The Criteria Draft - The Drafts
- Thread starter RoadTrip
- Start date
Yup. Wales is part of United Kingdom.
It's a very hard line, and probably not the right one, to go by independence. In hindsight we should have gone by footballing recognition. However the mistake is made now and it's shaped certain peoples picks, certainly mine. So it's probably too late to change.
So yes, Rob jones is also not valid.
The rule is annoying, but clear. The birth country must have had independence at the time of birth.
What about Andrei Kanchelskis>
OK would anyone be interested in Baines. He meets the criteria of having never won the league and having under 30 caps.
Harsh but fair at the end of the day as the rule is crystal clear. There is nothing about footballing recognition in the rule.
"I'm telling you, Stobz, the people running the draft nowadays, they make the last bunch look sanctified. I mean, this some shameful shit".
"I'll take any motherfeckers dual nationality if he givin it away !"
By place of birth... I think. Tbh I don't have a clue anymore
What I said above was that he is like the example you quoted at some point previously: player born in X, Czechoslovakia (now part of the Czech rep.) who represented Slovakia.
Born Soviet Union (birthplace now in Ukraine), played for Russia. Should be the same thing. If the first is legit, the second has to be legit too.
Neither is legit. They didn't represent two countries who were independent at birth.
tbh there's no possible way that Andrei should be eligible.
He played for the country he was born in which is USSR. Whatever happened after he was born shouldn't be relevant according to the rules.
He played for the country he was born in which is USSR. Whatever happened after he was born shouldn't be relevant according to the rules.
Neither represented countries which existed (in their present shape and form) when they were born. That's what I was getting at before - if the premise is that the player has to be a) born in an independent country which exists today and b) have played for another independent country which exists today - then no player born round them parts is legit, that's clear as day.
Look - didn't someone at some point state a fairly clear rule regarding this? Which was applied in a previous draft - can't we just dig up that and use it?
Guys I was considering Kanchelskis for that criteria but didn't use as I thought he wasn't eligible...
I'm going to let @rpitroda decide, but it will be a little unfair if players we thought ineligible for us are now allowed. Just my 2 cents.
I know I said that but it really doesn't work in hindsight... Is anyone's pick actually affected by this?
However it is slightly different. This was officially one country. If you born anywhere in the USSR, you were from the USSR, unless I'm mistaken?
On the other hand someone like Davids was born in a place you'd still call Suriname even though it wasn't independent. Please correct me if wrong.
I'm inclined to say that he doesn't qualify.
I also was after Kanchelskis at the time and didn't thought he qualified so i passed up on him.
Ok, let's be black and white. Has to be independent. Simple as.
wait wait, he isn't eligible?!
That has to be bollocks. It's not like east and west Germany.
That has to be bollocks. It's not like east and west Germany.
Don't think it's a question of right and wrong, really - it's just a matter of definitions.
That's bollocks mate. I won't make a drama like MJJ but this really is bull
We haven't put any real emphasis on it and for me it was clear that if he was born in a city that today qualifies for one nation, and played for a different nation completely like in this situation, than it counts.
Then someone give me a solution? I agree it's unfair on the basis the rule was different initially.
Alright. But then you may as well say that a player born in the Soviet Union is not eligible unless he represented a country whose present-day territory was never part of the Soviet Union. Similarly, a player born in Yugoslavia is not eligible unless he represented a country whose present-day territory was never part of Yugoslavia. And the same for Czechoslovakia.
Who has players who would be fecked over by this?
I don't see what's the problem with just let's let it be in and rephrase the rule like the way everybody knew it is: "A player born in a country different than the nation he represented".
Actually hang on, the rule was NOT different initially. @VivaJanuzaj I believe you're getting confused. Place of birth was only relevant for the top 30 rule. It was never relevant for the playing in a different country to where born rule.
That is the rule. Always thought it was quite clear for those nations with Great Britain being the grey zone.
The solution is to scrap the criterion altogether - and replace it with "a player who is ginger and whose mother at one point dated Hulk Hogan. Must also be a woman - the player, that is."
The issue would be that everybody who got the rule right would be fecked over for having missed out on loads of possible picks.
Quoted so you assholes read it and stop talking shit. The independence thing was always the key in this rule. So, yes, no player from any of those nations should have been selected.
And quoted again so you don't miss it =P.
We all have one substitution pick, so making one mistake won't matter a lot it is still something we can get back from. It is when people start having two or more mistakes that it should be an issue.
People need to respect Trippys final decision otherwise we just end up in circles.
Is trippy going to go into meltdown?
*Popcorn Gif*
It's a game lads... Just go with the mod's words.
*Popcorn Gif*
It's a game lads... Just go with the mod's words.
PLAN: When the draft is over, everyone will list the criteria each player meets. I will check them through myself. (You can all thank me for my effort). If anyone has one that is incorrect, we can decide on a re pick at the end or if we go with the sheep idea.
I'm in favour of a re pick. However we have to be honest and not purposely state a player against a criteria they fail just so you can re pick.
I'm in favour of a re pick. However we have to be honest and not purposely state a player against a criteria they fail just so you can re pick.
This is why I got this fecking mindfeck of a criterion out of the way early, so that I don't have to be dragged into the technicalities. 
IMO if you are saying "Both" the countries should be independent, then Kanchelskis shouldn't qualify since Ukraine was not independent then, but it's a tricky one alright.
Hindsight but in future if someone wants to use this criterion it would be a lot simpler to just count present day place of birth and country they played for, and take the whole independence thing out of the equation.
IMO if you are saying "Both" the countries should be independent, then Kanchelskis shouldn't qualify since Ukraine was not independent then, but it's a tricky one alright.
Hindsight but in future if someone wants to use this criterion it would be a lot simpler to just count present day place of birth and country they played for, and take the whole independence thing out of the equation.