Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irwin3
I was thinking of the above question in relation to other countries as well. I take it that the answer is still the same. I'm thinking along the lines of people who have been born in countries and have residency rights, but never take up/ aren't eligible for citizenship. Wouldn't a birth certificate show eligibility?
Why would the birth cert help?
I mean I know it should, but different sports have different eligibility criteria.
Unless of course they, or in any country, were retrospectively awarded that (or any?) citizenship??Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I'm just thinking of an unsual situation that may occur. You, your parents and grandparents could all be born in a country and none of you could have citizenship. Would said person be eligible for this country?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
If not a citizen, it would be necessary for such a person to be a national of that country. If there was a way of ascertaining nationality other than by employing a citizenship or passport test and FIFA were to accept it - as is the exceptional case with those representing the IFA - I'd imagine they'd be eligible.
Can anyone confirm that there was a report in the Irish News stating that the IFA are asking FIFA to change the age limit to suit them?
I see it's on page 50 from the Irish News' online reader, but I haven't got a subscription to enable me to zoom in. Maybe someone who's read it could go into detail? Would be interesting to hear the IFA's argument. I'm not sure how they could argue for an exception in this particular case, given that it would not only tie players eligible for the FAI who've represented the IFA after whatever age limit their lobbying for, but it would also tie down players potentially eligible for other associations as well. Whilst I wouldn't necessarily advocate it, if FIFA were to re-introduce the universal rule where the age cap was 21, or if even they were to introduce a universal cap of a lower age, I wouldn't take a huge deal of issue with it as, ultimately, the choice would still be there for northern-born Irish nationals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
It would rule out the likes of Bruce from playing for them, right? Most, if not all of the players who have switched to the FAI from the IFA have all done so before their 18th or 19th birthdays. If it was indeed an age-limit they wished for and not an honours cut-off point, it just might be acceptable from our point of view. Saying that, why would FIFA change their rules back to the way they had been, just for a desperate and annoying IFA?
The headline reads, "IFA plans new move in player eligibility dispute", so there's no indication that they've even run it past FIFA yet. Presumably, it would rule Bruce out for them though, unless, of course, they're lobbying for an age limit of 27 to be imposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
As you say, it's possible they're going for an honours cut-off point, but, once again, I'm not sure how FIFA could introduce an exceptional rule for the IFA as opposed to a universal one for everyone in this case as it would potentially impact upon the eligibility of players for other associations beyond just the FAI.
The IFA may get support from members within the FFF in France who had favoured the introduction of a quota there for the recruitment of dual national players at youth level, but there's a significant bloc of associations - especially the north and west African francophone bloc - who've benefited from the lifting of the age cap that would put up a strong battle against its revocation. Of course, the idea of the introduction of what the media dubbed "race quotas" has been abandoned by the FFF since the furore the idea caused, but there may remain sympathetic figures to any IFA motion within the FFF. Any rule-change would also require 75 per cent of support from the FIFA congress, however; that's the coming together of all the member associations.
So does the 'granny rule' only work for countries that pass on citizenship to grandchildren?
I assume so. If a player isn't a legal national of the particular country or has no means of proving his nationality, then I imagine he'd be unable to satisfy FIFA that he's eligible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irwin3
The Irish News piece is by Eamonn O'Hara and he talks about how the IFA "are now taking a close look at FIFA's age rule regarding the cut-off point a player can finally declare who he wants to play for at senior international level". O'Hara says that the FIFA rules on age currently stand at 28, however. I'm not sure where he got that from as FIFA abolished the age cap altogether, to my knowledge anyway.
He speaks of Jim Shaw indicating that there are "complicated regulations governing this, on a global scale" which "present difficulties in trying to convince FIFA to lower [sic] the age limit".
According to Shaw, IFA officials are "actively thinking about and actively working on" ways to move this "very complex" issue forward and that it is "a possibility" that the IFA will try and secure a change of position from FIFA.
The remaining parts talk about the Kearns CAS case and give a brief outline of some of those who have switched; nothing new really. O'Hara also mentions Patrick Nelson, the IFA's chief executive, talking about how they're working tirelessly to provide the best possible environment for all players eligible to play for the IFA so that "they feel loved".
Nelson does, at least, appear to acknowledge that clarity has been provided on the eligibility issue: "We have had clarity now, in terms of the CAS ruling on FIFA's detailed rules. We understand that. That's the way it is according to CAS."
The article concludes by talking about the recent Alex Bruce story. Jim Shaw speaks about it despite the whole interest in Bruce seemingly sitting at odds with his intentions to have FIFA re-introduce their age cap: "We are obviously extremely disappointed in losing players to the Republic who we believe should only be playing for Northern Ireland. Bruce even considering is a message that he is prepared to look at us as an international team for his future. But, we treat all players exactly the same. We have to work on the basis that the attention we give to them all means they will stay with us."
Was just having a look at the FIFA Regulations of the Olympic Football Tournaments for London 2012 and the eligibility rules in particular:
The wording of (a) is a bit different to how FIFA's articles are worded, but has it any extra effect? If there's no real addition to the effect of FIFA's already-existing and subsequently-mentioned articles on eligibility, why the need for it?Quote:
8: General provisions
1. Each association taking part in the Tournaments shall ensure the following when selecting its representative team(s):
a) all players shall hold the nationality of its country and be subject to its jurisdiction;
b) all players shall be eligible for selection in accordance with the FIFA Statutes and relevant FIFA regulations, in particular articles 15 to 18 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes.
Also, I've been wondering will those who can play for the IFA with just an Irish passport be entitled to represent the UK Olympic team?
It just shows the nonsense of them being eligible to play for anyone else other than the country of which they're a citizen....Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Should be glad to know got that publicised via The YBIG Facebook page.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Not than many (if any) Northern Irish players will be involved, but there wouldn't be a problem - people born in Northern Ireland hold British Nationality from birth.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
"Dual Nationality" ring any bells AB?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Bit of give off about Worthington's courting of Bruce in WSC.
Though largely ignoring eligibility, it akes no account of the longevity of the rules, the fact it's a two-way door and it refers to the 2009 'ruling' on switching associations at 21 to Gibson, Wilson and Duffy, an irrelevant point. Also says it's 'imperative' Worthington takes a stand without explaining what the bloody hell he's supposed to stand against.
Which is a nonsense as a general principle, the GFA not withstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Already one question for Danny on there to answer.....Quote:
Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton