I was replying to this 'statement' you made, It doesn't read as a proposal.Originally Posted by Blanchflower
The eligibility criteria aren't about "supporting the players": they're about deciding who is and also who isn't eligible.Statutes are modified, I don't know how often, I can imagine in a rapidly changing Football enviorment that some do.I've no idea. I'm not a delegate to FIFA. I also doubt whether the IFA has done any lobbying. (By the way, the statutes are modified regularly.)
There would have to be a good reason.
I do not see any argument of substance to change good Eligibility Statutes
Is lobbying a roundabout way of scratching backs in order to exert external influence on to the FIFA legal department.?
It would be helpful for the purposes of discussion if you quoted the statement.
I should have thought that goes without saying.
Nor me. But there have been, and no doubt will continue to be substantial arguments for modifying statutes to deal with anomalies and unforeseen consequences.
I don't doubt that sort of thing goes on.
Nope and I'm sure you're aware Blanchflower that I never suggested anything as such. But surely with GSTQ as an anthem and a flag based on the St George's cross it's easy to clearly identify the leanings of the team more towards the Unionist than the Nationalist community. Also no matter how much good work is done to make the team's fans more representative of the cross community (and I praise such work) there still remains IMO a secterian element to the support (perhaps a small one but it's there) no matter how much the average NI fan would like it to go away. Such secterian elements surely discourage nationalist fans (and some players) from being associated with the team.
Are you suggesting there should be religious quotas in the NI team?
Are you suggesting that NI managers discriminate against RC players when picking their teams? This is an outrageous insinuation.
Last edited by youngirish; 13/11/2007 at 11:08 AM.
I see you've got what I was pointing out, but for others this is what I was saying. Estonia (at least) are in trouble with the EU for basing citizenship on the ability to speak Estonian. This discriminates against some people whose family has lived in Estonia for centuries if not millenia. Therefore, with such a policy they have no right to complain if these people play for another country. Secondly, governments are astute at fast-tracking or bypassing citizenship applications to enable sportsman to represent their country. Estonia, as an example, I'd doubt would not consider an Estonian - Russian (or a descendant) citizenship if he was a gifted footballer who spoke no Estonian.
Elsewhere, citizenship laws have been based, without exaggerating, on race. Germany's until recently would not grant - apart through a long winded and often unsuccessfull process - citizenship to Germans born of foreign nationals. However they would grant citizenship to Soviets (Russians and Kazahks) of German ethnic background, even though the German born ancestors left in the 18th and 19th century. This was stopped a few years after the fall of the Soviet Union because of the mass influx of people claiming German ancestry, but prior to this the odd defector needed only a family nazi party card, from the German occupation of the Western USSR, to gain citizenship.
Young Irish never mentioned religion and never mentioned that the team did not have enough of any particular religion, or that the IFA picked players by religion. He said it was not equally representative of both communities.Young Irish said "but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South. He is clearly alleging discrimination in the selection of teams.
To me this means that NI being a British 'country' and that the symbols representing nationalists are absent: e.g. The Irish flag and Irish national anthem. The same is argued of the Irish rugby team, or any 6C Gaelic football team being not equally representative of unionists, even though rule 21, despite being perceived as anti-Unionist was primarily anti Catholic (Catholic policemen and soldiers). You will no doubt counter that these are foreign symbols. That's your opinion, but as someone has already said this stance displays a total lack of understanding of your neighbours identity.
You're welcome to argue about rule changes - I would have argued the same if FIFA ruled against us - but the problem is that, to a certain extent, the rights of the players will remain paramount. There are huge differences between the 'Qatar case' and ethnic Russians, Hungarians and Bosnian Serbs as the citizenship laws are different. The first is centred just on ability, the latter either denies or grants citizenship to all ethnics born outside the present state. Russia grants citizenship to all 'stateless citizens' who were former USSR citizens or those within the former USSR who speak Russian. This means that Russia - whose FA has far more clout than the FAI or IFA within FIFA - will be liable to the same FIFA rulling as Ireland.
http://www.legislationline.org/legis...591&less=false
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
You said: "but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South. There is a clear insinuation in those comments that there is discrimination in the selection of teams.
First, I would ask you to stop peddling lies about the NI flag, which is not "based on the St George's Cross": it is based on the cross in the Ulster provincial banner.
Second, the "leanings of the team" can in no way be ascertained by the flag and anthem: the players have no input to either of these emblems.
Third, there is no evidence of any players refusing to play for NI because of a flag or anthem, or of players not being picked due to their religion or political beliefs. On the contrary, NI teams have always included players from both traditions, and continue to do so.
That may be the case, but that does not provide evidence in discrimination in the picking of teams.
Zzzzzzzz. Like you don't know that each "community" is largely defined by religious affiliation.
Why on earth would the IFA fly the flag of another, rival country at its matches. What nonsense.
Have you been to an NI match in the last five years, YI? I would guess almost certainly not; as someone who has attended half of our games (H & A) during that period, I can tell you that your opinion is both wrong and misleading.
The phrase "there remains a sectarian element" [amongst the support] implies that this is manifested in the behaviour of that support at matches. This simply is not so - in my experience, not my opinion. I could also cite the experience of the two Catholics (one English-born) whom I roomed with in Latvia two months back.
Of course, if you were to say that amongst the NI support there are people who hold sectarian views, no reasonable person would disagree - it would be a miracle if there weren't.
But that is no different from saying that those many ROI fans who live in NI must also include a sectarian element amongst their number. Yet I would never characterise the ROI support in the way you do the NI support, nor dare suggest that no Protestant, from ROI or NI, could support the ROI team for fear of experiencing sectarianism, even despite the ugly abuse which a Danish player, mistaken for a Glasgow Ranger, experienced a while back. Nor would I suggest that no Jew could follow the ROI team either, despite the disgraceful anti-Semitic abuse, as reported on this site, when the Israeli team visited Dublin recently.
The fact is, what is important is how the fans behave at matches and the behaviour of NI fans at games these days is no bar to any Catholic (or Nationalist, for that matter) attending and enjoying the game. Just as such behaviour is no bar to any Catholic/Nationalist player representing his country. And above all, it should be noted that this happier situtation exists amongst other reasons precisely because the average fan wants it to be so.
P.S. On a technical point, you are also wrong about the NI flag. It is NOT based on the St.George's Cross. When originally designed by the Ulster King of Arms in Dublin in 1924(!), it was based on the old provincial flag of Ulster. As such, it incorporates not just the Red Hand, but also the De Burgh Cross (the De Burghs having been Earls of Ulster at one stage). This cross is coincidentally similar, but not identical to, St. George's Cross, which is noticeably thinner.
Therefore, it is thought that the UKofA took the old Ulster provincial flag and added a crown (UK) and six-pointed star (i.e 6 counties) for NI, but changed the background colour to white to make it distinctively different from that on which it was based.
Blanchflower if I gave the impression that the IFA disriminated in any way when picking Nationalists for the team then I apologise as this was not the point I was trying to make.You said: "but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South. There is a clear insinuation in those comments that there is discrimination in the selection of teams.
First, I would ask you to stop peddling lies about the NI flag, which is not "based on the St George's Cross": it is based on the cross in the Ulster provincial banner.
Second, the "leanings of the team" can in no way be ascertained by the flag and anthem: the players have no input to either of these emblems.
Third, there is no evidence of any players refusing to play for NI because of a flag or anthem, or of players not being picked due to their religion or political beliefs. On the contrary, NI teams have always included players from both traditions, and continue to do so.
That may be the case, but that does not provide evidence in discrimination in the picking of teams.
As for the flag and anthem I think you realistically must admit that they both only serve to obstruct more Nationalists from identifying with and therefore playing for the team. Would you rather play for an Ireland team playing Amhrán na bhFiann as an anthem and using the tricolour as a flag or another Ireland team playing GSTQ as an anthem with the Union Jack and Ulster Banner (St George's Cross) waving in the stands? I rest my case your honour.
As for the Ulster Banner, it is based on a combination of the St George's Cross on the English flag and the flag of the province Ulster as far as I'm aware. Maybe someone can back me up on this though so I don't have to search the internet though I'm open to being proven wrong.
I now just have to go and prove EG wrong on both his main points just for the sole reason that he says things with so much conviction that he's right (he even convinces the less gifted on here amongst us) even when they are 100% incorrect.
Read that batman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_banner
Or to summarise:
The flag is taken from the coat of arms granted in 1924 which is based on the flag of England[1][2][3] and the flag of the Irish province of Ulster [4], with the addition of a crown to symbolise the loyalty of Ulster unionists to the British Monarchy.
Not very pro Nationalist is it?
And have a look that this. Not 5 years ago is it?
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search
As an Irish Nationalist and Catholic from the South I don't find that support very welcoming. Maybe the sound was added later though (I'm sure you'll claim it was).
Last edited by youngirish; 13/11/2007 at 11:38 AM.
Come on, the abuse that that Danish lad got was pure tounge in cheek comedy booing, as soon as the stadium announcer corrected his mistake the lad (Peter Madsen) started getting cheered every time he got the ball. There were Irish players getting booed for tackling him, in no way was it ugly and the media hyped it up beyond recognition to try and make a story of it. Maybe the media didn't get the joke but it was obvious that good natured banter was all it was in the crowd.
As for the anti Israel feelking at the game, I'd suggest that that was more down to the politics that country involves itself in (hence the number of Palestine flags at the game) and the constant play acting of their team, in particular their keeper, rather then any specific anti semitism.
All just a bit of crack.
Wikipedia is not a credible source. Anyone could have written that, including you.
What's the story with NI supporters and their crazy, Fox Mulder style conspiracy theories?
EG stop trying to compare a handful of anti-Israeli elements amongst a crowd of 45 thousand supporters with the 1938 Nuremberg rally. It's foolish. Anyway it's not the same as the North's problem considering we don't have a large Jewish population in the South as far as I recollect or a history of conflict with them.
As for the booing. Pure pantomine. If an ROI player played for Rangers he'd be cheered like anyone else in the team. We don't have a history of secterianism amongst our support though I know you'd like to think we do. I've never heard IRA or rebel songs at an Ireland match.
Last edited by youngirish; 13/11/2007 at 11:53 AM.
Are you going to retract your insinuations about discrimination against RCs in the NI team?
What utter sh*te! It's an England flag with a crown and red hand on it. If it was just the Ulster flag etc. - or whatever other boll*cks you're waffling on about - why change the colour? Why make 'it distinctively different' to use your turds...sorry words, from the Ulster flag? The crown on top would suffice to prove that NI was now 'crown property'?
YoungIrish, although EG has stated that he thinks I'm stoopid - fair enough! - it appears that he thinks that all the other Fenians on here are stoopid as well.
For an impartial history of the NI flag see http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/symbols/flags.htm which states that This flag is based upon the St. George's Cross (see above) and has similarities to the Province of Ulster Flag (see above). However this particular flag of Northern Ireland is seen as staunchly Loyalist because of the Crown, the Star of David, and the Red Hand of Ulster. A number of other flags were based upon this design (see the alternative 'Ulster' flag below).
Of course, and this goes for all the other muppets sucking up to EG on here, you can either take the word of a respected academic service...or the lies of some tosser on an internet forum.
Blanchflower: Wikepedia may not be a reliable source but it's certainly more reliable than either you or any other members of ourweeminds on here, and if you or EG think otherwise, you are a couple of sad cookies.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
Grow up Blanchflower. You're making yourself look like someone whose cojones have years to go before they drop.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
It's not. Why on earth would it be an England flag??
I should imagine it was to make it distinct from the 9-county version.
Why use an England flag? Makes even less sense.
If, by "crown property", you mean within the realm of the British sovereign, NI was "crown property" for many centuries before the design of the flag.
Claiming the flag is based on the England flag is a common misconception, repeated by many ill-informed sources. CAIN is an example of this.
I'm curious for more clarity on the anti-Israel actions.
There was a protest march along Baggot Street before the match but that was a political march, in no way sponsored or endorsed by any fan group.
During the game there was continental style whistling when Israel was in possession (rarely) but this was classic "intimidate the away team" stuff, not in the remotest sense could it have been construed as anti-semitic.
Was there anything else? My instinct is that some NI fans here are just looking for an excuse to identify an element in our support that exists - or certainly existed - in theirs.
I agree with D69er about the pantomime nature of the Rangers player booing, especially the Peter Madsen / Lovenkrands episode. Didnt Torre Andre Flo see the "humour" in it too at one stage? It was stupid and obviously attracted bad publicity but to call Irish fans sectarian as a result was miles wide of the mark. Our own media have no clue about crowd behaviour, just as they completely misinterpreted booing of Ralph Keyes during the rugby in the 90s. On that occasion the crowd were booing the tactic of consistently hoofing the ball forward when we had one of the world's most exciting wingers getting frostbite across the pitch. The reaction? A disgrace to boo the player.
Show us where I said that and I'll gladly retract it. If you can't find it will you admit you're a bit insane and you think that everything any ROI fan says must revolve around papist influenced, religious intolerance?
It is not I who needs to grow up: I am not making unfounded insinuations and failing to back them up when challenged.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks