Someone said about nine pages ago something about "FIFA should have done a better job of drafting these rules, and defined the terms."
I'd just like to point out that while that may be true lots of terms in lots of legislation/regulation/rules are not defined. That's what Courts are for: to bring Parliament's intent to real life situations.
Similarly, FIFA release periodical regulation updates (circulars) and decisions of various judicial bodies to clarify the rules.
For all we know, there could be greater clarity about these terms than it would seem from a basic reading of the rules.
That's exactly right Smithy. Which is why I've been trying to explain that context, intent in creating the statute, the statute's application and publically available precedents all form an important part of the picture, but that's obviously too wordy for some to understand.
To go back to 5.1 - the question is whether, in FIFA's eyes, Deklan Wynn's has permanent nationality that entitles to play for NZ on the basis of that section alone. The answer is he doesn't, because of the mere existence of Article 7 which clarifies section 5.1 for people in Deklan's situation. This is how FIFA has interpreted and applied the statute since it's been passed, and NZF has abided by it before (for example, in Daniel's and Durante's cases).
Keep trying to be clear! Try less, better put together words. You keep crying like a baby 'why don't they understand me?' You just get more and more confused as you go on. And why can you not for once just focus on the question "Is Deklan a person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country?" in itself. It's a clause that is asking a question. Of course we know that there are other clauses and they all go together blah blah blah. Doesn't preclude us from examining 5.1 and getting a yes or no on that.
Why are you so obsessed with getting people to comment specifically on 5.1? It seems pretty clear to me what El Grap thinks of Wynne under 5.1. It is in this sentence:
"The answer is he doesn't, because of the mere existence of Article 7 which clarifies section 5.1 for people in Wynne's situation."
El Grap appears to not care whether he meets 5.1 by itself because his reading sees 5.1 alone as irrelevant in this situation. I would hazard a guess though that since El Grap is focusing on 7, which relates to taking up a new nationality, he believes the Wynne's NZ citizenship is valid for playing for NZ. If he thought his citizenship wasn't valid, why would he bother with 7 at all?
Edit: Clarification