All Whites, Ferns, and other international teams
Highlights how stupid the rules are
Nope.. Highlights an example where the simple process of sending a fax requesting an exemption should have been applied for and would likely almost certainly have been granted.
Its not following the rules that is stupid...
Hang on a minute, there is no hard evidence to show that NZF chose to ignore the law. If Arthur Allan Thomas or David Bain had been convicted on as much evidence there would be an uproar. Try putting your prejudice against NZF to one side and just deal with PROVEN facts
As an edit: I don't buy this 'the law is the law ' stuff either. If it was, we would have no lawyers, no judicial system, no common law, and no changes to the law because the original one was wrong.
Very reliable sauces say they did plus if they knew about de Vries and followed the rules. They knew.
To be fair to everyone you'd need to be able to sort this out as early as possible for promising players so there was nothing except opportunity holding them back. Here's a thought - how about FIFA waives the requirement for kids aged under 15 when they got citizenship - that should cut out any of the real 'talent-harvest' concerns. That would reduce the load of exemption applications to those cases in the 15+ age-groups where there dodgy stuff may mostly occur. They need to do something as its blatantly unfair on innocent parties.
So what would then stop, let's say, Qatar from shipping over 2,000 14-year old Brazilian boys, giving them all citizenship - if only 1% work out as good footballers, Qatar have an instant competitive team. And they can then just press repeat on that.
A lot of people are looking at this from a very insular perspective - in the grand scheme of things, Wynne is just collateral damage in FIFA's fight to preserve competitive integrity of international football. And they recognise that there are occasional issues with the rule, so they give exemptions to players who demonstrate they're not cheating the system. And if NZF had bothered to do something about that - like the FFA have been doing - none of this would have come to pass. So who's at fault then?
Its beyond just Deklan Wynne and NZ if you consider the massive migrations going on in the world right now. I would imagine that such a scheme by Qatar might be pretty obvious to any cursory scrutiny. As for the under 15 idea - well that was just a quick off-the-top-of-the head idea as an example for starters of course (I haven't had time to work out the whole policy yet...). If people started thinking about it there could be additional conditions developed to minimise the cheating potential. For example most 14 year olds live with their families and there are legal requirements around that - perhaps there could be other conditions and checks that could be added etc...
The guts of what I think:
Look. The law is an arse but it is the law.
Just because a law is stupid is no reason to ignore it and pretend it doesn't apply to you as we have.
You can make all the points in the world about it Gordy but it doesn't change the black and white of it. Those are the laws we are obliged to abide by them.
As an edit: I don't buy this 'the law is the law ' stuff either. If it was, we would have no lawyers, no judicial system, no common law, and no changes to the law because the original one was wrong.
Agree with that Napier.
Also I'm not absolving NZF in any way - they may well have stuffed up either through deliberate evasion or dumbass omission. I'm just saying these rules are hitting targets I think they should'nt be. There has to be better ways to do this.
Just because a stupid law is a law - doesn't mean we can't call it a stupid law and argue against it. Hell Governments are changing laws all the time - even in single sittings of parliament under urgency!
As an aside all this is filling in the off-season angst gap very effectively.
Highlights how stupid the rules are
Nope.. Highlights an example where the simple process of sending a fax requesting an exemption should have been applied for and would likely almost certainly have been granted.
Its not following the rules that is stupid...
And your point is........?
I'm beginning to wonder if you're part of NZF / legal team desperately scouring forums searching for "what do we do..."...."wheres the exemption forms...."
Suggestion : Telephone / Email / Fax / Beat the drums - do something to contact FIFA and ask them.... The "exemption process" is real - many countries have used it successfully.
Highlights how stupid the rules are
Nope.. Highlights an example where the simple process of sending a fax requesting an exemption should have been applied for and would likely almost certainly have been granted.
Its not following the rules that is stupid...
Something like this?
All I did was google "FIFA change of association application"
It seems like a very simple process.
This rule can't just have caught out New Zealand, unless NZF really have messed up. Australia, USA and Canada must have come across this many times in recent years, as well as France and Belgium who have lots of immigrant players under 23.
England may have had it with Berihino and Sterling too, although these may be covered by the Home Nations agreement.
Either way I'd imagine quite a few associations will be looking through emails, birth certificates etc fearing the worst.
English based All Whites fan! Would love to watch an All White game one day.
To be fair to everyone you'd need to be able to sort this out as early as possible for promising players so there was nothing except opportunity holding them back. Here's a thought - how about FIFA waives the requirement for kids aged under 15 when they got citizenship - that should cut out any of the real 'talent-harvest' concerns. That would reduce the load of exemption applications to those cases in the 15+ age-groups where there dodgy stuff may mostly occur. They need to do something as its blatantly unfair on innocent parties.
So what would then stop, let's say, Qatar from shipping over 2,000 14-year old Brazilian boys, giving them all citizenship - if only 1% work out as good footballers, Qatar have an instant competitive team. And they can then just press repeat on that.
A lot of people are looking at this from a very insular perspective - in the grand scheme of things, Wynne is just collateral damage in FIFA's fight to preserve competitive integrity of international football. And they recognise that there are occasional issues with the rule, so they give exemptions to players who demonstrate they're not cheating the system. And if NZF had bothered to do something about that - like the FFA have been doing - none of this would have come to pass. So who's at fault then?
Its beyond just Deklan Wynne and NZ if you consider the massive migrations going on in the world right now. I would imagine that such a scheme by Qatar might be pretty obvious to any cursory scrutiny. As for the under 15 idea - well that was just a quick off-the-top-of-the head idea as an example for starters of course (I haven't had time to work out the whole policy yet...). If people started thinking about it there could be additional conditions developed to minimise the cheating potential. For example most 14 year olds live with their families and there are legal requirements around that - perhaps there could be other conditions and checks that could be added etc...
The guts of what I think:
Under the rule you suggest Deklan Wynne is still ineligible as he wasn't a citizen under the age of 15 ;-)
Ceci and???
I'd assume all of them are not going, just Ceci as an ineligible one, who played in the qualifying tournament would now I believe see us disqualified.
This rule can't just have caught out New Zealand, unless NZF really have messed up. Australia, USA and Canada must have come across this many times in recent years, as well as France and Belgium who have lots of immigrant players under 23.
England may have had it with Berihino and Sterling too, although these may be covered by the Home Nations agreement.
Either way I'd imagine quite a few associations will be looking through emails, birth certificates etc fearing the worst.
Having a look at those countries you mention we have examples where Australia & USA have applied for exemptions in recent times. Could probably find a Canadian one as well if we looked. I am thinking that we weren't "caught out" the statement that makes me think that we knew is the one saying (not direct quote) "If we had applied and got a no...." etc
I wouldn't be surprised with all the other statements that that one turns out to be the true standpoint of NZF
This rule can't just have caught out New Zealand, unless NZF really have messed up. Australia, USA and Canada must have come across this many times in recent years, as well as France and Belgium who have lots of immigrant players under 23.
England may have had it with Berihino and Sterling too, although these may be covered by the Home Nations agreement.
Either way I'd imagine quite a few associations will be looking through emails, birth certificates etc fearing the worst.
Having a look at those countries you mention we have examples where Australia & USA have applied for exemptions in recent times. Could probably find a Canadian one as well if we looked. I am thinking that we weren't "caught out" the statement that makes me think that we knew is the one saying (not direct quote) "If we had applied and got a no...." etc
I wouldn't be surprised with all the other statements that that one turns out to be the true standpoint of NZF
I believe Oliver Ceci, Williams Jones, Louie Mills (from OFC U-17 Champs) plus Dane Schnell, Joe Bell who are recent inclusions into the training squad here in Auckland and for the last training camp.
Ceci and???
I'd assume all of them are not going, just Ceci as an ineligible one, who played in the qualifying tournament would now I believe see us disqualified.
Highlights how stupid the rules are
Nope.. Highlights an example where the simple process of sending a fax requesting an exemption should have been applied for and would likely almost certainly have been granted.
Its not following the rules that is stupid...
Something like this?
All I did was google "FIFA change of association application"
It seems like a very simple process.
To be fair to everyone you'd need to be able to sort this out as early as possible for promising players so there was nothing except opportunity holding them back. Here's a thought - how about FIFA waives the requirement for kids aged under 15 when they got citizenship - that should cut out any of the real 'talent-harvest' concerns. That would reduce the load of exemption applications to those cases in the 15+ age-groups where there dodgy stuff may mostly occur. They need to do something as its blatantly unfair on innocent parties.
So what would then stop, let's say, Qatar from shipping over 2,000 14-year old Brazilian boys, giving them all citizenship - if only 1% work out as good footballers, Qatar have an instant competitive team. And they can then just press repeat on that.
A lot of people are looking at this from a very insular perspective - in the grand scheme of things, Wynne is just collateral damage in FIFA's fight to preserve competitive integrity of international football. And they recognise that there are occasional issues with the rule, so they give exemptions to players who demonstrate they're not cheating the system. And if NZF had bothered to do something about that - like the FFA have been doing - none of this would have come to pass. So who's at fault then?
Its beyond just Deklan Wynne and NZ if you consider the massive migrations going on in the world right now. I would imagine that such a scheme by Qatar might be pretty obvious to any cursory scrutiny. As for the under 15 idea - well that was just a quick off-the-top-of-the head idea as an example for starters of course (I haven't had time to work out the whole policy yet...). If people started thinking about it there could be additional conditions developed to minimise the cheating potential. For example most 14 year olds live with their families and there are legal requirements around that - perhaps there could be other conditions and checks that could be added etc...
The guts of what I think:
To be fair to everyone you'd need to be able to sort this out as early as possible for promising players so there was nothing except opportunity holding them back. Here's a thought - how about FIFA waives the requirement for kids aged under 15 when they got citizenship - that should cut out any of the real 'talent-harvest' concerns. That would reduce the load of exemption applications to those cases in the 15+ age-groups where there dodgy stuff may mostly occur. They need to do something as its blatantly unfair on innocent parties.
So what would then stop, let's say, Qatar from shipping over 2,000 14-year old Brazilian boys, giving them all citizenship - if only 1% work out as good footballers, Qatar have an instant competitive team. And they can then just press repeat on that.
A lot of people are looking at this from a very insular perspective - in the grand scheme of things, Wynne is just collateral damage in FIFA's fight to preserve competitive integrity of international football. And they recognise that there are occasional issues with the rule, so they give exemptions to players who demonstrate they're not cheating the system. And if NZF had bothered to do something about that - like the FFA have been doing - none of this would have come to pass. So who's at fault then?
Its beyond just Deklan Wynne and NZ if you consider the massive migrations going on in the world right now. I would imagine that such a scheme by Qatar might be pretty obvious to any cursory scrutiny. As for the under 15 idea - well that was just a quick off-the-top-of-the head idea as an example for starters of course (I haven't had time to work out the whole policy yet...). If people started thinking about it there could be additional conditions developed to minimise the cheating potential. For example most 14 year olds live with their families and there are legal requirements around that - perhaps there could be other conditions and checks that could be added etc...
The guts of what I think:
Yes, but again you have to remember that the regulations aren't problematic from FIFA's point of view. They're designed to prevent a certain situation from happening, they do that successfully, and players caught in the cross-fire can be granted eligibility if they're not rorting the sytem, just like the FFA did for Ibini and Mabil.
Both the UAE and Australia made proposals to change the regulations (one was to reduce the year limit to 3-years for U18s, and the other was for the regulations to apply only to players over 18) over the last 4-5 years, and both got voted down by FIFA members. The reason for this is that it's easier to leave regulations as they are, then complicate them and create loopholes that can be exploited.
And ultimately, the main reason we're in this mess is not because the regulations are stupid, but because NZF did not bother at all to do anything pro-active on this front - try to ascertain eligibility if they were unclear, try to seek exemptions, employ someone with half a brain to work on this. They did sweet FA, how can this be anyone else's problem but NZF's?
I have a question for those questioning Vanuatu's decision to protest player eligibility when they did.
Let's compare apples with something that approximates apples here.
If in 2010 World Cup Slovakia/Italy/Paraguay fielded an ineligible player in their game against NZ, and winning the protest would mean us winning by default and qualifying for the knock-out stages, would you view such a potential move from NZF as unsporting and morally wrong?
Highlights how stupid the rules are
Nope.. Highlights an example where the simple process of sending a fax requesting an exemption should have been applied for and would likely almost certainly have been granted.
Its not following the rules that is stupid...
Something like this?
All I did was google "FIFA change of association application"
It seems like a very simple process.
You make a dumb statement
You are shown the answer which straightens you out
Yet it is still dumb?
Just step away from the keyboard. The process is there which Tegal pointed out, and did not take much at all to find.
Grumpy old bastard alert
I have a question for those questioning Vanuatu's decision to protest player eligibility when they did.
Let's compare apples with something that approximates apples here.
If in 2010 World Cup Slovakia/Italy/Paraguay fielded an ineligible player in their game against NZ, and winning the protest would mean us winning by default and qualifying for the knock-out stages, would you view such a potential move from NZF as unsporting and morally wrong?
Highlights how stupid the rules are
Nope.. Highlights an example where the simple process of sending a fax requesting an exemption should have been applied for and would likely almost certainly have been granted.
Its not following the rules that is stupid...
Something like this?
All I did was google "FIFA change of association application"
It seems like a very simple process.
You make a dumb statement
You are shown the answer which straightens you out
Yet it is still dumb?
Just step away from the keyboard. The process is there which Tegal pointed out, and did not take much at all to find.
Hang on a minute, there is no hard evidence to show that NZF chose to ignore the law. If Arthur Allan Thomas or David Bain had been convicted on as much evidence there would be an uproar. Try putting your prejudice against NZF to one side and just deal with PROVEN facts
As an edit: I don't buy this 'the law is the law ' stuff either. If it was, we would have no lawyers, no judicial system, no common law, and no changes to the law because the original one was wrong.
Very reliable sauces say they did plus if they knew about de Vries and followed the rules. They knew.
Glyn Taylor, national operations manager at NZF for 9 years until 2013, says he had Fifa notification of De Vries ineligibility on NZF's files. I read this days ago. And here it is now on YF own News thread: "Ex-officials say NZF should have known FIFA eligibility rules." If it was on file they knew. Or at the very least they should have known. And if not they're grossly negligent. Why do you keep suggesting otherwise?
"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...
I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...
Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...
Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."
This is the document NZF staff were accepting for new players. They are pretty good forgeries.
"...sure beats doin' stuff."
Bankers (and ex-bankers) have always tried to get away with bending the rules -
"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...
I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...
Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...
Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."
Talking about Vanuatu is only deflecting the issue, at this stage it appears we cheated and have been cheating for a while. We may not have known that we were cheating but we were still cheating.
Vanuatu did not cheat, they may have been a bit ruthless in how they behaved, they may have not been fair, but they did not cheat.
When we get our own house in order, stop cheating, etc. Then we can start talking about other teams being fair or not. But Vanuatu's behaviour is such a non issue when compared to wide spread and systematic cheating through potentially every single representitive team in every single aspect of the game.
Hang on a minute, there is no hard evidence to show that NZF chose to ignore the law. If Arthur Allan Thomas or David Bain had been convicted on as much evidence there would be an uproar. Try putting your prejudice against NZF to one side and just deal with PROVEN facts
As an edit: I don't buy this 'the law is the law ' stuff either. If it was, we would have no lawyers, no judicial system, no common law, and no changes to the law because the original one was wrong.
Very reliable sauces say they did plus if they knew about de Vries and followed the rules. They knew.
Glyn Taylor, national operations manager at NZF for 9 years until 2013, says he had Fifa notification of De Vries ineligibility on NZF's files. I read this days ago. And here it is now on YF own News thread: "Ex-officials say NZF should have known FIFA eligibility rules." If it was on file they knew. Or at the very least they should have known. And if not they're grossly negligent. Why do you keep suggesting otherwise?
if he was there in 2013 then how did Musa go to London 2012?
Founder
Talking about Vanuatu is only deflecting the issue, at this stage it appears we cheated and have been cheating for a while. We may not have known that we were cheating but we were still cheating.
Vanuatu did not cheat, they may have been a bit ruthless in how they behaved, they may have not been fair, but they did not cheat.
When we get our own house in order, stop cheating, etc. Then we can start talking about other teams being fair or not. But Vanuatu's behaviour is such a non issue when compared to wide spread and systematic cheating through potentially every single representitive team in every single aspect of the game.
It might be semantics, but I don't know if I'd call it cheating if we unknowingly/ignorantly broke the rules.
Cheating implies consciously knowing what the rules are and breaking them.
I have a question for those questioning Vanuatu's decision to protest player eligibility when they did.
Let's compare apples with something that approximates apples here.
If in 2010 World Cup Slovakia/Italy/Paraguay fielded an ineligible player in their game against NZ, and winning the protest would mean us winning by default and qualifying for the knock-out stages, would you view such a potential move from NZF as unsporting and morally wrong?
But isn't fair play about following the rules you agree to follow, and not saying 'well, we don't like them, so we'll just ignore them'?
Talking about Vanuatu is only deflecting the issue, at this stage it appears we cheated and have been cheating for a while. We may not have known that we were cheating but we were still cheating.
Vanuatu did not cheat, they may have been a bit ruthless in how they behaved, they may have not been fair, but they did not cheat.
When we get our own house in order, stop cheating, etc. Then we can start talking about other teams being fair or not. But Vanuatu's behaviour is such a non issue when compared to wide spread and systematic cheating through potentially every single representitive team in every single aspect of the game.
It might be semantics, but I don't know if I'd call it cheating if we unknowingly/ignorantly broke the rules.
Cheating implies consciously knowing what the rules are and breaking them.
If I unknowingly broke the law then its not the courts fault that I didn't know it, the onus is on me to know the law. They may go lenient on me because I didn't know what I was doing was illegal, but I still broke the law.
NZF's job is to administer the game, this seems to be a well known rule that lots of countries deal with, including us in the past. Reguardless, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they are simply incompetent and that it wasn't intentional. If it turns out that we broke the rules then we cheated, incompetence is not a valid defense.
And I do feel for them, I don't think we should go on a mad crusade, there are obviously other issues with NZF and having a near 100% staff turnover no doubt doesn't help. But this is a severe fudgeup, potentially the biggest fudgeup in NZ sports history.
If the FFA could go through the process and get exemptions for Ibini and Mabil, why couldn't NZF do the same?
Would FIFA genuinely give exemptions in the way we assume if NZF are asking for 3-5 members of each junior team to be exempted? Doesn't feel like an exception then really...
Normo's coming home
Hang on a minute, there is no hard evidence to show that NZF chose to ignore the law. If Arthur Allan Thomas or David Bain had been convicted on as much evidence there would be an uproar. Try putting your prejudice against NZF to one side and just deal with PROVEN facts
As an edit: I don't buy this 'the law is the law ' stuff either. If it was, we would have no lawyers, no judicial system, no common law, and no changes to the law because the original one was wrong.
Very reliable sauces say they did plus if they knew about de Vries and followed the rules. They knew.
Glyn Taylor, national operations manager at NZF for 9 years until 2013, says he had Fifa notification of De Vries ineligibility on NZF's files. I read this days ago. And here it is now on YF own News thread: "Ex-officials say NZF should have known FIFA eligibility rules." If it was on file they knew. Or at the very least they should have known. And if not they're grossly negligent. Why do you keep suggesting otherwise?
if he was there in 2013 then how did Musa go to London 2012?
Good question. Steven Holloway or Andrew Gouldie or Sarah Harvey should ask him (G Taylor).
"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...
I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...
Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...
Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."
I really can't believe there is argument about what Vanuatu did, its not their fault NZ Football didn't have their ducks in a row and I don't blame them for using it. Im blaming NZ Football whether they did it intentionally or not.
This is quite simple really.
You useless buzzards that are members of clubs that put forward Regional Association voting members and Players Association voting members of NZF all ought to be shot. You voted for this mob.
Thank you for your attention.
;)
I really can't believe there is argument about what Vanuatu did, its not their fault NZ Football didn't have their ducks in a row and I don't blame them for using it. Im blaming NZ Football whether they did it intentionally or not.
If the FFA could go through the process and get exemptions for Ibini and Mabil, why couldn't NZF do the same?
Would FIFA genuinely give exemptions in the way we assume if NZF are asking for 3-5 members of each junior team to be exempted? Doesn't feel like an exception then really...
Well yes, when you consider the numbers maybe not, but if they're all in the 'not breaking the spirit of regulations' boat, then why not?
At least you'd be better off to check first, rather than get yourself into this type of situation?
I have a question for those questioning Vanuatu's decision to protest player eligibility when they did.
Let's compare apples with something that approximates apples here.
If in 2010 World Cup Slovakia/Italy/Paraguay fielded an ineligible player in their game against NZ, and winning the protest would mean us winning by default and qualifying for the knock-out stages, would you view such a potential move from NZF as unsporting and morally wrong?
But isn't fair play about following the rules you agree to follow, and not saying 'well, we don't like them, so we'll just ignore them'?
If the FFA could go through the process and get exemptions for Ibini and Mabil, why couldn't NZF do the same?
Would FIFA genuinely give exemptions in the way we assume if NZF are asking for 3-5 members of each junior team to be exempted? Doesn't feel like an exception then really...
Well yes, when you consider the numbers maybe not, but if they're all in the 'not breaking the spirit of regulations' boat, then why not?
Agree El grap, but it's the perception of it. It won't look good, will it?
Kotahitanga. We are one.
I have a question for those questioning Vanuatu's decision to protest player eligibility when they did.
Let's compare apples with something that approximates apples here.
If in 2010 World Cup Slovakia/Italy/Paraguay fielded an ineligible player in their game against NZ, and winning the protest would mean us winning by default and qualifying for the knock-out stages, would you view such a potential move from NZF as unsporting and morally wrong?
But isn't fair play about following the rules you agree to follow, and not saying 'well, we don't like them, so we'll just ignore them'?
Winning fairly means that you don't include ineligible players in your team.
I have a question for those questioning Vanuatu's decision to protest player eligibility when they did.
Let's compare apples with something that approximates apples here.
If in 2010 World Cup Slovakia/Italy/Paraguay fielded an ineligible player in their game against NZ, and winning the protest would mean us winning by default and qualifying for the knock-out stages, would you view such a potential move from NZF as unsporting and morally wrong?
But isn't fair play about following the rules you agree to follow, and not saying 'well, we don't like them, so we'll just ignore them'?
Winning fairly means that you don't include ineligible players in your team.
Highlights how stupid the rules are
Nope.. Highlights an example where the simple process of sending a fax requesting an exemption should have been applied for and would likely almost certainly have been granted.
Its not following the rules that is stupid...
Something like this?
All I did was google "FIFA change of association application"
It seems like a very simple process.
You make a dumb statement
You are shown the answer which straightens you out
Yet it is still dumb?
Just step away from the keyboard. The process is there which Tegal pointed out, and did not take much at all to find.
"Nobody here is able to show where the process is outlined"
*somebody here shows ONE place where the process is outlined*
"Yeah well, I'm still right and everyone else is wrong"
Classic Yellow Fever Forum.
If I unknowingly broke the law then its not the courts fault that I didn't know it, the onus is on me to know the law. They may go lenient on me because I didn't know what I was doing was illegal, but I still broke the law.
It is not quite like that, it is widely known that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' and this is probably what you have based your comment on. However there are 2 elements to an offence, the mens rea [guilty knowledge] and actus reas [guilty action]. Both elements need to be present for someone to be guilty, unless the offence is one of strict liability. No guilty knowledge in something like theft or murder or assault would not fly as a defence because it would be reasonable for everyone to know that is wrong even if they do not know the actual statute they have broken. But in a situation where you commit an act and with an honest and reasonable belief that that act was not illegal – you have a defence.
I would think that there would be case for this in NZF's case if they were able to demonstrate that they were in that situation. Things that might support that would be like an honest belief that they were correctly following a certain FIFA regulation and not the one that OFC are quoting they breached. Perhaps that other athletes in the same situation had been able to play without sanction etc.
The converse to this [and there are several examples that have been raised that would be problematic if proven correct] if NZF had previously applied for an exemption for an athlete who was in the exact same situation as Wynne, or some other communication between NZF and FIFA that made it clear that the expectation in such circumstances was for an exemption to be applied for.
This is only one piece of this whole imbroglio, there are several avenues of defence NZ could go down, and they should if they honestly believed they were in the right throughout all of this. If they were just chancing their arm and knowingly wroughting the system, then I have little sympathy for them getting caught and punished. Without someone from NZF actually saying they did that, I don't think we are ever going to really know are we?
