All Whites, Ferns, and other international teams

New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

5835 replies · 1,102,368 views
over 10 years ago

Did Ricki as NC's coach go to this secret meeting?

Did he give NZF a heads up?

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago
Maybe people who qualified under old rules like roux before 2008


Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Ryan54 wrote:

Those 4 rules must be bullshark

1.Born in NZ(no) 2.Parent born in NZ(no) 3.Grandparent born in NZ(no) 4.Lived continuously in NZ for 5 years AFTER the age of 18(he's20)

Which one of those 4 rules qualifies Storm Roux?

 http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/3414173/Teen...

Read this here and tell me which of those 4 rules qualifies Tommy Smith yet he got clearance in 2010 after this 2008 rule.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Stupid... two comps being played in unison... two different sets of rules and massive amounts of shark

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Bullion wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

Ok so here is a hypothetical based on Holloways post in the Herald that needs disproving:

John Smith arrives in NZ aged 3 from USA and is now aged 15 and is pretty bloody good at football - catching the eye of national age group coaches. He has no parents or grandparents of NZ decent and was not born here. Is it being posed that even though he is has lived here pretty much his whole life and for all intents is a Kiwi, he cannot play for NZ for another 8 years until he hits 23?

If this is the case then there will be a lot of people in trouble. Surely this cannot be correct.

i think holloway missed a point 5, if he got citizenship over 18 then a 5 yr stand down on top of any citizenship requirements before then - if wynne had moved to nz a year or 2 earlier and gotten citizenship before 18 he could be sweet. That's my reading of what CT posted. Mabil moved to oz 9 yrs ago and only 19 yet representing them at age group level - he would have gotten citizenship before 18 the only difference to wynne.

Right and that would explain why Roux is eligible (assuming he got citizenship before 18). The rules seem a bit stupid regardless. It also seems incredibly that Wynne has been allowed to get this far in his playing career.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago
Jv are u saying that someone who lives here since 3 and makes the nz u17 side cant play for them until 23 and at senior level Cant be right...


Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Bullion wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

Ok so here is a hypothetical based on Holloways post in the Herald that needs disproving:

John Smith arrives in NZ aged 3 from USA and is now aged 15 and is pretty bloody good at football - catching the eye of national age group coaches. He has no parents or grandparents of NZ decent and was not born here. Is it being posed that even though he is has lived here pretty much his whole life and for all intents is a Kiwi, he cannot play for NZ for another 8 years until he hits 23?

If this is the case then there will be a lot of people in trouble. Surely this cannot be correct.

i think holloway missed a point 5, if he got citizenship over 18 then a 5 yr stand down on top of any citizenship requirements before then - if wynne had moved to nz a year or 2 earlier and gotten citizenship before 18 he could be sweet. That's my reading of what CT posted. Mabil moved to oz 9 yrs ago and only 19 yet representing them at age group level - he would have gotten citizenship before 18 the only difference to wynne.

Yeah that seems to be the case, but who knows where that's written down - it's definitely not in the FIFA statutes I found. It would explain the Roux and Tommy Smith situations though

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago · edited over 10 years ago · History

Ryan54 wrote:

Bullion wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

Ok so here is a hypothetical based on Holloways post in the Herald that needs disproving:

John Smith arrives in NZ aged 3 from USA and is now aged 15 and is pretty bloody good at football - catching the eye of national age group coaches. He has no parents or grandparents of NZ decent and was not born here. Is it being posed that even though he is has lived here pretty much his whole life and for all intents is a Kiwi, he cannot play for NZ for another 8 years until he hits 23?

If this is the case then there will be a lot of people in trouble. Surely this cannot be correct.

i think holloway missed a point 5, if he got citizenship over 18 then a 5 yr stand down on top of any citizenship requirements before then - if wynne had moved to nz a year or 2 earlier and gotten citizenship before 18 he could be sweet. That's my reading of what CT posted. Mabil moved to oz 9 yrs ago and only 19 yet representing them at age group level - he would have gotten citizenship before 18 the only difference to wynne.

Right and that would explain why Roux is eligible (assuming he got citizenship before 18). The rules seem a bit stupid regardless. It also seems incredibly that Wynne has been allowed to get this far in his playing career.

so if Wynne has citizenship before 18, he should be ok too then...

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

TV wrote:
Jv are u saying that someone who lives here since 3 and makes the nz u17 side cant play for them until 23 and at senior level

Cant be right...

I'm not saying it mate. I'm asking the question because if you read those 4 points, then he can't play till he is 23. There has to be something else that is missing here because I agree, it can't be right.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago
Wynne represented nz at u15 level so had to have had a nz passport then surely


Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Ryan54 wrote:

Those 4 rules must be bullshark

1.Born in NZ(no) 2.Parent born in NZ(no) 3.Grandparent born in NZ(no) 4.Lived continuously in NZ for 5 years AFTER the age of 18(he's20)

Which one of those 4 rules qualifies Storm Roux?

 

None of them...

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago · edited over 10 years ago · History

This might be the thing here:

Article 18 Change of Association ' If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality, he may, up to his 21st birthday, and only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions: 

(a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an official competition at °A" international level for his current Association, and at the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match in an official competition for his current Association, he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play. 

(b) He is not permitted to play for his new Association in any competition in which he has already played for his previous Association . 

If a Player who has been fielded by his Association in an international match in accordance with art . 15 par. 2 permanently loses the nationality of that country without his consent or against his will due to a decision by a government authority, he may request permission to play for another Association whose nationality he already has or has acquired . 

Any Player who has the right to change Associations in accordance with par. 1 and 2 above shall submit a written, substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat. The Players' Status Committee shall decide an the request. The procedure will be in accordance with the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players' Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Once the player has filed his request, he is not eligible to play for any representative team until his request has been processed .

So that could be how Roux and Smith avoided it. Maybe Wynne never submitted the written request?

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago
Roux qualified before rule change lived here for 5 years


Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Jeff Vader wrote:

Ryan54 wrote:

Bullion wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

Ok so here is a hypothetical based on Holloways post in the Herald that needs disproving:

John Smith arrives in NZ aged 3 from USA and is now aged 15 and is pretty bloody good at football - catching the eye of national age group coaches. He has no parents or grandparents of NZ decent and was not born here. Is it being posed that even though he is has lived here pretty much his whole life and for all intents is a Kiwi, he cannot play for NZ for another 8 years until he hits 23?

If this is the case then there will be a lot of people in trouble. Surely this cannot be correct.

i think holloway missed a point 5, if he got citizenship over 18 then a 5 yr stand down on top of any citizenship requirements before then - if wynne had moved to nz a year or 2 earlier and gotten citizenship before 18 he could be sweet. That's my reading of what CT posted. Mabil moved to oz 9 yrs ago and only 19 yet representing them at age group level - he would have gotten citizenship before 18 the only difference to wynne.

Right and that would explain why Roux is eligible (assuming he got citizenship before 18). The rules seem a bit stupid regardless. It also seems incredibly that Wynne has been allowed to get this far in his playing career.

so if Wynne has citizenship before 18, he should be ok too then...

Which he couldn't have had if he shifted here in 2009 as stated earlier. 5 years would make it 2014 and he would have been 18 or 19

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

TV wrote:
Wynne represented nz at u15 level so had to have had a nz passport then surely
a couple of pages back, someone said he arrived in 2009 and went to school with him. That would imply he arrived age 14. He has been here 6 years then, just a question perhaps of when he got his citizenship - before of after aged 18? Is that the grey area?

It would be great if someone whom knows better than us keyboard detectives could tell us how Roux and Smith are eligible cause that would clear it up and add a piece to the Wynne puzzle. GGW worked at OFC (as did Holloway) perhaps he may know more?

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Founder

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Wow, just wow! What a mess.

There is a slightly different rule in the UK, as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't use the residency rule. If a player was in full time education for 5 years in a particular country, he would then be eligible for that national team (Jordan Rhodes of Scotland is one example).

That's why Mikel Arteta couldn't play for England.

Could this rule be used for Wynne? 

English based All Whites fan! Would love to watch an All White game one day.  

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Maybe this is what happens when you take a stand against Blatter.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Why didn't Vana -utu protest against Wynne before the game. If they had the info why did they wait till they had accepted our team sheet - played the game and lost - then cried foul. Any team that looks at our squad and has a problem needs to let us know at the start of the tournament - otherwise we lost every game and another team should have been in the semi. It is a joke to complain now - or how about we play the final - then get kicked out - another joke.

"Ufuk with the Club, Ufuk with the Country".

 If your girlfriend's got gloves, she's a keeper.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Key statement here:

""To have two of our members in an Olympic football qualifier for us as a Council is huge."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1028626/the...

This reads as 'we don't give a shark that there was confusion over the rules, because it's worked out dandy for us'

a.haak

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Fifa rules state that a player born in another territory must live in his adopted nation for five years after reaching the age of 18 to be deemed eligible.

Surely Storm Roux and Kip Colvey don't fit with this either?

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

If Wynn applied to FIFA in the past to change the Association for which he can play international matches, then I think NZF will win an appeal:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/AFFederation/Generic/02/58/14/48/2015FIFAStatutesEN_Neutral.pdf

p. 65

8 Change of Association

1.

If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new

nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams

due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the Association for

which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another

Country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions:

a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an Official

Competition at “A” international level for his current Association, and at

the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match

in an Official Competition for his current Association, he already had the

nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play.

b) He is not permitted to play for his new Association in any competition in

which he has already played for his previous Association.

Big Pete 65, Christchurch

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

valeo wrote:

Key statement here:

""To have two of our members in an Olympic football qualifier for us as a Council is huge."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1028626/the...

This reads as 'we don't give a shark that there was confusion over the rules, because it's worked out dandy for us'

That does make it sound like the eligibility issue is a Pacific Games one, not a FIFA one

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Whats with the Vanuatu coach hanging up on One News? Doesn't want to explain things.....mhmmm....

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

It is going to be interesting to see what FIFA do about this...and the Olympic Committee as it affects both organisations.

Frankly, Vanuatu Should be ashamed. Lose with honour, not be shown up like a kid taking his ball from the game because he didn't get his own way.

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago · edited over 10 years ago · History

CactusJones wrote:

Whats with the Vanuatu coach hanging up on One News? Doesn't want to explain things.....mhmmm....

What exactly happened there? Something smells a bit funny with all of this. There is no way that Vanuatu immediately delved into the FIFA statutes/Pacfic Games rules after losing. Someone at OFC had to be sitting on this for a few days.

a.haak

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

CactusJones wrote:

Whats with the Vanuatu coach hanging up on One News? Doesn't want to explain things.....mhmmm....

 

That was hilarious!

Reporter: did you talk to your manager about the protest?

Coach: Ummmmmmmm [beep, beep, beep, beep].

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Lonegunmen wrote:

It is going to be interesting to see what FIFA do about this...and the Olympic Committee as it affects both organisations.

Frankly, Vanuatu Should be ashamed. Lose with honour, not be shown up like a kid taking his ball from the game because he didn't get his own way.

If Wynne is actually ineligible then what they are doing is not wrong, is just NZ fault. The problem would be if this is just a misunderstanding between FIFA and Pacific Games rules'

Rosario Central, the All Whites, Waitakere United and the mighty Phoenix! speaker of engrish

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Argie96 wrote:

Lonegunmen wrote:

It is going to be interesting to see what FIFA do about this...and the Olympic Committee as it affects both organisations.

Frankly, Vanuatu Should be ashamed. Lose with honour, not be shown up like a kid taking his ball from the game because he didn't get his own way.

If Wynne is actually ineligible then what they are doing is not wrong, is just NZ fault. The problem would be if this is just a misunderstanding between FIFA and Pacific Games rules'

Which it seems to be - doesn't seem likely that Wynne has got this far without anyone noticing.

a.haak

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

valeo wrote:

Key statement here:

""To have two of our members in an Olympic football qualifier for us as a Council is huge."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1028626/the...

This reads as 'we don't give a shark that there was confusion over the rules, because it's worked out dandy for us'

That does make it sound like the eligibility issue is a Pacific Games one, not a FIFA one

Founder

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago
Png want semis replayed


Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

valeo wrote:

CactusJones wrote:

Whats with the Vanuatu coach hanging up on One News? Doesn't want to explain things.....mhmmm....

What exactly happened there? Something smells a bit funny with all of this. There is no way that Vanuatu immediately delved into the FIFA statutes/Pacfic Games rules after losing. Someone at OFC had to be sitting on this for a few days.

Im intrigued. If it was a fault of NZ with Wynne not being eligible, he would straight up tell us his point of view on the issue. But the fact he refused to say anything and just hung up. Something is definitely fishy there.  

There is a lot on this forum about Wynne's eligibility, but I am just interested in why the Vanuatu coach didn't want to say anything. 

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Would be a fair solution so long as Wynne did not play just to make it clear. Unless of course, he really is eligible to play for us.

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Conspiracy theory: OFC announce at 7pm NZT that NZ can in fact play in the final. NZ ask for postponement due to circumstances, OFC declare that NZ have forfeited.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago
Disagree with the all the hating on Vanuatu. Imagine if the tables were turned and we knew about a players ineligibility but chose not to protest out of some misplaced sense of honour. There's a lot at stake for everyone, imagine for example if this was the WC qualifier and one of the Mexicans was ineligible but we let it slide. We'd be wild, and rightly so. Someone has fudgeed up here but it's not Vanuatu.
Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Fitzy wrote:
Disagree with the all the hating on Vanuatu. Imagine if the tables were turned and we knew about a players ineligibility but chose not to protest out of some misplaced sense of honour. There's a lot at stake for everyone, imagine for example if this was the WC qualifier and one of the Mexicans was ineligible but we let it slide. We'd be wild, and rightly so. Someone has fudgeed up here but it's not Vanuatu.

Are you sure? All I want is to know the truth.

Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

CactusJones wrote:

valeo wrote:

CactusJones wrote:

Whats with the Vanuatu coach hanging up on One News? Doesn't want to explain things.....mhmmm....

What exactly happened there? Something smells a bit funny with all of this. There is no way that Vanuatu immediately delved into the FIFA statutes/Pacfic Games rules after losing. Someone at OFC had to be sitting on this for a few days.

Im intrigued. If it was a fault of NZ with Wynne not being eligible, he would straight up tell us his point of view on the issue. But the fact he refused to say anything and just hung up. Something is definitely fishy there.  

There is a lot on this forum about Wynne's eligibility, but I am just interested in why the Vanuatu coach didn't want to say anything. 

Probably because NZF is challenging the decision so it's pretty much 'everything you say can and will be use against you'

Rosario Central, the All Whites, Waitakere United and the mighty Phoenix! speaker of engrish

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

I have a feeling that any rules peculiar to the Pacific Games that are at variance with other Olympic Football qualifying tournaments will be found not applicable on appeal.

I doubt that the International Court of Arbitration in Sport will find it acceptable that one qualifying tournament has rules at variance with other Olympic Football Qualifying tournaments

Big Pete 65, Christchurch

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Even if Pacific Games rules applied for NZ, the Oly Whites were there to qualify for Rio. How can a team be disqualified for breaking a rule of a tournament is not technically playing? If we're actually playing the Pacific Games, then allow us to play the final stage for the medals

Rosario Central, the All Whites, Waitakere United and the mighty Phoenix! speaker of engrish

Permalink Permalink