Printable View
They do compare - booing players for sectarian, political or religious reasons is wrong, in my view - whether they're on your own team or the other team. So all the incidents discussed are wrong, in my view.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Israeli players being booed.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
That's all I asked as well, no answer was forthcoming.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
oh come on. That's anti-semitic? Nothing to do with their keeper being a cheat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
You said the team only represented one community. I read that as meaning the team, ie. the players.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
I accept this is not what you meant. I have noted that. And I have apologised. Case closed - surely?
No it wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
It would, and to say otherwise demonstrates a lack of understanding of the statute on a par with the IFA's. FIFA's legal dept obviously realise that to remove a citizens right to play for his association would leave them wide open to legal challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Well, I was involved in a sporting organisation that wanted to encourage and promote more female involvement in the management of the sport (there was a high participation rate). It just went out of its way to recruit females to do jobs (chair sub-comittees etc.) until eventually about 40% on the elected executive were female.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
FFS.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
If you're a citizen of more than one country, you can't play for both. That's why Article 15 has been modified in several consequential set of rules.
There's no "right" for citizens to play for their country - e.g. FIFA has ruled that citizens who have changed nationality do not have the right to play for their new country unless they meet other criteria - e.g. There's no "right" to play for a country if you have already been capped by another country at "A" level.
So there's no reason why FIFA could not rule if it so wished that there was no "right" to play for a country if you weren't born there, lived there or have a parent or grandparent from there. (Indeed, it used to be the case, I think, that you had to be born or have a parent from somewhere to be eligible!)
There is no "legal challenge" open - FIFA has the right to make rules to govern the sport for which it is the governing body.
As I understand it from reading this site, some of the spectators amongst the ROI fans booed what they thought was a Rangers player. The fact that they were mistaken, and the majority of the other fans took the pis s doesn't alter that fact, nor make it any different from e.g. a minority of NI fans booing John Hartson because he played for Celtic. It's the same mindset.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
As for the Israeli game, I would direct you to the thread on this very forum for evidence that at least some of the abuse was anti-semitic in nature. And even had it been solely political, that does not make it any more acceptable than e.g. NI fans meting out politically-inspired abuse at some of their opponents.
And before anyone else jumps down my throat, I am not engaging in "whataboutery", either, merely making the point that all crowds have their "********ed" element to them, with NI's currently being no worse than most, indeed arguably better than many. Therefore, those people who harp on about outdated examples, or claim that the present situation is an active discouragement for Nationalists to support or partake, are either ignorant, prejudiced or in denial (or some combination of all three).
As for the Anthem and flag, I have no doubt that there are e.g. Basques, Galicians and Catalans in Spain who do not consider that the Spanish National Flag, official language or Anthem adequately reflects their political aspirations either, but is anyone seriously suggesting that they should have their separate identity recognised in some way when they play for Spain? Or that the absence of such recognition prevents them from doing so?
Similarly, for those people who suggested that the Tricolour and Soldiers Song might also be played at NI matches, to represent Nationalists in the team/crowd, would they be happy to hear GSTQ played and the NI flag flown at FAI games in Dublin? After all, should the FAI be allowed to pick players from throughout the island, including Northern Unionists as well as Northern Nationalists, it would only be fair to reciprocate. Unless, of course, they are not interested in picking Northern Unionists, in which case, which of the two Irish teams would be discriminatory on political grounds:
The FAI team which only picks players from the 26 and Nationalists from the 6, or the IFA team which picks players from the 6 irrespective of whether they are Nationalist or Unionist?
What people need to recognise is that irrespective of whatever determination FIFA arrives at over player eligibility, there are two Irish football teams on the island. And the one I follow has every bit as much right to exist (as well as a considerably longer history) as the other one. Moreover, as the team of Northern Ireland, playing for or supporting it does not make one "more British" or "less Irish", rather it just means you're from Northern Ireland, and a football fan/player.
Which is why, even if FIFA should allow it as a quid pro quo for the FAI picking Northern-born players, imo the IFA should have absolutely no interest in picking players from the Republic who do not have the necessary connection with NI.
So you'd consider booing opponents the same as booing your own? Quite a little member of the PC brigade aren't you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Israeli players being booed? That's what you know?And that's anti-semitism? :D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
What are you? One of these over-sensitive Jews that if you criticise any bit of Israeli policy you are a self-hating Jew/anti-semite?
I'm genuinely surprised and disappointed that you are not politically correct, Lopez ;)
Madre de dios...
And there's the rub. The whole point of the claim by the likes of D.Gibson is that they should be allowed to represent the ROI team because of their Nationality (i.e. country), not because of their Association. That is, one may be born with two or more Nationalities, but one cannot be born within the territory of more than one Association!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
The Association which developed DG was the NISFA initially, then the IFA (Institute FC), and these were the bodies which governed and administered his early foorball career. Subsequently, it could be said to have been the English and Belgian FA's.
Frankly, until they first invited him to play for one of their teams, there is no way whatever that DG could claim that the FAI was "his" Association. Further, if FIFA decides that eligibility should be based solely on the concept of Nationality, irrespective of Member Association Territorial jurisdiction, it will need some way of reconciling the fact that there are presently 208(?) National Associations within its Membership, but only 186(?) "Nationalities", as defined by Membership of the UN.
It has been modified by way of annex to deal with players who were granted citizenship not by way of birth. FFS yourself, this has been discussed to death here, the annex does not applyQuote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
I think not, Tuff. Given that three of the four 'GB' teams are against it.
I'm sure FIFA's post room appreciates your concern.
Agreed with ye re the Coulter dirge- but it would only be relevant (and giving you a good reason to moan) if it REPLACED your anthem, not just supplementing it.
[QUOTE=Tuff Paddy;813739]You demand that the NI team in some way recognises the sensibilities of NI Nationalists, but seem reluctant to concede the equal sensibilities of NI Unionists in the Ireland rugby team?Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
You reject the use of the NI flag for the NI football team, then decry the non-use of the (Irish Republic) Tricolour, (at away matches only, btw) for a team which is not representing the Irish Republic?
And you accuse the likes of me of possessing tunnel vision? Perhaps you can't comprehend the absurd inconsistency of your argument; I just hope that the reasonable/reasoning majority of your fellow ROI fans can, and aren't too embarrassed...
If they are beeing booed for sectarian/political reasons, yes. Do you think it is acceptable to boo players for sectarian/political reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
It depends on the motivation of those doing the booing.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I'd rather have both the Irish flag and NI flag flown at Irish rugby or cricket matches rather than any unofficial flag. Give me the Sash (GSTQ is the English anthem) and the Soldier's Song at rugby than the current dirge they play. And if you think it's ridiculous, how many anthems did South Africa play during the recent rugby World Cup? Three? Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika and the national anthem of the apartheid regime Die Stem in Afrikaans and English. Didn't stop them winning the competition. I'd be happy for the same arangement if there was an all-Ireland team without an all-Ireland state.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Can I just point out that the Ireland rugby team is just that - the Ireland rugby team, i.e. all-Ireland. It's not an ROI team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuff Paddy
For the example being referred to teh players were being booed by their own fans for tacking the ball off Peter Madsen who was being cheered by the Irish fans every time he got possession, it was obviously tounge in cheek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
As for the Israel game, their players were being booed for diving, feigning injury and cheating in general, I don't consider anyone waving a Palestine flag anti semetic and I didn't hear any chants that made reference to Juadism is any way. I do see a place for politics in Sport. What was your opinion on the South Africa boycott during the apartheid regime as a matter of interest?
You raise an interesting point but surely if the player makes his choice before he is 21 ( it would be my view that this should be lowered) he should be entitled to choose his association if he is a citizen of that country. I think where we differ mostly is that I believe the players choice should outweigh any "dog in the manger" interpretation of the rules by the IFAQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
1. It has been modified by way of annex not only to deal with players granted citizenship not by way of birth, but also to deal with dual nationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
2. I know it doesn't apply. I've said so many times.:mad:
3. I'm arguing for a new annex to deal with this situation. And have been clearly doing so for days - try reading people's posts before making irrelevant comments.:mad:
There are numerous other examples of ROI fans booing Rangers players, e.g. Lovenkrands, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
The reports I read described anti-Semitic shouts and chants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
Fully supportive. But I wouldn't have agreed with, say, racist shouts or chants against South African players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
Can I choose one of the Scandinavian Associations, then? I don't have any connection with them and don't have (or want) Danish/Swedish/Norwegian etc Nationality, but their women are hot...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
Anyhow, to be serious, when and why a player may switch between two Associations which he is eligible to represent is one thing, but my point precedes that. That is, irrespective of his eligibility via Nationality etc, at the time he was first picked for the ROI, Darron Gibson had no connection whatever with the FAI.
And since FIFA is a Member Association-based organisation, which ought to treat its Member Associations fairly and equally, I consider the IFA's case to be founded on the fact that another Association should not be allowed to select players from our Association's jurisdiction, if those players do not have any prior connection with that other Association, either by birth or residence, or by a parent or grandparent's birth. Otherwise, many smaller Associations risk being "exploited" by larger or more wealthy neighbouring Associations, whose Governments pursue a policy over Nationality/Passports which cannot be influenced by the Government of the smaller Association.
Of course, DG has Irish Nationality, but that is only because the Government of another State accords him this for political, not sporting, reasons. And for all those who contest that that makes him as "Irish" as e.g. a Dubliner, Galwegian or Corkonian, does this really stand up?
Does the Irish Government also give him a vote to their Parliament? Do they correspondingly make him liable to pay taxes? Is he eligible for Health, Social Security and Educational services on exactly the same grounds? Will he receive a State Pension the same as they do?
Curiously enough, his rights and responsibilities from the British Government are exactly the same as those of somneone from e.g. Aberdeen, Cardiff or, ahem, Finchley. So just as it was the IFA which first introduced him to orghanised football, it was a British Government who provided the hospital he was born in, educated him at school and which is now taxing him for his earnings in England. But that's if you want to play the political card, which I don't
This is because in the end, it is impossible for every Football Association to accommodate every political aspiration which the inhabitants of its jurisdiction may possess and it is impossible for FIFA to accord all such aspirations exactly equal treatment, either - if for no other reason than that there are more Football Associations/International Teams than there are Nationalities.
Instead, as I see it, there are two intyernational football teams in Ireland, one with footballing jurisdiction over one part of the island and the other with footballing jurisdiction over the other part of the island. Therefore, if you were born within the territory (jurisdiction) of one, that is who you may represent, and if born within the other, then they are who you play for.
Finally, for all those who consider that one of these two Irish teams (i.e. NI)should remove all symbols of its own identity (flag, anthem etc) and replace them with something suitably neutral, are they also going to require the same of the other Irish team (ROI)? That is, no Tricolour or Soldiers Song, since it may not "represent" all of the very many minorities which now inhabitat the 26 counties, or indeed those players they might pick from the 6, who may be Unionist in their politics?
So you want a new annex that conflicts with the article its attached to? Would love to see the wording of that one, what exactly did you have in mind? Feel free to post a form of words here. I have read your posts and i'm sorry you consider my comments irrelevant but I guess your argument is so weak that you must resort to that type of commentQuote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
No because you are not entitled to citizenship by birth of any of the Scandinavian countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
It wouldn't conflict with it. Just like the other annexes don't conflict with it. They provide for particular situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
Rather obviously it would say that a player would have to have necessary connections to a country in order to play for it, i.e. citizenship in the first instance, but also birth, or parentage, or grandparentage, or residence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
Sectarianism and politics are two different things. However you've conveniently lumped them as one. Not surprising really, but there you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Two answers. I don't agree with booing a player because of his religion. I'd be mortified if it was one of my own. I wouldn't in any way cover this up or claim that it's X years now, that is irrelevent.
Politics is different, and it depends on the circumstances. What if you had a player who promoted openly racism, nazi ideology or homophobia? If you think that its OK to stay quiet for the sake of PC, then gfys! Equally, I'm sure you'd be telling all the WP boys if there was a Republic player promoting a more extreme version of SF politics. Yeah I can see that one alright.:rolleyes:
Rather obviously you have not thought this through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Not necessarily. Indeed, often sectarianism can be political sectarianism. Or sectarianism can have political motivations or be politically-inspired.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
So do you condemn the booing of Rangers players by ROI fans, or do you play it down? If the latter, do you play down the booing of Celtic players by NI fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Well, the empty response by yourself would indicate quite the opposite: you have not thought it through, hence your inability to respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
True but the question was specifically about fans booing their own players. I find the booing of Rangers players pretty childish personally but there is a sense of pantomine about it, it's not particulalry agressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
I'd suggest the reports were wrong and sensationalist.
Fair enough, what about a protest against the regime outside of the ground and the waving of the flag of the people they were opressing by fans inside the ground?
On the day itself there was silence during the Israeli anthem although a lot of people held up Palestinian falgs for teh duration but that was as far as the 'anti-semitism' went unless booing players for cheating falls into that category....
None of these apply to people born outside the state with Irish citizenship and an ancestral connection with the 26C.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
In fact none of this applies if you leave the state, despite being born there. So what is your point here?
There is little point in responding since you consider my comments irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
And my point was that sectarian booing is wrong against your own players and also against other players. Sectarianism is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
Fair enough - I wasn't there so I don't know what happened, and I was going by the press reports and blogs. Would you accept that reports from the "Night in November" were also wrong and sensationalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
What about them? If they were peaceful and didn't involve any anti-Semitism, then such demos are legitimate expressions of freedom of speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
It was reported that anti-Semitic chants and shouts were made from the crowd. I accept that the reports may not be accurate. But I also accept that it is possible that people in the crowd did make such anti-Semitic chants and shouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
You'll have no problem accepting football eligibility not applying to those born outside the state (and with parents and grandparents born outside the state) with Irish citizenship, then?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Dont you think FIFA have already heard this unfair bit mentioned every in every line of the IFA submission?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
FIFA also measure up a players rights. The proposal is their answer.
Their response so far since the issue came to light would not fill me with any hope that they would go any furthur. Ie if I was a person who had a hope that they would go any furthur.
Your comments were based on an assumption that I thought that the statutes made NI players ineligible for the ROI. That assumption was wrong and hence those comments were irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
It does not follow that because a person makes an irrelevant comment that all his comments must be irrelevant.
I note your ongoing inability to engage in discussion and your childish attempts to disengage from discussion. Such attempts merely serve to suggest that it is you who doesn't understand the arguments, rather than those with whom you are unable to argue.
No. Because all the media reports say that the IFA was arguing that the statutes as currently drafted made Gibson ineligible. I have said all along that they do not, and that the IFA should have been arguing for a new annex to deal with this unfair situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
It's not. It is merely a suggestion they have asked both FAs to comment upon. Presumably the IFA will reject it.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Nor me. But that does not alter the fact that the current situation is unfair and the rules should be modified to remove the unfairness.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Well spotted! I'd agree to that in NI, particularly on the nationalist side. However, as oppostion to Israel - either as a state or its treatment of Palestinians - has substantial support amongst Jews, and this is what we are discussing, most of what happened in June 2005, was political, not sectarian (i.e. anti-Semitic).Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Have you seen me post anything 'playing this down' or claiming this is not sectarianism? What about you: Do you or have you ever supported Glasgow Rangers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Sorry, I don't understand your point here. Could you elaborate it please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
I am sure that most of it was. That, however, does not mean that all of it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I'm afraid I've lost track of how this argument arose and don't really have the patience to read back. All I know for sure is that some on these boards have attempted to play down sectarian booing by ROI fans on grounds of "it wasn't against our own players".Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
No, on both counts. Why do you ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I should have thought it was plain.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
If you accept that citizenship alone doesn't entitle you to many of the "rights" and privileges of citizenship (e.g. voting, receiving public services, paying taxes, etc.), and many of these require birth and/or residence, then surely you could accept a situation whereby citizenship alone doesn't entitle you to play for the football team.