RugbyRebels

Ouch!

Oh dear.

'This is a coaching team that works well together'. On what f@cking level is that true?

So, we are stuck wi more of the same until 2019 or we have a major disaster and get a temp in time for the next RWC. What a choice. If there was an opportunity to shake things up just a little, this was it.

Words just cant express.



They've also said we may benifet if Gatland went and took a break for a year to coach the Lions and came back with some fresh ideas. "I think it would be good for him to go away for a year, get a different perspective and have a degree of reflection and reinvention." Have they even met Gatland before? Hes had 8 years to come up with something new yet still plays the same tactics evey game, Gats is a one trick pony and that trick is played out.

You mean like last time he went with the Lions for a year to broaden his knowledge base. We all saw the major changes in philosophy that resulted in.


Oh, wait.......

Still, this has to be good news though right?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... s-11503882

Should be good for Welsh player development.

WaspInWales wrote:Still, this has to be good news though right?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... s-11503882

Should be good for Welsh player development.

Yeah, great, it means fringe players get to spend more time away from their regions. We all know how well the regions are going without the first and second string Wales players so now we take third and fourth string players away too. The regions are going to be better off employing non welsh qualified players, oh wait that can't happen because of the NWQ quota.

Buggaluggs wrote:http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... d-11504107

Short of rioting in the streets, you are stuck with the coaching team for the foreseeable.

Ross. S wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:Still, this has to be good news though right?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... s-11503882

Should be good for Welsh player development.

Yeah, great, it means fringe players get to spend more time away from their regions. We all know how well the regions are going without the first and second string Wales players so now we take third and fourth string players away too. The regions are going to be better off employing non welsh qualified players, oh wait that can't happen because of the NWQ quota.

Yep, completely pointless. We don't have enough decent players to make an 'A' team competitive, after we've removed the top 35 or so there's not that much beneath.

It'll also mean that U20s won't be tied to Wales.

Numbers wrote:

Ross. S wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:Still, this has to be good news though right?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... s-11503882

Should be good for Welsh player development.

Yeah, great, it means fringe players get to spend more time away from their regions. We all know how well the regions are going without the first and second string Wales players so now we take third and fourth string players away too. The regions are going to be better off employing non welsh qualified players, oh wait that can't happen because of the NWQ quota.

Yep, completely pointless. We don't have enough decent players to make an 'A' team competitive, after we've removed the top 35 or so there's not that much beneath.

It'll also mean that U20s won't be tied to Wales.

The U20s are only tied to Wales in games against France.

A decent proportion of the 6N squad are kicking their heels quite a lot of the time. Even for away Tests only 25 tend to travel. That leaves a lot of people who can play and be added to.the rea;lity is that you're likely to need recourse to the depth at some time so it's better that the couaches have had a look at them.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Ross. S wrote:

Yeah, great, it means fringe players get to spend more time away from their regions. We all know how well the regions are going without the first and second string Wales players so now we take third and fourth string players away too. The regions are going to be better off employing non welsh qualified players, oh wait that can't happen because of the NWQ quota.

Yep, completely pointless. We don't have enough decent players to make an 'A' team competitive, after we've removed the top 35 or so there's not that much beneath.

It'll also mean that U20s won't be tied to Wales.

The U20s are only tied to Wales in games against France.

A decent proportion of the 6N squad are kicking their heels quite a lot of the time. Even for away Tests only 25 tend to travel. That leaves a lot of people who can play and be added to.the rea;lity is that you're likely to need recourse to the depth at some time so it's better that the couaches have had a look at them.

I think numbers means that at the moment, our nominated second team for the purposes of designating someone to be a Welsh player, is the U20's team. For most other sides, playing in the A side would tie them to that country, as per the Shingler dispute a few years ago.

I know that's what he means. The only other country so far as I'm aware that also deignates their U20s is France and accordingly only games against France tie your U20s players to Wales.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Numbers wrote:
Yep, completely pointless. We don't have enough decent players to make an 'A' team competitive, after we've removed the top 35 or so there's not that much beneath.

It'll also mean that U20s won't be tied to Wales.

The U20s are only tied to Wales in games against France.

A decent proportion of the 6N squad are kicking their heels quite a lot of the time. Even for away Tests only 25 tend to travel. That leaves a lot of people who can play and be added to.the rea;lity is that you're likely to need recourse to the depth at some time so it's better that the couaches have had a look at them.

I think numbers means that at the moment, our nominated second team for the purposes of designating someone to be a Welsh player, is the U20's team. For most other sides, playing in the A side would tie them to that country, as per the Shingler dispute a few years ago.

Aye, that is what I mean.

Regarding the coaches getting a look at them it won't be the same coaching setup so that really makes little difference, we don't have 50 players of high enough quality to accomodate an 'A' team.

You can't create depth by just deciding to have an 'A' Team, the players aren't going to change.

Well you live and learn. It would appear that a player can play in a dozen matches for the U20s and not be captured. But an uncapped sub against France or Fiji is. It also appears that WR doesn't keep a database of second senior teams so as they change over time, it becomes a right nuggets muddle. Reform needed there methinks as this seems unfair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An A side would mean the first team travelling squad cut down to the bone. If games don't clash with regions then it might work, although I'd prefer the money earmarked for this to be pumped into NDCs instead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I know that's what he means. The only other country so far as I'm aware that also deignates their U20s is France and accordingly only games against France tie your U20s players to Wales.

That's actually not right anymore, mate. They've changed the regulations.

Generally, a player in a nominated "next senior" team is only tied if he is in a match squad against another country's senior or nominated next senior side.

BUT, as of 1 June 2016, new regulation 8.3(d) specifically provides that if an U20 side is designated by a national union as their "next senior" side, then a player in that team is tied if they play in the World Rugby Junior World Championship, WR Junior World Trophy or U20 6 Nations (i.e. regardless of whether the opposition is nominated "next senior" or not).

TBH I'm not sure if this change is of immediate effect and applies in the current WRWJC. It is certainly already in the official regulations.

(In all cases, a player under 18 cannot be tied.)

Sandydragon wrote:Well you live and learn. It would appear that a player can play in a dozen matches for the U20s and not be captured. But an uncapped sub against France or Fiji is. It also appears that WR doesn't keep a database of second senior teams so as they change over time, it becomes a right nuggets muddle. Reform needed there methinks as this seems unfair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that national Unions should not be able to nominate a team as "next senior" if selection is not open to all senior players qualified for that nation.

It's unfair to nominate an U20 side, when logic dictates that only a few of those players will become test players.

This might result in nations nominating sides that rarely if ever actually play (eg NZ's poorly named Junior All Blacks). But so what. The point of Regulation 8 is to prevent the appearance of ridiculousness like the former All Black Bachop brothers playing tests against each other for Samoa and Japan, and to prevent top test players from smaller nations being inveigled into switching allegiance. Tying U20 players doesn't really advance either cause in my book. If it side, why not tie U18s or Schoolboy reps?

It's a bit of a shambles to say the least and it seems unfair that you can be tied in some games but not others. I don't have a major issue with being tied at u20, it's an arbitrary she but then u18 seems young and how would the principle of legally tying minors sit? The new rule seems more like common sense. I'm not hugely fussed either way providing that the rule is consistent. An a side cap should definitely be tied though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lizard wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I know that's what he means. The only other country so far as I'm aware that also deignates their U20s is France and accordingly only games against France tie your U20s players to Wales.

That's actually not right anymore, mate. They've changed the regulations.

Generally, a player in a nominated "next senior" team is only tied if he is in a match squad against another country's senior or nominated next senior side.

BUT, as of 1 June 2016, new regulation 8.3(d) specifically provides that if an U20 side is designated by a national union as their "next senior" side, then a player in that team is tied if they play in the World Rugby Junior World Championship, WR Junior World Trophy or U20 6 Nations (i.e. regardless of whether the opposition is nominated "next senior" or not).

TBH I'm not sure if this change is of immediate effect and applies in the current WRWJC. It is certainly already in the official regulations.

(In all cases, a player under 18 cannot be tied.)

I hadn't realised they'd changed that. I don't approve. I do think that U20s who play at the JWC or JWT should be tied, but all U20s. I don't think U20s should be nominated as the second senior team on account of them not being a senior team. I agree that the second senior team should be one open to all players.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Lizard wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I know that's what he means. The only other country so far as I'm aware that also deignates their U20s is France and accordingly only games against France tie your U20s players to Wales.

That's actually not right anymore, mate. They've changed the regulations.

Generally, a player in a nominated "next senior" team is only tied if he is in a match squad against another country's senior or nominated next senior side.

BUT, as of 1 June 2016, new regulation 8.3(d) specifically provides that if an U20 side is designated by a national union as their "next senior" side, then a player in that team is tied if they play in the World Rugby Junior World Championship, WR Junior World Trophy or U20 6 Nations (i.e. regardless of whether the opposition is nominated "next senior" or not).

TBH I'm not sure if this change is of immediate effect and applies in the current WRWJC. It is certainly already in the official regulations.

(In all cases, a player under 18 cannot be tied.)

I hadn't realised they'd changed that. I don't approve. I do think that U20s who play at the JWC or JWT should be tied, but all U20s. I don't think U20s should be nominated as the second senior team on account of them not being a senior team. I agree that the second senior team should be one open to all players.

Its probably a step forward, but its still too confusing - why should someone who gets a U20 cap against Georgia in a 'friendly' be exempt from the tie when a bench warmer at the JRWC be tied in? That distinction isn't made for the senior side, a cap is a cap.

Lizard wrote:I think that national Unions should not be able to nominate a team as "next senior" if selection is not open to all senior players qualified for that nation.

Agreed - and said as much elsewhere. In order to tie a player in selection should be open - so no Maori XV or age-grade, or students etc; otherwise it's not "2nd senior" it's "2nd senior for a certain definition of the word "senior" to mean anything but "senior""

I wonder how all these restraints would hold up in law, given that playing for a national side is now a paid job.

Smacks of the old amateur standards struggling to survive in a fully professional game, to me.

I'd go for something like, if you're a pro player, you make a choice at 21, and if you become a pro at a later age, you decide then, and that decision is binding.

But even that could probably be challenged in court.

It looks like Wales "A" will be revived and, presumably, be your nominated "next senior" side.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... t-11512657

Lizard wrote:It looks like Wales "A" will be revived and, presumably, be your nominated "next senior" side.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... t-11512657

That was the crux of the original point I raised.

I was going to make the point Lizard made about JRWC tying in u20s now, but too do we know Wales would nominate their A team as their next best senior team? Surely if wanted they could carry on with the u20s as the named next best, and if they can arrange some A games separate to that then fine.