New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Can Jose grow a beard yet?

So your saying that Ofc could make up eligibility rules that overrule Fifa and the IOC's rules? Yeah right.

See here:

Page 1-2: http://www.rio2016.com/sites/default/files/users/r...

Page 80: http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf

Nothing in there about associations of participating Olympic sports being able to enforce their own eligibility criteria. Or about having to be in the country you represent for 5 years after your 18th birthday.

Also "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."

I've just read that historical article on NZF website about Ryan DeVries and it sounds to me more like he had not been living in NZ for 5 years, and nothing whatsoever to do with the Wynne situation in not being able to represent us until 23 years of age.

I thought that was quite a poor article in respect that its definitely a name to click bait for banner ads. The writer took it all of Fallons mutterings hook line and sinker. As others have mentioned and in a round a bout manner, since when has Kevin ever not had an agenda when talking in the media? There's no coach in this world as good as Kevin Fallon and if you don't believe me, just go ask Kevin Fallon - he'll tell ya.

Did it really need Kevin to state the bloody obvious? Yes fundamentally what he is saying that is a cock up but I think its well documented by more reputable sources (Holloway) that its a cock up.

Other than having a giggle about the description of Jose, Temple and Hudson (which is unfair to Jose) the rest was a load of bullshark.

Yeah I laughed at this pretty hard. "I need a name so someone will click on my article. Malcolmson... Sumner.... FALLON! Thats it!"

I admit I never had time for Jose but I went along and watched his Central teams and he gets good young footballers that don't have a name or Dad attached to them and gets them playing football. Made me realise that I had no idea about him other than judging him on outfit. 

He can coach and while he is still young, its not like his career is artificially inflated to levels that he should not be at. He earned the U17 gig and that was not fair on him.

[/quote] I admit I never had time for Jose but I went along and watched his Central teams and he gets good young footballers that don't have a name or Dad attached to them and gets them playing football. Made me realise that I had no idea about him other than judging him on outfit. 

He can coach and while he is still young, its not like his career is artificially inflated to levels that he should not be at. He earned the U17 gig and that was not fair on him.

[/quote]

He is one of the good guys in coaching. I dont know if he will ever become a great coach, maybe in a few years with some more life experience he may become a top senior coach but he works hard, puts in an honest effort and cares about what he does.

I don't see how those links contradict anything that I've said. The Olympic Charter on eligibility basically states that at the minimum, the athletes have to comply with 41.1 and 41.2, but that eligibility is not necessarily limited to just that. I suspect the reason for that is that pretty much all the Olympic sports are governed by respective governing organisations, and IOC don't want to step on too many toes so allow an out for those organisations (like FIFA, FIBA, IAAF) to enforce their own eligibility rules.

And FIFA's Olympic regulations for Rio 2016 explicitly state that player eligibility as defined in FIFA statutes applies for the Olympics (both the qualifiers and the actual tournament). And these are the regulations that OFC is enforcing on NZF, not OFC's regulations, no idea where you got that from.

Can just imagine the main sponsors of NZF will not be happy with this stuff up. Long term they may start to pull out of NZF

I don't really understand why we are looking at blaming the coaching staff for admin stuff.  Would you blame the coach if the players flights weren't booked properly.  Clear responsibility for that must rest with the off field guys.

Also points 2 and 3 are basically the same - fair enough to be critical of the guy but if it wasn't for the eligibility issue then we were odds on to qualify so you're effectively double-blaming him for the eligibility shambles - once as a failure to qualify for the Olympics and once as a general fudge up

The High Performance Director should of known these basic eligibility requirements. Sack him. Sack him today!! Fred De Fong the muppet

Yeah this is a bit of a crap post AP. He was on track to have them qualifying until administrative stuff ups cost him that. Had they lost before then, fair enough but thats not to hang on him.

I still am of the opinion that this is an operational issue that the technical department would handle. Those saying Martin should walk - how many CEOs get their hands dirty in operational matters like this? I don't think Chris Luxton would be down on the tarmac unloading the planes so why would people expect Hudson to sit there all day checking eligibility of players? He inherited Fred and his band of merry men so would expect they would know the criteria prior to him being in the role.

What's clear is that both Deklan Wynne and Ryan De Vries are examples of the types of players who are not really the target of FIFA's eligiblity rules and who you would expect might get an exemption. I agree that in Ryan De Vries' case it would seem less likely that he would have got an exemption than Deklan Wynne but the problem is that we really don't know because FIFA don't have a transparent process around that. We are all just speculating about the circumstances under which an exemption might be given. I would have thought that the sensible thing to do would be to apply for an exemption in every case rather than making assumptions or simply seeking an "indicative response" as Glyn Taylor was quoted as doing in the De Vries case.

The situation also isn't helped by the fact that, in general, FIFA tend to take a reactive "wait for a protest" approach before confirming eligibility (see the Durante case). Ironically, the undocumented exemption process for Article 7 seems to be about the only time FIFA will proactively make a determination.

I can almost - but not quite - see how a relatively new and inexperienced NZF admin team got in a position where they genuinely believed Wynne should be eligible to play for NZ (as I think most of us do) but also knew it was too late to formally confirm that by applying for an exemption prior to the Olympic qualifiers. Rather than drop the player from the squad they've then looked at the tournament rules which (apparently) say any eligibility protests need to be made before the start of the tournament and decided that the worst case scenario is that they might have to replace Wynne at short notice but if there's no protest within the correct timeframe then they're OK.

Whether you think that was a reasonable position for them to take probably depends on your appetite for risk but I think its worth noting that the rule about when eligibility protests need to be made is presumably there for a reason - to stop this type of thing blowing up mid-tournament and also give teams time to bring in new players if they need to - otherwise why have it?

People keep arguing that NZF "should have known the rules" but it could be argued that they've actually followed all of the rules to the letter. If it turns out that OFC haven't actually followed their own tournament rules correctly or that the rules are ambiguous/contradictory then I've got no problem with NZF appealing and I hope they win. I don't see why our administrators should be held to a higher standard than anybody else's.

*All of the above relies on the assumption that the rules did say eligibility protests needed to be made before the start of the tournament. Correct me if I'm wrong.

T

I fail to see your point other than a hope it can be explained... sometimes trying to make logic out of things like this are impossible other than to say a stuff up of the first order..

Also for  those claiming the competition rules of the Pacific games and OFC were somehow different to FIFA . This is my understanding of how FIFA works.

I understand this because of two personal experiences, first in the 60’s those that run Football in Australia had Australia kicked out of FIFA over transfer payments by immigrants migrating to Australia wanting to play for Australian clubs. But their old teams in Europe saying transfer payments were required. Essentially FIFA won and the payments were made.

What this showed was that to be part of FIFA you needed to comply with FIFA laws otherwise they kick you out.

Second was in Australia we had and to a much lesser extent today have two park systems. The first your local district and second a church competition. They each had different rules regarding subs, and some other minor details. The district association played under FIFA and the Church competition was played outside FIFA and thus did not need to comply with FIFA laws nor were any results or records recognised by FIFA

I asked and was told if you play in any competition anywhere in the world down to local park sides, where you want it to be FIFA recognised competition then whatever other regulations there maybe FIFA laws had to apply and where the competition laws were different to FIFA laws, FIFA laws over-rode the local competition.

Essentially both the Pacific and OFC games were played in FIFA recognised competitions. Meaning FIFA laws apply.

As an aside from what I understand this is widely know that any competition that FIFA recognise then FIFA laws apply. The Gladsville Hornsby Football Association which my teams plays in will and have often discussed FIFA laws when deciding whether something they wish to do complies with FIFA.

Just my opinion. Hudson seams to be getting the benefit of the doubt regarding selecting an ineligible player. Most here are assuming he was told he was ok to play by FDJ and RP. Both of those are fully aware of the eligibility rules (again only my opinion) did they raise any queries or concerns with Hudson and if they did did he ignore them or did they all take the calculated risk of "Has NZ Passport ok to play"

So how do you explain FIFA refusing to intervene in NZF eligibility issue?

I agree that if we were only dealing with the FIFA Olympic tournament regulations then things would seem cut and dry - an eligibility protest has to be lodged within 2 hours after the game and will be dealt with by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee. But as you can see FIFA have washed their hands of it: "The Pacific Games are a competition exclusively organised by the Oceania Football Confederation (OFC). Therefore OFC is responsible for enforcing sanctions imposed against infringements committed in their area of jurisdiction in conformity with... the FIFA Disciplinary Code. Any possible appeal lodged by the New Zealand Football Association will have to be in line with the respective OFC regulations. Therefore, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee will not intervene."

If NZF can produce with anything from OFC that states eligibility protests had to be dealt with before the tournament starts then surely it's reasonable that NZF relied on that, regardless of what you think about the ethics of it. After all, as has been argued in here over and over again "the rules are the rules".

NZF definitely fudgeed up by not getting an exemption for Wynne at some point. If they had, none of this would have happened. But as I said before I don't see why our administrators should be held to a higher standard than OFC's. If OFC have fudgeed up too then I've got no problem with NZF appealing and hopefully winning the appeal.

You mean these Fifa statutes? 

"5 Principle 1. Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain Country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that Country."

"1. A Player who, under the terms of art. 5, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following conditions: 

d) He has lived continuously on the territory of the relevant Association for at least two years."

T

I can't explain the working of the FIFA machine .... again just my understanding is someone needs to lodge a complain for FIFA to act or someone goes to FIFA and says we stuffed up and this is what we did.

Given no one else has made a complaint at this stage may explain it ... 

Also as many on this site have indicated NZ is not one of the bad guys in this and FIFA could just be using some common sense and if no one complains we will let it lie... after all you guys are not going to Brazil and other South American countries or African countries and trying to get 15 to 19 year old kids to change their passport  which is what this is meant to stop ... and if you had applied in all likelihood and exemption would have been granted ... so just maybe FIFA are using a judgement call and if no one complains we are sure NZ has learnt it's lesson... the ban from the Olympics is enough ... 

To summarize my point as to why I think deklan wynne was eligible and OFC have stuffed up.

PACIFIC GAMES CHARTER - (Pages 19-22) 

Eligible

Also eligibility of a competitor can only be challenged 35 days before the commencement of the games and a decision must be made 20 days before.

>>>>>>

QUALIFICATION SYSTEM – GAMES OF THE XXXI OLYMPIAD – RIO 2016 - (Pages 1-2)

Eligible

>>>>>>

OLYMPIC CHARTER (Pages 79-81) 

Eligible

>>>>>>

FIFA STATUTES April 2015 edition (Page 63) 

Eligible

So say NZF are successful appealing the process of the protest (not submitted 35 days before etc). What does this realistically mean and what will result from it? They surely won't replay an entire tournament for that.

I would imagine they would have to replay a nz-fiji final

Anyone wanting a laugh should check out jesse edges twitter bio... Been a naughty boy

Hahaha brilliant. Link for the lazy: https://twitter.com/jesseedge

doh - I went and found it before I scrolled down.. I was thinking faaark a link would have been good.

In the I think unlikely event that we were to win the appeal, isn't that going to make the FIFA ethics peeps even more likely to start investigating us. The powers that be aren't going to want us to get off what's being going on without some sort of punishment. Seems to me not impossible that if we won the appeal, FIFA could then step in and slap on a heftier punishment than if we lose appeal. And it's not going to make us look very remorseful when the one time we've been caught breaking the rules we're trying to get off punishment based on the rule we've been breaking consistently not applying for that particular qualifying tournament. In worst scenario, we win appeal, then FIFA step in, and ban us from all football and make sure the period we are banned for includes the Olympics.

If this means the end of incompetence era at NZF then I am almost tempted to perversely see it as a good outcome. Obviously I would not wish it upon us. There are lots of young players whose dreams would be shattered by a few incompetent fools.

Considering its been a couple of days since his last post, he is either unaware of it or his missus has changed it and locked him out of his account.

After all Hudson pushed for world wide search for new players. That may gave rest of the NZF staff pressure to deliver.

So if the parent got citizenship first ten the kid applied due to that would that get around the 5 year rule?

No

For those of you who still think Wynne's case is covered by Article 6 read this

It's mainly about eligibility concerning Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (Several people born in N.Ireland are entitled to both a British AND an Irish passport from birth). The important part as far as Wynne's situation is concerned is about a quarter of the way through the article: The IFA (N.Ireland) went to the CAS to dispute the meaning of Article 6 and this is their findings:

The CAS, going into great detail in order to clear up the IFA’s misconception, stated:

“Whether the player’s multiple eligibilities are based on one single nationality and/or on two or more nationalities is disputed. The IFA submits that Article 16 is applicable to any player who is entitled to play for several associations on the basis of multiple nationalities whereas the FAI submits that it is only applicable to a player who is entitled to play for several associations on the basis of a “shared nationality”, i.e. a single nationality that entitles him to represent two or more associations.

Based on the historical interpretation, it appears that the current Article 16 implements Annexe 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005). Both provisions have a quasi-identical wording. The title of Annexe 2 (“Eligibility to play for association teams for players whose nationality entitles them to represent more than one association”) as well as the FIFA Commentary compel the conclusion that Article 16 covers exclusively the situations of players with “shared nationality”.

The fact that Article 16 applies only to players with “shared nationality” is also confirmed by its wording as well as by the systematic interpretation:

The term of nationality is used in the singular form in the title as well as in the par. 1 of the provision, according to which “A Player who (…) is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality”. The IFA contends that the use of the singular form is acceptable English and does include individuals with more than one nationality. The Panel observes that such would not be the case in French or German. In this regard, the French version (“sa nationalité autorise à représenter plus d’une association”) and the German version of the 2009 Regulations (“Ein Spieler, der gemäss Art. 15 aufgrund seiner Staatsbürgerschaft für mehr als einen Verband spielberechtigt ist”) also use the term “nationality” in the singular form.

Par. 2 of Article 16 expressly states that associations “sharing a common nationality” may make an agreement “to vary item (d) of para 1 of the Article”.

As already noted, Article 18 provides exceptions to the second principle set out in Article 15. Its first paragraph begins with the following three sentences: “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”. In other words, Article 18 identifies the various categories of individuals who are allowed to change associations notwithstanding the Article 15 par. 2. In such a context, it is obvious that the first sentence deals with players who have dual (or more) nationality, i.e. are in a situation falling within Article 15, the third sentence with players who fall under Article 16 and the second sentence with players who fall under Article 17. If the IFA analysis were correct, it would follow that the first and third sentences would deal with the exactly same situation, which would be inconsistent with any intelligible intention to be attributed to the rule-maker. The FAI analysis by contrast endows the Articles with a certain symmetry.”

So it's obvious that Article 6 is explicitly referring to someone who has a single nationality that entitles them to play for more than one association, and if NZF end up taking their appeal to the CAS it's going to end in failure as the CAS have already ruled on this very situation.

Note: Article 15, 16, 17 & 18 have more recently been renumbered 5,6,7 & 8.

I came across this today after an eligibility discussion regarding secondary school sport. There are similar rules in place to prevent poaching and on first reading they look a little convoluted but among it all it actually states that exemptions can be applied for and how to do it. You'd think that if they can make it clear what the process is, bloody FIFA could!!!!!  Link here

The beauty of it is that your bio is not something you regularly check. If someone change mine I wouldn't notice at all. It'll just sit there in plain sight for a long time. 

 

Knowing the Edge family his dad did that.

Can't be. Surely his Dad was educated in an era where they taught people how to spell...

Here's one for an "Eligibility Expert" ....

Player born in UK (2000)

Parents born in NZ : NO

Grandparents born in NZ : NO

Can player get NZ Citizenship / Passport  before  residing in NZ ?

If Yes ..Eligible ?

Parents were kiwi citizens?

Anyway, regardless of that, the answer is no, he's not eligible.

Unless the only citizenship he has ever held is NZ, in which case I think he can play. But if he's previously held or still holds a second nationality, then no.

At least that's how I read articles 5 and 7 taken together in this instance.

Edit: Thought about it a bit more, I think it depends on when he got his kiwi citizenship...

As I understand it, no.

if he/she is eligible for citizenship at birth then surely eligible.