You Boys in Green Homepage YBIG Shop
Forum Home Forum Home : International : Republic Of Ireland
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Players eligible for Ireland
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Players eligible for Ireland

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 213214215216217 272>
Author
Message
The O'Shea View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar
Spouter of Nonsense

Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The O'Shea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 5:19pm
Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez 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).  

I'm not being "gratuitously rude", I'm repeating something that has been repeated on here a thousand times before. If it was your first time making the mistake, I'd have no issue with that; but it isn't, you continue to propagate your nonsense theory despite the fact you have been continuously corrected on it. That is, naturally enough, frustrating for those of us who actually have a rudimentary understanding of how FIFA's eligibility rules function.
We're decent enough..
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 1099
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 5:25pm
Danny, another one who needs to take a deep breath, and not succumb to the temptation to throw your toys out of the pram.  We're discussing a rather boring, inoffensive topic; there's no need to be rude about it. 

Understand what's being said:  

- No one disputes the eligibility laws don't apply through the age-groups (those that are FIFA-sanctioned at least; they have no bearing on, say U15, afaik), so there's no need to suggest I'm saying that. 

- your view on whether FIFA would apply a literal or purposive approach to interpretation of the relevant FIFA statutes is simply that, "your view".  It's not the law, it's not been tested, and, for the reasons Terri outlined, departs from the actual wording of what the FIFA statutes say.  It is therefore a grey area.  I am merely repeating where this discussion got to 12 months ago.

- As it happens, if it were tested, I (unlike Terri afaik) believe FIFA would agree with your view.  But it's still just your view, (as well-considered and researched as it is).

- I can't say that I know what the FAI's position on it is or whether they've definitely considered it.  I do however find it odd that they never approach BPF, Jamal Lewis, George Saville or even Conor Washington at senior level - even for an exploratory chat.




Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 1099
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 5:30pm
Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez 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).  

I'm not being "gratuitously rude", I'm repeating something that has been repeated on here a thousand times before. If it was your first time making the mistake, I'd have no issue with that; but it isn't, you continue to propagate your nonsense theory despite the fact you have been continuously corrected on it. That is, naturally enough, frustrating for those of us who actually have a rudimentary understanding of how FIFA's eligibility rules function.

O'Shea, tell us where this situation has been tested?  

Go back to Terri's post (maybe 5 pages back) and explain how the logic is incorrect.  He's referred to the FIFA and Irish citizenship law there.  Look it up, and you'll see that on a literal interpretation, he's right. There has not been any decision on this specific case, and so, given the competing view based on a literal interpretation, it is literally "undecided", or a grey area.   
Back to Top
SuperDave84 View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
ooh Thomas, how could you do this to me!

Joined: 26 Aug 2011
Location: Far Fungannon
Status: Offline
Points: 20858
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SuperDave84 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 5:47pm
Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

Danny, another one who needs to take a deep breath, and not succumb to the temptation to throw your toys out of the pram.  We're discussing a rather boring, inoffensive topic; there's no need to be rude about it. 

Understand what's being said:  

- No one disputes the eligibility laws don't apply through the age-groups (those that are FIFA-sanctioned at least; they have no bearing on, say U15, afaik), so there's no need to suggest I'm saying that. 

- your view on whether FIFA would apply a literal or purposive approach to interpretation of the relevant FIFA statutes is simply that, "your view".  It's not the law, it's not been tested, and, for the reasons Terri outlined, departs from the actual wording of what the FIFA statutes say.  It is therefore a grey area.  I am merely repeating where this discussion got to 12 months ago.

- As it happens, if it were tested, I (unlike Terri afaik) believe FIFA would agree with your view.  But it's still just your view, (as well-considered and researched as it is).

- I can't say that I know what the FAI's position on it is or whether they've definitely considered it.  I do however find it odd that they never approach BPF, Jamal Lewis, George Saville or even Conor Washington at senior level - even for an exploratory chat.



I'm not sure we can say this. It could well be the case that they were quietly approached and said no. It could be that there was no point because the FAI knew they said no. It could be that the FAI didn't realise they were eligible until they were called up by NI.
Back to Top
The O'Shea View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar
Spouter of Nonsense

Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The O'Shea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 5:54pm
It's not even relevant given all the other evidence, but you are of course right. The only reason we know Peacock-Farrell was approached is because he came out and said it (prior to that, Luis was pulling his hair out posting on here every other day about what a disgrace it was that the FAI hadn't approached him....) LOL. It could well be exactly the same case with the likes of Saville, Lewis, etc.
We're decent enough..
Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 1099
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 6:15pm
Originally posted by SuperDave84 SuperDave84 wrote:

Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

Danny, another one who needs to take a deep breath, and not succumb to the temptation to throw your toys out of the pram.  We're discussing a rather boring, inoffensive topic; there's no need to be rude about it. 

Understand what's being said:  

- No one disputes the eligibility laws don't apply through the age-groups (those that are FIFA-sanctioned at least; they have no bearing on, say U15, afaik), so there's no need to suggest I'm saying that. 

- your view on whether FIFA would apply a literal or purposive approach to interpretation of the relevant FIFA statutes is simply that, "your view".  It's not the law, it's not been tested, and, for the reasons Terri outlined, departs from the actual wording of what the FIFA statutes say.  It is therefore a grey area.  I am merely repeating where this discussion got to 12 months ago.

- As it happens, if it were tested, I (unlike Terri afaik) believe FIFA would agree with your view.  But it's still just your view, (as well-considered and researched as it is).

- I can't say that I know what the FAI's position on it is or whether they've definitely considered it.  I do however find it odd that they never approach BPF, Jamal Lewis, George Saville or even Conor Washington at senior level - even for an exploratory chat.



I'm not sure we can say this. It could well be the case that they were quietly approached and said no. It could be that there was no point because the FAI knew they said no. It could be that the FAI didn't realise they were eligible until they were called up by NI.

Of course Dave. But to the best of our knowledge, what I have said is the case.  


Edited by Luis Amor Rodriguez - 12 Jan 2019 at 6:15pm
Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 1099
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 6:19pm
Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

It's not even relevant given all the other evidence, but you are of course right. The only reason we know Peacock-Farrell was approached is because he came out and said it (prior to that, Luis was pulling his hair out posting on here every other day about what a disgrace it was that the FAI hadn't approached him....) LOL. It could well be exactly the same case with the likes of Saville, Lewis, etc.

BPF was approached by Noel King... as had previously been much discussed on here - that's hardly an approach which would inspire someone to join our side.  

Really MON and RK should have been dangling the carrot of senior football before him (particularly as around about that time we were playing a 30-something year old goalkeeper who's last transfer was for 50p).  

To the best of our knowledge (and these things usually get out one way or the other) none of these players were approached by senior management. 
Back to Top
coyne View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane
Avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2013
Location: Sunderland
Status: Offline
Points: 13797
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coyne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 6:20pm
Has Will Buckley declared yet.
Back to Top
Danny Invincible View Drop Down
Kevin Kilbane
Kevin Kilbane


Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Danny Invincible Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 6:38pm
Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

Danny, another one who needs to take a deep breath, and not succumb to the temptation to throw your toys out of the pram.  We're discussing a rather boring, inoffensive topic; there's no need to be rude about it. 

Understand what's being said:  

- No one disputes the eligibility laws don't apply through the age-groups (those that are FIFA-sanctioned at least; they have no bearing on, say U15, afaik), so there's no need to suggest I'm saying that. 

- your view on whether FIFA would apply a literal or purposive approach to interpretation of the relevant FIFA statutes is simply that, "your view".  It's not the law, it's not been tested, and, for the reasons Terri outlined, departs from the actual wording of what the FIFA statutes say.  It is therefore a grey area.  I am merely repeating where this discussion got to 12 months ago.

- As it happens, if it were tested, I (unlike Terri afaik) believe FIFA would agree with your view.  But it's still just your view, (as well-considered and researched as it is).

- I can't say that I know what the FAI's position on it is or whether they've definitely considered it.  I do however find it odd that they never approach BPF, Jamal Lewis, George Saville or even Conor Washington at senior level - even for an exploratory chat.


My position was tested when Adam Barton represented us in four competitive under-21 fixtures, which were subject to FIFA's eligibility rules, just as any senior fixture would be.

It's pretty evident that FIFA apply a purposive approach rather than a literal one. Otherwise, Barton wouldn't have been eligible to play for the FAI. Departure from the strict or literal wording is exactly what a purposive approach means; it applies an interpretation that fulfils the purpose or intention of the rule in question where a literal approach would provide an absurd or unintended outcome.
Back to Top
Danny Invincible View Drop Down
Kevin Kilbane
Kevin Kilbane


Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Danny Invincible Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 6:43pm
Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

To the best of our knowledge (and these things usually get out one way or the other) none of these players were approached by senior management. 


So what? The same rules apply, regardless of age category. What are you implying here anwyay? That Noel King doesn't know the rules or that he's trying to pull a fast one and get away with playing an ineligible player or something? And you think the FAI wouldn't care too much about this and wouldn't confirm that all players they're playing in competitive fixtures were fully eligible? Your speculative fantasy narrative just isn't plausible and runs contrary to the evidence.
Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 1099
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 9:01pm
Originally posted by Danny Invincible Danny Invincible wrote:

Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

Danny, another one who needs to take a deep breath, and not succumb to the temptation to throw your toys out of the pram.  We're discussing a rather boring, inoffensive topic; there's no need to be rude about it. 

Understand what's being said:  

- No one disputes the eligibility laws don't apply through the age-groups (those that are FIFA-sanctioned at least; they have no bearing on, say U15, afaik), so there's no need to suggest I'm saying that. 

- your view on whether FIFA would apply a literal or purposive approach to interpretation of the relevant FIFA statutes is simply that, "your view".  It's not the law, it's not been tested, and, for the reasons Terri outlined, departs from the actual wording of what the FIFA statutes say.  It is therefore a grey area.  I am merely repeating where this discussion got to 12 months ago.

- As it happens, if it were tested, I (unlike Terri afaik) believe FIFA would agree with your view.  But it's still just your view, (as well-considered and researched as it is).

- I can't say that I know what the FAI's position on it is or whether they've definitely considered it.  I do however find it odd that they never approach BPF, Jamal Lewis, George Saville or even Conor Washington at senior level - even for an exploratory chat.


My position was tested when Adam Barton represented us in four competitive under-21 fixtures, which were subject to FIFA's eligibility rules, just as any senior fixture would be.

It's pretty evident that FIFA apply a purposive approach rather than a literal one. Otherwise, Barton wouldn't have been eligible to play for the FAI. Departure from the strict or literal wording is exactly what a purposive approach means; it applies an interpretation that fulfils the purpose or intention of the rule in question where a literal approach would provide an absurd or unintended outcome.

That Adam Barton played for our U21s doesn't prove anything: 
(i) it has nothing to do with the senior team (obviously I repeat that I know that the same rules apply); (ii) no one challenged it (unsurprisingly as nothing actually rides on it - we've never qualified for anything at U21), so nothing was decided in relation to it.  Just because an arguably ineligible player plays, that simple act does not subsequently make him eligible.  It just means a potential breach has gone unchallenged.

As regards your well-meaning, but ultimately childish, repetition of "purposive approach" like it is some magic divining rod of interpretation, (which presumably you are the sole authority on what conclusion it would reach):  

- the truth is a purposive approach is merely trying to interprete a rule in accordance with what we presume the draughtsman's intention was when he drafted the rule.  Given that the draughtsman in the case probably never set his mind to a person with a Granny from Fermanagh in an island with the precise history of ours, the application of the GFA, and the specific niceties of ROI's citizenship laws for foreign born citizens, I think we can probably say we don't know what the draughtsman was thinking.
  
- Also this notional draughtsman doesn't actually exist. So we're talking about presuming the thoughts of a fictional person.  But somehow you, of all the people in this forum, know what this fictional person would say, with such a degree of certitude that you can say it is FACT - have you considered a career in the priesthood Danny?

- Furthermore, various different purposes and exigencies are served by the rule (or any rule).  The question of what conclusion a purposive interpretation would reach is itself a matter of interpretation (and at this moment in this case, opinion): interpreting how the various purposes underlying the rule are balanced and applied.  

As I said, whilst I agree with your opinion on how such an issue would likely be resolved, there is doubt because it's not been tested (certainly not in any serious context).

Even if a "purposive interpretation" were applied, you don't actually KNOW what result such an interpretation would come up with.  You just think you do.  And are passing that opinion off as fact. Unfortunately, I suspect your pointed and repetitive use of legalistic terms like "purposive interpretation" which are not familiarly used, is simply a ploy give your opinions a false air of authority and to disguise what's really going on here: that you are passing off a (generally) well-considered opinion as fact.  

In any event, a purposive interpretation could come up with a wide array of different results (depending on what purpose of the many that inform any rule, is sought to be achieved).

So the area is an open question until determined. 


Edited by Luis Amor Rodriguez - 12 Jan 2019 at 9:17pm
Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 1099
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 9:07pm
Originally posted by Danny Invincible Danny Invincible wrote:

Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

To the best of our knowledge (and these things usually get out one way or the other) none of these players were approached by senior management. 


So what? The same rules apply, regardless of age category. What are you implying here anwyay? That Noel King doesn't know the rules or that he's trying to pull a fast one and get away with playing an ineligible player or something? And you think the FAI wouldn't care too much about this and wouldn't confirm that all players they're playing in competitive fixtures were fully eligible? Your speculative fantasy narrative just isn't plausible and runs contrary to the evidence.

"The evidence"?  Yes, let's look at that for a moment.  

1. I believe you agree that on the face of the rules, these players would not be eligible to play for ROI.  Period. That's the wording of the rules - that's fairly good evidence.  

I appreciate you say that a different canon of interpretation may apply, but even if it did apply (of which there is no guarantee, just your view), you don't know exactly what result would emerge from using such a method of interpretation.  You merely speculate your view.

2. No player in these category has ever played a senior competitive international for Ireland.  And, as far as we know, no such player has even been approached by senior management (such as BPF, Jamal Lewis, George Saville) despite at the time getting regular game-time in the Championship.  I'm not saying latter point is conclusive, but it is odd.  
Back to Top
coyne View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane
Avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2013
Location: Sunderland
Status: Offline
Points: 13797
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coyne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 9:19pm
Give over the pointless posts.

Having 1 thread in the section full of it is bad enough.

The obsession over BPF was and still is extremely cringe, you were pulled on it by multiple people and you’re still going on about it 


Edited by coyne - 12 Jan 2019 at 9:20pm
Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 1099
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 9:24pm
Originally posted by coyne coyne wrote:

Give over the pointless posts.

Having 1 thread in the section full of it is bad enough.

The obsession over BPF was and still is extremely cringe, you were pulled on it by multiple people and you’re still going on about it 

There's no obsession about that player and nothing to cringe about.  

I just think that he is probably better than current goalkeepers we have coming through and it's a shame we didn't make a serious play for him - and instead played a 30-something league one reserve.  (And no, I don't think anyone would classify having Noel King calling him as a serious approach!)

I do generally think we should be much more aggressive in trying to get NI-eligible players involved, regardless of background.  The quality of our squad has suffered by failing to do so. 



Edited by Luis Amor Rodriguez - 12 Jan 2019 at 9:28pm
Back to Top
The O'Shea View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar
Spouter of Nonsense

Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The O'Shea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 9:35pm
Why would you promote the pursuit of a player who, in your opinion, isn't even eligible? LOL
We're decent enough..
Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 1099
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 9:45pm
Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

Why would you promote the pursuit of a player who, in your opinion, isn't even eligible? LOL

O'Shea, you really are a sad internet troll who, I'm sorry to say, adds little to the discussion beyond uninformed snide remarks. 

I have no where said the player is (or in this case, was) not eligible.  I just said there was an argument that he was not.  But that, if tested, I believe it likely it would be resolved in favour of ROI.  I've said it about 3 or 4 times in the last page or two. 

Please, if you want to have a grown-up conversation (about a rather dry topic), try and read what is said, before trying to mock someone (laughing smiley face etc. etc.)
Back to Top
The O'Shea View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar
Spouter of Nonsense

Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The O'Shea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 10:15pm
How can there be "an argument that you're ineligible"? LOL You're either eligible or you aren't, it's actually incredibly simple.
We're decent enough..
Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Liam Brady
Liam Brady


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 1099
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 10:24pm
Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

How can there be "an argument that you're ineligible"? LOL You're either eligible or you aren't, it's actually incredibly simple.

Another stupid post O'Shea (I mean that factually, not to be pejorative).

The FAI, IFA and Daniel Kearns spent a whole heap of time and money on "an argument about eligibility".  The case was tested and, arising out of that, a binding conclusion reached. This has happened in many other cases. 

So of course there can be arguments about eligibility, where a legal position hasn't been tested. 

It has not happened in relation to the circumstances we are discussing.  

Please think before typing again - your comments, recently, aren't adding anything and are generally poorly informed, plain wrong, or both.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 213214215216217 272>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.00
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.