New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

So how many weeks and how many posts did it take for someone to come up with this smoking gun? And the gun ends up being a bloody FAQ sheet - give me a break....

This is a very generous interpretation. NZF don't exist in a vacuum, and moreover actively commit themselves to abide by FIFA regulations for tournaments NZF chooses to participate in (which in themselves stipulate that participating member associations undertake to comply with the FIFA statutes on player eligibility).

The onus is on the member association to ensure that they're compliant when they enter into the agreement to participate in a given tournament - and if they're not sure, to seek clarification from the governing body.

A common every day parallel for this would be speeding - if you get caught speeding, you don't have a valid defence by saying 'I didn't know what the speed limit was'. The speed limit is sign-posted and known, and the onus is on you as the driver to comply. Some people get away with speeding because strict enforcement on every day basis isn't feasible, so the onus is on drivers to comply with the regulations. If they don't comply and get caught, then that's it - you can't say 'oh, but I didn't know', or 'the guy in front of me was driving just as fast'.

or "I interpreted that signpost to be a minimum speed" - which is what NZF are using as their defence. 

Have we already discussed Gedion Zelalem's USA eligibility exemption ?

I would really, really like you to explain to me why this is wrong. And I promise I won't even reply to it.

Im not a lawyer, but I wonder how relevant some of these analogies to criminal law are? Wouldn't the actual dealings be more like a civil proceedings in the end? After all, we are talking about regulations and policies not laws, and until it gets to the CAS its also tribunals doing the judging, not a court. As such, we are looking more at a balance of probabilities situation more than a beyond reasonable doubt one, correct? So things like our intent in our conduct with OFC and FIFA will be down to who presents the most convincing explanation rather than whether there's irrefutable proof of of intentional cheating, for instance. I just ask because I wonder if this is the case, and whether it will help or hinder us.

Very large and interesting thread from a forum in Ireland discussing player eligibility - appears from last page that they are following our situation with interest. 

Suspect there is gold within the 344 pages of the thread for those that can spend the time perusing.

http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Ok...

Reading the latter comments appears that FIFA grant player exemptions as a matter of course when asked in legitimate cases.

This page details interpretations and Australia's attempt to have wording of Article 7 amended in 2013 ... 

http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Ok...

You're both wrong.

The mens rea of a crime almost never requires knowledge of the law. The mens rea of murder isn't "intending to kill knowing it's illegal" it's just "intending to kill".

Lack of knowledge of the law is almost never a defence. 

An often-quoted exception that proves this rule is tax evasion. Usually to prove someone guilty of tax evasion you have to show that they knew that what they were doing would result in them not paying taxes which THEY KNEW they should pay.

So in the speeding example (poor example really, speeding is a strict liability offence afaik), you could say that the actus reus was "exceeding the stated limit" and the mens rea was "deliberately/intentionally exceeding that limit". If it wasn't a strict liability offence you might be able to make out a defence if you could prove your car spedometer was faulty and that caused you to unintentionally exceep the stated limit (no mens rea/no foul). But it's strict liability so those arguments don't come into play.

Bringing it back to fielding ineligible players, it's not a crime, so all this actus reus/mens rea garbage doesn't really come into play. This is a contractual issue essentially.

You sign up to FIFA, and it's tournaments, and in entering you agree to the rules. Don't comply with the rules, then sanctions. 

The law generally doesn't permit a person to escape a thing they've promised to do just because they didn't read the rules thoroughly, or didn't understand them.

Fudge this law bullshark. Way too much room for interpretation.

I'll stick to my code. It either works or it doesn't ?

Have fun with "I forgot to put a ; so now my whole program doesn't work"

Less Napier Phoenix

Actually code and contract law are remarkably similar. A series of IF statements and rules.

in answer to EG and in providing an explanation as to why he is wrong - I won't do your job for you, suggest you take Law 214 at Victoria and you might be enlightened.

Sack Smithy   [the only real lawyer on here]. that is the beauty of the law, if you don't like the opinion of your lawyer you can sack him and hire one that does agree with you :) Well that was what I was told when I gained my degree through the University of the Cayman Islands.

Bumping so this doesn't get lost.

Rather than reinvent the wheel someone (perhaps NZF) should consider contacting user 'DannyInvincible' on the above forum as looks like they have previously gone through at least some of the same pain.

Happens to me all the time :)

Wiki has interesting things to say on Professional negligence in English law  e.g. the rule of 'reasonable reliance' whereby professional negligence may be deemed to have occurred 'Where a person is so placed that others could reasonably rely upon his judgement or his skill or upon his ability to make careful enquiry.'   

Actions nominally based on (the above) by definition include negligent acts or omissions.

So under English law does this mean that the angry parent of a kid denied appearance at the Rio Olympics could sue NZF for negligence?

Or do I need to be further enlightened?

Good links and I'd recommend you read them if you want to get an arm's length of the issues. If I was a betting man, and this went to CSA, the outcome would be that the Olympic disqualification stands and the CSA would recommend FIFA fix their rules by either making them clearer or codifying the proper exemption process. You'd hope there would be some transparency in that too so you could make sure they were consistent in their ruling [look at the Qata example shown in the 2nd link]

I know - but you have to draw a line somewhere and I suggested Under 15 as an example . Under that Deklan's case would go through the exemption process - but those that have been here since they were 3 would be OK. Its not perfect but its a whole lot better than what is there now and is probably in the minimum age-group zone where most dodgy practices could meaningfully occur anyway. You'd have to be pretty clairvoyant to pick the football stars of the future at 13 or 3. 

Heard some interesting info this morning. More to follow...

If we knew about it before the tournament or even that particular game then Yes I would. Its fine to protest illegalities for the good of the game and fairness - but its not fine (in my opinion) to use it as a handy way of winning off the field when you've not won on it. As I have said earlier there is a difference - at least to my way of thinking..

Wow, after reading all of this I think I could be a lawyer... I may not be right but as long as I sound impressive, use big words and charge a lot. Surely I could do it.

Shut up man, if my employer reads this I'm fudgeed.

That interview with Glyn Taylor says quite a lot to me about this whole mess - not just NZF's part in it but the way people interpret things to get the meaning they want from it. I certainly don't think it illustrates that previous NZF regimes had it all sussed, and it's just the current one that has been negligent.

The De Vries situation keeps getting referenced here as the evidence that "NZF should have known the rules" but it's still not clear to me whether NZF ever actually applied for an exemption for De Vries.

Glyn Taylor specifically says in that article he had "a good relationship with people at Fifa, which enabled me to ask questions of them and get an indicative response as to whether I was on correct ground, or otherwise". To be perfectly honest that sounds just about as dodgy and ad-hoc as what has gone on more recently because:

1. What's having a good relationship with FIFA got to do with it? You shouldn't need a good relationship, you should need to follow a process and a very clear set of rules.
2. Getting an "indicative response" is not the same as actually applying for an exemption.

Ryan De Vries (like Deklan Wynne) seems like a good example of the type of player who was not meant to be adversely affected by FIFA's eligibility rules. So if NZF never actually applied for an exemption for De Vries then who's to say that:

• Glyn Taylor wasn't actually wrong, or badly advised, and as a result Ryan De Vries was denied the opportunity to play for NZ much earlier. Why didn't NZF apply for an exemption anyway? Even if he wasn't eligible a formal request for an exemption would have at least meant a formal response from FIFA that could then be relied upon in future.
• The current NZF administration haven't also sought the same kind of "indicative responses" from FIFA, OFC, Pacific Games Council, or whoever, and then relied on them, just as Glyn Taylor did. If NZF can produce any evidence of doing so it will undoubtedly form part of their appeal.

Also, the question about how James Musa ended up playing many times for NZ age grade sides on Glyn Taylor's watch is a good one. Was an "indicative response" or a formal exemption ever sought for him?

I'm not defending the current NZF administration here but I'm also not sure they are really any more or less culpable than FIFA, the OFC or previous NZF regimes (yet!)

I'm not really sure how this is unclear - NZF didn't apply for exemption, and de Vries arrived in NZ around the time he was 18, so when the inquiries were made he's only lived in the country for a couple of years, and wasn't an NZ citizen at any rate.

Based on that, there was no point is asking for an exemption.

The reason why the case gets brought up is that clearly at some point NZF had understanding of the player eligibility regulations and how they were applied, and have now either forgotten that, or have deliberately overlooked them.

Are you sure he was about 18 when he arrived?. Rex Dawkins asked me to have a look at him  way back in about 2008?. I could be getting this wrong of course but I am sure it was 2008 because of the clubs I was involved in at the time. That would make him about 16 when I first saw him.

I'm not sure of the exact age, but I understood he arrived here in 2009 and since he was born in 1991, I ended up saying around 18.

It's possible he arrived in 2008, but either way, when the eligibility question was posed in 2011 he was ineligible, and in those circumstances he'd have been unlikely to get an exemption.

what in 5 years once you reach 23?

To be honest I am a bit fuzzy on this. I could be wrong. Trying to rack my brain on it but not having much luck.  

I don't really think it's worth wasting your Friday afternoon on!

are there any eligible New Zealanders out there who have changed nationality and are actually ineligible for their new team that we can steal back?

Was at Glenfield College in 2008 - not sure if that was his first year in NZ.

As an aside, had NZF done some 'Googling' on their own site we may not be in this mess - last para talks about 5 year residency terms. Seems we could get things right(ish) back then.

http://www.nzfootball.co.nz/history-offers-lessons...

Applies to Under-17's too of course, if they get turfed out.