Yeah, the FIFA Rio 2016 regulations were the operative ones, along with any applicable confederation regulations.
So your interpretation is that 'respective regulations' refers to any OFC regulations rather than the Pacific Games regulations? That was my 'scenario 2' in my first post. But surely the OFC formally engaging the Pacific Games to administer and deliver the tournament means those are also 'respective regulations'?
I guess the hardline legal view would be that the PG regulations are nested within any OFC regulations which are in turn nested within the FIFA Rio 2016 regulations.
By the way when I mentioned 'Rio 2016 regulations' I meant the FIFA Rio 2016 regulations, not anything to do with IOC.
Based on the wording in the FIFA 2016 Rio regulations, yes. Whether Pacific Games regulations are caught within the OFC regulations, I don't know. But I have a feeling it's a moot point anyway since FIFA regulations were the operative ones (at least in respect of the issue at hand, since they leave no room for doubt over applicability of FIFA statutes on player eligibility, and also set out the protest processes in relation to eligibility issues too).
What do you mean when you say FIFA regulations were 'operative'? I have seen a few journalists saying the same thing but I'm wondering where this understanding comes from? Because apparently FIFA have actually cited their Rio 2016 regulations as a reason for not having anything to do with the appeal, because those regulations state that all administrative and disciplinary affairs will be carried out by 'the respective confederation' and 'the respective regulations'. Therefore the FIFA Rio 2016 regulations are not really 'operative' are they?
Edit: The FIFA Rio regs may set out protest processes, but so too do the PG regs. You could just as easily claim that the PG regs were operative because they had a process for protests within them. I think a reasonable conclusion is that one is nested within the other.