Ireland take Wales to IRB over Loxton and Jarvis eligibility row

First topic message reminder :

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.

Just think, if Martin Johnson had been restricted to playing for NZ instead of England he'd never have won the world cup

Snoopster, I agree that that makes sense. However, why is there even an argument, or why does this thread even exist, if there wasn't something in this story? I reckon the IRB must have let those nations with no A-teams declare the U20s as their second side for eligibility purposes.

I guess it is a bit harsh for the youngsters, but then again if a 19 year old represents England A/Saxons they too would be tied to England, the same as it seems 19 years olds are tied to Wales by the U20s (if that is in fact the case).

Griff wrote:Snoopster, I agree that that makes sense. However, why is there even an argument, or why does this thread even exist, if there wasn't something in this story? I reckon the IRB must have let those nations with no A-teams declare the U20s as their second side for eligibility purposes.

Or someone at the WRU badly messed up and just assumed it was fine to nominate the Under 20s as the next senior side? If the IRB had already told Wales it could do that, then it seems odd no one from Wales has handed the email over to the press.

Griff wrote:I guess it is a bit harsh for the youngsters, but then again if a 19 year old represents England A/Saxons they too would be tied to England, the same as it seems 19 years olds are tied to Wales by the U20s (if that is in fact the case).

The difference is that the rules are clear that playing for an A team ties you to that country so there should be no excuse of confusion as there is in this case and also that it is a lot easier to get an Under 20 cap than an A team cap due to the age restriction

While importance of the law to bind a player to an international team once he has reached 18 and represented that country at the highest level or second highest level against teams representing another country at the highest or second highest level, the practical argument on Loxton and Jarvis is one where Connacht do not want to use up 2 NIQ places by taking two players who are coming in to bolster their squad, as opposed to signing more marquee level names as guaranteed starters/leaders. The reality of either Loxton or Jarvis reaching the full senior Ireland team is debatable (though they can still develop). I get the sense that this is more of a position where two players may have used Connacht as an option as they weren't getting the salary/opportunity at Ospreys/Blues that they feel they were entitled to and those clubs didn't think Connacht would, dare I say it, waste an NIQ allocation on a squad player.

In reality, these kind of debates can easily be resolved by making all unions register 2 international teams (whether it is senior and u20 or senior and 'a') with the IRB prior to the start of each year and any player called up to play for one of those registered teams can check the list to see if it will be binding. (it doesn't sound as if should be this complicated)

snoopster wrote:

Griff wrote:Snoopster, I agree that that makes sense. However, why is there even an argument, or why does this thread even exist, if there wasn't something in this story? I reckon the IRB must have let those nations with no A-teams declare the U20s as their second side for eligibility purposes.

Or someone at the WRU badly messed up and just assumed it was fine to nominate the Under 20s as the next senior side? If the IRB had already told Wales it could do that, then it seems odd no one from Wales has handed the email over to the press.

However, if Wales weren't told something was wrong then you can't fault them for assuming everything's ok.

I agree with you here Greybeard. Surely at some level some sort of document or tick box needs to be sent back to then IRB detailing which two sides you're nominating. We're not the only nation without an A team so there must be some mechanism in place at the IRB so that they know which teams are representative for which nations. E.g. I think I'm right in saying that New Zealand Maori COULD be classed as representative, but it's not as they choose the Junior All Blacks (New Zealand A) as their second team instead. The IRB would need to know that at some level to do the necessary monitoring so that players are not breaking the rules, etc. Therefore, I'd imagine that they would have needed Wales to do the same. Otherwise, it's a bit of an administrative nightmare and a farce!

True, each Union must inform the iRB of their senior sides.

I think the iRB are at fault here for not making things fully clear. The regulations say the Union has to tell the IRB what the senior and next senior sides are called. Probably because you don't say Ireland 'A', England 'A', Argentina 'A', instead you say "Wolfhounds, Saxons and Jaguars", so the iRB needs to know the name.

There is nothing to say you must have two senior sides, but there's nothing to say the opposite either, so the WRU probably just took the regs at face value, filled in "Wales, Wales U-20" and thought "job done".

As with any set of regulations, once they get big enough, they become self contradictory and full of loopholes.

To be clear, I don't think the WRU are pulling a fast one here, nor the IRFU. My opinion is from reading the regs I can see the iRB ruling in favour of the IRFU, that's all.

And once they decide what their ruling is, I can see them reissuing the regulations in clearer wording.

greybeard wrote:True, each Union must inform the iRB of their senior sides.

I think the iRB are at fault here for not making things fully clear. The regulations say the Union has to tell the IRB what the senior and next senior sides are called. Probably because you don't say Ireland 'A', England 'A', Argentina 'A', instead you say "Wolfhounds, Saxons and Jaguars", so the iRB needs to know the name.

There is nothing to say you must have two senior sides, but there's nothing to say the opposite either, so the WRU probably just took the regs at face value, filled in "Wales, Wales U-20" and thought "job done".

As with any set of regulations, once they get big enough, they become self contradictory and full of loopholes.

To be clear, I don't think the WRU are pulling a fast one here, nor the IRFU. My opinion is from reading the regs I can see the iRB ruling in favour of the IRFU, that's all.

And once they decide what their ruling is, I can see them reissuing the regulations in clearer wording.

I agree with everything you posted. but my understanding having read up on these situations previously is that Each nation must inform the IRB of their first and second teams and Wales have nominated Wales and Wales U20 to the IRB.
Now regardless of whether you call your second team Baby Blacks, the Muppets, Junior Springboks, Jaguars, France U20, the Kiwis, the Kangeroos, the tackle bag holders of indeed Ireland A, the fact remains their the countries nominated second team.
Whats to stop Wales renaming the Wales u20 to Wales A? What difference will it really make? As long as the Union abides by the rules of any competition that team enters.

greybeard wrote:
However, if Wales weren't told something was wrong then you can't fault them for assuming everything's ok.

Not if they told the IRB that they were nominating the Under 20s (which I assume they must have done, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue but a repeat of the South African mess up with the Emerging Boks a few years ago)

Peopel are getting hung up about this definition of SENIOR, the regs say that the next senior side followed by the 7's side, here in Wales that's the full international team then the U20's followed by the 7's, 3 ranks all qualifying teams.

and the question is whether that's allowed or not

ospreylian wrote:Peopel are getting hung up about this definition of SENIOR, the regs say that the next senior side followed by the 7's side, here in Wales that's the full international team then the U20's followed by the 7's, 3 ranks all qualifying teams.

Ospreylian, the definition of Senior is hugely important. Its the next "senior side" and it is obviously a massive talking point whether a team who plays age level rugby can be considered senior.

There is nothing to say you cant nominate your u20 team to be your second nominated team, also there is nothing that says you have to call your second team an A team, the respective Union simply nominated which team they considers their second team.

The crux of Irelands argument seems to be that the players involved claim they were never told that playing for the U20 team meant giving up any claim to potentially playing for Ireland.
The case of Isa Nacewa could be vital here because he was basically lies to and tricked into playing for Fiji yet despite this the IRB insist he can now only play for Fiji having represented them already.
These players have represented a Welsh senior team under IRB rules and havent been tricked or lied to, their simply pleading stupidity, so I'd assume the IRB would block their bid.

Or whether a team that is entered into a competion called the Junior World Cup can be considered senior

:run2:

AlynDavies wrote:There is nothing to say you cant nominate your u20 team to be your second nominated team, also there is nothing that says you have to call your second team an A team, the respective Union simply nominated which team they considers their second team.

So Wales could have nominated their ladies team as their second senior side?

Seems like petty intercine warfare between the Unions with the two kids (the are U20s, right?) stuck in the middle as supposed grown-ups fight over their carcasses. Both the WRU and IRFU would have to know this would end up a fight, and should therefore be ashamed. Not for nothing, their parents should be out there protecting their kids from these vultures as well.

This is simply one more example illustrating why the "Nationality Issue' needs to be reconciled once and for all. Grandparents nationality should never evven be on the radar screen in this kind of thing.

greybeard wrote:

AlynDavies wrote:There is nothing to say you cant nominate your u20 team to be your second nominated team, also there is nothing that says you have to call your second team an A team, the respective Union simply nominated which team they considers their second team.

So Wales could have nominated their ladies team as their second senior side?

Clearly not because rugby is divided by gender once children reach comprehensive school age.

I guess the real sad issue is neither of these players will be good enough for Wales or Ireland, if they had any chance of making it there is no way they would of left the Ospreys and Blues for a team like Connaght (no offence to any fans of theirs).

AlynDavies wrote:

greybeard wrote:

AlynDavies wrote:There is nothing to say you cant nominate your u20 team to be your second nominated team, also there is nothing that says you have to call your second team an A team, the respective Union simply nominated which team they considers their second team.

So Wales could have nominated their ladies team as their second senior side?

Clearly not because rugby is divided by gender once children reach comprehensive school age.

Not every country in the world that takes part in rugby has comprehensive schools

greybeard wrote:[Not every country in the world that takes part in rugby has comprehensive schools

comprehensive school "age"
I believe the split takes part when children are 11 or 12? If anyone can correct me either way I'd be grateful.

I don't know what the issue here is.

(a) Wales claiming that their U20's is their second "senior" team cannot work because, put simply, no one older than 20 can play for that team. Therefore it's impossible to call it a senior team.

(b) The team that the Welsh u20's had to play, if they were a senior side, had to also be a senior side. France A played in the Churchill cup last year and therefore it's almost certain that France A are the French's second senior side.

I agree with everyone saying the rule needs to be clarified though. Lack of certainty and ambiguity is never good. But based on the wording of the regulation and the fact that France have a second senior team that are not their U20 squad it's a certainty the IRB will favour the IRFU here. I wouldn't get worked up over it if I were Welsh though, unless these boys show some potential that was missed by the Blues and Ospreys it's incredibly unlikely they'll get anywhere near an Irish jersey.

AlynDavies wrote: These players have represented a Welsh senior team under IRB rules and havent been tricked or lied to, their simply pleading stupidity, so I'd assume the IRB would block their bid.

This is the crux of Irelands argument.

Ive actually been scouring the IRB rules and regulations on second teams and eligibility.



6. How do I know which team is a Union’s next senior fifteen-a-side
National Representative Team?
There should be no uncertainty over which team constitutes a Union’s
next fifteen-a-side senior National Representative Team since, as from
January 1 2000, Unions are required to notify the IRB of the name of its
nominated next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team. The
team nominated remains the Union’s next fifteen-a-side senior National
Representative Team for a period of 4 years. The identity of a Union’s
next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team can be verified
with the Union concerned and/or the IRB.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically provided Wales have told the IRB that the U20 team is their A side their in the clear. It is stated in another area that your second team cant be younger than the age of majority which the IRB states is 18.
So it would seem an under 20 team is fine.
Thirdly and finally it's also made pretty clear than players must know if that players must take it upon themselves to find out if they have declared themselves to a country as a result of accepting an invitation to represent a national or second team.
However while it says players have to find this out themselves before accepting an invitation to represent a senior team it also says the union must make the player aware of it.
So it seems that Loxton and Jarvis must somehow prove ignorance of a situation in which most of Wales is aware that the U20 is Wales second team?

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/060924gfirbregulation8_883.pdf

It's a bloody long read though!

AlynDavies wrote:So basically provided Wales have told the IRB that the U20 team is their A side their in the clear.

Only if the iRB accepting the U-20 team as the next senior side wasn't an administrative error.

Alyn, the Irish "get out" clause appears to be this one (from your link)

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
(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.
8.4 For the purposes of this Regulation, a Player is deemed to have played for the senior National Representative Sevens Team of a Union if he is
selected to represent a Union’s senior National Representative Sevens
Team in an International Match against the senior National Representative
Sevens Team of another Union and is present at the Match played by that
Team either as a replacement, substitute or playing member of that Team
and has, at the time of the Match, reached the age of majority.

If France U20 wasn't France A, they haven't played against a qualifying opponent.

Kiwireddevil wrote:If France U20 wasn't France A, they haven't played against a qualifying opponent.

Kiwi your a genius!
Ok so basically provided that Loxton or Jarvis havent played against another countries national or second team while playing for Wales U20 and the declaration form (page 108) they would of signed prior to playing for Wales U20 doesnt make them ineligible they can play for Ireland?


Why the hell am i doing this.....

Ok Loxton has played 9 games (in 2 years) in the U20 6 nations, so i would gather he's played against France U20, as he's only missed 1 games in 2 seasons and we would of played France twice!
http://www.wru.co.uk/10829.php

Ok and Jarvis has played 8 times for Wales u20 in 6 nations games. Including all 5 last year, so he must of played against France too.
http://www.wru.co.uk/13717.php

Well I'm glad we got that sorted...

I wasn't aware how many U20 games they'd played (sorry, there's only so much effort I was willing to put into a non-NZ debate ). The original story quoted in the OP was talking about France A/France U20 being the deciding factor so I presume all the other teams the U20s played against were countries with A teams, meaning that their U20s weren't.

There's an awful lot of legalese in those clauses too.

France A won the 2009 Nations Cup.

Kiwireddevil wrote:I wasn't aware how many U20 games they'd played (sorry, there's only so much effort I was willing to put into a non-NZ debate ). The original story quoted in the OP was talking about France A/France U20 being the deciding factor so I presume all the other teams the U20s played against were countries with A teams, meaning that their U20s weren't.

There's an awful lot of legalese in those clauses too.

No, no mate, i wasn't intending to be sarcastic, I did actually overlook the clause you posted.
The U20 caps only count IF Wales U20 had played a national team or a designated second team from another nation otherwise the caps wouldnt tie the players in, because only an IRB sanctioned fixture against a national team or designated second team can tie a player in.

So the question is did France change their designated second team from U20 to France A in the Nations Cup or did they not, because if they did then the caps against France U20 wouldnt count and both players would be free to play for Ireland!
However this would only be the case if neither player played in the 2009 U20 game against France which preceeded the 2009 Nations Cup.

Jesus no wonder the Irish are confused.



You know what f*ck it, I'm going to crack open a can of Stella and watch the Wales 2005 grand slam DVD instead...

Please. If they were going to try to trick anyone into committing to Wales, it would have been Toby Faletau.

If Loxton and Jarvis being NIQ is a real issue with pushing Connacht beyond limits, then how can they have just signed Henry Fa'afili?

The issue was wasting two NIQ spots on fringe players, not on how many spots they have left.

In the end the IRFU have allowed Connacht to sign them as IQ. If they're not NIQ then Connacht probably won't offer them contract extensions when the time comes.

greybeard wrote:The issue was wasting two NIQ spots on fringe players, not on how many spots they have left.

In the end the IRFU have allowed Connacht to sign them as IQ. If they're not NIQ then Connacht probably won't offer them contract extensions when the time comes.

As I said it's probably not going to matter, if either were really that good a prospect then they wouldnt of been released from blues and Ospreys.