Originally Posted by geysir
FIFA man's assertion does not sit in sync with FIFA's General Principle on Eligibility ie. 5.2
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
The IFA didn't exactly object to the partition of football in Ireland now, did they?
I'm sure you and most (all?) IFA fans are not that concerned about it either. Unless you secretly wish there was one association to govern football in Ireland?
If the FAI was founded with the intention of being the main governing body on the island, then that is hardly partitionist. Rather, circumstances (those damn circumstances again!) meant that that was the ultimate effect.
End Apartheid Now! One Team in Ireland!
Yes. As don't accept they had a 'partitionist' agenda, not permanently.
And given you weren't around then, you don't know either...
Initially, the IFA did object.
But, you're right, the vast majority of Northern Ireland fans are very happy that there are 2 Associations on the island.
It would't be much good, being from Northern Ireland, if you didn't have a choice of which one to represent.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
I've taken a note to remind you of that next time you start blethering on about historical events that happened before you were around.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
Did they? Why?
End Apartheid Now! One Team in Ireland!
Of course - they continued to claim to represent the whole of the island.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
Bloody nationalists.
End Apartheid Now! One Team in Ireland!
Piece on James McClean and "the Irish conundrum": http://stateofthegame.co.uk/2012/02/...ish-conundrum/
It is quite sad that most of the commentary on this matter is terrible. Of course, it's momentarily entertaining to scoff at the sub-standard state of comment, but I'd love to come across something that is genuinely informed and engaging. It would be a nice surprise...
End Apartheid Now! One Team in Ireland!
Indeed. I added a few comments but they're awaiting moderation.
You will note that I remarked many times that no mention was made of that it has to be a competitive cap.
A question remains as to exactly what type of senior cap binds the player to his new association.
Now, I am of the opinion that it has to be a competitive game.
I wrote earlier that it most probably has to be a competitive game.
That is based on FIFA's principle of a competitive cap binding a player to an association.
Because I have that opinion, does not mean it is so
We have already discussed that 'only once' thing to death earlier, pity you did not engage yourself in the discussion at that time as you were actively posting on this thread at that time.I'm absolutely clear about what "binds" a change, but am still scratching my head about "defines" a change.
The expression used by FIFA in relation to requesting a change of Association is "only once....."
Forget about the 'only once request' expression used by FIFA. That expression has varied in the last 3 rewordings of the eligibility statutes.
from
'can only request a change once to play for another association'
to
'can only change once to play for another association'
back to
'can only request a change once to play for another association'
What defines a change is what matters and FIFA man more or less confirmed that a player can make many requests but can only change to play once - once he is capped at senior level then his option to change is used up and IMO, it has to be at senior competitive level.
However, I'll keep an open mind on that one
It is of little use to us if you don't express yourself.
You will feel better
Outline exactly what is not in sync, in your opinion.
One slight problem. It's not me using it as necessary to tediously assert the same dubious point...
Up there now. I look forward also to certain other contributors's input also...
"If a player has changed associations, but never played for the other association (youth matches not included as they are not counting as senior caps) he can switch to the other one again. Meaning, as long as a player has not played for any senior side he can switch associations as long as he wants to. Besides that, a change comes into effect when FIFA approves it."
This notion that youth matches don't count from the FIFA man flies in the face of Statutes 5.2 (Principles) and 8.1 (b) (Change of Association).
Further clarification required - I'll put a scenario to FIFA and post their reply, once received.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
Article 5.
2. With the exception of the conditions specified in article 8 below, any Player who has already participated in a match (either in full or in part) in an official competition of any category or any type of football for one Association may not play an international match for a representative team of another Association.
Therefore Article 8 sets out the conditions for changing associations, not article 5.2.
Article 5 sets out the Principles of Eligibility. Note the use of "any category" and "any type" of football.
Article 8 deals with the specifics of Association changing - it's odd that FIFA man was basically saying youth internationals are neither here nor there in the equation, but 8.1(b) would indicate otherwise.
I intend to double check on FIFA man's response.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
Hurry up, we're on tenterhooks, again...
Where did it go? Did your points throw so much doubt on the article that they had to pull it?
Last edited by Mr_Parker; 13/02/2012 at 7:42 AM.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks