Attacls on OWC now bringing tangible and valuable rewards

[nifan]

Thats why I am not sure MS - i agree that it gives a certain consistency which is good, and Blatter is a tool, but it isnt fair to the other members who share 4 places on the IFAB between them.

[Evil Genius]

I am not sure that it is a fair system.

A bit of an understatement Nifan  - 4 can dictate to 144 or thereabouts !!!

Except that the "four" cannot dictate, even against the rest of the board, never mind the rest of FIFA. From what I can see, its status is more like the Permanent Security council of the UN, except that the Board gets more done, and its membership doesn't appear to be under the same challenge from the wider Membership.

[Evil Genius]

The IFAB  is a rules body that gives any 2 of UK associations the power of veto over proposals to change the rules of the game.

I don't know the politics around this group. It has functioned well for the game.

Some people think that blatter resents the power of the 4 uk associations, as you say 6 votes are required to pass laws.
He may see this as a chance to remove one of the associations.

Not that it bothers me - many people are proud of the 4 associations having a postion such as this, personally I am not sure that it is a fair system.

Tbh, it's not "fair". However, it seems to work quite well, since you don't get nealry the same controversy over the rules of football as you do, say, over rugby union, which is effectively only played to a serious level by six or eight countries. And to be fair to the Home Associations, they do have considerable experience in rule-making, dating back to 1863, which must in part explain how they were able to "export" the game throughout the world.

Besides, it was an Armaghman who invented the penalty kick, thereby providing endless amusement and entertainment for the rest of the world, as we witness Ingurland's perpetually hopeless attampts in penalty shoot-outs! 

[nifan]

And to be fair to the Home Associations, they do have considerable experience in rule-making, dating back to 1863

The rules back in 1863 where shite.

[Evil Genius]

And to be fair to the Home Associations, they do have considerable experience in rule-making, dating back to 1863

The rules back in 1863 where shite.

Still better than anyone elses...

[saffron sam2]

Whilst it is clear that the IFA never has controlled (and most likely never will control) soccer in an 'independent country', one possible example may be between the years of 1921 and 1950 when the IFA teams were selected from players from two 'independent countries'.

You are conflating two separate issues: namely jurisdiction and player eligibilty. In picking players from the Free State, the IFA was not claiming to "control" football within that territory ("planting the flag"), rather that such players were eligible to represent them (IFA). Ditto in reverse when the FAIFS/FAI picked players from NI, which they also occasionally did. If you were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, was Jack Charlton claiming "control" over the FA's territory when he occasionally picked teams with more English-born players than Irish-born under the "Granny Rule"? Hardly! 

There appears to have been little opposition then (outwith the FAIFS of course).

Up until 1950, when the four British Associations first decided to enter the (newly resumed) World Cup, there will have been no cause for "opposition" (concern) other than in Ireland itself, since there was no possibility of players having to choose which team they represented in a competitive tournament, nor that the two Irish international teams would ever meet. However, in the new circumstances, FIFA was forced to address the issue and when they did, they upheld the separate jurisdiction ("control") of each Association over its own territory. At the same time, they appear to have facilitated a "Gentlemens' Agreement"* between the two Associations over player eligiblity.

So there was no inclination on FIFA's part to grant a given Association "control" over the territory of another "independent country" - more the opposite, in fact. 


* - How ironic that it is the FAI which has now broken the original Gentlemens' Agreement by picking NI-born players, when it was they who originally complained to FIFA about the IFA picking Free State-born players (even though said players were entirely happy to represent the IFA, even when under severe pressure from the FAI and their clubs)!

Whilst you should be given some credit for introducing a new word (conflating) to the board, much of what you write is irrelevant.

To paraphrase, you asked another poster if he / she could provide an example or precedent from FIFA's past that could be used to argue that players from both political entities on the island of Ireland could play for a single team called Ireland.

I simply provided such a precedent, ironically involving players from both political entities on the island of Ireland playing for a single team called Ireland.

FIFA decide as they wish who should and shouldn't be allowed into 'international' competitions. Steve Menary's book, "Outcasts! The Lands That FIFA Forgot" (covered in an article in April's 442 magazine) seems to be a good reference source. It would certainly stop you using you Hong Kong example.

[Evil Genius]

Whilst you should be given some credit for introducing a new word (conflating) to the board

All part of the service.

much of what you write is irrelevant.

If what follows is your attempt to demonstrate this, then I hardly think so.

To paraphrase, you asked another poster if he / she could provide an example or precedent from FIFA's past that could be used to argue that players from both political entities on the island of Ireland could play for a single team called Ireland.

That most decidedly was NOT what I wrote (or at least intended to write). I asked for an example of two separate, independent countries which had decided to merge their international football teams into one, whilst still remaining politically independent in every other way. There has never been one and I personally suspect that if any two international Associations, including the two Irish ones, were to ask to do so, then the prevailing attitude in FIFA/UEFA would be not to allow this (for the reasons which I've posted elsewhere).

I simply provided such a precedent, ironically involving players from both political entities on the island of Ireland playing for a single team called Ireland.

Not so.
Up until 1921, there was a football team called "Ireland", but this drew players from the only political entity which existed at the time, so no precedent there.
From 1921 to 1950(?), there were two separate political entities on the island, but no single team representing both. So although each team called itself "Ireland" and occasionally selected players from each others jurisdiction, this was no precedent, either.
And since FIFA's adjudication in 1950, the principle of the two political entities in Ireland each having its own separate international team, neither of which is to be called "Ireland" when competing in World Cups or European Championships*, has been firmly established and accepted. So even less of a precedent there.

* - Curiously, the IFA was permitted by FIFA to continue calling its team "Ireland" in British Championship matches (and possibly friendlies?), but henceforth they only selected players from NI, so no precedent there, either. And the IFA voluntarily never called their team "Ireland" in any game after around 1970.

FIFA decide as they wish who should and shouldn't be allowed into 'international' competitions. Steve Menary's book, "Outcasts! The Lands That FIFA Forgot" (covered in an article in April's 442 magazine) seems to be a good reference source. It would certainly stop you using you Hong Kong example.

Thank you for that reference - I shall look out for it. In particular, I shall look out for how/where it prevents me from citing the HK example to support my case. Throughout this debate, I have consistently argued why I feel FIFA/UEFA would disapprove, for reasons of both principle and pragmatism, against two separate political entities "pooling" their two international football teams into one. The case of China, where the two territories of HK and PRC each had its own team and continued to do so even after they reverted to one political entity in 1997 proves, if anything, that the tide is flowing my way on this.
Consequently, I am entirely happy that not only will there continue to be two separate Irish international football teams so long as there is Partition, but I am also hopeful that my team will continue to exist in its own right, even after any dissolution of the border!

[Evil Genius]

Your feeble attempts to find a precedent for two independent nations deciding to merge their Football Associations to create one international football team are of no consequence, to FIFA or anyone else!

Saarland - joined the West German football team in 1956, ahead of the political unification with the Federal Republic of Germany effective 1 January 1957.

After 1945, there were three separate independent territories formed after the break up of the former Germany. These were the FRG ("West Germany"), the GDR ("East Germany") and the Saarland (a French Protectorate). Each had its own Football Association, recognised by FIFA/UEFA, and therefore its own international team. The political unification from 1957 which you cite followed a plebiscite in 1955, when the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants voted to join the FRG, and the subsequent signing of a Treaty between France and FRG in October 1956 authorising it. FIFA acted late in 1956 to allow the Saarland FA to merge with the DFB in anticipation of political reunification a few months later.
So in practical terms, this is irrelevant to the issue of the two Irish international teams merging into one whilst Ireland still remains politically partitioned, though I suppose technically you are correct. Enjoy your victory. 

[MW]

Now I'm sure that Tony (the real one) and the internet/newspaper persona 'Tony Fearon' would condemn such an attack. But I'd like to ask the real Tony to have a think about the contribution, whatever small, to the general atmosphere made by what he probably sees an amjusing little sideline.

Why don't you start a Tony Fearon tribute thread where all interested OWCers can go to and pose their burning questions to Tony?

Erm, because I don't want to. Why don't you, if you think there should be one?

My post was directly relevant to this thread.

[Niall Quinn]

Your feeble attempts to find a precedent for two independent nations deciding to merge their Football Associations to create one international football team are of no consequence, to FIFA or anyone else!

Saarland - joined the West German football team in 1956, ahead of the political unification with the Federal Republic of Germany effective 1 January 1957.

After 1945, there were three separate independent territories formed after the break up of the former Germany. These were the FRG ("West Germany"), the GDR ("East Germany") and the Saarland (a French Protectorate). Each had its own Football Association, recognised by FIFA/UEFA, and therefore its own international team. The political unification from 1957 which you cite followed a plebiscite in 1955, when the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants voted to join the FRG, and the subsequent signing of a Treaty between France and FRG in October 1956 authorising it. FIFA acted late in 1956 to allow the Saarland FA to merge with the DFB in anticipation of political reunification a few months later.
So in practical terms, this is irrelevant to the issue of the two Irish international teams merging into one whilst Ireland still remains politically partitioned, though I suppose technically you are correct. Enjoy your victory. 

Why so? You seemed to move straight to conclusion without demonstrating your reasoning.

[Evil Genius]

Your feeble attempts to find a precedent for two independent nations deciding to merge their Football Associations to create one international football team are of no consequence, to FIFA or anyone else!

Saarland - joined the West German football team in 1956, ahead of the political unification with the Federal Republic of Germany effective 1 January 1957.

After 1945, there were three separate independent territories formed after the break up of the former Germany. These were the FRG ("West Germany"), the GDR ("East Germany") and the Saarland (a French Protectorate). Each had its own Football Association, recognised by FIFA/UEFA, and therefore its own international team. The political unification from 1957 which you cite followed a plebiscite in 1955, when the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants voted to join the FRG, and the subsequent signing of a Treaty between France and FRG in October 1956 authorising it. FIFA acted late in 1956 to allow the Saarland FA to merge with the DFB in anticipation of political reunification a few months later.
So in practical terms, this is irrelevant to the issue of the two Irish international teams merging into one whilst Ireland still remains politically partitioned, though I suppose technically you are correct. Enjoy your victory. 

Why so? You seemed to move straight to conclusion without demonstrating your reasoning.

The fact that FIFA should act a few months in advance, in anticipation of a known forthcoming political event (i.e. reunification), is hardly setting a precedent for their acting similarly when there is no sign of any similar "reunification" in Ireland on the horizon.
I would be prepared to bet that they did so so that 1FC Saarbrucken - a leading professional club - would be able to join the West German League in time for the 1956-57 Season, since if FIFA had waited until 01 January 1957, then it would have been too late.
Pragmatism, not Principle or Precedent, methinks.