Bennett's ban

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Bennett's ban

Post  Admin on Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:00 pm

Many situations are crazy? IN cycling, the licences are delivered by a national association to all riders living in the country. There are many dutch riders living in Belgium and their licence card is delivered by the belgian association, despite their dutch nationality is mentionned on the card.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1330
Join date : 2010-04-21
Age : 43
Location : Somewhere in Belgium

View user profile http://templeuveunited.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett's ban

Post  von K. on Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:52 am

Why should a finnish person living in Australia, and having no connection whatsoever with finnish players, be a member of our association? Isn't it better he is a member of the association where he lives, because then he can have influence on the matters regarding him?

And if those people would be our members by force, it could lead to a situation where the members living in Finland would be a minority in the association (just a hypothesis to test the thinking here).

And how about a person who lives in a TF country, but is born in a country where there is no association. Why would he be licensed by FISTF and not the country where he lives?

I don't see any problem that a finnish person living abroad would represent Finland, but not be our member, if the criteria of reprresenting Finland would otherwise be correct.

Then there is the grave problem of bullying. As we already discussed for a long time regarding the Olympia case, Heinz' system could create players who can't play anywhere. Persona non grata in a country which has a FISTF BoD member would mean banned for everything. As seemed to be the case, when Georgy had to sign up to our finnish association to be sure of having the right to play.

For example the Bennett case. How would FISTF automatically know what has been going on behind the scenes. I don't say this has happened for Bennett, but I've seen things in this life that give little hope of achieving justice by forcing things based on the report by a person in power.

A national licensing system also makes people unequal. Some countries can have a free system, others have a system with 50 euros membership. And what if these people live abroad and only play FISTF? They have to pay for example 50 euros for the german association, even though they only play in Wales which has free membership (example)?

I don't see any reason for any license. Associations have to offer things (national tournaments etc) to players so that they want to be members. If a player then is sanctioned, it has no meaning whatsoever if he has a license or not. If it is national association banning him, it is regarding their activity. And if FISTF it is regarding theirs. The license is irrelevant in all this, because it is not a card you have to show at tournaments.

What on earth is the license for regarding FISTF? In real sports a license includes, at least here it does, a deal for the insurance regarding the sport activity. That is the reason for it. FISTF is not on that level, and is really not the kind of activity which is not covered by travelling or personal insurance, unlike many official sports.

von K.
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 854
Join date : 2010-04-21
Location : Finland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett's ban

Post  von K. on Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:57 am

Heinz, can you answer this scenario, based on your idea for licensing? If I understand correctly, this is what really would happen in your view, if the same system is used at all levels.

von K. wrote:
Will every local decision from now on become a FISTF matter? Let's have a funny imaginary scenario. I'm banned at my club for something like not respecting my teammates and leaving in the middle of a club tournament. The ban is reported to the local association, which bans me and sends a report to the national association, which bans me and sends the report to FISTF which then bans me.

von K.
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 854
Join date : 2010-04-21
Location : Finland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett's ban

Post  Heinz Eder on Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:28 am

von K. wrote:
Why should a finnish person living in Australia, and having no connection whatsoever with finnish players, be a member of our association? Isn't it better he is a member of the association where he lives, because then he can have influence on the matters regarding him?
I think we maybe need more fantasy for that topic. You only see a licence given by the national association, but did you ever think about it that there could be different systems of licencing in 1 association? You only need to take the "licencing system" called membership status in FISTF, it is exactly the same only with a different name.
For all the examples mentioned the finnish association could have an own licence, without a membership fee and without the right of voting for an example. On the other side the other association could also have a possibility to licence the player only internally and he pays there his membership fee, plays there national events and votes there for the board of the national association, but with his main licence which was sent to FISTF, FISTF knows that this player is finn and can represent only Finland.
If your association say, we don't need that player and don't want him to represent Finland, then it should be clear for FISTF that the player can't represent the country where he lives, so he will ask for a special FISTF licence, because the finnish association doesn't want to licence him out of different reasons, or the FISTF Board decides that the association has to give a licence to the player.

von K. wrote:
And how about a person who lives in a TF country, but is born in a country where there is no association. Why would he be licensed by FISTF and not the country where he lives?

That it is easy to see that he can't represent any other country where an association is existing. Have a look on the World Cup, of course it is a great thing that the USA were represented there, but do you think that the american association did know about it? Honestly I'm not sure, and it would be a scandal if the ASA was represented by a player they even don't know or who isn't member of their national association, don't you think?
There were many other simular cases in the past too. If we would like to, some players here in Austria can built a turkish team at the World Cup, what if there are players from other countries have the same idea too? What should be the decision in your opinion? With a licencing system that can't be possible, because they would have the licence of Austria, even if they have both citizenships or if they don't have austrian citizenship they would have a FISTF licence, or they would have to built a turkish association.

von K. wrote:
Then there is the grave problem of bullying. As we already discussed for a long time regarding the Olympia case, Heinz' system could create players who can't play anywhere. Persona non grata in a country which has a FISTF BoD member would mean banned for everything. As seemed to be the case, when Georgy had to sign up to our finnish association to be sure of having the right to play.
That could be a problem of course, but please don't call it Heinz' system, i neither was author of the previous system nor of the changes in the actual handbook. I only try to explain my views, don't try to bring me in one corner (in favour or against).
Maybe you got me wrong, in my opinion, those things which are written down in the handbook have to happen in reality too. If we don't want too much administrative work for associations and/or FISTF then in god's name throw away the chapters in the handbook, that was always my view on things, I don't know what exactly the problem is?
It is a bigger problem if you have some rules which don't exist in reality, but on the other side you explain to people that other rules in the same paper are very important and they will even lead to consequences if they are not followed.
If we don't want licencing then please tell me, why there is a chapter of 3 pages in the handbook of the last 10 years?
If we agree on it that a finnish player can play for Australia because he works there for 10 years without having a passport of Australia then the members have to say that.
If we agree on it that players can represent associations, without knowledge of the association, then the members have to say that.

Heinz

Heinz Eder
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 781
Join date : 2010-04-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett's ban

Post  Heinz Eder on Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:43 am

In my opinion all associations should have their own disciplinary council and the loss of membership should be one of the last punishments in an association, clear written rules will protect the players from too hard punishment and should protect the people who take the decision to take it personally motivated.
If the association cancels the membership of a player he automatically can't play any FISTF event, that should be clear, but there should be instances where the player can appeal and the last should be FISTF itself maybe.

I don't understand why you are always writing like i'm defending the system or i agree on it. honestly in austria we don't have the problem that players aren't member of the association (i think we have one active player in italy who is not member of the austrian federation) without a licencing system. We found our strategy to bind our members to our association, we even have many players, who still pay membership fee without being really active. Austria is only represented by players who are member of the austrian federation. In the past players without an austrian passport represented Austria too, but only from countries where no association is/was existing. If the licencing system will be lived now as it is written down in the handbook, the players still will be members of the association, but the austrian federation will ask for those players FISTF licences and then they can't play for austria anymore. Who knows maybe some new associations will be built then!?

Discussing based on specific examples isn't the right way maybe, if you generally think we don't need it. It won't change the opinion of somebody who thinks we need it.

von K. wrote:Heinz, can you answer this scenario, based on your idea for licensing? If I understand correctly, this is what really would happen in your view, if the same system is used at all levels.

von K. wrote:
Will every local decision from now on become a FISTF matter? Let's have a funny imaginary scenario. I'm banned at my club for something like not respecting my teammates and leaving in the middle of a club tournament. The ban is reported to the local association, which bans me and sends a report to the national association, which bans me and sends the report to FISTF which then bans me.

Heinz Eder
Major winner
Major winner

Posts : 781
Join date : 2010-04-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett's ban

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum