New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

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.

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).

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.

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.

Maybe under the FIFA/OFC agreement, the lists were to be sent to OFC, and they would send them to FIFA?

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?

Does anyone even know exactly what happened or who is even on the damn committee? Sounds very secretive.

...who is/was the Match Commissioner?

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?

He mostly retired at the end of last season but is still our lawyer and manages some commercial arrangements and the Fever 'technical committee'

Maybe we've modified our car but not got a WoF?

Doesn't matter now as it looks like we've run out of petrol.

Ricki Herbert's master plan?

What would happen IF we were to win our appeal and the CAS rule that Wynne was eligible?

Would we then replay the final against Vanuatu in Papua New Guinea ? Or would it be played over two legs on a home and away basis?

If we do get reinstated would Fiji then appeal against the decision?

The Olympics are only a year away and from what I have heard this could drag on for quite a few months yet.

I personally think that we will win our appeal because there are so many things that don't add up at the moment, from the original complaint to the way the OFC dealt with it. Maybe more hope there than common sense but glass half full and all that.

Absolute joke of a qualifying tournament yet again, and another reason why NZ should look to join the AFC in years to come.

Ricki Herbert's master plan?

I hope this is seen as tongue-in-cheek or Ricki may sue the paper.

Oh wait, Mai Chen is already taken

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 would play Fiji  in the final and Vanuatu would have to supply the half time oranges.

I know I hate talking about football and I only do it on these forums so my fingers are warmed up and agile for when a good FIFA regulations and statutes debate comes up

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...

As I see it, the principle section is more of a blanket statement for eligibility in general - it covers how you are eligible to play international football in the vast majority of cases. However, in ones where it's more complex - acquired nationalities, multiple nationalities, several member associations sharing a single citizenship, etc, then the subsequent articles are applicable. The principle doesn't supersede articles 6, 7, and 8, those articles supersede the principle. They are there to clarify cases where the situation isn't as simple as a player having one and only one FIFA association they can play for.

I disagree to an extent. If player eligibility protests did indeed have to be in 5 days prior to the start of the tournament, you would think that NZF wouldn't have played Wynne if they knew that his eligibility was being questioned. As Andy Martin said, one player is not worth risking the entire team. 

These processes and procedures are there for a reason, and therefore should be adhered to 

New Zealand Football is as incompetent as it was 40 years ago.

Just to clarify in case it wasn't clear in my original post - the 5 day rule applies to the final tournament (i.e. Rio next year), not the preliminary tournaments (like this one).

Thanks CT. Yes I kinda get that. I KNEW someone couldn't resist bringing in other articles. lol

Just talking about 5.1 i.e. the 'any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependant on residence in a certan country'

>>> Just had to make an edit ... CT - despite some views to the contrary it's Bestie, not Beastie.

5.1 doesn't give eligibility to anyone unless they were born in a country or have parents born there. A local example to demonstrate that this is the way it works is Durante. If 5.1 gave him eligibility by itself there wouldn't have ever been a question over whether he lived in NZ for 5 years continuously. Article 7 was what he needed to pass as he was acquiring a 'new nationality'. (ok, he was already a NZer in our eyes, but was getting a new nationality in the eyes of FIFA). Same for Wynne, Roux etc, only difference being is that '5 year over 18' part making it more difficult for him given his age etc.

At least, that's the general interpretation, and FIFAs intention on it. NZF seemingly want to challenge on the basis that Wynne's current permanent nationality isn't dependent on his residence, therefore 5.1 makes him eligible. Trying to tell FIFA he's eligible because we read their rules in a different way from they intended them will be a tall order.

Oh, football chat. Sure.

George Paladini was okay.

Discuss.

With all due respect to AMac, he is quoting one lawyers interpretation of 5.1 (which is a very liberal and loose one)

Somehow because he is Swiss I think you are taking it for gospel.