all rather dubious. Can players that age who are dual qualified really be asked to make a decision on which nation they want to represent at that level? And if they're not told that they are binding themselves to that country... well, it's difficult.

Boo! Hiss! Shame on Connacht throwing their weight around and picking on the little teams!

I take it that as the "Second Senior" side the Welsh U-20s will be withdrawing from the Junior World Championships?

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure the Junior All Blacks (NZ A) have no games this year. Which would make the U20s NZ's de facto A side. And since they played Wales' de facto A side this week ... hmmm, guess that means we've definitely baggsied Rhys Llewellen.

:run2:

"former ospreys back jarvis and blues rookie loxton agreed contracts with irish province connacht earlier this year,only on the understanding that they were eligible to play for ireland"

so it seems these two lads want to play for ireland,even if wales win the argument you can't force these players to play for wales if their hearts lye elsewhere.

Notch,

As I say, the iRB really needs to look into changing this ruling as there really is no way an Under 20 side can be listed as a "senior" side.

MBTGOG wrote:Notch,

As I say, the iRB really needs to look into changing this ruling as there really is no way an Under 20 side can be listed as a "senior" side.

But at the very least if they are that fact has to be made very explicit to players before their first U20 cap! Totally agree with your comment, by the way.

Its a joke if Wales are calling their u20 side their 'B' team as if so the Welsh 'B' Team just got hammered by 15 u20's from New Zealand in the junior world cup 96-0 or something like that. Bad state of affairs if Wales are relying on this, they must have enough players and money to have a proper 'B' team or Welsh rugby is in a lot of trouble long term!

Hard to see how a team taking part in the Junior World Cup can be a "senior" team...
The need to have played another nation's second team then makes it even trickier, given they are depending on France, who have had an "A" team in recent seasons (Including last year's 2010 Churchill Cup), having designated their Under 20s as their second team.

I'm sure I saw something recently saying that the IRB had given an initial ruling that the Wales Under 20s wasn't a second team but I can't find it now annoyingly.

Unless I am mistaken, wasn't an official Wales A side re-introduced to the fold a short while back? I could have sworn the WRU announced it. On a very short basis I seem to recall, something along the lines of getting just one annual test...

If the U20's are officially classified under IRB regulations as our second string then that might be that sadly for Loxton and Jarvis. I can't determine at this point whose fault it would be, Wales for neglecting to be clear on the point or the players for failing to verify which would be considered their responsibility.

It would be shameful if they indeed did make an exception in informing Faletau specifically. But if it was clearly stipulated somewhere or other...

One thing I will say is this was the first I heard about the rule.

And the amount we have to worry about will have increased tenfold if that was our A team recieving a record historical hammering on Tuesday

There is NO WAY that our U20s should be used as our A Side because players are obvioulsy restricted by age.

People like I Evans, Mitchell and even Jenkins could use the A Side for a bit of game time before stepping back up to the big time.

We have players that are now to old for the U20 set up but not yet could enough for the full side.

The WRU should get the act together an re-instate our A Side properly. I feel its wrong to restict dual coded players at such a young age.

After all are Loxton and Jarvis good enough to play for Wales?

Bedford - not all players in the A-Sides are good enough to play for the nation, so i can see why the U20s is regisitered as the second string side.

Personally I think that if you play for any senior side or the Under-20s you should be locked into that nation. But it doesn't look like these guys will be tied into Wales, and they shouldn't be under current rules.

If they want to play for another country then let them go .It does not matter how good a player he may be if his heart is not in it then he should not wear the red jersey.

I think people are getting off the issue here. Connacht signed two young lads and then discovered they might have just taken up two very important NIQ spots.

This isn't about if their heart is in playing for one country or another, it's about a team throwing away NIQ places on fringe players when it can't afford to.

There's no way we can call the U20's our A side, it just doesn't make sense.

leave these guys play for whoever they want , Ireland or Wales, (i dont actually think either of them will ever get capped but that's for another day).

And I agree, I also thought Wales were planning a once a year A game so they may have shot themselves in the foot there anyway.

Greybeard, one thing about Connacht i that they get way more lattitude from the IRFU regarding NIQ spots, so if the ruling does go against them I dont thik the IRFU will (or can) punish them by being inflexible as they (the IRFU) were no doubt aware/encouraged this attempt from the outset.

If it had hapened to Munster, Leinster or Ulster then they would be a little up a certain creak sans paddle.

I think because the IRFU have already sanctioned the contracts Connacht cannot be punished, but they asked the IRFU for clarification anyway. Probably in case of future contract extensions.

France had an A-team in 2009 and 2010 according to their web site so their eligibility should be ok for Ireland, still doesn't explain why Ireland are poaching players off Wales though, pretty disgusting really, we expect this type of behaviour from the English, but not the Irish. especially as they aren't that good.

Go on then, gives us a list of players that the English have poached off the Welsh.

And please don't include those that might have been dual qualified but made a personal choice to play for England.

It seems perfectly logical that our U20s would be our next senior side. As we don't have an A team the next step down and therefore our second string international side would be the U20s. The idiotic part of it is that we don't have an A team...

mckay1402 wrote:As we don't have an A team the next step down and therefore our second string international side would be the U20s.

Second string, yes. Second senior? Well that's up for debate.

The question here is if any two teams can be first and second senior, or if it's possible to have multiple teams any only one of them a senior team.

I don't see how it is up for debate. As Wales don't have an A team they have nominated their U20s as there second senior registered team. It's not like they're saying that our U20s are an actual senior team it's that they are next in line. I guess the alternative would be to have one of the regions as the second team and then which one...

Of course it's up for debate. The definition of senior needs to be established.

Otherwise if the Wales U-20 are designated a senior side then their participation in the Junior World Championship is in question.

I think this is nonsence to be honest. I don't see how Wales or anyone else can declare that the U-20's, which is underage rugby, is their 'A' team.

If Wales decide not to have an A team then thats their decision but I can't see how playing for one country at U-20's can disqualify a player from playing for another country and not another. The rules for U-20's should be the same across the board.

Forgetting the definition of second side, one of the issues is whether or not France's U20 was their second side (if that's allowed at all). They've had a proper A side recently.

The IRB stipulates that a nation has to nominate 2 representative sides for this. As Wales doesn't have an A team then the U20s are the second representative team. It doesn't mean they're the next 'senior' team, it doesn't mean that the WRU are a disgrace for nominating a junior team, or that we should leave the junior world cup. It's not rocket science. Wales are just folliowing the IRB directive, yet people on hear (as usual) feel that the WRU are to blame. Anything for a bit of scandal. This site is becoming like the old 606 already - tabloid trash!

And another thing, if these players are not senior at 18 and 19 then how are they able to play for senior clubs sides such as the Ospreys. A number of players in this tournament have made senior debuts. Surely the Osprey's should now be excommunicated for underage child labour in the case of Matthew Morgan et al.???

We're not talking about under 12s here.

Griff wrote:The IRB stipulates that a nation has to nominate 2 representative sides for this.

Where does it say that?

Griff wrote:As Wales doesn't have an A team then the U20s are the second representative team. It doesn't mean they're the next 'senior' team

The regulations specifically state "next senior"

Griff wrote:Wales are just folliowing the IRB directive,

Have you read the full directive?

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/28/42328_pdf.pdf

8.2 A Player who has played for the senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the next senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the senior National Representative Sevens Team
of a Union is not eligible to play for the senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the next senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Team or the senior National Representative Sevens Team
of another Union.

8.3 For the purposes of this Regulation, a Player is deemed to have played for
the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team or the next senior
fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of a Union if:
(a) He is selected for such team to play in an International Match against
the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team or the next
senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of another Union
(or in a fifteen-a-side international Match against another Union’s
senior or next senior Touring Squad during an IRB approved
International Tour) and is present at the Match played by that team
either as a replacement, substitute or a playing member of that team
and has, at the time of the Match, reached the age of majority; or
(b) He is selected to represent a Union’s senior Touring Squad on an
International Tour which includes an International Match or Matches
approved by the IRB and is present at any fifteen-a-side Match
played on that International Tour either as a replacement, substitute
or a playing member of a team selected from the Union’s senior
Touring Squad and has, at the time of the Match, reached the age of
majority; or
REGULATION 8
(c) He is selected to represent a Union’s next senior Touring Squad on
an IRB approved International Tour and during that International
Tour he is present at a Match against the senior fifteen-a-side
National Representative Team or the next senior fifteen-a-side
National Representative Team of another Union either as a
replacement, substitute or playing member of a team selected from
the Union’s next senior Touring Squad and has, at the time of the
Match reached the age of majority

Again greybeard, as you've conveniently ignored my second post: The age of U20 players may make them 'senior', seeing as there is an U18 set up as well. As many of these players play senior rugby then perhpas this age group is classed as senior regardless of if it is called 'age grade'. Using common sense there would not even be an argument, stories on the internet or posts about it on rugby forums, etc. if there was not something in this. The players would just move to Ireland and no-one would say anything, unless the IRB allows countries to nominate U20 as their second side.

Now, not keeping the players informed of what this means is another matter. If the WRU withheld info from them then that's a disgrace. However, Faletau says he was kept fully informed of the implications. Does that mean that certain players were told and others not? I can't see it being that cloak and dagger. I think these players knew about it, now have an opportunity in Ireland (an even improving rugby union and environment superior to Wales, therefore very attractive to young players) and they're trying to get out of it. I can't blame them. But then I can't blame the WRU either if that's the rules. The IRB is to blame if anyone.

Lets be honest you shouldn't pull on a jersey for more than one nation. At the age of 13-14 you should really know what nationality you are. If you play U20s, U18s or U16s for a nation then surely that should mean that you have accepted that as your nationality?

Also the issue here is not about the players wanting to play for Ireland, or the Irish wanting them to play for Ireland. It is purely about Connacht and their limit of Non-Irish-Qualified players. This is an issue for the IRFU and not for the IRB. If the IRB do come out and say they are Irish Qualified I would love to see Ireland cap them as soon as possible as that would be the only realistic arguement for taking an internal issue to the IRB

Griff wrote:Again greybeard, as you've conveniently ignored my second post

My reply was to your first post only. I wrote it as you were writing your second post. Don't get all paranoid.

Griff wrote:The age of U20 players may make them 'senior', seeing as there is an U18 set up as well.

In the eyes of the law, yes. But the concept of being a senior is different in different countries. 18 in the UK/Ireland, 21 in the USA etc. The iRB have to define and go by their own rules.

Also the definition of National Squad (Regulation 1) suggests the U-20 are not the next senior side:

National Squad means the group of Players (of any number) selected by a Union from time to time from which Players may be nominated to represent that Union’s two senior National Represen tative Teams.

When Wales names it's national squad, does it name U-20s?

Yes, it has doen recently with Tom Prydie.

I'd imagine in order for that to be a proper national side you'd need at least 22 U-20s not just one.

Are you saying that (hypothetically, and perhaps being a bit pedantic by me!) that if the best 22 players in Wales were Tom Prydie, Kristian Phillips, Toby Faletau (all could have been selected for this junior world cup) and 19 other youngsters, that the WRU could not select them as the national team, even thought they were the best? That's a bit age-ist isn't it? How would it not be a 'proper' national team if they were the best?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Lets be honest you shouldn't pull on a jersey for more than one nation. At the age of 13-14 you should really know what nationality you are. If you play U20s, U18s or U16s for a nation then surely that should mean that you have accepted that as your nationality?

Hold the phone- that may be the case if you have one nationality but the world just ain't that simple jack. For spme people it's easy, for others it's a complex issue that takes a long time to work out. Plenty of people have parents from different countries, have been born in one place but grown up in another etc.

I think my own national identity is only something I started to get a handle on when I was about 21/22. i.e. very, very recently.

Griff wrote:Are you saying that (hypothetically, and perhaps being a bit pedantic by me!) that if the best 22 players in Wales were Tom Prydie, Kristian Phillips, Toby Faletau (all could have been selected for this junior world cup) and 19 other youngsters, that the WRU could not select them as the national team, even thought they were the best? That's a bit age-ist isn't it? How would it not be a 'proper' national team if they were the best?

No I'm not saying that at all. The National Squad, by the definition above, must have the players from which you select your first and second senior sides. So in order to fill the second senior side in Wales, which as you've pointed out, is the U-20s then the National squad must have at least 22 players under 20, not just Tom Prydie, otherwise you can't select a proper second senior side.

Notch - I say that on the grounds of the fact I was born in England, raised in Wales. Have an English mother (and English grandad and Irish grandmother on her side) and a Welsh father (with a Welsh grandad and English grandmother on his side), and I did go through phases where I considered myself English/Welsh/Irish (as it gets more complicated the further into family details you go), but by the time I was what 10 I knew i was Welsh.

If you are unsure of your nationality then why not just say 'No thank you' when someone asks you to represent them, as you are not sure where your loyalties lie.

greybeard - I assume the fact that 18 year old George North is not in the U20s squad for the Junior World Cup, but in the full squad for the RWC then that means the u20s is seen as second string, as arguably he could have done both

Because if you want to make it as a professional rugby player you need to take those opportunities when they are offered. Playing age-group rugby, who knows whose eye you could catch?

Turning down a call-up shows a lack of ambition- whilst it may be for sincere reasons.

Notch - I guess it is down to personal feelings and passions regarding nationality and belonging to a certain people etc. And when thinks like that are involved I guess the problem is that (even within a family, I.E The Lunds of England/Norway) everyone has their own take on it, and there is really no correct answer

The point with the Junior and Senior sides is that only one of them is age restricted - an 18 year old can play for the senior side, a 28 year old can't play for the junior side which shows a clear difference in that one is age restricted. Basically, the Under 20s can't be a senior side as it is age restrictive and a senior side can't be.

They also have to have played against another nation's senior or next senior side in an IRB approved match, which is also very much in doubt given most nations have an A team.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Notch - I guess it is down to personal feelings and passions regarding nationality and belonging to a certain people etc. And when thinks like that are involved I guess the problem is that (even within a family, I.E The Lunds of England/Norway) everyone has their own take on it, and there is really no correct answer

Precisely. But we need one rule... that's why I'm in favour of waiting until Senior level before asking players to make a binding decision. I appreciate where you are coming from though Scarlets.