• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Should u20s tie a player to a nation.

***le Question

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
As a compromise I'd be fairly happy for only the u20 world cup to tie you and for it only to tie you within your tier of nation i.e if you wanted to move from Ireland u20s to the USA or vice versa go for it (I also think this should apply to the nation switching rule).

I think it's strange that World Rugby openly have different tiers for countries. It's something they use to actively stop smaller countries from encroaching on the old boys club's territory and nothing much more but there's the opportunity to use it for eligibility laws to make the international game better, fairer and more genuine.
yes to World Cup (cause the countries would effectively make that the rule anyway. No to the tiers. We are equal and deserve respect. We want your players that you reject before U20s.

I should add that if somehow a 17 year old or younger gets chosen they can't be bound

edit part deux: cause of statute of frauds I believe every player should have to sign an agreement stating they understand that they are committing themselves to a lifetime of only playing for this one nation
Last edited:
I think a better thing would be to make Scotland there A side for South Africa. It’s not like Scotland will ever be tier 1 again so works well.
You call guys like me out on this and within 24hrs two more fronts open up on the war against Scotland. :D

I've not made my mind up on Adamson as a ref, but if cultivating youth participation in rugby in your territory is a key responsibility for a union then calling the Scottish union out for being as abject a union as Andy Nicol is a 'colour' (hah!) commentator is a completely legit position, even if not everyone agrees with it.
I'm not sure I quite follow this re Nicol but the guy is a boring dull drone to listen to and rarely has anything exciting to contribute to commentary/punditry. Has been like it for years
Didnt Johno play for the AB's u20's? Imagine England without him....? :oops:
Well my point is would he have gotten a contract at Tigers in the first place without the U20's showing?
I don't think you can say that with any degree of confidence. It's fair to say that there's a good chance it expidited his progress. Plenty of others have gone academy > community game > Premiership, although it's probably more common for there to be a Championship step in there too. That said, given Tigers' connections with Luff, I'd have thought that there would have been a good chance of him being picked up on some sort of contract straight from Luff.

Latest posts