Scotland - Six Nations 2012

[Seaton]

Can I throw a further spanner in the works?

A team can only change it's 'second team' once every 4 years, and I mind France had an A team in 2008. Anyone know if this was registered as their second side that year?

 

[Peat]

Can I throw a further spanner in the works?

A team can only change it's 'second team' once every 4 years, and I mind France had an A team in 2008. Anyone know if this was registered as their second side that year?

I believe their U20 team was the last one registered, but the presence of the A team might be said to cast reasonable doubt on whether that registration should have been accepted.

What an absolute mess :lol: I know the last time this came up my suggestion that barring U20 teams from being counted as Senior wasn't particularly popular, but it would have prevented this!

Can I suggest the mods seperate this into The Sad Case of Steven Shingler and Scotland - Six Nations 2012? At the moment, anyone wanting to laugh at how gash Scotland are rather bogged down in this.

 

[Seaton]

Can I suggest the mods seperate this into The Sad Case of Steven Shingler and Scotland - Six Nations 2012? At the moment, anyone wanting to laugh at how gash Scotland are rather bogged down in this.

Ssshhhhhhhhhhhssssssss

For the record, I dinnae agree with Shingler 'opting' for Scotland.

Lord knows that by the time we win the world cup in 2015 there isn't going to be a sinle Scot in the team.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

If the IRB had rule on this before, then there'e not much Scotland or Shingler can do.
But what a load of nonsense that a U20 side can be appointed as a second team... And notice that I'm saying this knowing that France does it as well.
Age grade sides are age grade (inb4 thanks cptn obvious etc). And age grade sides don't rule out qualification for another country, end of.

 

[Peat]

Ssshhhhhhhhhhhssssssss

For the record, I dinnae agree with Shingler 'opting' for Scotland.

Lord knows that by the time we win the world cup in 2015 there isn't going to be a sinle Scot in the team.

You've still picking Parks and Morrison! The informed public have a right to laugh.

 

[Seaton]

You've still picking Parks and Morrison! The informed public have a right to laugh.

"You've"?

Obviously not one of the informed members of the public then!

Some constructed posts from the Scottish side of things:

"1) "Steven has confirmed to Scottish Rugby that he declined to sign a declaration from the WRU that he was committed solely to representing Wales at senior level." - If Wales were asking players to sign a doc, then that suggests that the other U20 teams were not 2nd international senior sides as Wales would not have needed the doc had they been. Wales were trying plan B to secure talent, and given Steven didn't sign it, then fair enough.
2) "Scottish Rugby believes we have acted in good faith in this matter and have also taken cognisance of an IRB ruling last year concerning two players who played for Wales under-20 against France under-20 in 2010 who now play for Connacht and are eligible for Ireland." - good that they've done their homework here in case history, but not so good is the word "believes", which offers some form of doubt. In a statement they were certain about, I would have presented a fact, rather than made it seem like it was our opinion. Good faith also states 'we trusted the player', rather than 'we checked'. It reveals doubt in their minds.
3) "We are liaising with the IRB on this matter." - this answers demosthenes' question, and it seems they are now talking to the IRB, rather than checking before the team was announced. I can't understand why this didn't happen before. Guessing Wales was going to be a bit miffed, I'd have gone all out to check and double check with the IRB that we were in the right. To check NOW seems a little risky, and late. "

"
Stepping back from the technicalities of this.

The principle is that once a player has played SENIOR representative Rugby for one Country he is not eligible to play for another. Players capped at age grade are not normally tied - and this is true for almost every sport.

So far so good.

Senior representative Rugby is defined as 1) the full team (obviously) 2) the Sevens side (fair enough) and 3) the second most senior side (or words to that effect)

Herein lies the issue.

This second senior side regulation exists, I understand, principally because Tier 1 nations often play a weakened/experimental/fringe Senior side - often called an A side - when playing lesser nations, with additional ad-hoc fixtures against each other. The IRB rules that these fixtures should be regarded as representative SENIOR internaional matches and therefore should tie the players involved. This is probable fair enough, players playing in, say, Scotland A v Canada should probably be tied on both sides.

The IRB introduced a nomination process in 2000 that requires member Unions to nominate their second senior representative side (for a period of 4 years) because 1) many teams are not called A (e.g. Wolfhounds, Saxons, Jaguars) or 2) it exists alongside multiple senior representative sides (e.g. NZ A, NZ Maori, Presidents XV, etc.).

This was done for clarity. It was (surely) never the intent of this regulation to tie the eligibility of players competing in regularly scheduled age-grade tournaments such as the U20 6N or the Junior RWC.

Going back to the complexities.

Wales folded their U20 side in 2003 due to funds/politics and therefore nominated this as their second most senior side. They argue that this is enough to tie the player.

However, there were two further complexities added to the mix in that which were brought up in the case of Loxton and Jarvis the players recently signed by Connacht as IQ players who played U20s for Wales in 2010:

1. Did Wales U20 play another second most senior side, in effect creating an A International; and

2. Were the players informed of this and/or agree to this tieing them.

On point 2 the SRU statement seems to suggest that Shingler was not informed and/or did not agree to this. On point 1 it is not clear that France U20 were France's second senior side even though they had no A fixtures in 2011. If the nomination was for a 4 year period from 2008 then it was still their second side in 2011 as well."

 

[Peat]

"You've"?

Obviously not one of the informed members of the public then!

...

Wales folded their U20 side in 2003 due to funds/politics and therefore nominated this as their second most senior side.

They nominated their U20s after folding them? That's a neat trick. I think I hear the tinkle of stones in glass houses my skirt wearing friend

 

[TRF_Cymro]

"You've"?

Obviously not one of the informed members of the public then!

Some constructed posts from the Scottish side of things:

"1) "Steven has confirmed to Scottish Rugby that he declined to sign a declaration from the WRU that he was committed solely to representing Wales at senior level." - If Wales were asking players to sign a doc, then that suggests that the other U20 teams were not 2nd international senior sides as Wales would not have needed the doc had they been. Wales were trying plan B to secure talent, and given Steven didn't sign it, then fair enough.
2) "Scottish Rugby believes we have acted in good faith in this matter and have also taken cognisance of an IRB ruling last year concerning two players who played for Wales under-20 against France under-20 in 2010 who now play for Connacht and are eligible for Ireland." - good that they've done their homework here in case history, but not so good is the word "believes", which offers some form of doubt. In a statement they were certain about, I would have presented a fact, rather than made it seem like it was our opinion. Good faith also states 'we trusted the player', rather than 'we checked'. It reveals doubt in their minds.
3) "We are liaising with the IRB on this matter." - this answers demosthenes' question, and it seems they are now talking to the IRB, rather than checking before the team was announced. I can't understand why this didn't happen before. Guessing Wales was going to be a bit miffed, I'd have gone all out to check and double check with the IRB that we were in the right. To check NOW seems a little risky, and late. "

"
Stepping back from the technicalities of this.

The principle is that once a player has played SENIOR representative Rugby for one Country he is not eligible to play for another. Players capped at age grade are not normally tied - and this is true for almost every sport.

So far so good.

Senior representative Rugby is defined as 1) the full team (obviously) 2) the Sevens side (fair enough) and 3) the second most senior side (or words to that effect)

Herein lies the issue.

This second senior side regulation exists, I understand, principally because Tier 1 nations often play a weakened/experimental/fringe Senior side - often called an A side - when playing lesser nations, with additional ad-hoc fixtures against each other. The IRB rules that these fixtures should be regarded as representative SENIOR internaional matches and therefore should tie the players involved. This is probable fair enough, players playing in, say, Scotland A v Canada should probably be tied on both sides.

The IRB introduced a nomination process in 2000 that requires member Unions to nominate their second senior representative side (for a period of 4 years) because 1) many teams are not called A (e.g. Wolfhounds, Saxons, Jaguars) or 2) it exists alongside multiple senior representative sides (e.g. NZ A, NZ Maori, Presidents XV, etc.).

This was done for clarity. It was (surely) never the intent of this regulation to tie the eligibility of players competing in regularly scheduled age-grade tournaments such as the U20 6N or the Junior RWC.

Going back to the complexities.

Wales folded their U20 side in 2003 due to funds/politics and therefore nominated this as their second most senior side. They argue that this is enough to tie the player.

However, there were two further complexities added to the mix in that which were brought up in the case of Loxton and Jarvis the players recently signed by Connacht as IQ players who played U20s for Wales in 2010:

1. Did Wales U20 play another second most senior side, in effect creating an A International; and

2. Were the players informed of this and/or agree to this tieing them.

On point 2 the SRU statement seems to suggest that Shingler was not informed and/or did not agree to this. On point 1 it is not clear that France U20 were France's second senior side even though they had no A fixtures in 2011. If the nomination was for a 4 year period from 2008 then it was still their second side in 2011 as well."

Pile of Tosh!

Shingler was informed like all the other Wales U20 prior the 6 Nations last year. After the Jarvis / Loxton nonsense the WRU ensured all the players knew about this. Shingler knew and that is fact. The WRU have released the statement which I posted in this thread confirming the stories that Shingler was aware of the situation.

Also it was the A side that disappeared because of funding. Welsh rugby was in financial dire straights after over spending in clubs / big wigs and Henry and Hansens wages.

 

[j'nuh]

The eligibility rules are a mess. If Shingler can't play for Scotland, but Waldrom/Hape can play for England, something has gone wrong. *Solidarity with the Scottish in getting their player.*

Shingler was informed like all the other Wales U20 prior the 6 Nations last year.

And despite not signing the form, Wales chose to play him.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The eligibility rules are a mess. If Shingler can't play for Scotland, but Waldrom/Hape can play for England, something has gone wrong. *Solidarity with the Scottish in getting their player.*

Neither Waldrom nor Hape played for the designated 'A' team of New Zealand though.

Born and raised in Wales, I'd say it was Wales wanting to get their player

 

[TRF_Cymro]

The eligibility rules are a mess. If Shingler can't play for Scotland, but Waldrom/Hape can play for England, something has gone wrong. *Solidarity with the Scottish in getting their player.*


And despite not signing the form, Wales chose to play him.

Huh ... what are you on about.

He did not object to singing the paper and was happy to play. Wales player end of.

 

[dullonien]

Those are all well constructed and well written points LordHope, but ultimately some of them are a bit off.

- The IRB require a nomination of a 'second most seniour side', it's not optional. Therefore as Wales had to ditch the A-side for financial reasons, the U20's was the only possible choice for them. Whether or not it's fair when other players aren't bound by U20 commitments is another matter, and something I don't agree with, but that's the IRB for you!

- I think your getting slightly confused regarding the 4 year thing. This rule appears to be there to stop unions from chopping and changing every year. If, like France, their A side was abandoned, then this cannot then be their nominated side for the next four years, as one doesn't exist. News articles have made it quite clear that both Wales and Frances nominatd sides were the U20's in that year.

- While the Loxton and Jarvis case does complicate things a little. I think the IRB were lenient on that occasion because the WRU had f**ked up and failed to inform either player that playing for them would tie them to Wales. It wasn't fair for the players to get punished for something the union got wrong. Common sense imo. Shingler was informed, and I highly doubt the form means anything in the eyes of the IRB. The form wasn't some tactic by the WRU to tie in further players, it was probably something the brought in to try and avoid a repeat of the Loxton/Jarvis debacle (although it didn't work, as they failed to enforce it).

It's all a bit of a mess, I agree. And this is down to the IRB overcomplicating things. It doesn't look like the WRU did anything wrong this time. Ultimately if playing for Scotland was always in SHinglers plans, then he should have checked before playing. If 18 y/o+ is old enough to be sent to prison to a crime, then it's also old enough for players to understand the consequences of their actions in this regard.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I reckon that if Wales and Scotland had both offered him a place in their 6N squad he would have chosen Wales, but they didn't so he's gone with Scotland.

 

[j'nuh]

Neither Waldrom nor Hape played for the designated 'A' team of New Zealand though.

But that's why the rules are a mess. Hape has played many internationals in league for NZ, whilst, well, you know the deal with Waldrom. Shingler is probably more Scottish than they are English. U20s should not be considered A teams. If a team doesn't want to field an A team, that's their choice. But tying down youngsters in their infancy (as far as a rugby career goes) isn't fair on the players, or on other nations.

Born and raised in Wales, I'd say it was Wales wanting to get their player

True, but let the guy decide for himself!

If 18 y/o+ is old enough to be sent to prison to a crime, then it's also old enough for players to understand the consequences of their actions in this regard.

Considering how long it took Ben Morgan to decide, and how much empathy people seem to have for that, surely young players should be given this scope. Had Morgan played an U20 game for England, I wouldn't feel bitter if he chose to play for Wales...

 

[ZeFrenchy]

Those are all well constructed and well written points LordHope, but ultimately some of them are a bit off.

- The IRB require a nomination of a 'second most seniour side', it's not optional. Therefore as Wales had to ditch the A-side for financial reasons, the U20's was the only possible choice for them. Whether or not it's fair when other players aren't bound by U20 commitments is another matter, and something I don't agree with, but that's the IRB for you!

- I think your getting slightly confused regarding the 4 year thing. This rule appears to be there to stop unions from chopping and changing every year. If, like France, their A side was abandoned, then this cannot then be their nominated side for the next four years, as one doesn't exist. News articles have made it quite clear that both Wales and Frances nominatd sides were the U20's in that year.

- While the Loxton and Jarvis case does complicate things a little. I think the IRB were lenient on that occasion because the WRU had f**ked up and failed to inform either player that playing for them would tie them to Wales. It wasn't fair for the players to get punished for something the union got wrong. Common sense imo. Shingler was informed, and I highly doubt the form means anything in the eyes of the IRB. The form wasn't some tactic by the WRU to tie in further players, it was probably something the brought in to try and avoid a repeat of the Loxton/Jarvis debacle (although it didn't work, as they failed to enforce it).

It's all a bit of a mess, I agree. And this is down to the IRB overcomplicating things. It doesn't look like the WRU did anything wrong this time. Ultimately if playing for Scotland was always in SHinglers plans, then he should have checked before playing. If 18 y/o+ is old enough to be sent to prison to a crime, then it's also old enough for players to understand the consequences of their actions in this regard.

I agree with this post, especially in two things:
- Rules are to be respected. If you don't like a rule, change it, but don't disrespect it. Therefore, Shingler can't play for Scotland.
- The fact that a country can name their U20 side as their A side is nonsense.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

WELSH RUGBY UNION STATEMENT


The Welsh Rugby Union has today written to the IRB outlining the process followed to inform all players who represented Wales against France at U20 level in 2011 that their future potential international status was aligned only to selection for Wales at senior level.

The WRU again emphasised the process followed in relation to the selection of Welsh international squads at senior, U20's and Sevens are fully compliant with IRB regulations. As such all Welsh players can be assured of their international status once they have represented Wales in any of the teams relevant for Wales qualification.​

​

 

[Seaton]

They nominated their U20s after folding them? That's a neat trick. I think I hear the tinkle of stones in glass houses my skirt wearing friend

Not my work, quoting. Assuming it's a typo, would be concerned if it weren't!

Pile of Tosh!

Shingler was informed like all the other Wales U20 prior the 6 Nations last year. After the Jarvis / Loxton nonsense the WRU ensured all the players knew about this. Shingler knew and that is fact. The WRU have released the statement which I posted in this thread confirming the stories that Shingler was aware of the situation.

Also it was the A side that disappeared because of funding. Welsh rugby was in financial dire straights after over spending in clubs / big wigs and Henry and Hansens wages.

The posts acknowledged the WRU statement

On point 2 the SRU statement seems to suggest that Shingler was not informed and/or did not agree to this.

Obviously the or bit is the point I am indicating to.

And you say the whole thing is a pile of tosh? What about the bits that reflect lack of credibility in the SRU statements?

 

[dullonien]

Considering how long it took Ben Morgan to decide, and how much empathy people seem to have for that, surely young players should be given this scope. Had Morgan played an U20 game for England, I wouldn't feel bitter if he chose to play for Wales...

I wouldn't be atall bitter if Shingler does end up playing for Scotland. All I was really getting at there, was that he was old enough to check before taking to the field.

On point 2 the SRU statement seems to suggest that Shingler was not informed and/or did not agree to this.

If he didn't agree, then he shouldn't have played. Surely it's as simple as that? The WRU insist that they informed every player that if they played then they would be tied to Wales, what exactly is there to dispute?

 

[Seaton]

They nominated their U20s after folding them? That's a neat trick. I think I hear the tinkle of stones in glass houses my skirt wearing friend

Pile of Tosh!

Shingler was informed like all the other Wales U20 prior the 6 Nations last year. After the Jarvis / Loxton nonsense the WRU ensured all the players knew about this. Shingler knew and that is fact. The WRU have released the statement which I posted in this thread confirming the stories that Shingler was aware of the situation.

Also it was the A side that disappeared because of funding. Welsh rugby was in financial dire straights after over spending in clubs / big wigs and Henry and Hansens wages.

If he didn't agree, then he shouldn't have played. Surely it's as simple as that? The WRU insist that they informed every player that if they played then they would be tied to Wales, what exactly is there to dispute?

The point is there are contradictory statements. The SRU says he is eligible as he never (according to what Shingler has told them) signed the document that the WRU wanted the youngsters to sign that put it in print that he acknowledges that he will only be eligible for Wales from then on, and that any appearances by Shingler were made under the pretence he was eligible for senior caps from another union.

The WRU say all players were made aware that merely playing for the side would bind them.

Edit: error, keeps popping up with Cymro's post. Lovely weather in Swansea at the moment by the way.

 

[Draggs]

From the WRU's perspective, they put quite a bit of time and money into Shingler and understandably want some commitment for all of it. It's not really worth developing these players if they ponce off somewhere else when convenient.