David Ferguson: IRB needs to step in and enforce a more level playing field on eligibility

AT WHAT age should a player be committed to a country for international rugby? It is a simple question and is one over which an International Rugby Board committee will pore in the coming days as it studies Scotland’s complaint over the loss of Steven Shingler to Wales.

The IRB knew as soon as the 20-year-old was selected in Scotland’s RBS Six Nations training squad that he was ineligible under their regulations but first had to wait for someone, inevitably Wales, to make a protest and then for the SRU’s explanation before issuing their ‘clarification’ of the appropriate regulation.

Had the SRU spoken to the IRB or even the Welsh RU before announcing Shingler as the surprise name in the squad they could have saved the player and themselves a heap of embarrassment, so one expects some officials within Murrayfield to be feeling sore.

However, the IRB must also accept that this is a murky affair. Leaving aside suggestions that the Welsh management attempted to ‘capture’ Shingler through their under-20s squad without properly informing him – he played in several under-20 games without being tied to Wales, but became so when he lined up against France – there is something inequitable about the fact that very few players in world rugby are tied to any country until after they leave the age-grade game, but in Wales, France and a handful of others they can be, though only if they play against each other. These countries currently do not field a second adult side, an ‘A’ team, primarily through a desire to keep clubs or regional teams happy.

While there is merit in the argument that nations such as Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, who can struggle to find the playing and financial resources to run an ‘A’ team and wish to tie-up young talents at under-20 level to halt the flow of teenagers to New Zealand and elsewhere, the counter-balance is that this has opened the door for Wales to cast their net far and wide at under-20 level and ‘capture’ any boy they feel may have the potential to play international rugby in the future and has a Welsh qualification, while most other nations cannot.

The WRU cannot be criticised while the regulations permit it. It is the IRB, made up of representatives from each of the nations, that has to think again.

They are aware of the increasing pressures being placed on teenagers now in a professional sport, in every country but not least in England where the offer of a pro contract often comes only with an agreement to pledge oneself to the lilywhite.

The RFU pays clubs handsomely for each English-qualified player they develop, and the club receives nothing for a Scots, Welsh or Irish lad, and money makes rugby go round these days.

There is nothing new to countries looking to unearth talent outside their borders – Scotland have fielded Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans and Englishmen going back over 100 years – but, after rightly halting movement between nations and back again, the IRB has to act to ease the demands now being placed on teenagers. They may grow up quicker but clearly remain impressionable.

We need a fair playing field where each teenager is allowed to play without fearing a ‘trap’.

The satisfactory outcome would be to declare that players only become tied when they play for a truly senior team, as in one without age limits, and nations are encouraged to field an ‘A’ team at least once a year, which, in itself, would help the international game and ease pressure on the world’s top young talents at a crucial period in their development.