ThinkingGame says...

@melkdave

Bosman didn't have a contract. That was the whole point. His contract had expired, but his club refused to release his registration to them until their valuation had been met, and in the meantime, reduced Bosman's wages since he had dropped out of their first team. That's why the ruling only applies to players with less than 6 months left on an existing contract, since in order to re-register during the FIFA windows (transfer windows), they need a negotiated contract and registration valid when the window opens. And what on Earth any of that has to do with international eligibility, I don't know.

Which is more farcical, playing age grade rugby for one nation and then senior for another? Or being told playing in one game will tie you to one nation, refusing to listen, and then complaining to the iRB that they have applied their regulations correctly and this upsets you?

Posted 16:55 10th March 2012

Ramage says...

@Genghis you will find there was an A team at the time. The problem is compounded by the fact the second team is a different team for Nations depending on what team they have. Some have an A team some have an under 20 team and over the years we have had U21 U19 U18 teams and just which is the second team whilst usually stated can be confusing. Nations do state the rankings on their teams because it decides who has the first pick.

@maria14 a correction for you the Maori has never been a second team in NZ and is usually, despite how good it is, well down the National rankings. It would also create a very difficult problem if it was ranked higher. To pick a team based on race and then deny those players the right to play for another country, if they qualify, would not be acceptable in world rugby. NZ has had various teams at Number 2 NZA, Junior All Blacks. However now I believe the U20 would like Wales be rated as the 2nd NZ team.

Posted 22:07 09th March 2012

ruggafella says...

Michty, I don't really see how common sense dictates he should play for Scotland. Is nationality something that can be discarded if you've been overtaken by better players in your position? He was Welsh through and through (I could cite his playing for Wales at every age grade, his statements saying he wanted to play for Wales and this was why he wanted more gametime at LI, choosing to appear on national adverts declaring himself the next Welsh 10, where he was raised, his accent etc.), up until the beginning of 2012 when he didn't get any interest from Wales but did from Scotland.

There isn't an argument that he didn't know he was making himself ineligible for other nations. The general rugby watching public in Wales knew (or at least I and others who have no other affiliations with the WRU knew) that Wales U20 were the nominated 2nd Representative Team. Wales got hurt when they lost Loxton and Jarvis to Connacht over this, and so they tightened up on this. It doesn't stand to reason that the players weren't aware.

Posted 17:04 09th March 2012

melkdave says...

A sad decision imo but as ive explained in an earlier thread on this subject.PLAYING FOR WALES U20s DOESNT TIE A PLAYER TO WALES

The salient point is that during the U20s 6Ns championship of 2011.The french U20s side was their designated 2nd represenative team

Thus when those two teams played eachother as designated teams BOTH technically where A teams and thus in theory they played full international rugby.This fullfullied the IRB rules requirments for BOTH rule 8 and 9.No other U20s match has ever had that situation and most probably never will.That common sense wasnt appield here is sad but i guess they belive rules are rules

The good thing that seems to be comming out of this is the farce of a U20s side being international represenative is going to end.I hope that this doesent go to court but atm i dont see what else Shingler can do.As to be frank i dont feel the WRU/ IRB has a strong case under EU law .FIFA/ UEFA had a much stronger case against Bosman as that player had a legally binding contract of employment ect and they lost

Posted 14:48 09th March 2012

Bones7 says...

I want to know whether he was made aware of this before the WRU came into the changing room before the game to inform the players of the situation and if so whether he knew that not signing that document didn't actually mean the rule didn't apply. If not then it doesn't really give the lad much choice as I can't think of many players who would then back out of an U20s game minutes before kickoff. I am tempted to say 'tough'. Just because he isn't in Wales plans now doesn't mean he wouldn't be in another couple of years, he's still a pretty young player. Not signing the confirmation document however would also suggest he's been thinking of playing for Scotland the whole time and as jontheref says he was asked to play for Wales and I'm sure he was delighted to do so having not been asked by anyone else. It does seem a little unfair that playing for many other U20s sides wouldn't trigger the same rule although on the other hand it would be unfair for Wales if they can only capure half the number of players of other nations.

Posted 09:48 09th March 2012

ThinkingGame says...

What is the problem? He was told, and chose not to listen. He also chose not to play for Scotland's U20 team. He was fully in control of which nation he was eligible for, at every step of the process, and picked one which he now doesn't want to play for.

International representation is not a career move, it is earned by being the best in your country. Having sympathy with the 5th best player in a country currently enjoying a few choices in that position because he should be allowed to play for a country without those riches is absurd. The location of your birth, and compliance with iRB regulations decides your eligibility, not your age and potential. Many age grade representatives for NZ have come and gone without budging Mehrtens, Spencer and Carter. The fact they are better than most other 10s around the world doesn't give them a right to ignore the fact they once chose NZ, even if they do have eligibility for other countries.

How would it be more fair for countries who can't make a success, financial or sporting, out of an A side, to have one less side to act as a developer for the national side? Surely the best outcome for Shingler is to work hard to be better than Priestland, Hook, Biggar, Tovey, S Jones and M Morgan? If he can't, then why do Scotland want him anyway?

Posted 01:15 09th March 2012

makemehappy says...

I think we all agree that this is an idiotic decision. The WRU aren't remotely interested in Shingler. The Scarlets weren't for god's sake. Hopeully this can be heard in a European Court and will be a straighforward employment issue.

Posted 21:39 08th March 2012

Michtymauler says...

This lad is a gifted, exciting and natural rugby player and because ridiculous beuracracy he can forget playing internationally. Foreign players will come and go for all the 6 nations teams and they'll play international rugby by qualifying through residency rules. Toby Fali whatsisname will tell his pals to come and live in Wales and get a run about in a red jersey but because of the idiots in the IRB and the stubbornness of the WRU Shingler will be watching from the stands!

It's not only Shingler who loses out, it's genuine rugby fans! You wouldn't want this nonsense to happen to any player.

The WRU won the decison on principle however they should do the right and decent thing and release him to play for Scotland.

Posted 19:35 08th March 2012

jimbosim says...

He is Welsh, he was made and developed in Wales, Wales do not have an A side. There is no argument here. He does not qualify simple?

Posted 17:32 08th March 2012

porridge_time says...

Hope the IRB and WRU are happy with themselves. They basically have cut the aspirations of a young player hopefully heading to the full test arena short in it's tracks.

Posted 16:54 08th March 2012