New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

10/10 for effort.

Screenshot let's it down. I don't want to see red squiggly lines. Export as appropriate file type suitable for web please.

Banstick

Can we ask NZF to schedule more games and competitions in the A-League off-season (except for our women's team - they actually deserve better)?

Bored at home, so been trawling through FIFA documents etc., and have come to the conclusion (which some have already stated) that NZ Football's argument arguing that Deklan was eligible under FIFA rules is a non-starter. Here's why:

Followed that link that Feverish put up a few pages back: http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Ok...

The interesting thing to note here is that, according to this Swiss sports lawyer, and contrary to what I and seemingly many others had thought up to this point, under Rule 5.1:

"permanent nationality not dependent on residence" can refer to both nationality from birth (automatic) and nationality acquired via familial inheritance or a naturalisation mechanism. Article 5.1 is specifically worded the way it is to distinguish fromtemporary nationality dependent on residence and to preclude the latter form of nationality from rendering players eligible to play for international teams. He said that the mention of "residence" in this article has nothing to do with the fact that most states require an applicant to reside on their soil before naturalisation, nor does it mean that naturalisations cannot be considered permanent and not dependent on residence; it's referring to something else.  

To provide an example of a temporary nationality (dependent on residence), he mentioned the Vatican Swiss Guards who receive the Vatican nationality during their stay in Rome but lose it when they leave. So, as I was saying, naturalisations can and do fall under the "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" umbrella too (unless they're temporary and/or dependent on residence for a temporary duration whilst the holder resides in the relevant state), but obviously further invoke article 7 as they will, by their nature, amount to the acquisition of a new nationality not automatic from birth. (Article 7 is invoked when a permanent nationality not dependent on residence is newly acquired at any age post-birth and secondary to an already-held birth nationality or birth nationalities.)

This is confirmed by this FIFA circular from 2007: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/admin...

So Deklan's NZ citizenship, acquired through residence, is still considered 'permanent nationality not dependent on [continued] residence', and therefore, prima facie, he is eligible under Art 5.1 to play for New Zealand.

Now, NZ Football say that Deklan, who is eligible under art. 5, is also covered by Art. 6:

A Player who, under the terms of art. 5, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following conditions: ... d) He has lived continuously on the territory of the relevant Association for at least two years.

However, as many on here have already stated, art. 6 only covers players whose single nationality entitles them to play for multiple associations (France/Tahiti, Puerto Rico/America, Denmark/Faroe Islands etc.). FIFA confirms this at p. 97 of this doc: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/admin...

Certain players, owing to their nationality, are theoretically eligible to play for the national team of more than one association. In fact, certain countries do not have their own nationality, but for historical reasons have taken over the nationality of another country

So Tahiti or Puerto Rico aren't their own 'nationality' - rather they are French and American nationalities respectively. So art. 6 only covers the 25 associations listed on p. 97: it doesn't cover people with dual nationalities (to take an entirely random example, South African and New Zealand).

So Deklan is definitely not covered by art 6., as many have said, art 7. applies, the 18+5 rule hasn't been met, nor has any exemption been given, therefore he is not eligible. NZ Football must be hoping like hell that OFC/CAS buys their process objection...

Life is full of regret.....maybe I'll lawyer up and see if I can have another go?

Also are things like restraint of trade not an issue because its a psuedo law from a sports body that members voluntarily agree to? You can leave fifa and transfer players all you want. It's like the A-League salary cap, maybe not technically legal or legally enforceable but everyone agrees to it and treats it as though it is. You aren't taking your case to a court of law, you take your case to a sports arbitration body.

That is correct. FIFA did not rule on Dura's eligibility for a long time so Ricki took a gamble and selected Dura to play against the Solomons. It was a calculated gamble - if there was an objection before the game then he would not play OR if had already played then the single game result would be ruled in the Solomons' favour (unlikely as objections had to lodged 5 days in advance). However, as we were leading the table at that time and it was the last qualifying game, it would not have impacted on the rest of the qualifiers (unlike any knock-out game). If New Caledonia were likely to overtake us on points as a result of ineligible player taking part, I would not think Ricky would have gambled (and he certainly was aware of the eligibility or otherwise of his players).

Plus, it'll show we're ultimately good sports, and hopefully put back on good terms with the OFC. Or am I being naive?

Yes.

If OFC want Fiji to play well, Fiji or OFC should fund their lead up. The money from NZ players subs should not go towards helping Fiji save face at a tournament where I actually want them to get thrashed so FIFA look at sorting out this tinpot confederation sooner rather than later (wishful thinking)

Excellent work.

At a guess, those running OFC would prefer a side other than NZ got the chance to go.

I'll also add to that as a side note, we are choosing to play sides like Myanmar in friendlies instead of Fiji....

Yeah I wasn't saying they have supported us, I was saying we would like that support offered if we were in Fiji's position.

I mean it will probably happen anyway with Mangere's link with Fiji so NZF may as well try and help the rep in our area be as prepared as possible (without spending our money) for the games instead of sulking.

Edit: Sorry all this is a formatting nightmare. Just trying to tidy it up a bit.

Removed for now - need to reformat the whole thing.

Edit: Alright I've broken it down into a bunch of shorter posts.

edit

The problem for us is 16.3 (a) - the participating associations undertake to observe these Regulations (i.e. FIFA's Rio 2016 regulations, which in themselves stipulate that national associations have to observe FIFA statutes when it comes to player eligibility). The 'respective confederation regulations', if applicable, are in addition to FIFA's regulations.

I still think our best chance is challenging the protest process undertaken by OFC, as it may contravene 10.3 of Rio 2016 regulations (although I haven't got my round to all of the timeline, so not all that sure of this). But even then I'm not sure how far that could take us.

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?

That is interesting. Missed it when I skimmed through last night. So when did the first protest come in?

Well, it would be the Treaty of Waitangi here, but either way, it's the vibe of the thing, your honour.

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 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.

I agree 100% with your comment that the blame game is not helpful. Let's not speculate about individual staff members. We know nothing of what the internal NZF processes were or who was involved.

Hmmm possibly. But do the statutes contain any provisions for making an eligibility protest? My understanding was that the statutes are only looking at the actual criteria for eligibility, so therefore it is a type of 'clip on' regulation that needs to be accompanied by a set of specific tournament or competition regulations.

The Rio regulations set out the procedure for protests (including over eligibility). That's the section 10.3 I pointed out before. The Rio regulations also stipulate that FIFA statutes relating to player eligibility are applicable, and that ensuring player's eligibility is the national associations' responsibility.

Section 16.3 (a) states that participating national associations undertake to comply with FIFA Rio 2016 regulations, and, if applicable, with any 'respective confederation regulations'.

To answer your question from before, I understand that the Vanuatu protest came after the game was finished.

Alright that makes sense. So if the Rio 2016 regulations are 100% compulsory (and cannot be overrode by the Pacific Games or OFC regulations) then there are a couple of simple questions to be asked: Was the list of players from each country sent to the FIFA general secretariat in Zurich? Was there a FIFA Match Commissioner inspecting passports on the eve of this match? Because if not, the entire tournament is legally null and void as an Olympic qualifier, right? Or is that a fairly extreme interpretation?   

Well now we're trying to get out on a technicality, which to my mind is worse than what vanunatu did. It's like someone caught speeding and getting off because the police spelled their name wrong.

We made a mistake, we should either prove that we didn't or take the punshiment. All this talk from Andy Martin about integrity is just talk if this is the route we go on, unless of course we legitimately believed that Pacific rules took precedence, in which case we should take a hard look at the competence of the decision makers.

Uh huh, now I see what you were getting at at!

"Protests regarding the eligibility of players nominated for matches in the
preliminary competition shall be submitted in writing to the FIFA Match
Commissioner within two hours of the match in question"

Right, so if the Vanuatu reps did not send a copy of the protest to 'the FIFA Match Commissioner' within two hours this seems to me like a clear cut legal victory if the Rio 2016 regs are set in stone as you say (my initial interpretation was that the protest system could be overrode by the PG or OFC protest system).

Nothing I've seen or heard suggests to me that Vanuatu didn't submit the protest to the match commissioner within that two hour period.

The team list is a requirement under the Rio regulations, so presumably that must have happened for the tournament to even commence (but obviously I don't know this for a fact).

Section 3.2 allows FIFA to delegate organisation and delivery of preliminary tournaments to confederations. Presumably this entails that the confederation's officials can assume the role of FIFA Match Commissioners under that delegation (but again, without seeing the agreed proposal between FIFA and OFC, can't know that for a fact).

But since Rio 2016 regulations apply to the tournament, the protests section of the regulations (including 10.3) is applicable and I think that's something we need to explore because I'm not sure if OFC have quite followed the outlined procedure.

Within two hours of the match commencing?

Or within two hours of the match finishing?

It's also notable that the same section, when dealing with eligibility protests for the final tournament, specifies that they need to occur no later 5 days before the tournament commences. You could then make an argument that the spirit of the clause is that protests over player eligibility need to happen before matches, not after (particularly since you don't want to encourage teams to continually litigate results based on paperwork).

Fair enough. I just feel this is part of a wider campaign against NZF. Like if the police were following you around in an undercover vehicle just waiting for you to go 1km over the limit on a backroad somewhere. That is quite different to being caught driving recklessly and endangering other people. Do you believe NZF were essentially cheating when they played Wynne?

Can anyone with enough interest / time on their hands (so clearly not this forum) enlighten us about the process of the OFC DisciplinaryCommittee hearing? I was a little surprised that the hearing did not include NZF - otherwise eligibility documents would be presented, or at least quoted, in evidence by NZF then and there.  The result would still be up for an appeal if NZF so chose.

...who is/was the Match Commissioner?