UPDATE: (1/12/11) The IRB have added their own response on the matter (see end of post).

IRB regulations seem to say that an U20 cap can only be binding if the opposition U20 team is also their nation’s second string (ie they don’t have an A team). So his cap against France may be the key. But now that the WRU might be using backup paper declarations, too. Does this mean the IRB regulations are unenforceable?

In response here is the SRU Press Release in full (highlighting is ours):

Scottish Rugby complies with International Rugby Board regulations and guidelines regarding the status of potentially Scotland qualified players.

Today we have named Steven Shingler in our squad for the opening two matches of the 2012 RBS 6 Nations Championship.

Steven’s mother was born in Dumfries and although he played for Wales under-20 against France under-20 last season, 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.

Steven has informed us that he made it clear that he wished to leave open his international eligibility as he was also eligible to represent Scotland and England as well as Wales.

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.

We are liaising with the IRB on this matter.

UPDATE: 12th January

The IRB have now responded with a preliminary indication that Shingler is tied to Wales, but there may be a course of appeal to the regulations committee that is available should the SRU or the player wish to pursue it. If I were the SRU I would investigate that as a possibility because a) we need all the players we can find and b) he won’t be all that welcome in Wales for a while I shouldn’t think.

Indeed by way of response the SRU has stated: “We remain fully supportive of the player and his sincere desire to represent Scotland and we intend to refer this matter to the IRB’s Regulations Committee in order that it can consider the case formally in accordance with IRB Regulation 2.”

The Current Regulations Committee in question is made up as follows: Peter Boyle (Chairman, IRE), Gerald Davies (WAL), Giancarlo Dondi (ITA), Tim Gresson (NZ), Oregan Hoskins (RSA), Jean-Pierre Lux (FRA), Bill Nolan (SCO) plus one independent member, Tim Gresson.

One vote each so far then? Or possible recusal. Three is a quorum.

It all will most likely come down to the fact that the IRB regulations talk about paperwork having to be submitted to register a player for one Union or another, but then seem to ignore it in terms of determining a player’s eligibility as they just have. If this is the case, why force them to sign the declaration? And shouldn’t you let them know not signing – as Shingler claims he did not – is still going to tie you anyway?

The match at the centre of the case appears to be this one, France U20 v Wales U20, in 2010, where Shingler played at fullback. He also played for the Wales team that beat Peter Wright’s U20 team 3-33 in the same tournament, a team that included Stuart Hogg (13), Mark Bennett (12) and Harry Leonard (10).

Hogg might have made it to the full Scotland squad; Shingler may not. That is now in the hands of the Regulations Committee.

The thing rugby fans most often herald as the reason they value rugby over any other team sport is the diversity inherent to the game. It draws on many different types of people to play it, but it also appeals to a wide variety of fans. The game is watched over by different types of official, they are in turn watched over by other officials with varying roles and responsibilities and there is an inherent respect for all involved.

We can tend to inveigle fans into ‘rugby’ talk, everyone gets caught fawning about how great the game is and ignores the faults within, but maybe this is one of the good things about the game? Cynicism can be brushed aside through debate and friendly discussion. Arguments rarely solve anything and more often than not argument is in cause of defending one’s own selfish claims.

Sure some may sneer at the “isn’t everything wonderful?!” approach of a movement like #RugbyUnited, but hey, at least someone is trying to create an international platform, right?

Through such conduits people can talk about issues facing the global game, and with a global public sphere it is possible to dialectically solve issues: or at least propose solutions.

Look at the ‘Save Our Scrums’ campaign started via talkSPORT’s rugby show, and spread throughout social media sites, generating copy as it went. This movement followed the notion that the contemporary scrum was one prone to collapse and that referees are at a loss to command the scrummage or interpret the flaws within the set-piece. It followed a report by a group of ex-international front-rowers sent to the IRB about how best to strip away aspects of the instructions of ‘crouch….touch….pause……..engage’  and how to ensure player safety.

In a short space of time more voices have come into the discussion. Some blurted more than neatly presented, it must be said, and the credence of certain media outlets may be undermined by opting for argument over discussion, but the value is still there: the points are all valid and need to be considered. A marriage between campaigns and promoted through #RugbyUnited could only bring more scrutiny to an area of play many want considered.

There is something to this. Change can happen if enough voices join the chorus, and the IRB are competent enough to eventually pay attention. The discussion on scrums has warbled on for a few years now and the feeling is that the law makers and enforcers are about to seriously consider change. It would be impossible to be  surprised if in the coming months  new experimental scrummaging laws were rolled out in lower leagues.

Dissent can be noted and changes proposed, but interpretation lies with the experts. If new laws are considered, which it is likely they will be at some point, then patience is needed. Tolerance is part of the unspoken credo in the much promulgated game of rugby. Taking time over any issues is a must in order to get it right. The voices don’t have to stop whilst this is going on anyway.

Once the scrum is sorted, though, could someone say something about the rate at which players are diving off their feet at breakdowns at every level, please? Cheers…

4th Feb Scotland vs England
Ref: George Clancy (Ire) Assistants: R Poite (Fra) & L Hodges (Wal) TMO: T Redmond (Ire)

12th Feb Wales vs Scotland
Ref: Roman Poite (Fra) Assistants: P Fitzgibbon (Ire) & S McDowell (Ire) TMO:G De Santis (Ita)

26th Feb Scotland vs France
Ref: Wayne Barnes (Eng) Assistants: A Rolland (Ire) & S McDowell (Ire) TMO: G Warren (Eng)

10th Mar Ireland vs Scotland
Ref: C Pollock (NZ) Assistants: R Poite (Fra) & G Garner (Eng) TMO: G De Santis (Ita)

17th Mar Italy vs Scotland
Ref: Alain Rolland (Ire) Assistants: G Clancy (Ire) & P Gauzere (Fra) TMO: N Whitehouse (Wal)

Almost typed in (Fra) after his name in brackets there… also well done to David Changleng, Scotland’s sole representative in the Six Nations officiating who is running the line during the Ireland vs Italy match. For the full list you can go to the IRB website.

So during this World Cup there have been some public outpourings of vitriol directed at the real match officials. These men can rarely stand up for themselves and they are in the most exposed situation they could ever imagine. This is the most televised rugby event in history and they are right there in the mix, regularly disappointing one large section of the crowd.

Sure we all have our opinions about what should be done on the park. Everyone thinks they are the first to say “Richie McCaw gets away with Murder!” Many people over the age of 35 seem to pick up on the fact that the scrum feed in modern rugby is “always squint”. Regular commenter Old Whistler told me that he sees breakdown blockers and the length of time the ball can sit at the back of a ruck as key problems that need redressed by officials.

My own real issue is with the way players at this World Cup have been diving in to rucks. During the Canada versus France game, for example, many claimed that the North Americans were combative and competitive at the breakdown and deserved to turnover so much ball because they had wrested it from the French. What I saw was the Canadians piling in and going off their feet at several of those breakdowns. There were not too many penalties against Canada there.

Of course refereeing is, like the game itself, more professional now than it ever has been. Systems are in place to rate, manage and educate referees, assistants and TMOs. Officials can be fast-tracked. They will never publicly criticise each other, but have internal dialogues and reviews and each union has their own hyper-competitive stable of referees hoping to step up to international level.

With such pressures and increased television coverage it is impossible for referees to escape scrutiny. Sometimes it is warranted. Much of the time it is not. Bryce Lawrence, for example cut a very unpopular figure in his first few games, if message boards and Twitter were to be believed. He didn’t really make any glaring errors, though.

Someone who did, though, was Wayne Barnes. He called James Hook’s penalty attempt wide, even as it was in, and he has been crucified for it. However, according to Ref from RefBlog, “whatever the rights and wrongs of the Hook penalty, he relied on the experts who were watching the ball from the perfect spot. It’s very rare for refs with assistants to be in line with the kick. They tend to be more in field.

“In this case, the ARs (Vinny Munro and George Clancy) said no – and given that Clancy refers anything and everything upstairs, if there had been doubt the TMO would have been called in. They weren’t, so Wayne didn’t.”

A valid point but one few rugby fans would take time to consider. Indeed few fans would take time to consider anything other than what their preconceived ideas of a completely legal game are. The difficulty is that, with a more professional approach, referees will have to fall in line with certain directives. They must focus on specific infringements as dictated by Paddy O’Brien and his panel of experts.

The areas of focus are listed thusly, according to Ref:

* The breakdown: the tackler must roll away and the assisting tackler must release, whilst arriving players must come through the gate.

* The scrum engagement: Collision must be observed and Loose-Head binding supervised.

* Offside line – strict policing of offside players close to the breakdown.

* Mauls – the ball-carrier must be available to be tackled by the defending team.

* Foul play – high tackles, grabbing and twisting of the head and tip tackles are all to be looked out for.

Few would disagree with these. Have the referee’s been meeting these standards, though? That is a matter of opinion. It is also a matter of whether or not the players make an issue of tailoring their performances.

“I think the breakdown has been much clearer than expected,” states Ref. “ There is the issue you mentioned of arriving players going off their feet, (note this isn’t in O’Brien’s 5 priorities), but you have to look at the speed of the breakdown and then the impact of their actions.

“Arriving at speed into something is going to cause you to aim at the ground. But the question we referees have to face is “has that action prevented competition for the ball, or prevented the defending side of attacking for a possible turnover.” I think the speed of the game often makes that a “no” so the issue is “should you penalise” or manage.

“Thanks to the poor TV coverage we’re being handed out by ITV, we aren’t getting the option to listen to the ref and hear him managing – I’m convinced they would be doing it but we don’t see it or hear it.”

We rarely take time to consider how it is in the middle. We just assume that our view is the right one. Referees do not have the gift of omniscience, nor do we. Consider this though:

“We have to remember that, just like the players, the 10 referees are also looking to progress to the knockout stages. They have to perform, try and stay away from controversy and to make sure they adhere to the bosses instructions. Easier said than done given that the World is watching! As spectators we have no qualms about giving some leeway to the players and sides through the pool games – just look at England’s first 2 games…”

No, what I would like to suggest is a way in which we could help the match officials not to look like idiots, or incompetents, or incompetent idiots.

Firstly, this would only apply to matches already with a Television Match Official (TMO) in place. Football seems to reject video assistance under the guise of some egalitarian “if the kids can’t do it in their alleyway/park/supermarket car park, then we won’t” attitude. This ignores totally the massive gulf between the grass roots of the game and the top level, a gulf of both skill but also wealth, means and privilege. Perhaps if they could police the top level of the game more accurately by using video assist, then the so-called “role models” would be forced to behave as such. On the pitch, anyway.

But I digress. Rugby has no such pretence and we are quite happy with the widening gap between our top level and grass roots (indeed in Scotland we have so taken this gap to heart that we have decided to reflect it on an administrative level too). Rugby has TMOs at Pro/Club and International level and they are regularly called upon to help the Referee decide whether or not a try has been scored.

When an incident occurs that so clearly contravenes the laws (not to mention the spirit of the game) such as Tuilagi’s punch, or say, gouging in the first minute of a Lions test, or taking a quick line-out with the wrong ball, shouldn’t the TMO be allowed to intervene?

I would argue for a five minute window, after which anything not caught would be dealt with by the citing process/referee assessor as usual. But within that five minute window if anything that should have resulted in a Yellow or a Red card (or a Penalty try too perhaps?) the TMO should have the ability to call the ref over the radio and say “oi Barnes, you got it wrong, Tigers 13, straight Red.” That’s Wayne, not Stuart.

It could not, of course, be allowed to happen all the time. Our game is stop-start enough to allow unfettered interruptions, but that very fact means there would likely be a convenient spot to intervene and bring something to the ref’s attention, at the next stoppage in play.

I am not saying this is a perfect idea – you’d need to legislate for what might have happened in the intervening period between offence and it being brought to the ref’s attention in terms of where to restart from, who has the ball and so on. I think to avoid conveniently timed turnovers it would have to be a case of apply the card but keep play as it was. Most offences of a yellow and red card nature are spotted quickly enough though, and the gap between offence and punishment would likely be much less than five minutes.

A less radical suggestion to begin with would be that the ref could have the option to call upon the TMO when he is having a conference with his Assistant Referee. After all, he often asks the one from other side of the pitch “anything to add?” Why not take 30 seconds and ask the TMO (also a qualified ref) too?

I know that the referee is the sole judge of fact on the pitch, but when everyone off the pitch can see he got his facts wrong, surely a little help – from a facility already in place – wouldn’t go amiss?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/johnbeattie/2009/12/the_insanity_of_eye_gouging.html

Some of the comments following his article are enlightening (not to mention some of the stories recounted frightening). It is interesting too how some people (PDV, that loon from Stade) still seem intent on downplaying it or sidelining gouging as an issue – a 24-week ban is anti-French, really? Stade Owner Guazzini should be fined into 2020 by the IRB, till the only pink thing he can afford are those little 2p sugar mice, as should the South Africa coach have been before him.

“”The ERC wanted to make an example of a symbolic player of Stade Francais and of the French team which has never had a disciplinary problem. It’s not normal that a private organisation in Ireland prevents a club employee from working, from playing. It is we who pay him.” says Max. I assume he meant “a French team”. Fair enough Max, if you don’t like it then you can bugger off out of the Heineken Cup too (sorry Hugo, you’d be collateral damage). It’s another example of the French clubs (following what I have just decided to call Tincugate) playing by the rules when it suits them and railing against interference when it doesn’t. We’d miss the French flair for sure, but I’m not sure I would want to be part of a game where people thought that what Dupuy did was okay. Watch this and see if you agree:

One of the BBC commenters suggests 6 months for a first attempt, then a life ban for a second one. Sounds fair to me. Although he was raking rather than gouging by the look of things, Dupuy did it twice in the space of 30 seconds after checking to see if he was being watched. Abhorrent is a good word.

Now can we get back on with refereeing the laws that are in place – squint feeds, consistency at the breakdown etc?

ELVs recommended to be passed into law:

Law 6 – Assistant referees allowed
Law 19 – Kicking directly into touch from ball played back into 22 equals no gain in ground
Law 19 – Quick throw permitted in any direction except forward
Law 19 – Positioning of player in opposition to the player throwing-in to be two metres away from line-out and the line of touch
Law 19 – Pre-gripping of line-out jumpers allowed
Law 19 – Lifting in the line-out allowed
Law 19 – Positioning of receiver must be two metres away from line-out
Law 20 – Five-metre offside line at the scrum
Law 20 – Scrum-half offside line at the scrum
Law 22 – Corner posts no longer touch in goal

ELVs not recommended:

Law 17 – Maul, head and shoulders not to be lower than hips
Law 17 – Maul, pulling down the maul
Law 19 – Freedom for each team to determine line-out numbers

ELVs sent for further examination:

Sanctions and free-kicks

Or maybe just to Japan. When will we see his like again? Wayne Barnes will now take over the Grand Slam decider on Saturday.

Yes We Can:

• They have lost a few first choice players. Either to the Northern Hemisphere (Chris Jack, Carl Hayman, Luke McAllister et al) and to injury (Andrew Hore). The frightening strength in depth of the pre-World Cup era in depth seems to be absent. After another choke in the World Cup, Kiwi support for Graeme Henry is balanced on a knife edge and depends only, you feel, on the results they get. For the first time, the All Blacks seem almost fallible.
• We get them first. They will be fresh in the country, getting used to the crappy weather we have made our national speciality. They definitely looked a little rusty against Australia. The big one for them is in four weeks against England. We’re just a warm up. Regardless of what they might say, they won’t be targeting this as a tough match. Let’s hope we can catch them off guard with a decent performance before they gel too well. Our players are mostly match sharp and some (Murray, Barclay, Taylor, Blair, Rory Lamont, Thom Evans) are in pretty good – even great – form.
• The All Black set piece was looking a little ropey against the Aussies. If Euan Murray can continue his current form perhaps he can reverse the current tales of front row woe that we are used to. Hadden’s choice of second row might of course affect our ability in this area too. My choice would be MacLeod and Taylor, but that is looking less likely. If we can get parity and hold our defence, we have a chance. A slim one, but a chance.
• Wayne Barnes is the referee. While one hopes that he is not anxious to make amends to the nation of the Long White Cloud for allowing that forward pass, he has been solid all season and is one of the referees who is definitely upholding the new protocols regarding the breakdown. We’ve been playing under them all season. The Kiwis have only had the ANZ Cup and one Bledisloe Cup test to get used to the much stricter refereeing of that area. In particular, flopping over the ball to protect it is an area that could see Richie McCaw either deliver a masterclass (from which John Barclay will learn much) or be penalised off the park.

No We Can’t:

• It’s the All Blacks, for pete’s sakes. We’ve never beaten them. Ever. Played 27, lost 25, drawn 2. The last draw was in 1983. We haven’t bothered going there on a summer tour since 2000. It’s no fun getting whipped on your summer holiday.
• The frightening strength in depth only seems to be absent because we haven’t heard of any of them this side of the world. Let’s face it, Stephen Donald would walk into the Scotland XV. He even kicks a bit like Parko. Corey Jane may sound like a girl’s name, but as Al pointed out once, so does Nikki Walker. Whichever back three they play it will be talented, very fast and there on merit. Can we say the same?
• We’ll probably play Dan Parks. You don’t have to play a kicking game under the new ELVs, but it does seem to happen a fair bit. Ergo Hadden may feel he must play Parks. It’s the fashion. Nevermind the sense that Mike Brewer talks about wanting to score tries. We’ll probably also play some other guys short of match practice or form  (White, Webster, Paterson) ahead of less experienced, in-form players.
• Scotland have only had a few days to work together. Some of our likely inclusions (Strokosch, Rory Lamont) have been disruptively recalled to their clubs this weekend. Lamont was not picked for Sale yesterday, so he didn’t really need to go. It doesn’t help.
• Our strength in depth is also frightening, in a different sense. Possible Kiwi frailties in the centre could be countered if we had a few more experienced operators in that area. If he’s given a chance, this test series could be the making of Ben Cairns, not to mention Nick De Luca. These matches would be ideal for giving these guys and Max Evans chance to get experience at test level. But because of the pressure for World Cup seedings (is it really going to happen?) Hadden may opt for the conservative route. Our one area of genuine depth, the back row – is the area where they have Richie McCaw and Rodney So’oialo.

In short, Scotland will have to play the game of their lives simply to stay in contention. Putting aside the World Cup draw (even as a third seed, we could still end up with a group involving say, Argentina and Ireland which wouldn’t be that scary) there’s nothing to lose, and with a little luck, a little slice of history to gain.

ELVs to be trialled worldwide

Assistant Referees

• Assistant Referees can assist referees in any manner required when appointed by a match organiser. Not sure if this refers to touch judges. Does this mean the time keeper can point out spear tackles?

Posts and flags around the field

• The corner posts are no longer considered to be in touch in-goal except when a ball is grounded against the post. This may make Shane Williams and Mark Cueto very happy.

Lineout and throw

• If a team puts the ball back into their own 22 and the ball is subsequently kicked directly into touch there is no gain of ground. This will hopefully encourage counter-attacking and discourage aerial ping-pong. Expect a few wingers to forget about this one and put their fullback under undue pressure.
• A quick throw may be thrown in straight or towards the throwing team’s own goal line. They are rarely straight anyway. Again this should encourage counter-attacking.
• There is no restriction on the number of players who can participate in the lineout from either side (minimum of two). Allows you to pile on the pressure to the opponents throw on a tight 5 metre lineout to try and steal attacking ball. Just don’t then maul it (see below). Might bring some interesting tactical choices to be exploited – who do you leave out, will it leave a gap etc?
• The receiver in a lineout must stand 2 metres back from the lineout. Meh.
• The player who is in opposition to the player throwing in the ball may stand in the area between the 5 metre line and touch line but must be 2 metres away from the lineout. Might give speedy hookers a chance to rampage down the touchline.
• Lineout players may pre-grip a jumper before the ball is thrown in. Will this really give anyone an advantage? May lead to an outbreak of bluffing by means of pre-emptive shirt grabbing.
• The lifting of lineout jumpers is permitted. Wait, what? Isn’t this permitted already? I guess this must be an ELV that is already in trial, as they do it every week. Checking the rule book (as of 2007) turns out no, they are just allowed to support players that have already jumped 8ft in the air.
  

Maul

• Players are able to defend a maul by pulling it down. Endless up the jumper rugby should become a thing of the past. Opponents of this law claim it is dangerous, and gives advantage to weaker packs. Should suit Scotland, then. No, wait, we have a bunch of brutes. I am outraged, outraged I say.
• Remove reference in Law to heads and shoulders not to be lower than hips. Knees and toes, knees and toes. Sorry, I fell asleep there.

Scrum

• Introduction of an offside line five metres behind the hindmost feet of the scrum. Presumably this is to give players at 10 and 12 more time to fire up their backline with exciting attacking moves, or to ease the likelihood of a Dan Parks chargedown. Master of the blitz defence Shaun Edwards will no doubt find a way around it.
• Scrum half offside lines (must be in close proximity to the scrum as present Law or must retreat five metres). Not sure what this will change.

They left out making almost everything penalty-wise a free kick – got to give the forwards a chance for a breather – and allowing handling in the ruck, which were two of the more controversial proposals. We will see the free-kick thing trialled in the Northern Hemisphere at some point though.

Disappointed to see that they made not putting the ball into the scrum straight legal. Oh, no, wait…they didn’t.