History for LionLegs

I'm not sure about Wynne's eligibility according to FIFA statutes, but I do think there might be a valid case to question the system used to protest his eligibility.

In my opinion it all comes back to the highly unusual relationship between the Pacific Games Men's Football Tournament and the OFC Olympic Qualification for Rio 2016.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the regulations for football at the 2016 Olympics (http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/54/40/46/oftsregulationsrio2016-e_neutral.pdf)

Art 3, par 2:

The confederations may propose to FIFA that existing tournaments serve as
the preliminary competitions for the Tournaments. In case FIFA accepts such
a proposal, the respective confederations shall be solely responsible for the
organisation and delivery of such preliminary tournaments.

Art 16, par 3:

During the preliminary competitions teams must:

accept that all the administrative, disciplinary and refereeing matters
relating to the preliminary competitions shall be dealt with by FIFA or,
if applicable as per art. 3, par. 2 above, the respective confederation in
compliance with the respective regulations;

Well, the respective confederation is clearly OFC. But the key question is what were 'the respective regulations'? I can see three possible scenarios.

Scenario 1:

The PGMFT was used as a proxy for the OFCOQ. OFC did not administer the tournament - they 'outsourced' OFCOQ to the Pacific Games. In this case the entire PG mens football tournament was solely regulated by the PG council. If this was the case, and if the PG regulations say that any protests about player eligibility need to be made in advance (as has been reported), then the Vanuatu protest was invalid. In this scenario the PG regulations are 'the respective regulations' and they must be followed to qualify for the Olympics.

Scenario 2:

The OFCOQ took place as an OFC administered tournament within the PGMFT and were regulated by a specific set of OFC regulations for the tournament (or possibly a set of standing regulations for all OFC tournaments). If so then these are clearly 'the respective regulations' and will trump everything else when it comes to the system for protesting player eligibility. But do such a set of regulations exist, and if so, was it communicated to NZ Football that they were being used?

Scenario 3:

The OFCOQ took place as an OFC administered tournament within the PGMFT, but without any OFC regulations. In this scenario we can assume that the generic 2016 Olympic qualifying regulations (as linked above) assume the position of 'the respective regulations'.

So now we turn to article 22 of that document:

Art 22, par 2:

In compliance with art. 15 of the Regulations Governing the Application of
the FIFA Statutes, a passport that explicitly states the day, month and year of
birth shall be the only document considered to be valid proof of a player’s
identity, nationality and age. A player shall not be entitled to play unless he
can produce a valid passport. Identity cards or other official documents shall
not be accepted as a valid means of identification. The Participating Member
Associations shall present the valid national passport of the participating
country for each individual player to the FIFA Match Commissioner on the eve
of the match.

Art 22, par 3:

Each association entering the preliminary competitions shall send the FIFA
general secretariat a list of at least 50 prospective players for the preliminary
competitions no later than 30 days before its first qualifying match. This list
shall show each player’s last name, first name, club, date of birth and passport
number as well as the coach’s last name, first name and date of birth.

Well, did all of that take place? Note that it is not enough to send the list of players to the Pacific Games Committee - it has to go to the FIFA general secretariat. And was there a FIFA Match Commissioner present on the eve of the match?

If these processes did not happen, Scenario 3 is not credible. If there were no OFC regulations communicated for the tournament, Scenario 2 is not credible. That would take us back to Scenario 1 as the default, in which case the Vanuatu protest was not valid and New Zealand should play Fiji in a subsequent match (or home and away series) to determine Olympic Qualifying for Oceania.

[quote=ConanTroutman]

If we get out of this on this basis we'll basically be like that kid who was crying in the paper the other day about the cop who wrote the date wrong when he gave him a speeding ticket.

[quote=LionLegs]

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?

[quote=U037]

Well, the respective confederation is clearly OFC. But the key question is what were 'the respective regulations'?

I'm not sure about Wynne's eligibility according to FIFA statutes, but I do think there might be a valid case to question the system used to protest his eligibility.

In my opinion it all comes back to the highly unusual relationship between the Pacific Games Men's Football Tournament and the OFC Olympic Qualification for Rio 2016.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the regulations for football at the 2016 Olympics (http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/54/40/46/oftsregulationsrio2016-e_neutral.pdf)

Art 3, par 2:

The confederations may propose to FIFA that existing tournaments serve as
the preliminary competitions for the Tournaments. In case FIFA accepts such
a proposal, the respective confederations shall be solely responsible for the
organisation and delivery of such preliminary tournaments.

Art 16, par 3:

During the preliminary competitions teams must:

accept that all the administrative, disciplinary and refereeing matters
relating to the preliminary competitions shall be dealt with by FIFA or,
if applicable as per art. 3, par. 2 above, the respective confederation in
compliance with the respective regulations;

Well, the respective confederation is clearly OFC. But the key question is what were 'the respective regulations'? I can see three possible scenarios.

Scenario 1:

The PGMFT was used as a proxy for the OFCOQ. OFC did not administer the tournament - they 'outsourced' OFCOQ to the Pacific Games. In this case the entire PG mens football tournament was solely regulated by the PG council. If this was the case, and if the PG regulations say that any protests about player eligibility need to be made in advance (as has been reported), then the Vanuatu protest was invalid. In this scenario the PG regulations are 'the respective regulations' and they must be followed to qualify for the Olympics.

Scenario 2:

The OFCOQ took place as an OFC administered tournament within the PGMFT and were regulated by a specific set of OFC regulations for the tournament (or possibly a set of standing regulations for all OFC tournaments). If so then these are clearly 'the respective regulations' and will trump everything else when it comes to the system for protesting player eligibility. But do such a set of regulations exist, and if so, was it communicated to NZ Football that they were being used?

Scenario 3:

The OFCOQ took place as an OFC administered tournament within the PGMFT, but without any OFC regulations. In this scenario we can assume that the generic 2016 Olympic qualifying regulations (as linked above) assume the position of 'the respective regulations'.

So now we turn to article 22 of that document:

Art 22, par 2:

In compliance with art. 15 of the Regulations Governing the Application of
the FIFA Statutes, a passport that explicitly states the day, month and year of
birth shall be the only document considered to be valid proof of a player’s
identity, nationality and age. A player shall not be entitled to play unless he
can produce a valid passport. Identity cards or other official documents shall
not be accepted as a valid means of identification. The Participating Member
Associations shall present the valid national passport of the participating
country for each individual player to the FIFA Match Commissioner on the eve
of the match.

Art 22, par 3:

Each association entering the preliminary competitions shall send the FIFA
general secretariat a list of at least 50 prospective players for the preliminary
competitions no later than 30 days before its first qualifying match. This list
shall show each player’s last name, first name, club, date of birth and passport
number as well as the coach’s last name, first name and date of birth.

Well, did all of that take place? Note that it is not enough to send the list of players to the Pacific Games Committee - it has to go to the FIFA general secretariat. And was there a FIFA Match Commissioner present on the eve of the match?

If these processes did not happen, Scenario 3 is not credible. If there were no OFC regulations communicated for the tournament, Scenario 2 is not credible. That would take us back to Scenario 1 as the default, in which case the Vanuatu protest was not valid and New Zealand should play Fiji in a subsequent match (or home and away series) to determine Olympic Qualifying for Oceania.

[/quote]

[quote=LionLegs]

I agree 100%. The blame game is not helpful. Don't speculate about individual staff members. We know nothing of what the internal NZF processes were or who was involved.

I'm not sure about Wynne's eligibility according to FIFA statutes, but I do think there might be a valid case to question the system used to protest his eligibility.

In my opinion it all comes back to the highly unusual relationship between the Pacific Games Men's Football Tournament and the OFC Olympic Qualification for Rio 2016.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the regulations for football at the 2016 Olympics (http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/02/54/40/46/oftsregulationsrio2016-e_neutral.pdf)

Art 3, par 2:

The confederations may propose to FIFA that existing tournaments serve as
the preliminary competitions for the Tournaments. In case FIFA accepts such
a proposal, the respective confederations shall be solely responsible for the
organisation and delivery of such preliminary tournaments.

Art 16, par 3:

During the preliminary competitions teams must:

accept that all the administrative, disciplinary and refereeing matters
relating to the preliminary competitions shall be dealt with by FIFA or,
if applicable as per art. 3, par. 2 above, the respective confederation in
compliance with the respective regulations;

Well, the respective confederation is clearly OFC. But the key question is what were 'the respective regulations'? I can see three possible scenarios.

Scenario 1:

The PGMFT was used as a proxy for the OFCOQ. OFC did not administer the tournament - they 'outsourced' OFCOQ to the Pacific Games. In this case the entire PG mens football tournament was solely regulated by the PG council. If this was the case, and if the PG regulations say that any protests about player eligibility need to be made in advance (as has been reported), then the Vanuatu protest was invalid. In this scenario the PG regulations are 'the respective regulations' and they must be followed to qualify for the Olympics.

Scenario 2:

The OFCOQ took place as an OFC administered tournament within the PGMFT and were regulated by a specific set of OFC regulations for the tournament (or possibly a set of standing regulations for all OFC tournaments). If so then these are clearly 'the respective regulations' and will trump everything else when it comes to the system for protesting player eligibility. But do such a set of regulations exist, and if so, was it communicated to NZ Football that they were being used?

Scenario 3:

The OFCOQ took place as an OFC administered tournament within the PGMFT, but without any OFC regulations. In this scenario we can assume that the generic 2016 Olympic qualifying regulations (as linked above) assume the position of 'the respective regulations'.

So now we turn to article 22 of that document:

Art 22, par 2:

In compliance with art. 15 of the Regulations Governing the Application of
the FIFA Statutes, a passport that explicitly states the day, month and year of
birth shall be the only document considered to be valid proof of a player’s
identity, nationality and age. A player shall not be entitled to play unless he
can produce a valid passport. Identity cards or other official documents shall
not be accepted as a valid means of identification. The Participating Member
Associations shall present the valid national passport of the participating
country for each individual player to the FIFA Match Commissioner on the eve
of the match.

Art 22, par 3:

Each association entering the preliminary competitions shall send the FIFA
general secretariat a list of at least 50 prospective players for the preliminary
competitions no later than 30 days before its first qualifying match. This list
shall show each player’s last name, first name, club, date of birth and passport
number as well as the coach’s last name, first name and date of birth.

Well, did all of that take place? Note that it is not enough to send the list of players to the Pacific Games Committee - it has to go to the FIFA general secretariat. And was there a FIFA Match Commissioner present on the eve of the match?

If these processes did not happen, Scenario 3 is not credible. If there were no OFC regulations communicated for the tournament, Scenario 2 is not credible. That would take us back to Scenario 1 as the default, in which case the Vanuatu protest was not valid and New Zealand should play Fiji in a subsequent match (or home and away series) to determine Olympic Qualifying for Oceania.

[/quote]

Well I would feel a bit sorry for Fiji if we win the appeal. But if you are going to feel sorry for Fiji you could also feel sorry for Vanuatu who had a goal disallowed in the penalty shootout that looked to me like it crossed the line. It would have sent them through. Anyway I hope someone told the Fijian players prior to the final that we are appealing the decision.

As for the Olympics I disagree that it is trivial. It is a massive part of in the 2018 WC strategy for Hudson. 

Neymar is repping Brazil:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2345227-neymar-...

Messi might play for Argentina too.

These are hugely important games for NZ Football.    

[quote=Rusty Dunks]

All this calling for heads to roll.....sure, someone fudgeed up. But so have you at your work, and you're probably still there. I know I am.

Well I would feel a bit sorry for Fiji if we win the appeal. But if you are going to feel sorry for Fiji you could also feel sorry for Vanuatu who had a goal disallowed in the penalty shootout that looked to me like it crossed the line. It would have sent them through. Anyway I hope someone told the Fijian players prior to the final that we are appealing the decision.

As for the Olympics I disagree that it is trivial. It is a massive part of in the 2018 WC strategy for Hudson. 

Neymar is repping Brazil:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2345227-neymar-...

Messi might play for Argentina too.

These are hugely important games for NZ Football.    

[quote=Rusty Dunks]

All this calling for heads to roll.....sure, someone fudgeed up. But so have you at your work, and you're probably still there. I know I am.

Well I would feel a bit sorry for Fiji if we win the appeal. But if you are going to feel sorry for Fiji you could also feel sorry for Vanuatu who had a goal disallowed in the penalty shootout that looked to me like it crossed the line. It would have sent them through. Anyway I hope someone told the Fijian players prior to the final that we are appealing the decision.

As for the Olympics I disagree that it is trivial. It is a massive part of in the 2018 WC strategy for Hudson. 

Neymar is repping Brazil:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2345227-neymar-...

Messi might play for Argentina too.

These are hugely important games for NZ Football.    

[quote=Rusty Dunks]

All this calling for heads to roll.....sure, someone fudgeed up. But so have you at your work, and you're probably still there. I know I am.