Post history

History for el grapadura

New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Back to topic

Current version

Posted July 14, 2015 07:02 · last edited July 14, 2015 07:18

Napier Phoenix wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

Bestie wrote:

martinb wrote:

patrick478 wrote:

accrington stanley wrote:

The problem with all the assumptions about article 7 is that it applies to all countries! therefore any boy or girl that moves to another country, at any age, and gains citizenship cannot represent that Country at football until they are, at least 23! That has got to be crap.

Or until their national association applies for an exemption, and shows that they moved to the country for reasons other than football. At which point it's most likely FIFA will approve the exemption.

FFS

surely we are getting to the point where something like please read this thread before commenting applies? This has been done to death in the thread

Settle. It;s a valid angle to keep in mind i.e. 'that has got to be crap'. It's an angle that interests me. I'm not sure that it works as some assume. So we start from the assumption that hundreds (thousands?) of kids who moved to a new country at age one day or greater are all ineligible to play for the country where they have adopted and resided for up to 22 or so years, and not before they are 23?  They must all apply for exemption? And FIFA intended for all of them to apply, and they have a big machine processing all of those applications? Debatable.

Not all kids, only those that have no natural connection to the country that they have moved to.

An how many of those kids would actually get to the point where they need to apply for this? Someone noted there were only 30-40 applications annually, we're not talking tens of thousands.

Which, in itself, would indicate that this rule doesn't really apply to this kind of situation. When I moved to Australia with wife and young son, we had no connection to Australia and if we stayed, my son would not of been eligible to play for Australia until he was 23!!!!! There would thousands of people in that boat and it would never have been intended for this rule to apply towards such situations. There are enough people posting here that should know that it is not only the rule that will be debated, but also the intent the rule makers has when making the rule. Law 101 people.

I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand - the rule is there to prevent countries handing over passports willy-nilly and artificially creating competitive teams.

FIFA realise that there are circumstances where players genuinely can't meet this requirement because of their age, and are willing to grant, and have been granting, exemptions to those who could demonstrate that they weren't breaking the spirit of the regulations.

All NZF had to do was apply for such an exemption - and they didn't, and have in fact publically stated they didn't. They rolled the dice, lost, and now it's someone else's fault? Puhhh-lease.

Previous versions

1 version
el grapadura edited July 14, 2015 07:18
Napier Phoenix wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
Bestie wrote:
martinb wrote:
patrick478 wrote:
accrington stanley wrote:

The problem with all the assumptions about article 7 is that it applies to all countries! therefore any boy or girl that moves to another country, at any age, and gains citizenship cannot represent that Country at football until they are, at least 23! That has got to be crap.

Or until their national association applies for an exemption, and shows that they moved to the country for reasons other than football. At which point it's most likely FIFA will approve the exemption.

FFS

surely we are getting to the point where something like please read this thread before commenting applies? This has been done to death in the thread

Settle. It;s a valid angle to keep in mind i.e. 'that has got to be crap'. It's an angle that interests me. I'm not sure that it works as some assume. So we start from the assumption that hundreds (thousands?) of kids who moved to a new country at age one day or greater are all ineligible to play for the country where they have adopted and resided for up to 22 or so years, and not before they are 23?  They must all apply for exemption? And FIFA intended for all of them to apply, and they have a big machine processing all of those applications? Debatable.

Not all kids, only those that have no natural connection to the country that they have moved to.

An how many of those kids would actually get to the point where they need to apply for this? Someone noted there were only 30-40 applications annually, we're not talking tens of thousands.

Which, in itself, would indicate that this rule doesn't really apply to this kind of situation. When I moved to Australia with wife and young son, we had no connection to Australia and if we stayed, my son would not of been eligible to play for Australia until he was 23!!!!! There would thousands of people in that boat and it would never have been intended for this rule to apply towards such situations. There are enough people posting here that should know that it is not only the rule that will be debated, but also the intent the rule makers has when making the rule. Law 101 people.

I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand - the rule is there to prevent countries handing over passports willy-nilly and artificially creating competitive teams.

FIFA realise that there are circumstances where players genuinely can't meet this requirement because of their age, and are willing, and have been granting, exemptions to those who could demonstrate that they weren't breaking the spirit of the regulations.

All NZF had to do was apply for such an exemption - and they didn't, and have in fact publically stated they didn't. They rolled the dice, lost, and now it's someone else's fault? Puhhh-lease.