New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Napier Phoenix

Careful what you imply .... the rules have been there for a long time now and on what evidence we have when they have been challenged or amendments sort they have been lost...

Laws are made for particular reasons and these laws are no different ... its expected like taxation law you understand them and how they have been applied or seek advise from someone who does... Just because you think they can be read in different ways has nothing to do with how good or bad they are... as I understand them they have been successful in what they sort to do. 

You can google ... FIFA + change of association ... and heaps comes up enough to if in doubt seek some help ...

All you had to do was apply for his clearance say 6 to  18 months ago and there is no issue ...

However continue down the path NZ is right, the world is wrong because we are Kiwis and you open yourself up to a big, nay huge nay massive penalty ... you could say we got it wrong it was the same mistake 16 times throw yourself on there mercy and hope for the best .. Or you could as you keep insisting on blaming everyone and it is a reasonable mistake, lose this and you are staring at a mega penalty...

As an aside all law works in two ways one by what it says and 2 by how the courts in this case FIFA apply those laws to cases before them my understanding is FIFA have been very strict , read and enforce these laws as many on this forum have indicated ... 

Also, I still don't get why we just couldn't get an exemption for Durante - we had to play him and wait for someone to protest!  It's very strange

It's a little different as Durante had been here for five years but had sat on the bench for Australia, so the question was did the fact that he sat on the bench mean that he had played for Australia? We weren't applying for excemption as he had qualified for the five years over 18 rule, we just wanted to know if he was disqualified by being in a match day squad for Australia. FIFA wouldn't provide clarity so we played him in a dead rubber to force their hand.

So according to NZF we got all worked up over nothing.

Why didn't you guys believe me?

I just hope in the current under 17's we don't have a future Rufer or Messi born overseas who gets so fudgeed off at NZ football that they end up playing for their former country.

I guess as they were ineligible in the first place to play for NZ then that indeed is possible.

Actually Newcastle you may have a point. 

Judging by some of your previous Nostradamus postings and the intelligence you have displayed in all the rest of your posts, I am starting to believe that you may hold a very senior role in NZ football.

Shall we just call you Fred?

So FIFA are not  investigating NZF r.e player eligibility issues.

However this might only be a timing thing. It was only yesterday that it was announced Oceania was looking into the U17 Wc qualifying tournament. If Oceania find there were ineligible NZ players and make a complaint to FIFA then FIFA might well decide to investigate as this follows directly on from NZ fielding ineligible players at the Olympic qualifiers as well.

This statement from NZF just points out the current situation. If/when Oceania bring to FIFA's notice NZF's widespread and systematic abuse of the eligibility rules then an investigation is almost certain. It might be that FIFA is not yet aware of the full story. They will almost certainly act if Oceania lays a complaint. 

these players represented their national teams and qualified for the 2016 Summer Olympics men's football tournament in the 2015 UEFA European Under-21 Championship

Denmark

Pione Sisto 

On 8 May 2015, Sisto received official word of FIFA's dispensation decision, granting him the ability to immediately represent Denmark, without waiting the obligatory five years following his 18th birthday.

Sweden

Joseph Baffo 

Place of birth Accra, Ghana

Baffo was born to Ghanaian parents

Portugal

Raphaël Guerreiro

Place of birth, Le Blanc-Mesnil, France

William Carvalho

Place of birth, Luanda, Angola

So Fifa and the Olympic committee will have to take into consideration that two teams already qualified for the 2016 Olympics have fielded ineligible players (Sweden and Portugal) thats only looking at the 4 teams who qualified through europe. Without looking at the 52 teams that started qualification in March 2013. or the South American Youth Football Championship

Heres some links to the rules for Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics. 

Page 81 http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf

Page 1-2 http://www.rio2016.com/sites/default/files/users/rio2016_files/fifa-football-en.pdf

It also states:

 All athletes participating in the qualification events for the Rio 2016 Olympic Football Tournaments must be

born on/or after 01 January 1993. No over-age players will be permitted to participate in any qualification

competition matches.

and Papua New Guinea had a 25 year old in their team. 

Just reading this bullshark on wikipedia makes me think Vanuatu's appeal and OFC's decision 

Guerreiro : Portugeuse FATHER - Eligible

Without knowing where the other players mentioned grandparents/both parents were born, or if an "exemption" has already been granted  you cant categorically state ineligible.

Just because its not on Wikipedia doesn't mean its not real...Hopefully FIFA do a bit more research than just looking at Wikipedia.   

I don't necessarily agree with napierphoenix but feel the need to support him somewhat - everyone's jumping all over him but i think his original argument stands. Citing speed limits misses his point - his argument to me is that essentially the speed limit signs here are not clear, can be interpreted different ways, and despite what some are claiming, there doesn't appear to be any kind of documentation or official process around what happens after you apply for an exemption. He is right when he says an FAQ sheet is not sufficient. I mean seriously. That is not any kind of 'evidence' proving him wrong at all, the fact that one is required only serves to support his argument.

Terminator-x has argued something similar in the thread, but appears to have worded it slight better, in a less aggressive manner, and people are not taking him to task at all.

Midfielder misses the point as well when he says "the rules have been there for a long time now and on what evidence we have when they have been challenged or amendments sought they have been lost..."

"and on what evidence we have" are the key words there - that process should not be a grey area.

Yes NZF have been very silly with what they've done, and apparently out of synch with what other national football bodies have been doing, but that doesn't make the process any more legitimate. 

Yes FIFA, ban us, cool, but for the love of god clean up the eligibility rules and document the exemption process at the same time. 

There's been a lot of debate about the legalities of things and I realise some people are playing devils advocate.  Just out of interest though, weighing up everything we've heard from the OFC and NZF to date, is there anyone on here who genuinely believes that we shouldn't have been thrown out of the U23 tournament?

I personally feel that it was right to kick us out.  At the same time because of what's at stake, I hope that the NZF appeal is successful or at least sorts out these eligibility rules going forward. 

That is the key thing though, these laws do not seem to have caught anyone else in international football out. International Football federations must have access to all sorts of documents which we can't find with just a quick google search. It is hard to criticise a process which so far has only caught us out. Have we found any other player around the world who has been ruled ineligible? It seems that other organisations did know the rules, except for us. If the process can be followed successfully by everyone except for us then the problem is with us and not the process.

Yeah can't help but think our CEO rocked in with this Barclays attitude thinking he could get away with shark like Barclays tried to do in the UK in departments he managed.

Plus he's a rugby man at heart.

One of my two theories (no grounds, just a hunch) is what Hudson wanted with his U-23's is what Hudson got. And the NZF back up boys didn't want to ruffle his proud cock feathers by digging up matters of non-eligibilty.

The other is simple ineptitude.

That's the whole point he's making though (I think!) - it's not about what everyone else did before, or who has and hasn't done what, the point he's making is that the laws are far from clear, and the exemption process is not documented. Yes it could be documented in a way that only football bodies can view it, but that doesn't sound like the case at all if there are FAQ sheets around and you apparently have to know someone in FIFA to get decent advice on it. 

I agree wholeheartedly that NZF has been stupid and should be punished, but this thread alone has shone a light on what seems like a very difficult area of FIFA's rules to interpret, as well as an exemption process that could be Sepp Blatter flipping a coin for all we know. 

Appreciate your sound logic there, but that is not the marker of a good process.

Otherwise Rosa Parks would've just sat at the back!

That's quite clearly not the same thing and completely unhelpful to the discussion.

Let's remember this whole thing comes back the point that New Zealand football obviously knew you could apply for an exemption. They knew all about it because Martin said they did. Martin decided not to apply for an exemption and he even said: "The sort of advice from the lawyers is where you have applied for exemption if you don't get it you're stuffed." So the question is not whether or not New Zealand Football knew about the exemption process - they absolutely did. The problem is that NZF knowing about the exemption process decided to ignore it. There was no ignorance of the law. They knew the law and decided to ignore it.

I just pointed out that if everyone follows a process, it doesn't mean it's a good one. 

I agree with you.

You're continually missing the point I was trying to make. 

How so? As I understand it, your point is that the exemption process is not specifically outlined for everyone to view. I'm saying that NZF almost certainly knew all about the exemption process and just decided to not go down that route. Therefore even if the exemption process was spelt out and put online for us to see, NZF probably still would have done exactly the same thing. Therefore, my interest isn't really in the process itself but in NZF.

I believe (and this is only a belief and not something I can prove with facts) is that the exemption process is kept deliberately murky. The exemption process is meant to be a case by case basis. No set of rules can cover every single eventuality when a player should or shouldn't be exempt. FIFA obviously prefer having an exemption process to having to add another 12 articles to the player eligibility laws. Now maybe you can argue that FIFA shouldn't be able to decide such things on a case by case basis? That's fair enough but the risk then is that FIFA creates overbearing laws which could rule out the likes of Ibini from representing Australia.

Spot on Ryan 54. Its simple, NZF knew the rules and the process for exemption and chose to ignore so simply put, they cheated.

Becuase that was a nothing statement..... there was nothing to back it up or "put your balls on"....

I was a very general statement and during this saga every couple days there has been something interesting or a new development... so chances are you were going to be right...

If you had said the Ethics committee are not investigsting us then you have grounds to ask that question 

A few nations did get pinged in last World Cup qualifying for fielding ineligible players, all African nations.

Nah never... :\

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_fraud_in_associa...

So Vanuatu were the only team in international football who were smart enough to lodge a challenge?

Congo (Republic of, not the Democratic Republic of) did it. As did Namibia. See here.

Panama did it. See here.

There's probably heaps more but there's 3 examples found in a few minutes on Google.

Napier Phoenix says google results don't count. 

Napier is probably just searching within red tube for his info