edit
Well you're making a leap from law to ethics/integrity there. The question I would ask is whether you think there was any integrity in Vanuatu using Wynne's eligibility to win the match after it had already been played? It seems there are two schools of thought on this type of issue (whether in the OFC or in WGTN Cap 1 League)... some people believe there is no integrity in challenging a player after the match if the team had already noticed it beforehand. It is arguably a duplicitous strategy to take your chances on the field but then use eligibility as a back up plan if you lose. I personally think there is no integrity there and we are justified in playing legal hard ball in that situation.
But I'm also aware that some people look at that situation as a case of 'rules are rules' and make the argument that 'anyone would do the same'. That argument doesn't stack up here (and I am talking purely about ethics) because it appears the rules have not actually been followed, and if 'anyone would do the same' when it comes to exploiting an eligibility technicality, then you could also argue that 'anyone would do the same' when it comes to making the kind of pedantic legal challenge I have suggested above.
If you want to talk about integrity you also have to look at the bigger context of the relationship between NZF and OFC. An OFC spokesperson recently slammed NZF for standing up to Blatter in the FIFA vote. And you are giving these guys the ethical high ground here? Do you think Vanuatu's protest was not deeply embedded within the wider institutional politics at play?
What do others think about the ethics of the NZF appeal?