New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Ah, the old 'all points of view are equally valid' fallacy. The poster in question has been provided with the full - and even factual, shock, horror!! - information on the current state of the statutes, their interpretation and application, the reasons why the statutes are in place, and the actual position that NZF has taken in this situation (coming straight from the CE's mouth), and his response?

'That can't possibly true, it's just supposition, it's just not common sense'.

And he expects to be treated as a serious contributor to this topic?

I know there's been a lot of disagreement on this thread, but there's one thing I think we can all agree on.

FIFA could have and should have worded their fudgeing player eligibility rules more clearly. 

El Grap going Will Gardner

I'm tending to fall in with the NZF line. Article 5.1 applies and Art. 6.1 applies.

And El Grap ... you want us all to submit to your view being smarter & more valid? Get over yourself.

My view is not smarter, it's just based on the actual understanding of the statute and its application.

How does Wynn's SA nationality allow him to represent NZ?

Sack Fred De Jong - He should of known all along what the rules were, he's the fricken high performance manager!! duh

Oh I get it now. Only El Grap has 'actual understanding'. Again, get over yourself.

I don't believe I ever said that only I had 'actual understanding'. But there are at least 2 on this forum who have absolutely no clue.

How on earth does 5.1 apply? Wynne has no Kiwi nationality by birth or heritage. He and his family emigrated here and have acquired NZ citizenship by residency as per NZ's rules. Without a family connection to the country 5.1 can't apply as I read it.

Best. Off. Season. Ever.

(until the next one)

Oh I really get it now. In this forum it's OK to call peeps we disagree with 'clueless'. That'll be really useful in getting a good, broad discussion. Again, get over yourself, you're just one opinion. Don't shove it down our throats. Allow free speech. Just bite your bottom lip when u feel like telling someone they're talking bullsharke (as the rest of us all have to do on occasion). Yes we've all noted that everyone's not of the same opinion, but just keep it seemly and respectful mod. Easy.

Remember that Article 7 is what was specifically looked at in relation to Durante's eligibility, and the case is similar apart from obviously the age difference when moving here.

um, does it say that it's about 'acquiring NZ citizenship by residency', or is that your interpretation of the (admittedly stupidly worded) clause?

  If Martin thinks this is embarrassing imagine if Vanuatu had not picked up on Wynns in-eligibility and we had actually got to the Olympics and some other team pinged us in Rio. Say we had played a couple of games and then this had all blown up and the NZ football team had got thrown out of the Olympic Games. Now that would have been a scandal of epic global proportions. LOL

Or even worse.....World Cup qualifiers. Imagine if we had got dumped out of World Cup qualification. Vanuatu could have sat on their knowledge of Wynns ineligibility and used it against us later.

Remember its not up to FIFA to check eligibility....its the local Association's job. Wynn got through the U20 WC without FIFA checking.

The bottom line is we keep missing out on major global tournaments through mismanagement in NZF. The horror in Honiara was coach/preparation mismanagement that cost us a Confed Cup Tournament and a administration cockup has cost us an Olympic Games slot.

So Bestie, you are arguing with a lawyer and another person with a legal background who is probably these forums foremost experts on FIFA statutes (and the laws of the game).  I'm not sure you'll win that.

Also.  No one is stopping your speech just disagreeing with you.  You have not been banned and your posts have not been hidden so less of those false accusations please.

which wynee would also fall under since he could have dual citizenship. The way I interpret the rules is that the 5 years after the age of 18 only applies to senior level football. Otherwise it would be impossible for all these european nations to have players playing in their youth teams without having applied for a change through fifa. As I understand it the only time you need to apply to change nationality is when you have represented another association. Look at all the players representing England U21 who don't fulfill any of the criteria under art. 7:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_England_international_footballers_born_outside_England

Im pretty sure most youth level football teams around the world are the same. Its ridiculous to think that you have to live in a country for 5 years after the age of 18 while representing a country at youth level sport. 78 of the 736 players in the world cup were foreign born. 

Heres a recent article explaining the rules:

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/fifas-eligibility-rules-explained-29647415.html

Q. Who can a player play for when he has never played international football?

A. A player can play for any country for whom they hold a permanent nationality.

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.

Just thinking about it, with NZF, one is just waiting for the Muppet Show theme to start playing.

Ireland's a really poor example, even FIFA statues can't resolve that easily.

The answer in the QA is simplistic - at a high-level, it's true, but as we have seen there are provisos to that in Sections 6 and 7 which are applicable to players who don't hold a straightforward permanent nationality. Otherwise, if the answer was all there was, Sections 6 and 7 would be redundant and not part of the statutes.

And actually, after just reading the article, it says absolutely everything I've been saying - it even states that Januzaj may have to wait until he's 23 to be eligible!

Lawyers need to argue against each other every day.  At $400 per hour they don't really want to agree on things too quickly.

Like everyone else, debating with anyone I wish. Wasn't aware of a hierarchy here. Better put out the list of those who shall not be questioned. Anyway my points have been about being respectful. Not too much wrong with that is there? You are endorsing people saying that they have 'actual understanding' and similar sharke, and calling others 'clueless'? There was someone in here earlier claiming to have many, many years experience as a lawyer, who wasn't really treated with respect, because he had a contrary view.

Holy crap. LionLegs has really thrown in some new stuff. Gotta set some time aside to digest all that!

Well there is a hierarchy and you do risk being banned and/or ridiculed if you hold a different view to them on occassion. We just put up with it because, mostly, this is the best place for informed debate and craic on football matters

I prefer listening to ElGraps self righteous opinions than your whinging so give it a rest 

Yeah, interesting. Someone here must know Durante.Ask him what the guts is.

10.3 is interesting. Protesting the eligibility of players has to be within two hours of the match. Could make something out of that.

Also, please refer to 13.2 for 'FIFA would have vetted him by now' argument.

OK I'll give it a rest. El Grap's gonna take a rest from his self righteous opinions as well. Yay!

Good News!

Something even more craptastic involving NZ sporting folk!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c...

so if someone (like Dek allegedly) who has played an A international but contrary to FIFA Regs - does that mean that they are poked from playing for their birth nation forever?

Of the 23 players in the England U21 squad at last months U21 European Championships - 22 were born in England.

The only 1 not born in England - Chalobah , was born in Sierra Leonne but has been in UK since a child & likely qualifies for England under "Home Nations Rule" of 5 yrs education under age 18....or maybe the FA got an exemption!

The list of "England players born Overseas" link says lots of players born overseas have played for England.....and ?

(btw even that list is incorrect as at least one player listed was actually born in England)

The "rules explained" link explains the rules and re-iterates an example of a player (Januzaj) who would have had to wait 5yrs after 18 until hes 23 as per FIFA rules...great

As for the rest, yes absolutely, you can interpret the rules how you like....seems to be the NZ way ;-)

kia ora hello long time no see etc etc - but this fascinates me.

I'd reverse it all -

Q: how does Wynne's NZ nationality allow him to (hypothetically) represent South Africa?
A: he could qualify to represent South Africa based on him, and his parents being born in 'that territory' - so long as his passport's still valid...

I don't reckon he needs the regulation, dispensation, exemption, whatever - as far as football's concerned, he is a legitimate NZ representative...with no intention to play for anyone else. 

IF he wanted to 'do a Diego Silva' now, SOUTH AFRICA would need to apply for the dispensation. I think. 

Gonna read the rest of the thread now!

[edit: forgot to quote, didn't make sense. Nothing unusual some might say...]

No - they'd be 'seeking a new nationality', in line with the regs. I guess that's what the purpose of the regulation is.
From the bits I've read, the only time a player couldn't is if they'd already played in a senior World Cup (for example) - they couldn't play in another one for another country.

Wait - who are you? I've always wondered...

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

This is a good point. 

But if I was NZF, I'd be referring to how Wynne played through an entire FIFA-sanctioned tournament with no problem whatsoever.
I would assume that's how the CAS would see it too. 

...but I don't know the CAS

There's GOT to be room for common-sense. Even retrospectively. Even though an exemption wasn't applied for. Especially when it's uncertain (given there is significant room for argument here) whether the exemption/dispensation is even required...