Players eligible for Ireland

You've done it now HB. You've done the thing he's most allergic to and provided facts.

Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote: I appreciate we're re-hashing a discussion that was done to death here a year or so ago.

Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote: Fact is, for all the abuse you're giving Terri, he's correct.  The selection of players apparently eligible for Ireland solely through a NI born grandparent is a grey area for the reasons he concisely and cogently points out about 3 pages back - just look at the wording of the various FIFA statutes and ROI citizenship rules (if you want good bed-time reading material).   AFAIK, no such player has played a competitive senior international for ROI.

Thank you.

Jaysis Terri, talk about waiting in the long grass for poor Danny...

Edited by Luis Amor Rodriguez - 11 Jan 2019 at 8:17pm

Jack Clark at Leeds eligible? ...Jack sounds a bit Irish, I'm sure I've met a few

Territorial wrote: Territorial wrote: The O'Shea wrote: Territorial wrote: Should that be so, then FIFA may consider this person to be "acquiring a new nationality" (i.e. other than that the country of birth eg Australia, UK etc). And FIFA's rules are clear that for anyone acquiring a new nationality, the grandparent would have to have been born on the territory of the new Association which the grandchild wishes to represent. Therefore if the grandparent(s) was born in NI, then the relevant association would be the IFA, not the FAI. I should add that I'm by no means certain about this, and although there may have been one or two individuals capped by the FAI at under-age level who did not satisfy this test (Adam Barton?), they may have been an oversight? In any case, I'm pretty sure it has never been tested at "A" (senior) international level, for a competitive game at least. There's no "possibly" about this. We went through it ad infinitum around a year ago and definitive evidence was provided to you repeatedly by both myself and Danny Invincible which you simply chose not to accept... Your refusal to accept it does not change the finality of the evidence, however, no matter how much you might wish it did. Unless you can point to a clear flaw in my argument; or you can point to a specific adjudication; or until it is properly tested by an actual example, you cannot claim that it is "definitive". I am saying it could still go either way. UPDATE: Is there another "Danny Invincible" out there? Or has your DI changed his tune since October 2017? For here is what he posted on another site, wrt Conor Tee of Leicester City, son of an English-born mother, whose own mother (CT's grandmother) was Mayo-born (my emphasis): From Danny Invincibile Mk.I -  [Conor's] uncle's statement is technically correct. He's quoted as saying: "[Conor] wants to play for Ireland and the Leicester Under 18 manager has been in contact with the FAI. If he was to play, he would actually qualify through his granny as Maureen [his mother] was born in England before we moved home not long after." Tee's mother is an automatic Irish national from birth on account of the fact that she was born to Irish citizens who were born in Ireland - I don't think the uncle is denying that - but as she herself was not born in Ireland, Tee's birth would have to be registered in the Foreign Births Register for him to acquire Irish citizenship. The article 7 criteria would apply to him then as he isn't a national from birth and the only criterion he satisfies is 7(c), relating to grandparentage from the territory of the relevant association. https://foot.ie/threads/119079-Potentially-eligible-players-thread/page134 (post #2665) (See also Article 7, page 71, of the relevant FIFA Regulations: https://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/02/78/29/07/fifastatutsweben_neutral.pdf )

Hi Terri, I've been on a bit of a break from forums for a while, but a little birdie told me you were chasing after me. Yes, that's me on Foot.ie too, and I'm truly flattered that you've been trawling through Foot.ie threads on eligibility to read my posts.

Anyway, to the point, what exactly have I said that you perceive to be contradictory? What did I say in October of 2017 that is supposedly contradicted? It is my understanding that, for the purpose of applying article 7(c) in the Irish context, FIFA regard the entire island as the "territory" of the FAI; they apply a purposive interpretation rather than a literal one.

The purposive approach to legal, statutory or regulatory interpretation is not something I'm just making up either. It has a long history in the legal tradition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purposive_approach 

By the way, I note you never saw fit to respond to my rebuttal of your errors in understanding back last March: https://forum.ybig.ie/forum_posts.asp?TID=51293&PID=2085508&title=were-not-brasil-were-tuaisceart-ireann#2085508

Can it be assumed that you now accept the points I made? (I hope you did actually read the Kearns judgment along with articles 5-8 of FIFA's Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes and that it proved enlightening for you.)

NIGreenWall wrote: The O'Shea wrote: Territorial wrote: The O'Shea wrote: Territorial wrote: Should that be so, then FIFA may consider this person to be "acquiring a new nationality" (i.e. other than that the country of birth eg Australia, UK etc). And FIFA's rules are clear that for anyone acquiring a new nationality, the grandparent would have to have been born on the territory of the new Association which the grandchild wishes to represent. Therefore if the grandparent(s) was born in NI, then the relevant association would be the IFA, not the FAI. I should add that I'm by no means certain about this, and although there may have been one or two individuals capped by the FAI at under-age level who did not satisfy this test (Adam Barton?), they may have been an oversight? In any case, I'm pretty sure it has never been tested at "A" (senior) international level, for a competitive game at least. There's no "possibly" about this. We went through it ad infinitum around a year ago and definitive evidence was provided to you repeatedly by both myself and Danny Invincible which you simply chose not to accept... Your refusal to accept it does not change the finality of the evidence, however, no matter how much you might wish it did. Unless you can point to a clear flaw in my argument; or you can point to a specific adjudication; or until it is properly tested by an actual example, you cannot claim that it is "definitive". I am saying it could still go either way. The clear flaw(s) in your argument were tirelessly laid out for you already, you still chose to ignore them. The easiest way to sum it up is with two simple examples; Alex Bruce and Adam Barton. How many times has it so be said that Alex Bruce qualifies for the ROI through his ROI born grandparent on his mothers side irrespective of the NI born grandparent on his fathers side. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/bruce-junior-plots-irish-future-19280 Adam Barton as you correctly say has no ROI link and played for your U21's based on his NI born grandparent, as far as the FAI are concerned there is no difference, FIFA don't look into the intricacies of all its members citizenship laws so it would be up to the IFA to raise a query with FIFA to see if the FAI's policy is correct or not.

 

Your notion that Barton may not have been eligible, despite having represented us in an under-21 friendly and four competitive qualification games for the European Under-21 Championship, is conspiracy theory. The FAI aren't sloppy with capping players in competitive games. It'd be a serious breach of rules and would be punished if found out. Barton's appearance in multiple competitive games is evidence of his eligibility - that reasonably satisfies the burden of proof here - unless you can supply some evidence to the contrary. If you can't, it's reasonable to assume he's eligible, based on the evidence.  

So, it was reported that Alex Bruce actually has a southern grandparent. Any idea where this alleged grandparent is from? I'd only ever seen it reported that he had a grandparent from Bangor when it came to media explanations for his eligibility for both the FAI and IFA. Can we be certain the Birmingham Mail picked up the facts of his case correctly? Media outlets are notorious for misreporting facts on eligibility matters. (For what's it's worth, the FAI's Disciplinary Control Unit confirmed to me in March of 2015 that Bruce was fully eligible to play for the FAI.)

To suggest FIFA don't concern themselves with the specifics of states' nationality laws is nonsense. They have to in order to know whether articles other than just article 5 should apply to a player wishing to play for an international team. And what do you think the Players' Status Committee spend their time doing for months after a player requests a switch of association and before they approve the request?

Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote: Fact is, for all the abuse you're giving Terri, he's correct.  The selection of players apparently eligible for Ireland solely through a NI born grandparent is a grey area for the reasons he concisely and cogently points out about 3 pages back - just look at the wording of the various FIFA statutes and ROI citizenship rules (if you want good bed-time reading material).   AFAIK, no such player has played a competitive senior international for ROI.   However, if it were tested, my expectation is that a fudge would be made and the player would be ruled eligible.  I appreciate we're re-hashing a discussion that was done to death here a year or so ago.

 

Whether or not a player who fits the criteria under discussion has played a competitive senior international for us is irrelevant. Adam Barton played in four competitive under-21 games. Competitive means competitive, whether that's senior or under-age. The eligibility rules apply equally to all competitive age groups.

If it were tested, Barton would be ruled eligible not because of any "fudge". It would because FIFA apply a purposive (rather then literal) approach to interpretation of the relevant regulation in the FAI's case and Barton is fully eligible under such an interpretation. 

Territorial wrote: With the Kearns case, for instance, the CAS came down on the side of the FAI only, since that accorded with their strict interpretation of FIFA's rules - i.e. no "fudge" there.

 

"Only" because the FAI's position accorded with the rules?  The rules are pretty crucial. A dispute over them - due to a so obviously erroneous IFA interpretation - was the whole basis of the case. The case was never going to go any other way than the way it did, because the IFA erroneously thought article 16 (now article 6) applied to Kearns in respect of his eligibility to play for the FAI. Reality is that only article 15 (now article 5) applied to him in respect of his eligibility to play for the FAI. What other interpretation was possible?

Edited by Danny Invincible - 12 Jan 2019 at 5:00am

It's also worth noting that Bailey Peackock-Farrell (who qualifies through his Enniskillen-born grandfather) was very recently approached by the FAI only to turn them down. So if Barton and Bruce were somehow actually ineligible despite the FAI picking them repeatedly, then they haven't learned their lesson.... Now the logical conclusion to this would be that there is no eligibility issue whatsoever; but in Territorial's world the FAI are dim-witted idiots, doomed to repeat the same mistakes over-and-over (all the while conveniently avoiding any sanctions from FIFA despite flaunting their rules...) 

Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote: The O'Shea wrote: It's also worth noting that Bailey Peackock-Farrell (who qualifies through his Enniskillen-born grandfather) was very recently approached by the FAI only to turn them down. So if Barton and Bruce were somehow actually ineligible despite the FAI picking them repeatedly, then they haven't learned their lesson.... Now the logical conclusion to this would be that there is no eligibility issue whatsoever; but in Territorial's world the FAI are dim-witted idiots, doomed to repeat the same mistakes over-and-over (all the while conveniently avoiding any sanctions from FIFA despite flaunting their rules...)  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/proud-bailey-peacock-farrell-embraces-his-northern-roots-1.3621851%3fmode=amp BPF was approached by Noel King at U21.  He was not approached by senior management to be considered for a senior competitive cap.  Therefore that example does not change the position or add anything to the discussion unfortunately.   Taken one step further, it might be considered odd that BPF was not approached by senior management when he was playing GK for one of the best Championship teams (a position we're not laden down with quality for). Senior management also omitted to contact George Saville and Jamal Lewis, despite both featuring regularly at Championship level (and more recently playing better than any of our lot in the Aviva ).   Possibly we can put these failures down to inadvertent and negligent scouting at senior level, but they do seem odd omissions.

Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote: No need to be gratuitously rude O'Shea.  We're all adults here.  Take a deep breath.  Look out the window.  And think happy thoughts.   Yes, of course I realise U21 is a FIFA-sanctioned age-group.  However if we were to breach FIFA regulations in a U21 competition, the penalty (beyond a fine) would be a points-deduction in that competition (i.e.: at U21).  It would not impact any senior team campaign. So BPF is in the Adam Barton category.  And, as I said, AFAIK no player in those eligibility circumstances has been capped in a senior competitive international for us.  Therefore, that risk has never been incurred at that level (e.g.: of a potential points deduction in an WC qualifying campaign, for example - a serious deterrent, one would have thought).

You're peddling nonsense. Don't cry foul, play the victim and act like butter wouldn't melt when someone pulls you up on your disingenuous baloney, which you persist with again and again, despite having been corrected on the errors of your position months ago.

You're creating this false dichotomy between youth level and the senior team in order to try and make room for your groundless theory - it really is clutching at straws at this point - but the eligibility rules apply throughout all age groups.

Are you seriously suggesting the FAI would be happy to cap or would be careless about capping ineligible players in competitive under-21 games just because the penalty they'd incur wouldn't impact the senior team? I mean, the FAI deserve criticism on many matters, but they're not that unprofessional, for heaven's sake. Something like that would do huge reputational damage beyond the formal punishment FIFA or UEFA would dish out.

Edited by Danny Invincible - 12 Jan 2019 at 5:11pm