RugbyRebels

fivepointer wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Puja wrote:
Moriarty was a special case, as Wales at the time were using their U20s side as their second capture team and thus if he'd played age grade for them, he'd've been making a choice for all of his future at 17.

I don't see any particular need to be too strident about age grades and qualifications. Yes, it is mildly annoying developing someone through our youth teams only for them to be poached as soon as they break through, but I'd rather that than be proscriptive d*cks to children.

Puja

He could have said "no thanks I'm welsh" and stayed at home and had a cuppa if he was "undecided" or we could have just picked someone else who actually wanted to play for england. If you wanted to be cynical you could say he used it as a shop window.

He used the system. He was at Hartpury, linked to Gloucester and had grown up in the English game. You can understand why a player will want to hedge their bets and to take advantage of the English school/college/academy structure, even though they may never seriously want to play for England.
My gripe is that a player should make a firm commitment at U20 level. An appearance here should be binding. That way we stop investing time and energy on a player who wont go on to represent us.

Why wouldn't/shouldn't a player want to expose themselves to a higher level of coaching etc.

I completely disagree with binding at u20s however, since it's effectively binding 30+ players every single season, which is ridiculous.

Raggs wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

twitchy wrote:
He could have said "no thanks I'm welsh" and stayed at home and had a cuppa if he was "undecided" or we could have just picked someone else who actually wanted to play for england. If you wanted to be cynical you could say he used it as a shop window.

He used the system. He was at Hartpury, linked to Gloucester and had grown up in the English game. You can understand why a player will want to hedge their bets and to take advantage of the English school/college/academy structure, even though they may never seriously want to play for England.
My gripe is that a player should make a firm commitment at U20 level. An appearance here should be binding. That way we stop investing time and energy on a player who wont go on to represent us.

Why wouldn't/shouldn't a player want to expose themselves to a higher level of coaching etc.

I completely disagree with binding at u20s however, since it's effectively binding 30+ players every single season, which is ridiculous.

Whats the problem in having players commit at u20? If you arent sure, then dont play. If you've made your mind up, then what is the issue?

fivepointer wrote:Whats the problem in having players commit at u20? If you arent sure, then dont play. If you've made your mind up, then what is the issue?

How many dual registered PI players would opt to play for Fiji/Tonga/Samoa? Even Scotland/Wales/England would make players unsure. Commiting at u20s, then not making the cut for the one you chose, but perhaps could have done for someone else.

And lets assume that dual registered act honestly in saying they aren't sure, they then miss out on a lot of quality competition and coaching, which will effect their game anyway.

Raggs wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Whats the problem in having players commit at u20? If you arent sure, then dont play. If you've made your mind up, then what is the issue?

How many dual registered PI players would opt to play for Fiji/Tonga/Samoa? Even Scotland/Wales/England would make players unsure. Commiting at u20s, then not making the cut for the one you chose, but perhaps could have done for someone else.

And lets assume that dual registered act honestly in saying they aren't sure, they then miss out on a lot of quality competition and coaching, which will effect their game anyway.

At u20 level, i'd want all players to have a clear desire to pull on the full England shirt. Effectively they are our development side now that the Saxons dont play.
It simply makes no sense for us to support a player who may opt to play for another country.

fivepointer wrote:

Raggs wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Whats the problem in having players commit at u20? If you arent sure, then dont play. If you've made your mind up, then what is the issue?

How many dual registered PI players would opt to play for Fiji/Tonga/Samoa? Even Scotland/Wales/England would make players unsure. Commiting at u20s, then not making the cut for the one you chose, but perhaps could have done for someone else.

And lets assume that dual registered act honestly in saying they aren't sure, they then miss out on a lot of quality competition and coaching, which will effect their game anyway.

At u20 level, i'd want all players to have a clear desire to pull on the full England shirt. Effectively they are our development side now that the Saxons dont play.
It simply makes no sense for us to support a player who may opt to play for another country.

It's not all about us, as Raggs noted. If every player capped at U20 was tied, then that would be 30+ NZ prospects each year, of which only 3-5 would go on to have actual international careers. I can think of no better way to force Samoa and Tonga out of the sport than effectively banning them from picking any of their diaspora.

Puja

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

Raggs wrote:
How many dual registered PI players would opt to play for Fiji/Tonga/Samoa? Even Scotland/Wales/England would make players unsure. Commiting at u20s, then not making the cut for the one you chose, but perhaps could have done for someone else.

And lets assume that dual registered act honestly in saying they aren't sure, they then miss out on a lot of quality competition and coaching, which will effect their game anyway.

At u20 level, i'd want all players to have a clear desire to pull on the full England shirt. Effectively they are our development side now that the Saxons dont play.
It simply makes no sense for us to support a player who may opt to play for another country.

It's not all about us, as Raggs noted. If every player capped at U20 was tied, then that would be 30+ NZ prospects each year, of which only 3-5 would go on to have actual international careers. I can think of no better way to force Samoa and Tonga out of the sport than effectively banning them from picking any of their diaspora.

Puja

It also wouldn't be good for England in the long run to have all talent concentrated in a few international sides. It's already pretty one sided at international level but making players illegible for anyone else of capped at U20s removes a talent pool from the lower population nations that keeps them competitive.

Yeah, I personally think it's only right and natural, in a complicated globalised world, that nationality is pretty fluid. Frankly rugby is the only thing in which I am even vaguely nationalistic, and even then I couldn't quite explain why.
If my son grows up and finds himself not quite good enough to play for England, but able to get caps for Scotland or Wales (or Turkey!) all of whom he could qualify for. I'd be right behind him.
Obviously there are many cynical examples of poaching, Brad Shields and Irelands whole apprentice system, but most of them fail, or only work very occasionally. And I have no problem with the Vunipola's/Manu or the NZ team where most of their Pacific Islanders grew up or were born there, whilst also appreciate that Fiji, Samoa and Tonga need to be helped to find a way to keep at least some of their best players on the Islands.
I just think nationality is too complicated a thing to put hard and fast rules on. My own family is a perfect example, I have a half brother whose grandmother was Welsh but everyone else in his family is English. He grew up in Tooting but has moved to Wales and supports the Blues and Wales. My mum was half Northern Cypriot and half Scottish but would baulk at anyone saying it in public. My mother in law was born in Wales bit went to a very posh school and sounds like Camilla Parker Bowles. But my wife is always quite happy to be Welsh just to piss me off when they beat us.

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:Yeah, I personally think it's only right and natural, in a complicated globalised world, that nationality is pretty fluid. Frankly rugby is the only thing in which I am even vaguely nationalistic, and even then I couldn't quite explain why.
If my son grows up and finds himself not quite good enough to play for England, but able to get caps for Scotland or Wales (or Turkey!) all of whom he could qualify for. I'd be right behind him.
Obviously there are many cynical examples of poaching, Brad Shields and Irelands whole apprentice system, but most of them fail, or only work very occasionally. And I have no problem with the Vunipola's/Manu or the NZ team where most of their Pacific Islanders grew up or were born there, whilst also appreciate that Fiji, Samoa and Tonga need to be helped to find a way to keep at least some of their best players on the Islands.
I just think nationality is too complicated a thing to put hard and fast rules on. My own family is a perfect example, I have a half brother whose grandmother was Welsh but everyone else in his family is English. He grew up in Tooting but has moved to Wales and supports the Blues and Wales. My mum was half Northern Cypriot and half Scottish but would baulk at anyone saying it in public. My mother in law was born in Wales bit went to a very posh school and sounds like Camilla Parker Bowles. But my wife is always quite happy to be Welsh just to piss me off when they beat us.

For every Dennie Solomona and Bundee Aki who have flagrantly played the system, there's a lot of people for whom it's a lot more nuanced than that.

Puja

Do Tonga, Fiji and Samoa even have second teams that the players to them? If it isn't their U20s, then who is it? A mate of mine plays for Samoa but he went to school in NZ. But then Steven Luatua played Samoa U20s and became an All Black.

As an abstract, but still relevant point - people are going to want to play with their mates at that age. It's far easier to hit the U20 England squad with 4 or more people you know than to run off to a celtic U20 squad, knowing no-one, no prior bonding, likely away from home.

They're still boys, really, and it's faintly ridiculous to ask them to nail their colours to the mast at that age. Personally, I decided to bin off an apprenticeship that was almost complete to become a chef at 19. No-one that age knows what they want to do or be for the rest of their career

Peej wrote:Do Tonga, Fiji and Samoa even have second teams that the players to them? If it isn't their U20s, then who is it? A mate of mine plays for Samoa but he went to school in NZ. But then Steven Luatua played Samoa U20s and became an All Black.

The IRB's rules changed a couple of years back, so that no-one can use their U20s to tie anymore. If a team wants to run a 2nd XV and that 2nd XV plays another designated 2nd XV, then that can tie players, but since practically no-one runs a 2nds anymore, it's basically caps or nothing so far as tying players in goes.

England has the Saxons, but considering their last game was against "South Africa A" yet still didn't manage to capture anyone, as South Africa had named "Emerging Springboks" as their designated 2nd string (despite that side not having played since 2008), they're largely irrelevant.

Puja

Yep. Mike Haley definitely played in that series and then went on to get a couple of Ireland caps. Might have been another too? I can’t remember now ...

Scrumhead wrote:Yep. Mike Haley definitely played in that series and then went on to get a couple of Ireland caps. Might have been another too? I can’t remember now ...

Tompkins played in that series I think.

LOL



I'd like to see that at full speed but that looks just about the worst one I've seen him do.

Mikey Brown wrote:LOL



I'd like to see that at full speed but that looks just about the worst one I've seen him do.

Nah, the one on Charlie Atkinson was just a smidgeon worse, but not much in it.

Fair enough, I just saw that one again in the responses and it was horrible, worse than I remember. Atkinson was at least dipping a little though.

It actually seems quite skilful here how he manages to get over the top of the kicker's arm to get a clear shoulder-to-face contact. I guess he's been honing his craft for a while now.

The one on Atkinson was far worse as Faz had lined him up from around 30m away

It's not often Goode's trolling has any merit, but hard to argue this time.

Thats a bad one. No citings in the Championship, i imagine?

Peej wrote:The one on Atkinson was far worse as Faz had lined him up from around 30m away

30m?!?! Atkinson needs to have a word with himself. Faz at full speed over 30m would give him a good 20mins to get out of the way etc etc

Mikey Brown wrote:LOL



I'd like to see that at full speed but that looks just about the worst one I've seen him do.

What I really don't like about an incident like this is that if he Donny player stays down Farrell is in bother, because he bounces back to his feet the ref may assume it was fine. It's concerning because at what point do we see some football style antics of players milking the collision if they feel contact with their head? If officials don't pick it up then players will start helping them along.

Farrell is a lucky boy, tackles like that are reds and then 6 weeks (before mitigation) at the minute. Given his previous he wouldn't get much let off and then he'd be risking any possible Lions inclusion.

The lack of citing (is that even a thing in the Championship?) is worrying. What would it take?

That's a red, Shirley?

FKAS wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:LOL



I'd like to see that at full speed but that looks just about the worst one I've seen him do.

What I really don't like about an incident like this is that if he Donny player stays down Farrell is in bother, because he bounces back to his feet the ref may assume it was fine. It's concerning because at what point do we see some football style antics of players milking the collision if they feel contact with their head? If officials don't pick it up then players will start helping them along.

Farrell is a lucky boy, tackles like that are reds and then 6 weeks (before mitigation) at the minute. Given his previous he wouldn't get much let off and then he'd be risking any possible Lions inclusion.

I saw a letter recently in one of the papers about football 'milking'. The writer suggested that any player going to ground holding his face or head should automatically have to leave the pitch and go through the concussion procedure. Rugby could do worse than bring in that idea now so that any tendency towards 'milking' is nipped in the bud.

Hard to tell, but is that Doncaster player springing back to his feet to check where the kick has gone or protest the clear head shot? Either way, he is hardly milking it.