Eligibility Rules, Okay

[geysir]

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.

Not quite
Article 5.1 sets out the principle of eligibility - with no exceptions

Article 5.2 is excepted by the conditions for changing that are in Article 8

Means that the conditions in 5.2 are totally excluded from consideration and Article 8 takes over to define the conditions for changing associations.



Article 8. 1 (b)He is not permitted to play for his new Association in any competition in which he has already played for his previous Association.

That does not say the player has used up his choice. Just that a player can't chop and change between an association during a competition.
Nobody said underage competitives do not matter, all FIFA man says, is that they are not binding.

[Closed Account]

Hell, a lot has been written since I last posted here:

Here's my tuppence on the email I got back.

First of all, the reply was an answer to the specific question that I asked, i.e playing for Assoc A, requesting and getting an application approved to change to Assoc B, and subsequently deciding to play for Assoc A again. (a la B Zamora, and T Kane).

In that context, the reply makes sense[1]. When he says "Meaning, as long as a player has not played for any senior side he can switch associations as long as he wants to.", I believe he is referring to Assoc A and Assoc B only, because your one request for a change has been used.

I read the whole thing with confirmation bias though. The sum of it all is that a player will be tied to us when he plays in a friendly or qualifier/finals game at senior level, or in a competitive youth game.

[1]. I don't think the person who responded fully understood how detailed an answer I wanted and hence I'm not putting too much weight behind it. Should I send a follow up enquiry? I know someone suggested it.

[ArdeeBhoy]

With respect to JD, NB et al, writing to FIFA is fairly pointless.

Even assuming they had a better understanding of the issue than someone like DI, they're hardly going to willingly admit any errors on their part to some random punter and are far more likely to answer in vague generalities.

[Not Brazil]

[1]. I don't think the person who responded fully understood how detailed an answer I wanted and hence I'm not putting too much weight behind it. Should I send a follow up enquiry? I know someone suggested it.

I've emailed FIFA, asking them basically the same question, in a different way.

Be good if you sought further clarification also Joe, and we can compare notes later.

[DannyInvincible]

With respect to JD, NB et al, writing to FIFA is fairly pointless.

Even assuming they had a better understanding of the issue than someone like DI, they're hardly going to willingly admit any errors on their part to some random punter and are far more likely to answer in vague generalities.

I'm all for e-mailing them for better clarification. This one has me puzzled somewhat as a literal interpretation of article 8 would appear to conflict with what was said in the e-mail they sent back to Joe.

[Not Brazil]

With respect to JD, NB et al, writing to FIFA is fairly pointless.

Even assuming they had a better understanding of the issue than someone like DI, they're hardly going to willingly admit any errors on their part to some random punter and are far more likely to answer in vague generalities.

I have no doubt that Danny has a very good understanding of FIFA's eligibility Statutes.

However, I doubt if he has more knowledge of them than FIFA themselves.

It's clear even Danny is in some doubt on this, specific, area of the Statutes.

[geysir]

Hell, a lot has been written since I last posted here:

Here's my tuppence on the email I got back.

First of all, the reply was an answer to the specific question that I asked, i.e playing for Assoc A, requesting and getting an application approved to change to Assoc B, and subsequently deciding to play for Assoc A again. (a la B Zamora, and T Kane).

In that context, the reply makes sense[1]. When he says "Meaning, as long as a player has not played for any senior side he can switch associations as long as he wants to.", I believe he is referring to Assoc A and Assoc B only, because your one request for a change has been used.

An underage capped player requests a change from Assoc. A to Assoc. B.
It doesn't work out at B, he was only capped at underage level there. Player then want to go back to A.
For sure he has to request a change to go back to A.
That means already he has made 2 requests for a change.
How can you interpret that only his one request for change has been used up?
Is there a 6 month valid open return option?

And we already have one example of one player playing with 3 different associations.

[Closed Account]

An underage capped player requests a change from Assoc. A to Assoc. B.
It doesn't work out at B, he was only capped at underage level there. Player then want to go back to A.
For sure he has to request a change to go back to A.
That means already he has made 2 requests for a change.
How can you interpret that only his one request for change has been used up?
Is there a 6 month valid open return option?

And we already have one example of one player playing with 3 different associations.

I didn't say anything about playing for Assoc B. I'm saying he sends the request but never gets capped or only plays in underage friendlies. Evidence shows that he still has the option of staying with Assoc A. What I'm saying is that the change of association is only confirmed when he plays in a competitive(senior or underage) or Senior Friendly game. Something you've been saying for some time Geysir.

[geysir]

I didn't say anything about playing for Assoc B. I'm saying he sends the request but never gets capped or only plays in underage friendlies.

Well you used the example of Kane who was capped by NI, then capped by Ireland, before returning back to NI.
So I assumed you mean't the player had (or at least could have) played for Association B.
But you are obviously more clear about what you wrote than I was

Evidence shows that he still has the option of staying with Assoc A. What I'm saying is that the change of association is only confirmed when he plays in a competitive(senior or underage) or Senior Friendly game. Something you've been saying for some time Geysir.

The sands shift.
First I thought that a player only had to be capped at competitive underage level in order for the change to take effect. Then I thought it had to be a senior A friendly. Now I think it has to be a senior competitive cap, even if the FIFA man didn't spell it out.

But after his reply, it is becoming more clear that a player can move hither and thither, even between 3 associations, which explains how that player that Danny offered as an example, is on his 3rd association.

The one thing that is clear, that maybe everybody (except NB possibly) can agree upon, is that the literal interpretation of 'can only make one request to change' does not remotely cut the mustard. So we have to look for examples to prove the rule.

[ArdeeBhoy]

I have no doubt that Danny has a very good understanding of FIFA's eligibility Statutes.

However, I doubt if he has more knowledge of them than FIFA themselves.

It's clear even Danny is in some doubt on this, specific, area of the Statutes.

Well yes, not more than their lawyers obviously. I'm talking about their office drones.

Hence them apparently contradicting themselves, as confirmed by DI...

[Closed Account]

Well you used the example of Kane who was capped by NI, then capped by Ireland, before returning back to NI.
So I assumed you mean't the player had (or at least could have) played for Association B.
But you are obviously more clear about what you wrote than I was


The sands shift.
First I thought that a player only had to be capped at competitive underage level in order for the change to take effect. Then I thought it had to be a senior A friendly. Now I think it has to be a senior competitive cap, even if the FIFA man didn't spell it out.

But after his reply, it is becoming more clear that a player can move hither and thither, even between 3 associations, which explains how that player that Danny offered as an example, is on his 3rd association.

The one thing that is clear, that maybe everybody (except NB possibly) can agree upon, is that the literal interpretation of 'can only make one request to change' does not remotely cut the mustard. So we have to look for examples to prove the rule.

Well Tony only played in an underage friendly for ROI, which isn't recognised by FIFA, so he may as well not have played for us at all. In fact, ROI were told not to call him up for the U19 qualifiers until his eligibility had been confirmed or something, linked to it a few pages back. Anyway. The waters are certainly muddy.

I think I entered this debate when Ciaran O Raghallaigh mentioned on twitter saying that James McClean request to change meant he could never play for NI again, and I think that is incorrect and every evidence I've seen supports that. And now I'm out. I'll leave ye to sort out the rest.

[geysir]

Well Tony only played in an underage friendly for ROI, which isn't recognised by FIFA, so he may as well not have played for us at all. In fact, ROI were told not to call him up for the U19 qualifiers until his eligibility had been confirmed or something, linked to it a few pages back. Anyway. The waters are certainly muddy.

Afaia, according to the timeline of events as they are recorded.
Tony O'Kane had played for NI underage. He had to apply for a switch to the FAI, personally in writing. That switch was approved by FIFA before O'Kane was played in a friendly in Portugal. Confirmed by Givens in Sept 2006
Then UEFA asked or told the FAI not to pick him for UEFA competitive games because of the ongoing official IFA protest & investigation by FIFA into the eligibility issue at that time.

When O'Kane went back to the IFA, he had to request that in writing from FIFA.

[DannyInvincible]

Discussion on McClean/eligibility from the Social Club NI: http://www.thesocialclubni.com/the-s...lub-ni/podcast

Begins at 43 minutes in the latest podcast, 'Romance is Boring'. Still have to listen myself.

[DannyInvincible]

Just had a listen. More progressive than most discussions on the issue with a hugely relieving lack of conspiracy theories, ignorance and double standards. The panel have obviously educated themselves on the matter. Even got a wee mention myself.

[Mr_Parker]

Just had a listen. More progressive than most discussions on the issue with a hugely relieving lack of conspiracy theories, ignorance and double standards. The panel have obviously educated themselves on the matter. Even got a wee mention myself.

Holty and Kieth are avid forumites on ILSF. We've taught them well. McIntosh is work in progress.

[The Fly]

Even got a wee mention myself.

Gastric'll get an ulcer if he listens to that.

[geysir]

Now I know there's a league team called Chimney Corner.

I liked the bit in the discussion where the guy said something to the effect
we're not bigots anymore so congratulate us on that, we won't call you a fenian bashtard anymore, so come and play for us.

[French Toasht]

What makes this guy 100% certain that McLean will go to the Euros. All the indicators suggest otherwise.

[ifk101]

Even got a wee mention myself.

Johnny Gorman is an interesting case. After all this is an English schoolboy with senior NI caps to his name. The panel's laughter at your Johnny Gorman point should have hit home the realisation that Gorman wasn't capped for his footballing abilities.



Regarding McClean, it's mentioned that Beaglehole assured somebody on the panel that McClean was picked for the NI U21s everytime this was possible. It doesn't take more than a quick google search to find that this is questionable. McClean played for Derry City on the 30th of May 2011 in a 6-0 defeat of Galway United. The NI U21s played a scoreless draw away to the Faroes the next day without McClean in the squad. Go back to March 2010 and we'll find McClean played for Derry on the 5th of March against Cork City. The NI U21s played San Marino on the 2nd of March without McClean in the squad. McClean last played for the NI U21 team in November 2009 so there a period of approximately 2 years when he wasn't actively involved with/ overlooked for/ discarded by the NI international setup. McClean was loyal to the IFA as long as he was part of their plans but when this was no longer the case he set out to follow his dream of playing for Ireland.

[Not Brazil]

Regarding McClean, it's mentioned that Beaglehole assured somebody on the panel that McClean was picked for the NI U21s everytime this was possible. It doesn't take more than a quick google search to find that this is questionable. McClean played for Derry City on the 30th of May 2011 in a 6-0 defeat of Galway United. The NI U21s played a scoreless draw away to the Faroes the next day without McClean in the squad. Go back to March 2010 and we'll find McClean played for Derry on the 5th of March against Cork City. The NI U21s played San Marino on the 2nd of March without McClean in the squad. McClean last played for the NI U21 team in November 2009 so there a period of approximately 2 years when he wasn't actively involved with/ overlooked for/ discarded by the NI international setup. McClean was loyal to the IFA as long as he was part of their plans but when this was no longer the case he set out to follow his dream of playing for
Ireland.

Beaglehole had his say on the issue in the Sunday Life at the weekend, in an article by Mark McIntosh headed "James should come clean".

James was "loyal to the IFA until he reached the point of no return with them - far from not being part of their plans, he defected when he was selected for a senior squad for a competitive International.

It was then he decided to "follow his dream" - before it was no longer an option.