Eligibility proposal

[Blanchflower]

All just a bit of crack.:)

[Blanchflower]

Read that batman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_banner



Wikipedia is not a credible source. Anyone could have written that, including you.

[youngirish]

Wikipedia is not a credible source. Anyone could have written that, including you.

What's the story with NI supporters and their crazy, Fox Mulder style conspiracy theories?

EG stop trying to compare a handful of anti-Israeli elements amongst a crowd of 45 thousand supporters with the 1938 Nuremberg rally. It's foolish. Anyway it's not the same as the North's problem considering we don't have a large Jewish population in the South as far as I recollect or a history of conflict with them.

As for the booing. Pure pantomine. If an ROI player played for Rangers he'd be cheered like anyone else in the team. We don't have a history of secterianism amongst our support though I know you'd like to think we do. I've never heard IRA or rebel songs at an Ireland match.

[Blanchflower]

Are you going to retract your insinuations about discrimination against RCs in the NI team?

[lopez]

...P.S. On a technical point, you are also wrong about the NI flag. It is NOT based on the St.George's Cross. When originally designed by the Ulster King of Arms in Dublin in 1924(!), it was based on the old provincial flag of Ulster. As such, it incorporates not just the Red Hand, but also the De Burgh Cross (the De Burghs having been Earls of Ulster at one stage). This cross is coincidentally similar, but not identical to, St. George's Cross, which is noticeably thinner.
Therefore, it is thought that the UKofA took the old Ulster provincial flag and added a crown (UK) and six-pointed star (i.e 6 counties) for NI, but changed the background colour to white to make it distinctively different from that on which it was based.What utter sh*te! It's an England flag with a crown and red hand on it. If it was just the Ulster flag etc. - or whatever other boll*cks you're waffling on about - why change the colour? Why make 'it distinctively different' to use your turds...sorry words, from the Ulster flag? The crown on top would suffice to prove that NI was now 'crown property'?

YoungIrish, although EG has stated that he thinks I'm stoopid - fair enough! - it appears that he thinks that all the other Fenians on here are stoopid as well.

For an impartial history of the NI flag see http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/symbols/flags.htm which states that This flag is based upon the St. George's Cross (see above) and has similarities to the Province of Ulster Flag (see above). However this particular flag of Northern Ireland is seen as staunchly Loyalist because of the Crown, the Star of David, and the Red Hand of Ulster. A number of other flags were based upon this design (see the alternative 'Ulster' flag below).


Of course, and this goes for all the other muppets sucking up to EG on here, you can either take the word of a respected academic service...or the lies of some tosser on an internet forum.

Blanchflower: Wikepedia may not be a reliable source but it's certainly more reliable than either you or any other members of ourweeminds on here, and if you or EG think otherwise, you are a couple of sad cookies.

[lopez]

Are you going to retract your insinuations about discrimination against RCs in the NI team?Grow up Blanchflower. You're making yourself look like someone whose cojones have years to go before they drop.

[Blanchflower]

What utter sh*te! It's an England flag with a crown and red hand on it.

It's not. Why on earth would it be an England flag??:eek:


If it was just the Ulster flag etc. - or whatever other boll*cks you're waffling on about - why change the colour?

I should imagine it was to make it distinct from the 9-county version.


Why make 'it distinctively different' to use your turds...sorry words, from the Ulster flag?

Why use an England flag? Makes even less sense.


The crown on top would suffice to prove that NI was now 'crown property'?

If, by "crown property", you mean within the realm of the British sovereign, NI was "crown property" for many centuries before the design of the flag.


For an impartial history of the NI flag see http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/symbols/flags.htm which states that This flag is based upon the St. George's Cross (see above) and has similarities to the Province of Ulster Flag (see above).
Claiming the flag is based on the England flag is a common misconception, repeated by many ill-informed sources. CAIN is an example of this.

[Stuttgart88]

I'm curious for more clarity on the anti-Israel actions.

There was a protest march along Baggot Street before the match but that was a political march, in no way sponsored or endorsed by any fan group.

During the game there was continental style whistling when Israel was in possession (rarely) but this was classic "intimidate the away team" stuff, not in the remotest sense could it have been construed as anti-semitic.

Was there anything else? My instinct is that some NI fans here are just looking for an excuse to identify an element in our support that exists - or certainly existed - in theirs.

I agree with D69er about the pantomime nature of the Rangers player booing, especially the Peter Madsen / Lovenkrands episode. Didnt Torre Andre Flo see the "humour" in it too at one stage? It was stupid and obviously attracted bad publicity but to call Irish fans sectarian as a result was miles wide of the mark. Our own media have no clue about crowd behaviour, just as they completely misinterpreted booing of Ralph Keyes during the rugby in the 90s. On that occasion the crowd were booing the tactic of consistently hoofing the ball forward when we had one of the world's most exciting wingers getting frostbite across the pitch. The reaction? A disgrace to boo the player.

[youngirish]

Are you going to retract your insinuations about discrimination against RCs in the NI team?

Show us where I said that and I'll gladly retract it. If you can't find it will you admit you're a bit insane and you think that everything any ROI fan says must revolve around papist influenced, religious intolerance?

[Blanchflower]

Grow up Blanchflower. You're making yourself look like someone whose cojones have years to go before they drop.

It is not I who needs to grow up: I am not making unfounded insinuations and failing to back them up when challenged.

[Blanchflower]

Lopez and YoungIrish have Wikipedia.

We have Encyclopaedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9105894/Northern-Ireland-flag-of

And, ironically, Wikipedia too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Ulster

:)

[geysir]

It would be helpful for the purposes of discussion if you quoted the statement.
I did exactly that in my reply,
read post 345 again.

[lopez]

Why on earth would it be an England flag??:eek:...Why use an England flag? Makes even less sense...If, by "crown property", you mean within the realm of the British sovereign, NI was "crown property" for many centuries before the design of the flag...
Think about it Einstein!

...Claiming the flag is based on the England flag is a common misconception, repeated by many ill-informed sources. CAIN is an example of this.Well thanks for that (I note absolutely nothing to back this theory up: Very mature!). It's also a common misconception that the world is round. (My source: Torquemada :rolleyes:)

Tell you what, although you've provided Jack sh*te in support of your argument, here's a site you should appreciate, written by someone with a similar mind and inteligence as yourself. Enjoy!

http://jahtruth.co.uk/uflag.htm

[Wolfie]

Turn up the aggro lads and put this tedious thread out of its misery.

[Blanchflower]

YoungIrish - I apologise - my above comment was made without having seen the below-quoted comment of your own, to which I will now respond.


Blanchflower if I gave the impression that the IFA disriminated in any way when picking Nationalists for the team then I apologise as this was not the point I was trying to make.


Apology accepted. Yes, you did give that impression.

Perhaps you could make your point in another way?


As for the flag and anthem I think you realistically must admit that they both only serve to obstruct more Nationalists from identifying with and therefore playing for the team.
I accept that they make it less likely for nationalists to identify with the team, but I do not accept that they have made it less likely for nationalists to play for the team. There have been no occasions when nationalists have refused to play for the team, and the current players like Gibson are a recent phenomenon with more complex reasons involved and in the context of the South changing its policy in respect of NI players. The evidence points - in stark contrast to what you say - to NI having always fielded mixed teams at all age levels and at senior level. I suggest therefore that you rephrase your statement about "representation".


Would you rather play for an Ireland team playing Amhrán na bhFiann as an anthem and using the tricolour as a flag or another Ireland team playing GSTQ as an anthem with the Union Jack and Ulster Banner (St George's Cross) waving in the stands? I rest my case your honour.

If I lived in the South I would not object to the Southern flag and anthem being used for any Southern teams and it would not stop me playing for them. Regarding all-Ireland teams, obviously there needs to be all-Ireland flags and anthems.

[geysir]

Hey Lopez were some Cypriot fans flying the flag of Famagusta or was that a jest?

[Blanchflower]

I did exactly that in my reply,
read post 345 again.

Sorry - rather than expecting people to wade through posts, refer back and cross-reference, it really would be helpful if you spelled out clearly what point you were making in response to what statement.

[ifk101]

If I lived in the South I would not object to the Southern flag and anthem being used for any Southern teams and it would not stop me playing for them.

There is no south, southern flag, or southern team(s).

Cork has independence ;)

[geysir]

Sorry - rather than expecting people to wade through posts, refer back and cross-reference, it really would be helpful if you spelled out clearly what point you were making in response to what statement.
The statement in question is quoted by me in full in post 345 which immediatly follows your post of 344.
In such cases the onus would be on you to backtrack, (takes 3 seconds) if you were interested, rather than me quoting the whole of 2 long enough posts and violating the protocol of sensible foot ie standards.

[Blanchflower]

The statement in question is quoted by me in full in post 345 which immediatly follows your post of 344.
In such cases the onus would be on you to backtrack, (takes 3 seconds) if you were interested, rather than me quoting the whole of 2 long enough posts and violating the protocol of sensible foot ie standards.

Yes, I see the statement now. Remind me of your point and I will respond.

[Blanchflower]

There is no south, southern flag, or southern team(s).



No north either, then, I presume.:eek:

[lopez]

Hey Lopez were some Cypriot fans flying the flag of Famagusta or was that a jest?I'm not 100% sure now. I saw a cyprus flag with Tottenham on it.

Anorthosis Famagusta currently play in the Cypriot league and are based in Larnaca, moving there after the Turkish invasion/liberation (I'm offending enough people on here, don't want to offend anyone else. :D). That might have been the Famagusta I saw. However, as most of the Cypriot fans were over from London, Famagusta is highly represented in the London Greek Cypriot community.

[Gather round]

things have improved recently but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North. What right now, therefore do the IFA have to complain if a few of those same Nationalists want to play for a team that they feel more so represents them as Irish people

Bit of a roundabout argument, this. Our team isn't equally representative of nationalists mainly because they, er, tend to support your team :)

Your unfair implication is that we still discriminate against nationalists. Not so- they're self-evidently welcome in the support, the team and indeed the management.

[youngirish]

Lopez and YoungIrish have Wikipedia.

We have Encyclopaedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9105894/Northern-Ireland-flag-of

And, ironically, Wikipedia too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Ulster

:)

Blanchflower in fairness a red cross on a yellow background represents the historic Flag of the province of Ulster. A red cross on a white background however is a totally different symbolic representation. It's a St George's cross. It is the exact definition of a St George's cross.

This is what the Ulster Banner depicts and I would argue this is what it was changed to specifically to depict.

[youngirish]

Bit of a roundabout argument, this. Our team isn't equally representative of nationalists mainly because they, er, tend to support your team :)

Your unfair implication is that we still discriminate against nationalists. Not so- they're self-evidently welcome in the support, the team and indeed the management.

A section of the support has discriminated against such nationalists in the recent past when most of these footballers would have been growing up. It's only in the past few years appropriate measures have been taken to improve the situation.

They still fly the Ulster Banner and play GSTQ though at games which was the main point I was trying to make so the team does not represent the cross community equally and nor can the IFA claim it does while this continues.

[ifk101]

No north either, then, I presume.:eek:

Oh there is. Just no south.

[Blanchflower]

Blanchflower in fairness a red cross on a yellow background represents the historic Flag of the province of Ulster. A red cross on a white background however is a totally different symbolic representation. It's a St George's cross. It is the exact definition of a St George's cross.

This is what the Ulster Banner depicts and I would argue this is what it was changed to specifically to depict.

No. It's the Ulster cross with the yellow background changed to white. As EG has pointed out, the St George's Cross is narrower.

Why would they use an England flag?:confused:

[Blanchflower]

Oh there is. Just no south.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Better tell Bertie and his ministers to remove themselves from the North-South Ministerial Council on which they represent the South.
:eek:

[lopez]

Bit late I know, but got carreid away with EG's b*llocks.


Zzzzzzzz. Like you don't know that each "community" is largely defined by religious affiliation.
The key word here is 'largely'. It is not universal on either side.

Why on earth would the IFA fly the flag of another, rival country at its matches. What nonsense.:eek:Because almost 50% of NI's territorial population consider that flag to represent them. If this is beyond the IFA to recognise, then surely they have no problem if these same people neither want to play for/or support NI.


All just a bit of crack.:)Is that how you'd describe the singing of the Sash in Cardiff? :D

[Cowboy]

Hence the rules needed to be changed. Same as now - the South's citizenship laws being extra-territorial in nature create a disadvantage for one of FIFA's members, and potentially a dangerous precedent elsewhere.

An even more dangerous precedent would be set if they did change the rules which is why they suggested the compromise I would suggest.

[ifk101]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Better tell Bertie and his ministers to remove themselves from the North-South Ministerial Council on which they represent the South.
:eek:

North-South Ministerial Council???

Never heard of it. But then again I'm not that really interested in inter-county relations. ;)

[youngirish]

No. It's the Ulster cross with the yellow background changed to white. As EG has pointed out, the St George's Cross is narrower.

Why would they use an England flag?:confused:

Why do they use the English National Anthem?

[Blanchflower]

Bit late I know, but got carreid away with EG's b*llocks.


The key word here is 'largely'. It is not universal on either side.


Well, since youngirish was talking in general terms, generalisations were quite apt, and hence no need for your intervention.


Because almost 50% of NI's territorial population consider that flag to represent them.

That may or may not be correct, but it doesn't mean that the Southern flag represents NI. In reality, the Southern flag represents ROI and the NI flag represents NI.


If this is beyond the IFA to recognise, then surely they have no problem if these same people neither want to play for/or support NI.


The IFA team represents NI, and hence the NI flag is used. It is not the IFA's fault if "almost 50%" (as you claim) consider the flag of another country to represent them: that is their free choice.


Is that how you'd describe the singing of the Sash in Cardiff?
No, but presumably the poster playing down the sectarian/anti-Semitic behaviour of ROI fans would so describe it.

[Blanchflower]

Why do they use the English National Anthem?
Why do who use the English National Anthem? What even is the English National Anthem? Land of Hope and Glory? Jerusalem? Swing Low?

[Blanchflower]

An even more dangerous precedent would be set if they did change the rules which is why they suggested the compromise I would suggest.

Why would it be even more dangerous?:confused:

[janeymac]

No. It's the Ulster cross with the yellow background changed to white. As EG has pointed out, the St George's Cross is narrower.

Why would they use an England flag?:confused:

Long time viewer here, first time poster!

I don't think the reason that NI nationalists are none too keen on the Ulster Banner Flag has too much to do with whether its has the St. George's Cross / crown on it etc. but a lot to do with the fact that it was the banner of a biggotted and sectarian gov. (in the 50 years of its existence, I think there was only 1 catholic minister despite 30-40% of the population being catholic/nationalist) that was suspended by the British Gov. for its inability to govern the people of NI.

Just on the equality issue of football within NI football - I'd be pretty sure there would be no problem for the IFA to select players from nationalist background or hiring officials to work for the 'executive' which some people might think of as just 'window dressing'.:cool:

The litmus test though as to how equal everything is would be in the running of the IFA. How many/what percentage of elected representatives on the IFA executive come from catholic/nationalist backgrounds?

[lopez]

...Your unfair implication is that we still discriminate against nationalists. Not so- they're self-evidently welcome in the support, the team and indeed the management.Oh not you too GR?! :rolleyes: You know that he didn't say anything that the IFA or its managers have ever discriminated against Catholics.

We've had this discussion long ago. Neither has the IFA discriminated in its staff (both players and officials: Head of the IFA, circa WW1 was the Catholic chairman of Belfast Celtic, Austin Donnelly) even during the time when they were encouraged by Stormont just to employ Protestants. The problem is down to identity.

[Cowboy]

Why would it be even more dangerous?:confused:

As any lawyer will tell you hard cases make bad law. The consequences of changing the rules simply to suit the IFA would set a precedent that would cause even more complications. Perhaps you could suggest what form the rule change would take?

[Blanchflower]

Oh not you too GR?! You know that he didn't say anything that the IFA or its managers have ever discriminated against Catholics.



He insinuated that there was discrimination in the team:mad:

"but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South.

But he has since retracted the insinuation.:)

[Drumcondra 69er]

No, but presumably the poster playing down the sectarian/anti-Semitic behaviour of ROI fans would so describe it.

Utterly ludicrous comparrison which does you no credit.

As someone else posted there was no anti semetic beahviour at that game, any anti israel stuff (which was miniscule, I don't recall any chants, simply the display of some Palestinian flags) was regarding politics rather then relegion (the 2 don't have to be linked, believe it or not).

[lopez]

No, but presumably the poster playing down the sectarian/anti-Semitic behaviour of ROI fans would so describe it.Did this 'anti-Semitic' behavior make it onto Youtube?

Why do who use the English National Anthem? What even is the English National Anthem? Land of Hope and Glory? Jerusalem? Swing Low?God Save The Queen, which is the one you use...unless inserting 'No Surrender' in the middle of the chorus makes it the NI anthem.


...The litmus test though as to how equal everything is would be in the running of the IFA. How many/what percentage of elected representatives on the IFA executive come from catholic/nationalist backgrounds?This is pointless for three reasons. Many Catholic/Nationalist sporting administrators are involved in Gaelic sport, which I believe - although I could be wrong - far more clubs than rugby in the 6C. Secondly, these people would no more be interested in working for the IFA than suporting NI. Thirdly, seeing that the IFA didn't discriminate during the Stormont era, I'd doubt they'd start now.

I don't doubt that the IFA want to represent everyone in NI. What the IFA fail to see is that the steps they need to do to achieve this will ultimately alianate much of their traditional support.

[Blanchflower]

As any lawyer will tell you hard cases make bad law. The consequences of changing the rules simply to suit the IFA would set a precedent that would cause even more complications. Perhaps you could suggest what form the rule change would take?

1. It wouldn't "simply" be to "suit the IFA", but to establish fairness by preventing FIFA members from having all their players automatically eligible for another FIFA member by virtue of extra-territorial citizenship laws. As noted above, it may also "suit" the Bosnian FA, and former Soviet FAs.

2. The suggested rule change would be to apply the criteria already in use by FIFA for other situations (e.g. where one's nationality qualifies one for more than one team, and when one changes nationality) - i.e. birth, parentage, grandparentage, 2 years' residence.

[Blanchflower]

Utterly ludicrous comparrison which does you no credit.

As someone else posted there was no anti semetic beahviour at that game, any anti israel stuff (which was miniscule, I don't recall any chants, simply the display of some Palestinian flags) was regarding politics rather then relegion (the 2 don't have to be linked, believe it or not).

You might want to play it down, but, to be consistent, you might also want to play down sectarian or political behaviour by other sets of supporters. I play down neither.

[geysir]

Yes, I see the statement now. Remind me of your point and I will respond.

I forget :) but in that case
You stated that eligibilty criteria was for Federations to go by.
I argued that Fifa elig criteria was swayed in favour of the player.

If the FAI are abusing the spirit of Article 15, I would need to see evidence to back that up.
Players have a right up to age of 21 to change their minds and players have changed their minds. So FIFA´s criteria works.

IMO
The Spirit and the letter of Article 15 at present covers players like Darron Gibson who have (if uncapped at senior level) until the age of 21 to decide whether or not the Republic is their first choice.

FIFA´s legal board are not bound to follow precedent (as you might have suggested), they are quite capable of making things up to suit a situation.
.But they need good reason to change a statute.
I certainly do not see a can of worms being opened.
The 2 Federations should sit down and work out some solution with specific reference to the Irish situation.

[Blanchflower]

Did this 'anti-Semitic' behavior make it onto Youtube?
I've no idea.


God Save The Queen, which is the one you use...unless inserting 'No Surrender' in the middle of the chorus makes it the NI anthem.


God Save the Queen is the UK anthem, not the English anthem.

[Gather round]

My instinct is that some NI fans here are just looking for an excuse to identify an element in our support that exists - or certainly existed - in theirs

Stuttgart. Not I. There's an element in every support that shows its prejudices around support for the team. That's the default surely? Of course the huge majority of your fans are only interested in the game, which I'm sure Lopez will confirm over a Sangria on Saturday.

Equally, there's ****-stirring, but that's more from your own media. Sunday's Indo bleated about the possible appointment of a British manager (Souness) to succeed Staunton being vetoed by supporters of a British team, rivals to one of his previous clubs :)

They still fly the Ulster Banner and play GSTQ though at games which was the main point I was trying to make so the team does not represent the cross community equally and nor can the IFA claim it does while this continues

Young Irish. I understood your point about symbolism. But they can, and I support them. The welcome to fans, players and others that I mentioned outweighs the symbols. For what it's worth (probably zilch) I would prefer our flag excluded the crown and our anthem was Gloria or Alternative Ulster. I ignore the former and urinate during the latter ;)

More seriously, to repeat my roundaboutery suggestion, why change our symbols in response only to those who've already rejected the team? I mean, people can support who they like, but don't need to rubbish teams they choose not to support.

Estonia (at least) are in trouble with the EU for basing citizenship on the ability to speak Estonian. This discriminates against some people whose family has lived in Estonia for centuries if not millenia. Therefore, with such a policy they have no right to complain if these people play for another country

Lopez. I think the real problem there is that mother Russia often won't offer them citizenship, which makes them stateless (about 9% of the population in 2006, source http://www.stat.ee ).

It's the opposite problem to the one our fans are getting annoyed about. AFAIK, there just aren't any exact parallels with the Irish situation. Hungary MIGHT have been one, but they decided in a 2004 referendum not to give foreign-based Magyars, Szeklers etc. citizenship. Both public opinion in Hungary itself, and nationalist politics in next-door Romania were opposed.

PS at Lopez's suggestion, I read back that YI wasn't suggesting the IFA discriminated in choosing players, appointing managers etc. Fair enough, but the implication is still there that flags and anthems serve the same purpose in deliberately alienating fans. I disagree.

Lopez suggests it may be because making nationalists more welcome would alientate many unionists, if we ran out to Riverdance or something ;). I doubt it- the former would happily continue to support you.

[lopez]

You might want to play it down, but, to be consistent, you might also want to play down sectarian or political behaviour by other sets of supporters. I play down neither.Neither compare with booing one of your own players does it?

Anyway, seeing that you are continuing to bang on about this subject (anti-Semitism at an Irish game), tell us what you know about what happened?

[youngirish]

He insinuated that there was discrimination in the team:mad:

"but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South.

But he has since retracted the insinuation.:)
No I didn't. I implied that the team does not appeal to both Unionist and Nationalist communites equally. I never mentioned anything about players being picked based on political leanings or inferred anything of the sort. You read what you wanted to read into what was I admit an unintentially (slightly) ambiguous statement. But you found what you wanted to find in it without taking into account the broader meaning of the word representative and the posting in it's entirety. Needless to say I cleared it up for you in my subsequent post but again if you want to ignore that then feel free to do so.

For the record here's what I posted:

Tbh I find it hard to feel too sorry for the IFA now that they are worried that they are going to lose some players since they have for a long time promoted a team that has only represented one part of the political divide in Northern Ireland. Yes things have improved recently but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North. What right now, therefore do the IFA have to complain if a few of those same Nationalists want to play for a team that they feel more so represents them as Irish people.

How could the IFA lose nationalist players if I was stating they never picked any in the first place? The post wouldn't make sense would it? What improvements was I referring to recently if I was stating that the team didn't include Nationalist players in the past? I was talking of the anthem, flags, perceived secterianism etc.

Go wan admit it. You only read that line and got so pi**ed off you couldn't finish the rest of the post didn't you?

[Blanchflower]

I forget :) but in that case
You stated that eligibilty criteria was for Federations to go by.
I argued that Fifa elig criteria was swayed in favour of the player.

I said there was a balance. I thought you did too.


If the FAI are abusing the spirit of Article 15, I would need to see evidence to back that up.

What is the "spirit" of Article 15?


Players have a right up to age of 21 to change their minds and players have changed their minds.
Indeed they do.


So FIFA´s criteria works.

No doubt any revised criteria would also work!


The Spirit and the letter of Article 15 at present covers players like Darron Gibson who have (if uncapped at senior level) until the age of 21 to decide whether or not the Republic is their first choice.

More accurately the letter of the rules consequential to Article 15 dealing with players of dual nationality cover Gibson. I say those rules should be changed because the South's (and any other country's) extra-territorial laws mean that one country can pick two-countries'-worth of players, which is unfair.



FIFA´s legal board are not bound to follow precedent (as you might have suggested), they are quite capable of making things up to suit a situation.
.But they need good reason to change a statute.

There would be no need to change a statute. Just bring out one of those circulars to provide consequential rules to deal with particular situations (as they've already done to deal with dual nationality, etc.)

[Cowboy]

2. The suggested rule change would be to apply the criteria already in use by FIFA for other situations (e.g. where one's nationality qualifies one for more than one team, and when one changes nationality) - i.e. birth, parentage, grandparentage, 2 years' residence.

But to do that would mean changing Article 15, do you seriously expect them to do that?