Post history

History for nomeans

New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Back to topic

Current version

Posted August 01, 2015 11:16 · last edited August 01, 2015 11:26

Rammtallica - Part 2 wrote:

There's been a lot of debate about the legalities of things and I realise some people are playing devils advocate.  Just out of interest though, weighing up everything we've heard from the OFC and NZF to date, is there anyone on here who genuinely believes that we shouldn't have been thrown out of the U23 tournament?

I personally feel that it was right to kick us out.  At the same time because of what's at stake, I hope that the NZF appeal is successful or at least sorts out these eligibility rules going forward.


I genuinely believe we shouldn't have been kicked out. I think the elgibilty rules for olympic qualifying is different from normal fifa tournaments as they state in the rules for football at rio 2016:


C. ATHLETE ELIGIBILITY

"All athletes must comply with the provisions of the Olympic Charter currently in force, including but not limited to, Rule 41 (Nationality of Competitors). Only those athletes who have complied with the Olympic Charter may participate in the Olympic Games."

and the Olympic Charter states:

"41 Nationality of competitors* 1. Any competitor in the Olympic Games must be a national of the country of the NOC which is entering such competitor. 2. All matters relating to the determination of the country which a competitor may represent in the Olympic Games shall be resolved by the IOC Executive Board. Bye-law to Rule 41 1. A competitor who is a national of two or more countries at the same time may represent either one of them, as he may elect. However, after having represented one country in the Olympic Games, in continental or regional games or in world or regional championships recognised by the relevant IF, he may not represent another country unless he meets the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 below that apply to persons who have changed their nationality or acquired a new nationality" 

I truly believe these are the only rules that apply considering it was an Olympic qualifying tournament only and I believe we will win the appeal and OFC will have to reschedule a new qualifying tournament in December and pay a fine.

Previous versions

4 versions
nomeans edited August 01, 2015 11:26
Rammtallica - Part 2 wrote:

There's been a lot of debate about the legalities of things and I realise some people are playing devils advocate.  Just out of interest though, weighing up everything we've heard from the OFC and NZF to date, is there anyone on here who genuinely believes that we shouldn't have been thrown out of the U23 tournament?

I personally feel that it was right to kick us out.  At the same time because of what's at stake, I hope that the NZF appeal is successful or at least sorts out these eligibility rules going forward.


I genuinely believe we shouldn't have been kicked out. I think the elgibilty rules for olympic qualifying is different from normal fifa tournaments as they state in the rules for football at rio 2016:


C. ATHLETE ELIGIBILITY

"All athletes must comply with the provisions of the Olympic Charter currently in force, including but not limited to, Rule 41 (Nationality of Competitors). Only those athletes who have complied with the Olympic Charter may participate in the Olympic Games."

and the Olympic Charter states:

"41 Nationality of competitors* 1. Any competitor in the Olympic Games must be a national of the country of the NOC which is entering such competitor. 2. All matters relating to the determination of the country which a competitor may represent in the Olympic Games shall be resolved by the IOC Executive Board. Bye-law to Rule 41 1. A competitor who is a national of two or more countries at the same time may represent either one of them, as he may elect. However, after having represented one country in the Olympic Games, in continental or regional games or in world or regional championships recognised by the relevant IF, he may not represent another country unless he meets the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 below that apply to persons who have changed their nationality or acquired a new nationality" 

nomeans edited August 01, 2015 11:18
Rammtallica - Part 2 wrote:

There's been a lot of debate about the legalities of things and I realise some people are playing devils advocate.  Just out of interest though, weighing up everything we've heard from the OFC and NZF to date, is there anyone on here who genuinely believes that we shouldn't have been thrown out of the U23 tournament?

I personally feel that it was right to kick us out.  At the same time because of what's at stake, I hope that the NZF appeal is successful or at least sorts out these eligibility rules going forward.


[/quote]


I genuinely believe we shouldn't have been kicked out. I think the elgibilty rules for olympic qualifying is different from normal fifa tournaments as they state in the rules for football at rio 2016:


C. ATHLETE ELIGIBILITY

"All athletes must comply with the provisions of the Olympic Charter currently in force, including but not limited to, Rule 41 (Nationality of Competitors). Only those athletes who have complied with the Olympic Charter may participate in the Olympic Games."


and the Olympic Charter states:

[quote]"41 Nationality of competitors* 1. Any competitor in the Olympic Games must be a national of the country of the NOC which is entering such competitor. 2. All matters relating to the determination of the country which a competitor may represent in the Olympic Games shall be resolved by the IOC Executive Board. Bye-law to Rule 41 1. A competitor who is a national of two or more countries at the same time may represent either one of them, as he may elect. However, after having represented one country in the Olympic Games, in continental or regional games or in world or regional championships recognised by the relevant IF, he may not represent another country unless he meets the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 below that apply to persons who have changed their nationality or acquired a new nationality"

nomeans edited August 01, 2015 11:17
Rammtallica - Part 2 wrote:

There's been a lot of debate about the legalities of things and I realise some people are playing devils advocate.  Just out of interest though, weighing up everything we've heard from the OFC and NZF to date, is there anyone on here who genuinely believes that we shouldn't have been thrown out of the U23 tournament?

I personally feel that it was right to kick us out.  At the same time because of what's at stake, I hope that the NZF appeal is successful or at least sorts out these eligibility rules going forward. [/quote]


I genuinely believe we shouldn't have been kicked out. I think the elgibilty rules for olympic qualifying is different from normal fifa tournaments as they state in the rules for football at rio 2016:


C. ATHLETE ELIGIBILITY

"All athletes must comply with the provisions of the Olympic Charter currently in force, including but not limited to, Rule 41 (Nationality of Competitors). Only those athletes who have complied with the Olympic Charter may participate in the Olympic Games."


and the Olympic Charter states:

[quote]"41 Nationality of competitors* 1. Any competitor in the Olympic Games must be a national of the country of the NOC which is entering such competitor. 2. All matters relating to the determination of the country which a competitor may represent in the Olympic Games shall be resolved by the IOC Executive Board. Bye-law to Rule 41 1. A competitor who is a national of two or more countries at the same time may represent either one of them, as he may elect. However, after having represented one country in the Olympic Games, in continental or regional games or in world or regional championships recognised by the relevant IF, he may not represent another country unless he meets the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 below that apply to persons who have changed their nationality or acquired a new nationality"

nomeans edited August 01, 2015 11:17
Rammtallica - Part 2 wrote:

There's been a lot of debate about the legalities of things and I realise some people are playing devils advocate.  Just out of interest though, weighing up everything we've heard from the OFC and NZF to date, is there anyone on here who genuinely believes that we shouldn't have been thrown out of the U23 tournament?

I personally feel that it was right to kick us out.  At the same time because of what's at stake, I hope that the NZF appeal is successful or at least sorts out these eligibility rules going forward. 

[/quote]

I genuinely believe we shouldn't have been kicked out. I think the elgibilty rules for olympic qualifying is different from normal fifa tournaments as they state in the rules for football at rio 2016:


C. ATHLETE ELIGIBILITY

"All athletes must comply with the provisions of the Olympic Charter currently in force, including but not limited to, Rule 41 (Nationality of Competitors). Only those athletes who have complied with the Olympic Charter may participate in the Olympic Games."


and the Olympic Charter states:

[quote]"41 Nationality of competitors* 1. Any competitor in the Olympic Games must be a national of the country of the NOC which is entering such competitor. 2. All matters relating to the determination of the country which a competitor may represent in the Olympic Games shall be resolved by the IOC Executive Board. Bye-law to Rule 41 1. A competitor who is a national of two or more countries at the same time may represent either one of them, as he may elect. However, after having represented one country in the Olympic Games, in continental or regional games or in world or regional championships recognised by the relevant IF, he may not represent another country unless he meets the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 below that apply to persons who have changed their nationality or acquired a new nationality"