Lizard wrote:South Africa's "next senior" team as notified to World Rugby (and which would tie players to SA) has changed this year from "South Africa U20" to "Junior Springboks". I do not know whether this is just a change in name or if older players are now eligible.
England's remains the Saxons.
The Junior Springboks, I think aka the Emerging Springboks, aren't the u20s but a near South Africa A team with a specific additional selection criteria of not picking anyone with a senior cap. So either the fixture list has us down to play South Africa A as the person writing the list doesn't understand South African rugby, or SARU want to be able to pick some capped players for the games Vs the Saxons to give any new head coach more freedom, and perhaps the RFU had no idea what they were agreeing to, again.
There would seem to be a decent chance we're playing South Africa A and not the next best team, which would mean the tour will tie no additional players to either SA or England. If the RFU have loused this up again then in lieu of resignations they'll probably get a larger bonus.
While I have no doubt that the RFU are incompetent, the IRB need their heads examining for allowing such a preposterous situation to exist. Not only do we have the farce that players playing for Wales U20 are tied, but only if they play in particular games, but we also have South Africa A vs England A which apparently technically isn't the SA second team, despite effectively being the secomd string and playing against England's second string, because the actual second team is another team, who aren't actually playing this year.
There has been a change to encompass more u20 games, so now it''s no just u20s Vs another u20s nominated as next best, but at event such as the 6N u20s or JWC.
It would in addition seem reasonable to say you can only nominate a 2nd team you have fixtures for, or if you nominate a team you don't have fixtures for they must fill a reasonable fixture list before you can arrange other games.
NZ nominates a team it never actually selects. Quite big-hearted really as it means only proper All Blacks get tied.
It is ludicrous allowing U20 teams to count. They cannot in any sense be a "next senior" team as they are by definition not senior. It also undermines the intent to not tie players who are basically still children.
Last edited by Lizard on Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
______________________
Dominating the SHMB
======================
The SARU site confirms that the Junior Springboks is just a rebranded U20s. The official fixtures list has "South Africa A" playing the Saxons. There is no other reference I can see to that team or to the old "Emerging Springboks" team.
______________________
Dominating the SHMB
======================
Lizard wrote:The SARU site confirms that the Junior Springboks is just a rebranded U20s. The official fixtures list has "South Africa A" playing the Saxons. There is no other reference I can see to that team or to the old "Emerging Springboks" team.
I'm not actually sure why I'm surprised, but they've announced a change to tie in players which is what they already had before? They've had u20s as next best for a good few seasons now
Lizard wrote:The SARU site confirms that the Junior Springboks is just a rebranded U20s. The official fixtures list has "South Africa A" playing the Saxons. There is no other reference I can see to that team or to the old "Emerging Springboks" team.
I'm not actually sure why I'm surprised, but they've announced a change to tie in players which is what they already had before? They've had u20s as next best for a good few seasons now
A simple clarification fro the IRB could make all the difference here.
The 2ns XV already has to be "senior", they should just clarify that "senior" in this context, means that it must have an open selection criteria (beyond IRB eligibility) - so no teams limiting themselves based on age, race etc count.
Which Tyler wrote:A simple clarification fro the IRB could make all the difference here.
The 2ns XV already has to be "senior", they should just clarify that "senior" in this context, means that it must have an open selection criteria (beyond IRB eligibility) - so no teams limiting themselves based on age, race etc count.
Couldn't agree more.
______________________
Dominating the SHMB
======================
Which Tyler wrote:A simple clarification fro the IRB could make all the difference here.
The 2ns XV already has to be "senior", they should just clarify that "senior" in this context, means that it must have an open selection criteria (beyond IRB eligibility) - so no teams limiting themselves based on age, race etc count.
Which Tyler wrote:A simple clarification fro the IRB could make all the difference here.
The 2ns XV already has to be "senior", they should just clarify that "senior" in this context, means that it must have an open selection criteria (beyond IRB eligibility) - so no teams limiting themselves based on age, race etc count.
FB_IMG_1456407178793.jpg
Puja
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Which Tyler wrote:A simple clarification fro the IRB could make all the difference here.
The 2ns XV already has to be "senior", they should just clarify that "senior" in this context, means that it must have an open selection criteria (beyond IRB eligibility) - so no teams limiting themselves based on age, race etc count.
I'd route people who make their country's squad for the JWC as well. That tournament represents a significant investment of money and time. Also we're dealing with adults. I see no reason why they shouldn't be bound by their decisions.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
I'd route people who make their country's squad for the JWC as well. That tournament represents a significant investment of money and time. Also we're dealing with adults. I see no reason why they shouldn't be bound by their decisions.
Does it? There's a few who don't make one squad and play for another instead. They're quite often playing a year early, so getting game time at that level whilst also bolstering another squad.
I'd route people who make their country's squad for the JWC as well. That tournament represents a significant investment of money and time. Also we're dealing with adults. I see no reason why they shouldn't be bound by their decisions.
Does it? There's a few who don't make one squad and play for another instead. They're quite often playing a year early, so getting game time at that level whilst also bolstering another squad.
Flying people half way round the world for a tournament - or even from Samoa/Fiji/Tonga/NZ to anywhere - is not nothing and not cheap. As for the "quite a few" who swap between years, how many?
As an aside I find it bizarre that there are those who want to tie someone in for having competed in a different sport but not an adult competing in a global competition in the same sport.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
I'd route people who make their country's squad for the JWC as well. That tournament represents a significant investment of money and time. Also we're dealing with adults. I see no reason why they shouldn't be bound by their decisions.
How many people make a JWC squad and then don't play? It can't be many who aren't covered by the JWC as things stand.
I'd route people who make their country's squad for the JWC as well. That tournament represents a significant investment of money and time. Also we're dealing with adults. I see no reason why they shouldn't be bound by their decisions.
How many people make a JWC squad and then don't play? It can't be many who aren't covered by the JWC as things stand.
Sorry I seem to have misunderstood the rule change mentioned above - I've only seen the reference to it here. I thought that the JWC only counted for those who name their U20 team as their next best senior team.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
I'd route people who make their country's squad for the JWC as well. That tournament represents a significant investment of money and time. Also we're dealing with adults. I see no reason why they shouldn't be bound by their decisions.
How many people make a JWC squad and then don't play? It can't be many who aren't covered by the JWC as things stand.
Sorry I seem to have misunderstood the rule change mentioned above - I've only seen the reference to it here. I thought that the JWC only counted for those who name their U20 team as their next best senior team.
It did. But now both the JWC and the 6N, and something else I forget, tie players in at u20 by virtue of the tournament.
Digby wrote:
How many people make a JWC squad and then don't play? It can't be many who aren't covered by the JWC as things stand.
Sorry I seem to have misunderstood the rule change mentioned above - I've only seen the reference to it here. I thought that the JWC only counted for those who name their U20 team as their next best senior team.
It did. But now both the JWC and the 6N, and something else I forget, tie players in at u20 by virtue of the tournament.
Didn't realise that. It seems all those posts on here were not in vain!!
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Digby wrote:
How many people make a JWC squad and then don't play? It can't be many who aren't covered by the JWC as things stand.
Sorry I seem to have misunderstood the rule change mentioned above - I've only seen the reference to it here. I thought that the JWC only counted for those who name their U20 team as their next best senior team.
It did. But now both the JWC and the 6N, and something else I forget, tie players in at u20 by virtue of the tournament.
Not quite. That's still only for nations that designate their U20 side as "next senior." Regulation 8.3(d) simply clarifies that if you are in a match day squad at the JWC, JWT or U206N for such a team you are tied even if you don't get on the park. It also doesn't apply to under 18 year old players.
______________________
Dominating the SHMB
======================
I'd route people who make their country's squad for the JWC as well. That tournament represents a significant investment of money and time. Also we're dealing with adults. I see no reason why they shouldn't be bound by their decisions.
Does it? There's a few who don't make one squad and play for another instead. They're quite often playing a year early, so getting game time at that level whilst also bolstering another squad.
Flying people half way round the world for a tournament - or even from Samoa/Fiji/Tonga/NZ to anywhere - is not nothing and not cheap. As for the "quite a few" who swap between years, how many?
As an aside I find it bizarre that there are those who want to tie someone in for having competed in a different sport but not an adult competing in a global competition in the same sport.
I'd dispute "adult". Some of them are 18/19 and living with their parents, in whatever country their parents happen to be living in. Not really a problem for someone Anglo-Welsh, but how about for someone living in South Africa with a passionately Kiwi or English dad? They might consider themselves as much Kiwi as South African and it seems cruel to tie them in based on where their parents live.
Which Tyler wrote:A simple clarification fro the IRB could make all the difference here.
The 2ns XV already has to be "senior", they should just clarify that "senior" in this context, means that it must have an open selection criteria (beyond IRB eligibility) - so no teams limiting themselves based on age, race etc count.
FB_IMG_1456407178793.jpg
Puja
Where is the GIF?!?!?!
Sadly, I don't yet have it saved to my phone for work posting.
Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Does it? There's a few who don't make one squad and play for another instead. They're quite often playing a year early, so getting game time at that level whilst also bolstering another squad.
Flying people half way round the world for a tournament - or even from Samoa/Fiji/Tonga/NZ to anywhere - is not nothing and not cheap. As for the "quite a few" who swap between years, how many?
As an aside I find it bizarre that there are those who want to tie someone in for having competed in a different sport but not an adult competing in a global competition in the same sport.
I'd dispute "adult". Some of them are 18/19 and living with their parents, in whatever country their parents happen to be living in. Not really a problem for someone Anglo-Welsh, but how about for someone living in South Africa with a passionately Kiwi or English dad? They might consider themselves as much Kiwi as South African and it seems cruel to tie them in based on where their parents live.
Puja
I'm afraid the "21 should be the age of majority" ship sailed the best part of half a century ago. At 18 they are adults. Non-sportsmen have to take career defining decisions then as well, if not younger.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Flying people half way round the world for a tournament - or even from Samoa/Fiji/Tonga/NZ to anywhere - is not nothing and not cheap. As for the "quite a few" who swap between years, how many?
As an aside I find it bizarre that there are those who want to tie someone in for having competed in a different sport but not an adult competing in a global competition in the same sport.
I'd dispute "adult". Some of them are 18/19 and living with their parents, in whatever country their parents happen to be living in. Not really a problem for someone Anglo-Welsh, but how about for someone living in South Africa with a passionately Kiwi or English dad? They might consider themselves as much Kiwi as South African and it seems cruel to tie them in based on where their parents live.
Puja
I'm afraid the "21 should be the age of majority" ship sailed the best part of half a century ago. At 18 they are adults. Non-sportsmen have to take career defining decisions then as well, if not younger.
Puja wrote:
I'd dispute "adult". Some of them are 18/19 and living with their parents, in whatever country their parents happen to be living in. Not really a problem for someone Anglo-Welsh, but how about for someone living in South Africa with a passionately Kiwi or English dad? They might consider themselves as much Kiwi as South African and it seems cruel to tie them in based on where their parents live.
Puja
I'm afraid the "21 should be the age of majority" ship sailed the best part of half a century ago. At 18 they are adults. Non-sportsmen have to take career defining decisions then as well, if not younger.
Career defining decisions that are irrevocable?
Yes. Some of them. Some of them career decisions which might end their lives. Besides, rugby is only 20 years iof a career, absolutely max and the choice of which nation to represent is only 1 (and not even the main) aspect of that career.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
