New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

It's a bit confusing but my understanding is that section 6 only counts in the first place if you qualify not through residence (i.e. you yourself or one of your ancestors were born in that country). Since Wynne's nationality comes through residence then we go to section 7.

That would make the case an interesting one.... and contractually, put NZF in the front seat if true.

Agree but NZ football's lawyers claiming 6 is what makes him legal, aprarently and allegedly.

Did I hear the CEO  correctly?

They didn't bother applying for an exemption because if Fifa said no, then there were no appeal rights? Jesus H Christ

Article 7 does not apply to Deklan Wynne. Period.

He HAS played for NZ internationally so end of story. This is one big beat up by Vanuatu and OFC. The challenge will be reversing their skulduggery.

Once he has has played internationally for NZ, Article 7 no longer can be applied. And the therefore all this talk of 5 years is a red herring.

Only question is when he originally played for NZ internationally was he eligible under Article 6. But as he has now played for NZ that is kind of mute.

This is a little bit different. It still seems ridiculous to me that we thought we were playing under the eligibility rules of a tournament we were not even a part of. Be interesting to see the paperwork.

Regardless all this means that Wynne was still ineligible for the national team and for the U-20's even if this tournament was being played under Pacific Games rules. Yet they picked him anyway. Even if they are right about this qualification tournament they still screwed up.

Yes the gamble paid off in the world cup because any protests need to be made five days in advance, so why wouldn't you name your best team reguardles of eligibility? You are given the opportunity to replace the player if need be.

Still be dubious.

hmm I don't have much faith in your interpretation when you use mute instead of moot + incorrectly..

But under article 7 he was ineligible to play for New Zealand the very first time he played for us. I don't think you can argue that Wynne comes under Article 6 because he has already played for us if already playing for us was against the rules.

Correct but they would have to question him on that.

Article 7 is totally irrelevant in this case. This is what Vanuatu incorrectly protested on.

FIFA have stated that they are relying on OFC to govern all issues relating to the tournament in the application of both OFC and FIFA rules.

If OFC told NZF in writing that the tournament was running under Pacific Games rules, then NZ are in the right and most likely would win an appeal to the International Court of Arbitration in Sport.

I thought Martin fronted that presser well. He attempted to answer all questions the best he could. He freely admits that they are not entirely sure if they are on solid ground and refers the eligibility to Article 6, not 7. I think he said the right things and was honest and up front. I think there is also a little bit of naivety in taking the words of OFC at face value when continuously asking which rules apply cause OFC are always going to cut their cloth to suit. Rookie mistake.

When I read article 6 (as put above), I think he is eligible too. Do I believe NZF stuffed up? No because I read the same thing and come to the same conclusion - he is eligible. When I read article 5 which is referenced in article 6, there is a key point around "holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence". Does that mean he needed to be a resident to get nationality or does it mean his on going nationality is not dependent on him being a resident. That in itself can be taken 1 way to make him not eligible and another to make him eligible.

Either way, I can appreciate that it is grey but it needs NZF to test this and others.

can we have a poll on which arm of the argument we are more likely to win? 

That we fulfilled Pacific Games eligibility rules when the team got ok'ed pre-tournie (and there is no grounds for appeal)

or that Deklan is legit with FIFA criteria

Acatinx, my god I hope you are not one of the lawyers NZ football has hired (noting you have just joined and welcome) I can imagine however those lawyers will be thinking cling, cling, bling bling.

LOL thanks! You are right in this and more than happy  for you to explain also how Article 7 applies.

Neither and the first one is more of a joke then the second

Nope just someone who has bothered to read the Articles 5 - 7

This is real dumb.

I reckon a good lawyer could argue both successfully

NZF lawyer will be Michael Anderson won't it?

I like the assertion that as he has played for NZ he has to be elligible now.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Fien#Interna...

I'd offer you a football one but I'm struggling to find an example of where anyone else has been as foolish as to try their luck.

Just because he has played for New Zealand does not change the legality of his right to do so. It just means no one bothered to challenge the fact on those occassions.

Wish they were.  Would have saved me speeding fines in my younger irresponsible days.

Yes, I have been saying this all along.

It is not clear whether Art. 6 is ONLY for the case where being born in one country gives you the right to play in 2 countries (France/Tahiti) or for people who acquire a different nationality.  People have interpreted it in the past as being for that case, but I don't see where in the wording it says that

I decided to take a step back and think a bit (rare, I know) and came up with this:

- if the potential ineligibility of Wynne has been considered earlier by NZF and a wrong conclusion reached - then someone in NZF needs to accept the blame for not understanding the rules;

- if the potential ineligibility was considered and hushed up as "nobody will notice", then someone in NZF needs to accept his fault in this for playing fast and loose with a lot of dreams and hard work of players and coaches;

Ultimately, if an organisation asks kids to pay money to represent their country then we expect a better performance from the well-paid lawyers and executives of that organisation. Whether Vanuatu were tipped off or not, kudos to them for beating NZF at what we are officially supposed to be better at - administration, management, law, etc etc, and not just by using brawn on the field. 

I have little time for incompetent managers making a nice living from our dues, fees or taxes; and in my 25 years in New Zealand I've seen my share of those. Conversely, the predecessor of Football Federation of Australia, then known as Soccer Australia  (famously called "the team that couldn't shoot straight") learned their lessons from the 2003 Crawford Report and moved on to bigger and better things.

It all depends on how Article 5 is interpreted. If Article 5 is interpreted one way then you go to Article 6 which makes Wynne eligible. I tend to interpret Article 5 as not including Wynne so think Article 7 is relevant which makes Wynne ineligible. 

Whichever article should be applied this was one hell of a gamble from NZF.

I don't think arguing that he is eligible under the Pacific Games rules really has any legs unless we clearly have something from the OFC.

It's standard practice to argue in the alternative, but it can end up weakening your argument in both cases in that you look like you knew he wasn't eligible under the FIFA rules but had a pop at qualifying him under the Pacific Game rules. 

That is kind of dumb if they were worried about it.

But if they knew he was eligible under Article 6 then why be worried as there are probably hundreds of players that qualify under Article 6. and you don't need exemption for someone that qualifies otherwise every player needs an exemption.

Did Adnan Januzaj get an exemption to play for Belgium? Gedion Zelalem might have needed one because he was over at Arsenal and only recently a US national.

Problem is maybe he hasn't had two years continuously in NZ at any point??

Once again though in this case it is moot as the protest was under Article 7.

OFC don't like NZ football much do they and its convincing them they have made a mistake.... oh dear.

I can't blame Vanuatu in this because they did what they did. OFC need to advise in the face of written proof that they PG rules were the ruling ones and then they changed them.

An interesting point that Martin mentioned is that 15 days prior to WCU20, they had to submit the players with birth certificate and passport. If you were the FIFA official that received these documents and took a look at Wynne and see "Born: South Africa. Passport: NZ" surely they would ask 'ok, so what makes him eligible to play for NZ in this tournament? Do we have a cert on file that says he is? No, ok NZF, how is he eligible?' I get that you can't ask that for every international but surely prior to a WC ffs.......

NZF should probably have applied the "What's the worst thing that could happen?" test to this eligibility question some time ago.

Because Article 7 ONLY applies if he hasn't played for NZ. He has.

Yeah but if he was not eligible before his first, he's been ineligible since.  I think that's not the right argument to progress with and I'd put that one to bed

Just not legally. Perhaps.

For the player, it's you apply for the change from FIFA and they say no, you can't change.

As a man, if I enter a womens running race and no one says anything, that does not mean I am now a woman and can run in the next one because I ran in the last womens one.

If he played for NZ and was not eligible to do so at the time, he is not eligible to do so again.

Are you getting it?

So maybe that's another argument.  We provided the same info to FIFA as we provided to OFC and FIFA signed him off (by not querying his status at that point)