Hehe, just because there's doubt - as a result of an absence of evidence - it doesn't make it fair to automatically assume the worst outcome will be the case, or any outcome will be the case, for that matter. If the worst outcome then transpires to indeed become the case, one can't then say, "I told you so!" if their pessimistic cynicism or desire to go against the reasoned grain would have seen them take that position regardless, despite nobody having had any way of actually knowing the final outcome for certain at the time they made their assertion. Rational belief can only be based on the evidence available rather than jumping to conclusions or filling the gaps in knowledge with suspicion and speculation. Having "called it right" is more chance coincidence - with a fairly big chance at 50-50 - than profound insight under such circumstances. Agnosticism, for want of a better word, on any particular issue is not the same thing as naivety or ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I agree though; in TOWK's defence, whilst ambiguity remains and the situation is still much the same in substance, he's not been trying to lord this setback over anyone and that's to his credit. :)
Paul will still be telling us he told us so! :pQuote:
Did anyone who stated conclusively that McCarthy would play for Scotland ever apologise for it, or say they were wrong? Do you think anyone who is wrong here will do the same if Grealish plays for Ireland?
Hmm, I'm not quite sure that is the case. If Grealish is to go on and play competitively for England's under-21s he will definitely have effected his solitary switch. The rule does state that a solitary "request" is permitted, but the evidence appears to inform us that a player must play in a competitive game for his new association in order to actually effect a switch, even if he has completed the requisite switch paperwork. There were cases in the eligibility thread to back this up, if I recall correctly. Bobby Zamora played for England at under-21 level before he requested a switch to Trinidad & Tobago. He was all ready to play for them having had the switch approved by FIFA, but missed out due to injury, before then going on to represent England at senior level. Tony Kane and Michael O'Connor similarly went from IFA to FAI and back again without getting tied competitively. I don't see how this would have been possible if a simple request was enough to tie a player to a new association. I've had a quick skim over the old eligibility discussion, but did we ever arrive at a certain conclusion on this? geysir?... :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
The regulation only prevents a player from participating in the same competition for another association's like age-group. Shane Duffy played for the IFA at both under-19 and under-21 levels before later playing for Ireland at under-19 and under-21 levels, for example. Here's the wording of the rule, which mentions nothing of a limitation based upon representing a particular age-group:Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIFA
What you quote above is an abbreviated version of a quote, condensed by myself, that originally appeared here: http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-30075664.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
I imagine it's an answer in response to a question along the lines of: "Will you continue with the way things are at the minute and stick with Ireland?"
I don't think the quote necessarily stacks the odds against us. Looking at it literally and logically, it doesn't necessarily mean that he'll definitely switch if he's still enjoying it with us and there's pressure upon him to play for England. Or does it?... So, in that sense, two conditions might need to be met if he's to switch; interest from the FA and a loss of enjoyment from playing for us. We just don't know for sure. Is someone gonna draw up a matrix or what?!
