Loose Pass

This week, we will mostly be concerning ourselves with nationality, bigmouths, odd listing quirks and Heineken Cup maths…

This week, we will mostly be concerning ourselves with nationality, bigmouths, odd listing quirks and Heineken Cup maths…

The issue of nationality – and the flexibility thereof – is getting to be a little tiresome. It's cropped up time and time again in your correspondent's assignments the past couple of weeks, with players deciding their national teams almost as lightly as choosing their clubs. In one case, the two went very much hand-in-hand.

While Japan's performances at the World Cup were laudable, it was a little irritating that the standout Japanese player was James Arlidge, who has about as much Japanese blood in him as a portion of fish and chips. Do you think he grew up on the fields of Auckland dreaming of the red and white jersey?

But the obvious case in point is that of Steven Shingler, whose attempt to defect to Scotland from Wales ended in failure early this week when the IRB ruled that his appearance for Wales U20 last year was binding.

Leaving aside the fact that the Welsh probably won't take too kindly to Shingler's move, the IRB, while ruling fairly on Shingler in our opinion, now needs to look at touching up the lines of nationality to make them less blurry.

Residency of three years is starting to be a little easy, as unions and young athletes become more and more adept at being able to look after each other when the athlete is younger – not least because more money is on offer to young athletes in domestic playing systems.

Furthermore, IRB regulations currently state that: “a player is tied to a country if he or she has played for the senior national fifteen-a-side national representative team, or the next senior national representative team, or the senior national representative Sevens team against opposition of the same designation.”

It turns out that the fateful match for Shingler against France was so fateful because both sides had declared the U20 team the 'next senior national representative team'. Were this not the case, Shingler would have been free to move.

But is that even right? Young men can vote at 18, but it seems they don't need to determine their nationality until much later. So apparently, Shingler grew up hoping to play international rugby for…. someone. And if the one didn't like him, he'd go to the other. Is that what people want in their national teams?

If a player makes an appearance in a national team aged over 18, he's there for life. End of story. It's about time this got cleared up.

Mourad Boujellal is getting tiresome. Toulon is also getting tiresome. Having thrown money around the world with the sort of abandon a baby might throw toys out of a pram, the team still sits one defeat away from not being in the playoff places and is hardly wowing neutrals with its brand of rugby – although the fights have become fewer.

Talking of toys out of prams, check this out for a referee rant: “I had my first refereeing sodomy in the [2010] semi-final against Clermont. I've just had my second tonight. It appeared to hurt the first time but it was just as bad this time. We will review the images not on Youtube but on YouPorn.”

Boujellal has now demanded an open hearing for the inevitable disciplinary case. How much bigger than the game does he expect to be?

It's almost comical, so over-the-top it goes, but it's also not. Toulon lost that particular game because they just could not create – their only try came from a monumental error of Clermont judgement at a restart. But then what's to expect when you get one of the world's best centres plugging a gap at scrum-half late in the game, as Matt Giteau was forced to do.

Fact is, Toulon still do not look like a team, however many stars are on the park. Bakkies Botha looks bemused by French rugby, David Smith is a shadow of his former self. Giteau is also off-colour while Simon Shaw just looks up for a fight. Most of the others just look pressured. Were Boujellal and his coaching staff to look at that team-bonding situation, they might find more change from referees.

In the meantime, expecting success just because you've spent a lot of cash is not the way to go in France – as many others have shown already.

A question from a reader this week: Why are some teamsheets so often listed 15-9 then 1-8?

We looked and looked. A definitive answer was hard to come by. But historian John Griffiths notes that: “The first Test played under rugby union rules was Scotland v England at Raeburn Place, Edinburgh, on March 27, 1871. The most detailed coverage of that match appeared in the next day's edition of The Scotsman. Nearly 24 inches (60 cm) of column space was given to the game and the teams were prominently displayed to show clearly the players' positions on the field. The English Twenty was listed first, with the backs preceding the forwards. The so-called “Scotch” Twenty was listed underneath in the same way.”

Interestingly though, Scotland did not wear numbers at all until 1933 (except one brief interlude in 1928) and England and Wales were the first teams to wear numbers in 1922.

By 1950 England, Scotland and Wales all had the numbers back to front. Full-back was 1, up to scrum-half at 7. Then the loosehead prop was 8 and so on through the pack. So 1-15 of then is the same as 15-9 and 1-8 now.

By 1961, all teams used the jersey numbers as they are today. But the teamsheet listing order remains the same as the 1950 order, hence today's numerical conundrum.

And finally, it's time to get the calculators out as Heineken Cup final qualification weekend is upon us. So here's the simple picture for you:

Already qualified: Munster and Leinster, for whom wins this weekend will guarantee a home quarter-final.

In the running: Cardiff, Edinburgh, Ulster, Clermont, Saracens, Ospreys, Biarritz, Toulouse, Harlequins.

Cardiff and Edinburgh both have home matches to win and a win for both will guarantee progress. A bonus-point win for Cardiff guarantees them top of the pool, but if Edinburgh grab that and Cardiff only grab the win, Edinburgh will top the pool and Cardiff will be a best runner-up. A loss for either is a big problem.

The Clermont-Ulster clash is a winner-take-all affair, with the loser a possible best runner-up depending on events in Cardiff and Edinburgh, and Connacht and Gloucester. If Clermont lose they are most likely out, while if Ulster lose they'll be nervous about Quins and Toulouse or Cardiff and Edinburgh.

Sarries ought to cruise past Treviso while the Ospreys and Biarritz need a bonus point win (against each other) and other results to go their way if they are to claim a runner-up spot.

Toulouse face an awkward trip to Gloucester, but win and they are certainly through, the same applies to Quins in Connacht. A loss for Quins spells probable doom, a loss for Toulouse and a Quins win probably means Toulouse are out too. A loss for both and Toulouse are through.