New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Actually, none of the examples cited appear to be the same as the NZ case. They do indeed seem rare (long term residents, but yet to complete 5 years over 18). I suspect a few have slipped through the cracks. 

I genuinely believe we shouldn't have been kicked out. I think the elgibilty rules for olympic qualifying is different from normal fifa tournaments as they state in the rules for football at rio 2016:


C. ATHLETE ELIGIBILITY

"All athletes must comply with the provisions of the Olympic Charter currently in force, including but not limited to, Rule 41 (Nationality of Competitors). Only those athletes who have complied with the Olympic Charter may participate in the Olympic Games."

and the Olympic Charter states:

"41 Nationality of competitors* 1. Any competitor in the Olympic Games must be a national of the country of the NOC which is entering such competitor. 2. All matters relating to the determination of the country which a competitor may represent in the Olympic Games shall be resolved by the IOC Executive Board. Bye-law to Rule 41 1. A competitor who is a national of two or more countries at the same time may represent either one of them, as he may elect. However, after having represented one country in the Olympic Games, in continental or regional games or in world or regional championships recognised by the relevant IF, he may not represent another country unless he meets the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 below that apply to persons who have changed their nationality or acquired a new nationality" 

I truly believe these are the only rules that apply considering it was an Olympic qualifying tournament only and I believe we will win the appeal and OFC will have to reschedule a new qualifying tournament in December and pay a fine.

...cue EG - or whoever wants to lead the rebuttal. If anyone can be bothered anymore.

But yes, there seems to be three sets of rules superseding each other.

From what others have researched, it sounds like the FIFA rules out-rank the Pacific Games rules which out-rank the Olympic rules.

But given it's a qualifying tournament FOR the Olympic Games, that doesn't seem right.

We broke the FIFA rules, and I guess because FIFA runs the football at the Olympics - that rules us out.

But surely the football's for the Olympics, not the other way around.

Which brings me back to my thinking around 30 pages ago - maybe more, probably not less - ...shouldn't there be one singular eligibility criteria over the entire Olympics??

but they are Fifas rules and they are written specifically for qualification events for the Rio 2016 Olympic Football Tournaments http://www.rio2016.com/sites/default/files/users/rio2016_files/fifa-football-en.pdf

(don't tell anyone, but I think I'm agreeing with you...)

Just presenting others' arguments (again) so they don't have to (again) seeing that the points you've raised have been raised (again)

Read: we've already been through this.

Some people agree, some people argue. Some people argue and agree. Some people do neither. Has anyone seen Maurice?

interesting though in what you've cited it says the Qualifiers will be in Fiji in December - but the article's from April 2014.

So between then and this one - http://www.nzfootball.co.nz/olympic-qualifying-schedule-set/ - that obviously changed. Michael Song also alludes to some difficulties around the process of incorporating the Pacific Games.

Perhaps he foresaw the confusion that NZF believes it has experienced here...

not quite.

He said - "the early advice from the lawyers...."

I was unsure if he meant in the immediate day following the stuff that happened when they just engaged their lawyers or at some other time. This part is unclear to me because why would you need to talk to lawyers around eligibility otherwise? It's not like they have any on staff or any need to.

Fallon throws his 2 cents in : 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/70746441/kevin-fallon-says-nz-football-heads-must-roll-in-playereligibility-fiasco

  

 Overall an interesting " no punches pulled " take on things by football's resident psychopath. However, the best bit is this classic quote from super Kev:         

  "There's been a big clean-out and you've got all of these young coaches running around with tight trousers, two-day beards and pointed shoes and they're all disparaging about the old-school ways.

"Well, the old school never made these sorts of mistakes"                                                                                                                         

Could there be a new "illegibility' problem in NZ football with the Phoenix Academy ?

Under FIFA Article 19 "Protection of Minors" which covers players moving Internationally to Clubs or Academies: 

(http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/95/83/85/regulationsstatusandtransfer_e.pdf)

International Transfers of players are only permitted if player is over 18 with 3 exceptions which are basically:

a) The players parents move to the country for reasons not linked to Football ie: family move to country before join club/academy

b) Within EU, provide education blah blah blah

c) Player lives within 50km of border of country transferring to.

So, the WPFA recruit International players who move to NZ who (likely?) do not meet the above eg:. 

The Vanuatu player Ronaldo Wilkins (b1999) joined the WPFA academy "... through the relationship APFA has with Oceania Football...".

Do they also have other foreign players (Thailand) , others ? whose family may not have moved here before joining, or if at all ? 

Can HIBS appeal the 3-3 draw with Scots First X1 yesterday which Ronaldo played in or will Wellington College wait to see who makes the Final before playing the "Vanuatu Card" ;-) (joking !)

Of course I may be wrong as this could be my initial fuzzy thinking.

Thoughts anyone ?

Yeah, I know they're not the same circumstances as the current NZF case but they are examples of how the eligibility rules have been challenged by other nations. There might be more similar examples but I didn't look for that long. 

One thing was clear from my Googling though, the US is well on top of this. They got an exemption for Zalalem and knew that they couldn't play Tesho Akindele (who is now capped for Canada) or Diego Fagundez (who has now played U20 for Uruguay) before they reached 23yo because of the rules. Fagundez has lived in the States since he was 5.

http://www.espnfc.com.au/united-states/story/22680...

http://www.sbisoccer.com/2015/01/fagundez-uruguay-...

So what about forgetting to fax the appeal against Moss's suspension before the 2010 WC? Or were the people in charge at NZF at that time no longer "old school"?

Right. I know other countries have breached eligibilty laws. My point has been on the specifics of articles 6, 7 and the process by which you seek an exemption. Has any other nation interpreted article 6 as we have?

"When I need a level headed, clearly articulated , take no prisoners, tell it like it is diatribe on NZ Football I turn to Fallon, Kevin Fallon".

I think that's exactly what Fallon would say: they weren't " old school " either in 2010...but hey, who really knows the workings of Kevin's brain?...does he?

Not that I found, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Some of the reports on the African cases don't actually say why the players were ineligible just that they were, for instance this article implies that the 5-year rule might have been the issue but isn't clear. Plus older cases or ones which were not as widely reported will be harder to find info about.

At least most of these teams which have broken the rules have only had the results overturned and been fined - no massive punishments and suspensions from future tournaments.

What about this one?

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

He also forgets that his team was disqualified from the 1982 Chatham Cup for fielding an ineligible player. 

Thanks to Dairyflat for the amazing memory.

"All athletes must comply with the provisions of the Olympic Charter currently in force, including but not limited to, Rule 41 (Nationality of Competitors). Only those athletes who have complied with the Olympic Charter may participate in the Olympic Games."

I suspect that this is IOC's way of allowing the respective governing associations of participating Olympic sports to enforce their own eligibility criteria.

It took him just one afternoon to learn these rules:

"I can remember one afternoon, locking myself in my office and saying to my secretary 'don't disturb me because I'm going to spend all day reading these rules'," he said

It seems he didn't just play though, he got an exemption like Zalalem or Ibini did. I think the point was that there were no other examples of players being caught in a game as ineligible because of the 5 years after 18 rule. 

I recall Fallon wearing the big trench coats, now there was a fashion statement.

rules were simpler in the 80s

Don't forget this haircut:

Big Kev's description of Antony Hudson was pretty accurate though.

Also of Andy Martin IMO -

"Martin came from rugby and it is obvious he doesn't know enough about Fifa, because there is only one set of rules that counts. They're the Fifa rules."

depends what rules College Sport follow

It's weird. If Sam Malcomson said the same thing I almost suspect we'd be defending Hudson, but cos it's Fallon and he has had such a fall from grace and doesn't write mostly banal weekly coumns we're lapping it up and having a laugh.

Edit: Also he is bloody quotable isn't he? Schadenfreude served by Kev

??? What the heck is Fallon insinuating here?

^ Nowt wrong with flares #nonalignment

Kevin Fallon should not be looking at anyone's trouser area except his wife's, is all I'm saying.

tight trousers and pointy shoes. yeah what was he thinking lol

C'mon, now he's an ex-football coach Big Kev spends his time reading Byron and watching Steve Coogan flicks.

I believe this is what Doloras is saying that Kevin is implying as he is a great fan of Eric Idle

He's pointing out that the modern coaches in NZ are too fashion conscious.  Is this in response to the Figueira interview perhaps?  Never played for anyone, been around for five minutes, and are more interested in the way they look than snotting in someone else's face like it was in the good old bad old days when footballers were also coal-miners.

So what we're saying is that when you look at Hudson, you can tell from a glance what religion he is?

I don't think that''s exactly right Doloras.  Sure, there's a lot of judging the book by the cover going on.  But Kevin isn't actually that quick to judge I don't think - he would be listening to what comes out of the gob and looking at the team selections as well.  If the current lot hadn't sharked it all up who know's what he'd be saying right now.  He might have been all warm and fuzzy and buying himself some pointy shoes.  But give the crusty old Yorkshire man some due.  He's a product of a by-gone era, but some of the principles he espouses aren't dead by a long way.

So far I will judge Hudson not by the length of his designer stubble or the tightness of his pants but by:

1: His results - which are not flash at all and includes a thrashing my the mighty Thailand

2: If he has qualified New Zealand for the Olympics - No

3: If he has been in charge during the biggest fudge up of all in the history of NZ football after publically outlining he will find find eligible kiwis

All this is true.  But Ricki never wore shoes like his.  Just saying.

As per usual Fallons method of bigging himself is to make a personal attack on others. 

With respect to Jose if you have ever watched him coach, been coached by him or spent time working with him you will realise he is a passionate, hard working young coach who wants to learn all the time and wants whats best for his players.