Worthington wants anywhere but windsor

[Main Street]

clear as mud? did you even read my post?
what was that about last year when ni players were asked to get uk passports?

Yes I did read your post.  You stated what you believed should happen.  Not what actually has or does happen.

NI players are no longer required to have UK passports.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/2006/0619/passports.html

True, after the IFA were dragged by their hair screaming (no surrender) to the head office.
All under the guise of needing clarification.

[Evil Genius]

Which, imo, is entirely how it should be - just as I have never had an insurmountable problem with the  exclusively Nationalist emblems etc on display at rugby internationals at Lansdowne, even though that team is meant to represent both jurisdictions on the island...

I don't get the bit about exclusive nationalist symbols on display at LR for rugby games.
Wasn't Willie John on display for decades.
The Ulster flag is flown alongside the tricolour.

If the Ulster flag and Irelands Call don't do it, then come up with another Ulster flag and an Ulster Anthem that reflects the positive aspirations of all the people in NI.
NI is not just about a Unionist jurisdiction.

The "Ireland" team represents rugby in two countries (Irish Republic and United Kingdom), selecting players who are Irish or British.

Yet at Lansdowne, the National Anthem played (Soldiers Song) and National Flag flown (Tricolour) only reflects one of these. ("Irelands Call" is a specially commissioned rugby anthem). Further, they add a "Presidential Salute" to the Republic's Head of State, with no equivalent to recognise the presence of any NI equivalent (Secretary of State), even when he is present.

If it were to be truly fair, they would play both National Anthems (SS and GSTQ) and fly both flags (Tricolour and Union Flag or NI flag). Alternatively, if this were thought unacceptable, they would do for matches in Dublin what they do for matches overseas: i.e. fly the Irish Rugby flag and play "Ireland's Call" only.

Of course, the "justification" for the arrangements to date were that the arrangements at Lansdowne merely reflected the jurisdiction in which the game was being played. Therefore, if they were ever to play again in Belfast, they would revert to the arrangements which obtained at Ravenhill up until 1948(?) i.e. GSTQ and the Union Flag.

Of course, the IRFU doubtless thought that were "writing a cheque which would never be cashed" i.e. such a quid pro quo would never actually occur (especially since they own both LR and Ravenhill, and were putting all their resources into LR only).

Which was something rugby fans in NI were prepared to tolerate, until the cheque suddenly needed to be presented at the bank i.e. Ireland required to play at Ravenhill. And what was the response of the IRFU?

On the publicly stated basis that a game in Belfast was NOT a "home" game(!), the arrangements for away games would be applied. As an Irish Unionist, I can't help wondering what Irish Nationalists from the six counties feel about being told by an all-Ireland organisation that they aren't really Irish...

Anyhow, rugby could take a leaf from another all-Ireland sport, Cricket, which merely flies the flag of the Irish Cricket Union (cricket doesn't bother with Anthems).

P.S. As for the presence of Willie John somehow legitimising these arrangements, may I assume that the presence of the likes of Pat Jennings in the NI team over the years similarly "legitimises" the arrangements over flag and anthem at Windsor, to which many Irish Nationalists object?
As for the Ulster flag, I would have absolutely no objection if the IRFU were to fly the flags of the four provinces only (or a quartered four provinces flag) - I imagine Connacht would appreciate this rare recognition, as well...

 

[Evil Genius]

eg, surely ni wouldnt want to 'force' players to play for them. regardless of what fifa rule (and its more likely they'll take this into account in any decision), fifa are not sovereign and any decision can be appealed to the courts. the courts will HAVE to rule that any citizen of a state has equal rights with all other citizens (if they were to rule any other way the world as we know it is f*"ked). thus under the gfa where we recognised consent the uk recognised the right of people in the north to be irish, irish citizens in the north will be able to play for ireland/roi. this is right and how it should be....

No-one is suggesting the IFA (or any other Association) could/should "force" players to represent them; rather, what is being required is that the Rules which prevent players from representing Associations for which they are not eligible be applied consistently across all of FIFA's 208 members.

As for the rest of your post, this reveals a complete lack of understanding of the status and jurisdiction of FIFA. Basically, this is a Member Organisation whose Constitution and Rules are determined by its Members and which have to be accepted by all Associations as a condition of becoming a Member.
Just about the most basic condition is that National Associations MUST NOT allow governmental interference in the conduct of their affairs, on pain of suspension or expulsion from FIFA. If you search through www.fifa.com, you will see that such disputes arise all the time and without exception, FIFA prevails - the most recent was Greece, a few months back.
Indeed, assuming no criminal law is broken, any Government or individual Association which doesn't like what FIFA decrees, always has the option of leaving and setting up their own governing body for soccer...
(AFAIK, the last Association which was expelled by FIFA for any length of time was Columbia in the 1950's, in a dispute over amateurism. Columbia was completely excluded from any involvement in international soccer for years and there wasn't a damned thing their, or any other, Government could do about it)

[Evil Genius]

what was that about last year when ni players were asked to get uk passports?

NI players were not asked by the IFA to acquire UK Passports (in addition to any other PP they may hold); rather, it was a FIFA direction.

[Evil Genius]

NI players are no longer required to have UK passports.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/2006/0619/passports.html

Actually, NI players were never required to hold UK PP's, and that RTE article you cite is somewhat misleading (at least those parts which relate to the politicians...)

[Evil Genius]

clear as mud? did you even read my post?
what was that about last year when ni players were asked to get uk passports?

Yes I did read your post.  You stated what you believed should happen.  Not what actually has or does happen.

NI players are no longer required to have UK passports.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/2006/0619/passports.html

True, after the IFA were dragged by their hair screaming (no surrender) to the head office.
All under the guise of needing clarification.

You could not be more wrong if you "did a Fearon" and simply made it up!

The situation is relatively simple, typically clouded only by the intervention of politicians, acting to their own agenda.

FIFA has Rules on eligibility to represent a particular National Association (or Associations). These are separate from the international law which determines Nationality, or the granting of Passports for travel or ID purposes etc.

Consequently, the IFA has always picked players with either British Nationality, Irish Nationality or both. Further, these individuals have always been allowed to carry either an Irish or a British Passport, or both, but this is merely for the purposes of crossing international boundaries and also for proving a players age and identity in internationally sanctioned competitions (i.e. preventing "ringers").

However, at some European competition last year (not involving NI), a local FIFA Official became confused when a player with dual (political) nationality, representing country A, presented a Passport from country B. The FIFA Official (presumably) confused Eligibility and Identification, so a row arose.

Consequently, FIFA issued a simple directive stating that any player needing to verify his Identity and Age must do so only by presenting the Passport of the country (National Association) which he is representing.

Of course, they will not even have considered the difficulty this would pose for the IFA, who would no longer have been able to select those of their players with Irish Nationality and an Irish PP (only). They (uncharacteristically) quickly requested an exemption and were successful. Therefore, the situation for NI players remains unchanged: they may carry whatever PP(s) they like, so long as these have been legally obtained.

The intervention of the politicians is typically unwelcome, serving only to distort the issue for their own ends. Chief of these was Dermot Aherne, who attempted totally without foundation to claim the "credit" for ending "discrimination" against Irish sportsmen. It is actually quite clear that FIFA granted the exemption without regard to his intervention; indeed afaik, he never even got to meet them!

(And before anyone jumps in, I happen to think that the statement by Gregory Campbell, as reported by RTE, is possibly even more f**k-witted...)

[inisceithleann]

EG when can we expect FIFA to make a ruling on eligibility? Are FIFA avoiding the issue? Surely it'd be better to make the ruling and get on with it. If they declared that northern born players could play for the ROI would the IFA simply accept it or would the issue continue to be debated?

[Main Street]

The "Ireland" team represents rugby in two countries (Irish Republic and United Kingdom), selecting players who are Irish or British.

You could look at it like that or
the IRFU present a team to represent the 4 provinces.
One is Ulster  a 9 county province which is represented by the Ulster Flag.

If you want to yap on endlessly about the GSTQ and Union Jack, It's backwood blinkers.
They have never and never will represent the population of NI
Scotland and Wales both in the UK, have their own assembly Flag and anthem, both never went through anything remotely close to what the entire population of NI has suffered.
Time to move on and let go of great granny's apron strings and come up with an anthem and flag that represents Ulster.
And a once and for all recognition of nationalist culture, gaelic culture, republican history, sport as an equal part of what constitutes Ulster.

"P.S. As for the presence of Willie John somehow legitimising these arrangements"
You obviously missed the irony by a country mile of my mentioning WJ McBride.

[Main Street]

You could not be more wrong if you "did a Fearon" and simply made it up!

The situation is relatively simple, typically clouded only by the intervention of politicians, acting to their own agenda.

FIFA has Rules on eligibility to represent a particular National Association (or Associations). These are separate from the international law which determines Nationality, or the granting of Passports for travel or ID purposes etc.

Consequently, FIFA issued a simple directive stating that any player needing to verify his Identity and Age must do so only by presenting the Passport of the country (National Association) which he is representing.

The intervention of the politicians is typically unwelcome,

The situation could easily have been resolved if The IFA had taken the lead and clarified the situation with UEFA on behalf of the Irish citizens.
who wanted to play for NI.
The perception, not without justification was that they were  (at a minimum) just not in tune with the issue. They hesitated and only budged after protests.
Dermot Aherne's duty is to protect the rights of Irish citizens regardless of what country they live in or are visiting.
Claiming credit is a politicans desert.
 

[Evil Genius]

EG when can we expect FIFA to make a ruling on eligibility? Are FIFA avoiding the issue? Surely it'd be better to make the ruling and get on with it. If they declared that northern born players could play for the ROI would the IFA simply accept it or would the issue continue to be debated?

AFAIK, the two Associations made their submissions to FIFA months ago. FIFA may be delaying since it's a tricky one and they can't palm it off on some other body (as they did the Tevez affair)

More likely (imo) is that they haven't got round to it since they have better things to be doing - we typically always think that this little island is actually a deal more important than it actually is.

As for the outcome, having followed it with close interest, I genuinely do not know which way it will go - as I see it, the Rules may be interpreted either way, therefore the decision is as likely to be guided by policy considerations as by legal or technical ones.

And although there may be some mechanism for appeal, both Associations  must undoubtedly accept FIFA's final determination on the matter, otherwise they risk being kicked out of FIFA entirely.

[Evil Genius]

The "Ireland" team represents rugby in two countries (Irish Republic and United Kingdom), selecting players who are Irish or British.

You could look at it like that or
the IRFU present a team to represent the 4 provinces.
One is Ulster  a 9 county province which is represented by the Ulster Flag.

If you want to yap on endlessly about the GSTQ and Union Jack, It's backwood blinkers.
They have never and never will represent the population of NI


"P.S. As for the presence of Willie John somehow legitimising these arrangements"
You obviously missed the irony by a country mile of my mentioning WJ McBride.

I personally would prefer it if the IRFU accepted that the Ireland rugby team represented the four provinces and only flew Provincial Flags and played the rugby anthem (Ireland's Call).

My query was about their also flying the Tricolour and playing the Soldiers Song since, to paraphrase you, these "have never and never will represent the population of NI"

Therefore the only choices which can be consistent must be:
1. Use the political emblems of both countries at all matches; or
2. Use the political emblems of the Irish Republic only at matches played in the Republic and the political emblems only of NI at matches played in NI; or
3. Dispense entirely with all political emblems at all matches and stick to purely Irish rugby emblems.

And before you accuse me once more of yapping on "endlessly about the GSTQ and the Union Jack" [sic],  or wearing "Backwoods blinkers" (whatever they may be), my overwhelming preference is for the third - just like the Ireland Cricket Team, in fact.

As for Willie John, I clearly am missing something - just what on earth do you mean by citing him in this context?

[Evil Genius]

You could not be more wrong if you "did a Fearon" and simply made it up!

The situation is relatively simple, typically clouded only by the intervention of politicians, acting to their own agenda.

FIFA has Rules on eligibility to represent a particular National Association (or Associations). These are separate from the international law which determines Nationality, or the granting of Passports for travel or ID purposes etc.

Consequently, FIFA issued a simple directive stating that any player needing to verify his Identity and Age must do so only by presenting the Passport of the country (National Association) which he is representing.

The intervention of the politicians is typically unwelcome,

The situation could easily have been resolved if The IFA had taken the lead and clarified the situation with UEFA on behalf of the Irish citizens.
who wanted to play for NI.
The perception, not without justification was that they were  (at a minimum) just not in tune with the issue. They hesitated and only budged after protests.
Dermot Aherne's duty is to protect the rights of Irish citizens regardless of what country they live in or are visiting.
Claiming credit is a politicans desert.
 

Total and utter bullshit - of the worst Fearonesque type.

Throughout its existence, the IFA has always selected players who are Irish citizens and hold only Irish Passports. They never had the need or desire to change this.

Indeed, when they were told out of the blue that they may no longer do so, following a controversy which had absolutely nothing to do with them, they immediately applied for an exemption which would allow them to preserve the status quo ante. It was their application, and their application only which was considered and accepted by the appropriate Committee, with no recourse to political or any other non-footballing bodies.

I daresay I could look out the various Directives etc which prove this, but I simply couldn't be arsed; it's up to you whether you accept this or not.

As for the intervention of certain politicians (not coincidentally in the run-up to elections etc), as the man says:
"What else do you expect from a pig, only grunts?" 

[magickingdom]

eg, surely ni wouldnt want to 'force' players to play for them. regardless of what fifa rule (and its more likely they'll take this into account in any decision), fifa are not sovereign and any decision can be appealed to the courts. the courts will HAVE to rule that any citizen of a state has equal rights with all other citizens (if they were to rule any other way the world as we know it is f*"ked). thus under the gfa where we recognised consent the uk recognised the right of people in the north to be irish, irish citizens in the north will be able to play for ireland/roi. this is right and how it should be....

No-one is suggesting the IFA (or any other Association) could/should "force" players to represent them; rather, what is being required is that the Rules which prevent players from representing Associations for which they are not eligible be applied consistently across all of FIFA's 208 members.

As for the rest of your post, this reveals a complete lack of understanding of the status and jurisdiction of FIFA. Basically, this is a Member Organisation whose Constitution and Rules are determined by its Members and which have to be accepted by all Associations as a condition of becoming a Member.
Just about the most basic condition is that National Associations MUST NOT allow governmental interference in the conduct of their affairs, on pain of suspension or expulsion from FIFA. If you search through www.fifa.com, you will see that such disputes arise all the time and without exception, FIFA prevails - the most recent was Greece, a few months back.
Indeed, assuming no criminal law is broken, any Government or individual Association which doesn't like what FIFA decrees, always has the option of leaving and setting up their own governing body for soccer...
(AFAIK, the last Association which was expelled by FIFA for any length of time was Columbia in the 1950's, in a dispute over amateurism. Columbia was completely excluded from any involvement in international soccer for years and there wasn't a damned thing their, or any other, Government could do about it)

eg, as ever your nearly right! not just criminal law any law. ie laws on equality, all citizens are equal (except in the uk and other non liberad democracys where some are born to rule  ). fifa member organisations will ALWAYS be subject to the laws of the land in each country in which they operate. does the bosman ruling ring a bell. no doubt when fifa rule on eligibility they will be cognizant of this ..

[Evil Genius]

eg, as ever your nearly right! not just criminal law any law. ie laws on equality, all citizens are equal (except in the uk and other non liberad democracys where some are born to rule  ). fifa member organisations will ALWAYS be subject to the laws of the land in each country in which they operate. does the bosman ruling ring a bell. no doubt when fifa rule on eligibility they will be cognizant of this ..

The eligibility or otherwise of a footballer to play for one Association or another has absolutely sod all to do with international criminal law.

And FIFA has never had a view on what particular Rules on contracts etc individual Member Associations may apply to players at club level.
With Bosman, the Belgian FA allowed clubs to apply restrictive contract terms re transfers etc which contravened a player's right to freedom of employment etc under EU Law.
When Bosman, backed by his Union, declared that he would challenge his club under EU Law, both the club and the Belgian FA backed down, and changed the Rules to comply with those already applied by most other Associations within the EU.
Therefore, Bosman had sod-all to do with FIFA (headquartered outside the EU, btw), which is why FIFA declined to become involved. It's the same with the Tevez case, too, btw.

[SammyG]

True, after the IFA were dragged by their hair screaming (no surrender) to the head office.
All under the guise of needing clarification.

Sorry I've been away for a few days and I can't be arsed trawling back through the whole thread, but I can't let that lie go unchallenged. What you claim is the complete opposite of what happened. The IFA have now and have always had players with RoI passports. FIFA tried to change their rules which would have lead to players needing Irish and British passports, the IFA complained and FIFA accepted their complaint, so the status quo remained in place.

To try and suggest anything else is just bollix of the highest order.