How long will Steven Shingler case drag on for?

How long will it be before the IRB present their cased on Steven Shingler?

This isn't for people to reopen the debate on his eligibility again I think that's been done enough but I was just wondering how long it will be before this case, which is good for no on, is over.

You'd hope it would be in the next few weeks as there's a chance Scotland may want to pick him in their match day squad for the first 6N match.

Something like this should be sorted within a couple of weeks for the good of the player involved!

Does anybody know if he is allowed to train with Scotland while this is being dealt with?

He will be with his club

As long as it takes for him to wonder how he could have ever been so silly and realize that his heart was with Wales all along

Unfortunately this seems like something which will drag on forever unless the Players Association gets involved to pressure for a solution.

Not sure this is true, but did I hear the IRB is interested, not because of the player, but because they are concerned about national qualification rules?

Let's change the rules and make them easier to enforce.

1) You are tied to a country once you get a full cap.

2) Residency rule increased to six years.

3) Get rid of grandparents from eligibility rule.

I think it will be better for everyone involved once it's sorted out and hopefully in time for the six nations

Cymroglan wrote:Let's change the rules and make them easier to enforce.

1) You are tied to a country once you get a full cap.

2) Residency rule increased to six years.

3) Get rid of grandparents from eligibility rule.

Agree with 3) and almost with 2), it should be five years rather than six or three. It takes five to get full citizenship if you're an immigrant therefore the same should go for rugby eligibility.

Not sure about 1), it sounds fairly straightforward but at the same time I think the WRU should shoulder some responsibility and just bring in an A side. They did say a couple of seasons back that there were designs to reintroduce the A's in Wales before lapsing into complete silence ever since...

It shouldn't take very long to reach a judgement on Shingler's eligibility - the deciding factor seems to be whether the France U20 team was properly considered their second senior side, and that should be easy enough for the IRB to clarify (I don't want to guess which way this judgement will go, because of the occasional presence of a France A side).

The issue of Shingler's non-signing of a declaration of eligibility shouldn't be an issue with regard to whether he is committed to Wales (although might end up with a fine for the WRU for not getting the correct forms signed and submitted for the match), and I can't see how he can argue he wasn't notified by the WRU that he was committing himself to Wales since he's arguing that he told them he wanted to keep his options open.

The eligibility rule is a bit of a mess at the moment because of the description of 'second senior' side in the wording. This means (for example) an England U20 player is not committing to England regardless of who he plays against, and a Wales U20 player is not committing for Wales if he plays against England, Ireland or Italy but may well be if he plays against France.

Much more clear if the rule was changed so that you are tied to a country if you represent them in any U20 match (noting football ties players by representing the U21s, so is fairly similar).

dummy_half wrote:It shouldn't take very long to reach a judgement on Shingler's eligibility - the deciding factor seems to be whether the France U20 team was properly considered their second senior side, and that should be easy enough for the IRB to clarify (I don't want to guess which way this judgement will go, because of the occasional presence of a France A side).

The issue of Shingler's non-signing of a declaration of eligibility shouldn't be an issue with regard to whether he is committed to Wales (although might end up with a fine for the WRU for not getting the correct forms signed and submitted for the match), and I can't see how he can argue he wasn't notified by the WRU that he was committing himself to Wales since he's arguing that he told them he wanted to keep his options open.

The eligibility rule is a bit of a mess at the moment because of the description of 'second senior' side in the wording. This means (for example) an England U20 player is not committing to England regardless of who he plays against, and a Wales U20 player is not committing for Wales if he plays against England, Ireland or Italy but may well be if he plays against France.

Much more clear if the rule was changed so that you are tied to a country if you represent them in any U20 match (noting football ties players by representing the U21s, so is fairly similar).

I believe they always had one up until 2010?

Hypothetical question. Do you think Shingler would switch back to Wales should he be named in their 6 Nations squad?

That would be a dilemma for the Lad, would it not?

Jim

I was hoping England would include him in the EPS as well, as he has English eligibility through his father. Just to throw another spanner in the works, not because I know much about him as a player.

I'm guessing, since he was born there and played for them at age group level, he'd pick Wales if given the choice now, but it seems he's a few years away from any potential full Wales cap and so the opportunity to represent Scotland is his best option at this moment (must be a good boost for his earning potential when he is capped).