RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

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.

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.

Digby wrote:

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

Edit - far from reliable but, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Afr ... union_team

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.

Lizard wrote:

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.

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.

Puja wrote:

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

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:What Which says.

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.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:What Which says.

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.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:What Which says.

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.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:What Which says.

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.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:What Which says.

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.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

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.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

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.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:What Which says.

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.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

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?!?!?!

Puja wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

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

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Puja wrote:

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.

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

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?