Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 277

Thread: Discussion tangent: On naturalized players in NTs

  1. #51
    IHF Member ElQuapo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ĺrhus, Denmark
    Posts
    779
    Nationality should IMHO be decided by citizenship. All this ethnic stuff is just asking for trouble - in sports as in so many other places.

    So just like Muslims in Denmark with danish citizenship are Danes by law (regardless of what some extremists would like), a person born in Canada with Canadian citizenship is Canadian, no matter where his parents or grandparents might be born, no matter which religion he has, no matter which color his skin is etc. etc.

    Saying that for example person X, who is born in the USA and has American citizenship, is actually Russian because of whatever, is the same as saying that he is not American - and we all know what that kind of reasoning can lead to.

  2. #52
    IHF Member Pršljen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dubrovnik, Croatia
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by BASSA View Post
    who spoke to large hockey countries? (usa, can, svk, cze, rus, blr, let, ita, swe, fin...????). i spoked for small countries like my country is, like croatia, like bulgaria, ... we need help, but what i'v see here > that is not ok.

    and how we can create our own programme? with what? waiting better economic days?
    The hockey program must be determined in accordance with the possibilities. Serbia and Croatia will never have a program like Finland, Russia or Sweden. You say that there's no money. Then you don't make plans for future that require more money than you can afford. For example, Croatian federation has money for two new rinks, so build two not four ice rinks. Hockey federations need to make their development possible and achievable, they can't make plans that will crash in future. Like medias in Croatia started telling that Croatia will play on Olympics whn all imports will play for them. That will never happen and that's a fact. I hope that this fail on WC lightened expectations for a little and brought to mind that there are many, many disadvantages in our hockey.
    Look at Bosnia, they don't have ice rink more than five months but they're desperately trying to do something more. They use every minute possible of ice time and they really did great things in development in past two years. They're not having unrealistic plans, they are going step by step. Maybe someone will laugh at their results against Serbian teams of same category but they're going up with every day. Something that can't be sad for Croatia and Serbia. What's the difference? They have federation and people in it who care for their countries and who know how to make their hockey better and how to prosper in the future. They know what they're doing. What are Serbian and Croatian federation doing? Not so sure about Serbian but Croatian is doing very, very little for our benefit.
    No one will help Serbia or Croatia if they don't help themselves. And unfortunately, I don't see that they're doing it.
    Hokej u Hrvatskoj ima svijetlu budućnost SAMO AKO mjerodavni ljudi rade svoj posao kako treba - Pršljen
    Hockey in Croatia has a bright future ONLY IF relevant people do their job right - Pršljen

  3. #53
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by zamo86 View Post
    If the data on Eliteprospects is correct
    I can't comment on these specific players, but take the dual nationality status on eliteprospects with a pinch of salt. For example, they have Steve Thornton as a dual national, but I know for a fact that he has only ever held a British passport despite being born in Edmonton. In general, I think passport status (the true definition of a dual national) is not particularly well know for most players. They simply see birth and representation being different countries and make the assumption that they are dual nationals.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lovo View Post
    His father is italian, so he's automatically italian too.
    Not true. He is automatically entitled to an Italian passport if he applies for one. But, until he applies for and is granted that passport, he is not Italian and not a dual national.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Brunengraber View Post
    ......And as we all know, the IIHF routinely ignores this rule
    When has the IIHF knowingly ignored the eligibility rule?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hockey_Algeria View Post
    Can someone clarify something for me, if a player was born in a country (and holds that passport), moved to another country as a child or teenager and learned to play there, which country is he eligible to play for?
    The biggest question is whether or not they have ever applied for a passport in that second country. If they haven't, then they can only play for the country of their birth and do not need to play any "qualification period" to do so.

    If they have applied for, and been granted, a passport for that second country, then, assuming that they have played more than 2 years in that country (mandatory "qualification period" as a dual national), they would only be allowed to play for that second country. They could play for the country of their birth in two situations:

    1. They have never played for their adopted country and return to the country of their birth to play a 2 year "qualification period".

    2. They have played for their adopted country and return to the country of their birth to play a 4 year "qualification period". They can only ever make this change once in their career under IIHF rules.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  4. #54
    IHF Member jaaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    EUSSR :(
    Posts
    2,968
    Quote Originally Posted by BASSA View Post
    who spoke to large hockey countries? (usa, can, svk, cze, rus, blr, let, ita, swe, fin...????). i spoked for small countries like my country is, like croatia, like bulgaria, ... we need help, but what i'v see here > that is not ok.

    and how we can create our own programme? with what? waiting better economic days?

    or bring some black basket player (who also learned to play hockey in canada), inviting him to serbia and give him job for 200 euro two years, and after that we have clean situation that this guy can play hockey for serbian national team, btw he is not original serbian but never mind, first serbian black man on the skates.


    .
    So basically the top countries should bring up players for the whole rest of the world- like for example my example with the Saliji brothers playing for Albania or Macedonia says....?? Because you might say that it´s just a few players at the start, but if there are no restrictions, it won´t be just a few players or just a few countries using this and once these countries are actually succesful, do you think they are gonna start to develop their own programmes when they have the easier way around with using the naturalized players?

    As for economic situation, AFAIK there are countries even worse off than Serbia that are willing to do something themselves rather than just put together a team of foreign grown players (as Pršljen´s Bosnia example shows for example. Or look at the latest development´s in Macedonia...)

    But anyway, I guess it makes no sense arguing about this, IMO it´s impossible to fight the typical Eastern European belief: ethnicity = nationality.


    My opinion stays the same: using foreign grown players undepending on whether they´re of the "right" ethnicity won´t grow the sport in the country.

  5. #55
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    109
    I find that Europeans tend to overstate just how much North Americans care about where their family is from. Just because your grandfather came from X-ania does not mean you feel any attachment to that nation. Canada and the US are immigrant nations. People here have a wide mix of nationalities and ethnicities through marriage, etc. I do not know very many people who claim they are, say, Polish, just because they have a polish last name. The odds are, due to marriages, they are under 50% Polish anyway. People out here are their own people. I don't see many people constrained by the idea of their ethnicity. Almost everyone I know who was born and raised in Canada considers themselves Canadian. You can see that reflected increasingly on the census.

  6. #56
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by jaaa View Post
    My opinion stays the same: using foreign grown players undepending on whether they´re of the "right" ethnicity won´t grow the sport in the country.
    Completely agree. How many of the heavily imported national teams in the 90s genuinely got a period of sustained growth out of it? Not the UK, for sure. We're arguably in an ever increasing mess.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  7. #57
    IHF Member Pršljen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dubrovnik, Croatia
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by jaaa View Post
    My opinion stays the same: using foreign grown players undepending on whether they´re of the "right" ethnicity won´t grow the sport in the country.
    That's my opinion too. Next season Croatian NT will be stronger for Hecimovic, Sertich, Prpic, Powers...For two seasons MacAulay, Kinasewich, Gazdic...Our NT will be stronger but I'm sure that it won't help development of our hockey. Without proper plans and without proper acts of our federation (I repeated this 1000 times) our hockey won't grow into something better. It can get better only with determined program and relevant people who want to and know how to do the best for our hockey.
    As Croatian member Drax said once, Croatian hockey is not glitter and beauty of Medveščak in EBEL. Croatian hockey is half-dark Velesajam ice rink where Croatian yougsters train and play in poor conditions. (this sounds much better said in Croatian)
    Hokej u Hrvatskoj ima svijetlu budućnost SAMO AKO mjerodavni ljudi rade svoj posao kako treba - Pršljen
    Hockey in Croatia has a bright future ONLY IF relevant people do their job right - Pršljen

  8. #58
    IHF Member Conesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Currently Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    2,329
    Adding my two cents here, my mom's from Taiwan yet I feel more American than Taiwanese. I know that yeah, it'd be cool if I could represent Taiwan (Chinese-Taipei for sports) somewhere down the road, but just because I have that heritage doesn't necessarily mean that oh yeah, I'm 100% supportive of Taiwanese hockey, but rather I'm born and raised in the US, so I consider myself completely American.
    Twitter: @CSmeeth

  9. #59
    IHF Member Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    867
    Quote Originally Posted by jaaa View Post
    My opinion stays the same: using foreign grown players undepending on whether they´re of the "right" ethnicity won´t grow the sport in the country.
    I think it can grow hockey in these nations but there must be work done by the federation and these players themselves. The federation has to do work helping or fully funding rinks, promoting the sport, and maybe even offering programs that assist in paying for equipment/ice time for those that can't afford it. The players would have to bewilling to help coach not only their current teammates but the younger kids in their new nation's hockey community.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pršljen View Post
    That's my opinion too. Next season Croatian NT will be stronger for Hecimovic, Sertich, Prpic, Powers...For two seasons MacAulay, Kinasewich, Gazdic...Our NT will be stronger but I'm sure that it won't help development of our hockey. Without proper plans and without proper acts of our federation (I repeated this 1000 times) our hockey won't grow into something better. It can get better only with determined program and relevant people who want to and know how to do the best for our hockey.
    As Croatian member Drax said once, Croatian hockey is not glitter and beauty of Medveščak in EBEL. Croatian hockey is half-dark Velesajam ice rink where Croatian yougsters train and play in poor conditions. (this sounds much better said in Croatian)
    Medvescak in the EBEL certainly has its place in building the sport in Croatia but it cannot be thought of as the ultimate solution which, sadly, seems to be what the Croatian federation thinks it is right now.

    As I said above, part of the responsibility for the growth of the sport, in any small/struggling nation, has to fall on the shoulders of the dual nationals. While I agree that people need to realize that ethnicity ≠ nationality, I believe that the best route to go if you are going to have dual nationals it is best to go with players with strong ties to the nation (such as 1st generation Canadian- or American-Croatians).

    Hell, even some of the countries that are being pointed to as successes in growing their own players will still welcome dual nationals. Players such as the aforementioned Kuznik for Slovenia and Roger Holeczy for Hungary.

  10. #60
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    I think it can grow hockey in these nations but there must be work done by the federation and these players themselves.
    Thing is, in the 1980s and 1990s, a lot of countries went down this route, so there should be a lot of evidence to back that up. But, there is very little...

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  11. #61
    IHF Member zamo86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Maribor, Slovenia
    Posts
    338
    Bringing in mercenaries for better results on NT level doesnt necesarily means that hockey will grow in a certain country. Italy is the prime example. Their domestic hockey is geting weaker season by season.

    To think about it, there were only two countries that brought importing players to the extreme (OK, Croatia seems to be the third one in a season or two). One is Italy which continues with the same pratice to this day, the other was Great Britain. At one point they (GB) had over 2/3 of players from North America in their squad. Luckily it seems that they have concluded that is better to develop your own players and its showing results as they recently had the best Div I run in years (sure, they still have couple (4) of guys from Canada but they are old (33+) and probably left from the previous system).

  12. #62
    IHF Member zamo86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Maribor, Slovenia
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire View Post
    I will be die-hard fan of Team Croatia that, hopefully, will include Nick Drazenovic, Phil and Victor Oreskovic and Mark Dekanich one day.
    I think Medveščak would need a budget close to what Dinamo has in football to bring that idea into reality.

  13. #63
    IHF Member Spitfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    2,068
    Quote Originally Posted by zamo86 View Post
    I think Medveščak would need a budget close to what Dinamo has in football to bring that idea into reality.
    With Dinamo budget you can play KHL (around 20 mil. euros), so for players I mention above budget in range of Vienna would be good enough.

  14. #64
    IHF Member RiaRiaHungaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by zatch View Post
    Almost everyone I know who was born and raised in Canada considers themselves Canadian. You can see that reflected increasingly on the census.
    My parents came here from Hungary, I was born here... when i was younger, I considered myself Hungarian first and exclusively, Canadian only by accident of birthplace - if I had had the chance to play for Hungary when I was playing at Bantam level, I'd have taken it in an instant. Perhaps this is because I spent a year there as a young child, going to school there, etc. But as I grew older, I came to consider myself more and more as Canadian of Hungarian extraction - and as I did research into family history, expanded that to Canadian of Hungarian, Slovak, Polish, Jewish, etc. extraction. But Canadian first.

    I have many friends who are 1st-gen Canadian like me, children of FOBs (fresh-off-the-boats), and many of them went through a similar development as me... some "transitioned" to full-Canadianness sooner, and I know a few others who instead went the other way, as far as moving to the country their parents left from.

    So, it's definitely not as simple as "Canadian-born means completely Canadian"; it varies case by case. But, because it's a complex thing like this, the rules for hockey should be very simple - sure, allow foreign-born/trained players - but extend the live/play requirement significantly, from 2 to 4 or 5 years...

  15. #65
    IHF Member Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    867
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham View Post
    Thing is, in the 1980s and 1990s, a lot of countries went down this route, so there should be a lot of evidence to back that up. But, there is very little...

    Graham.
    Did they bring in these players and have them doing community work, coach youth teams/host clinics, market not only the team but the sport, etc.? Or did they bring in dual nationals, put them in the national team, and then hope for hope's sake that increased national team success generated interest.

    I view a situation like this as being like growing hockey in Florida. Most of the pro players on the market are not from Florida and there are no Florida-born players on any of the state's 4 pro teams but since the NHL the various minor league teams over the years have come to Florida, there has been a growth in the infrastructure and number of players from the state which led up to the first Florida-born and trained player being draft in 2010.

  16. #66
    IHF Staff Marc Brunengraber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Islip, New York
    Posts
    9,944
    A lot of well defended viewpoints and interesting discussion in this thread.

    A few thoughts -

    Jaaa and Veghist, it's not so easy for an ice hockey federation that gets basically no government support or money to simply "just go and struggle and build rinks".

    Israel, for example, has one real rink in the entire country, far away from the population center. Land is priced at a high premium in Israel, since there is so little of it. The ice hockey federation exists on a shoestring, tiny budget. They simply don't have the money to buy the land, much less build the rink. Investors aren't interested; they can make much more money buying and/or developing the land for condominiums, malls, etc.

    The struggles of countries like Croatia, Serbia, etc., are in many ways similar.

    I think every country's federation should do the best it can with the resources that it has. Develop youth so that they learn to both play and love the game. Maintain a decent adult league. Feel free to bring in dual citizens to the national team - preferably with real roots to the country (having always held the passport of the country, or with ancestors within no more than two generations removed) - if you feel that doing so will improve the other players and/or raise the profile of the sport in the country through increased national team success.

    If you feel that you have to bring in guys who have no ethnic/family connection to the country, and have no connection other than living there and playing hockey there for the requisite minimum amount of time, then I'd like to see a rule that they also have to, during those years, stay in full time residency in the country helping to develop the sport through teaching at hockey schools and clinics, doing non-hockey related community service while making sure the public knows it is hockey players doing it, coaching youth teams, or refereeing in youth leagues.

    Some countries have no shot to ever realistically get guys to come play in their leagues (including guys with a real, prior connection to the country as opposed to 'hockey mercenaries') - they may be totally amateur leagues offering 6 to 15 games per season, with a low level of play that doesn't warrant having a guy to come and make that kind of commitment. But why should these countries (Israel, Ireland, Iceland, Mexico, South Africa, Chinese Taipei and Spain all come to mind) suffer while other countries (Serbia, Croatia, Lithuania come to mind) who basically have domestic leagues that are just (or almost) as weak and limited - or sometimes have no true league competition at all - get away with having certain dual citizens qualify because they have a "base club" that plays in a nearby neighboring country's stronger league? That's not playing "exclusively" within that country for any period of time, no matter how it is spin-doctored. Countries like Israel, Iceland, South Africa and Chinese Taipei are geographically unable to do something like that - why should they be at a disadvantage as a result? How is allowing a "base club" to compete in a neighboring country's better league helping to develop hockey in the country with the weak league that is not being improved with this arrangement, or which doesn't even really have a league, or whose weak league is even further weakened or essentially even ended as a result of the "base club playing in a neighbor's higher league" arrangement?

    The IIHF knows damn well that the dual passport holders of many countries from lower divisions have never played for two exclusive years in a row in that country.....perhaps those players have always held the passports of both countries, and thus automatically qualify? Or perhaps they played there for two straight years when they were small children?

  17. #67
    IHF Member BASSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    1,079

    summarize by bassa

    1
    The main problem is the fact that the IIHF does not limit the number of naturalized players for each team. for me it would be a maximum of 5 players and good bye.
    2
    and why the original serbs,... what is point of that rule, I do not understand?... stronger countries will easily avoide the laws like this.
    3
    it's not easy that country like serbia can hire for one of his clubs some OUR boys from canada, or swiss, or somewhere else. we have no money for our competition, we have only 2-3 icehalls (3-4 clubs), and big problem with finding sponsors because hockey is not like football, or basketball here. we have only 50 players and only 20 of them are play for money, but that money is for smile.
    4
    what we can do, only to develope young categories but that is not enough for bringing money by some companies. this is only surviver. but yes, we can say that richest nations like GB, italia can pay some players from abroad and hire him later for his NT.
    5
    isn't is better and fairer that boy with our passepor freely play for his mother contry and help them to find better conditions for hockey/ OR we all support iihf and their rules for 2years playing where?, or for what?, in what conditions?, in what cind of league - 12 games per year?.

    those boys are no guilty that he goes abroad because they country is can't give to his familys good jobs, better future for they lives. give them chance to play for their poor country! (maybe just this will be step for better days in serbian/croatian hockey
    6
    nobody thinks that these players may have been the best advertisement for underdeveloped countries if they play for national team,

    or, it's much better that we have some rules - who cares about advertismant?
    who realized thanks, who didn't -> huge sorry for all this time... the situation is not equal in develope and undevelope, or poor, countries.
    Serbian hockey
    Senior 2A - U20 2B - U18 2B

  18. #68
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by zamo86 View Post
    At one point they (GB) had over 2/3 of players from North America in their squad. Luckily it seems that they have concluded that is better to develop your own players and its showing results as they recently had the best Div I run in years (sure, they still have couple (4) of guys from Canada but they are old (33+) and probably left from the previous system).
    It's only two; Neilsen and Hutchins. Both were new caps this year but brought in to do specific jobs that it was felt no current British player can do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    Did they bring in these players and have them doing community work, coach youth teams/host clinics, market not only the team but the sport, etc.? Or did they bring in dual nationals, put them in the national team, and then hope for hope's sake that increased national team success generated interest.
    Hosting clinics is difficult. Certainly in the UK, you need to be qualified to do that. It's not so bad now, but a few years ago, the work permit explicitly forbade players from coaching if their work permit was for playing.

    However, at club level, imports in the UK were more heavily used to promote the sport than anyone else. A lot of this was because the imports were full-time players and had free time during the day to do this. Part of it was they could make the sport sound exotic because they weren't from the same town as the audience. And part of it was the perceived credibility that Britain was important enough for them to come to.

    The problem with using nationalised players in your national team, though, is that you always move the goalposts. Take GB as an example:

    1. We come back into the international arena in 1989. We initially have some success and quickly get from Pool D into Pool C.

    2. We get promoted from Pool C and increase the number of imports because we don't want to embarrass ourselves in Pool B.

    3. We do so well in Pool B that we get promoted in our first year. Now, we have a real problem. There is just no way that British players are good enough to play against Russia or Canada, so we have to put even more imports in just to protect our image.

    And I think this is a typical model. Nobody puts dual nationals into their team to try and keep a certain place within the rankings. Everyone wants to get a better position and get promoted.

    But, if you put dual nationals into a Division 2 team because your local players aren't good enough for that level, how on earth do you get them into the team once you've been promoted to Division 1?

    The change in nationality rules actually did GB a favour. It forced us to consolidate our position. Before it, talk was always about promotion. In the years that followed, it never did.

    Graham.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  19. #69
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    128
    I agree about the rule actually helping grow the sport in the respective countries. Of course if it's done in a proper manner. Take Greece for example. As everyone knows, there are alot of Greek-Canadians and alot of Greek-Americans that would LOVE to play for their parents/grandparents home country. Unfortunately what Greeks from abroad ALWAYS try to do is to take to hockey program back to North America. Whoever flew over the Atlantic to come and "help" always had this in mind, to take the hockey program back with them and build it in North America. Someone might say, OK, but right now Greek Ice Hockey is non-existence, and I will agree, but that is because there are corrupt people in the federation (mainly the president Christos Chatziathanasiou who is in this position for 26 years (!) and has NOTHING to show for it!). Back in 1996 Mr. Chatziathanasiou tried to bring non-eligible players from Canada and got caught. Greece was banned for 2 years.
    It’s funny because in all the so-called “exotic” sports for Greece, where the dual-citizenship rule does not apply, there are NO athletes or even teams that exist in the country. Look at ball hockey (http://www.hbha.gr/index.php). This sport exists in Canada, all players live in Canada, half of them don’t even speak Greek but despite this they are called “Greek National Team”. Same thing applied for baseball. They brought imports from North America to play on the Greek Baseball team for the Olympics, they built stadiums in Greece, and today baseball is only played but a few people and most stadiums were turned into football (soccer) fields. Same thing applies for figure skating… NO ATHLETES in Greece, only in North America. So, if the IIHF didn’t have this rule then all Greeks would live in North America, Greece would have a really good National Team but IN Greece a handful of people would only play. Today there are 9 Men’s Teams and 2 Girls teams. Not the highest level of hockey BUT this is because the federation president is so corrupt that he doesn't want to make hockey popular because he doesn't want to lose the sport to others. People that would actually invest and make Greek hockey big. If hockey can get rid of this guy, then maybe National Greece Ice Hockey would be at a higher level.

  20. #70
    IHF Member zamo86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Maribor, Slovenia
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire View Post
    With Dinamo budget you can play KHL (around 20 mil. euros), so for players I mention above budget in range of Vienna would be good enough.
    Really? I didnt know Vienna has enough budget for a couple of 0,5 million euros wages. And at least two of the mentioned above has a good chance that they will become solid NHL players (Oreskovich Victor allready looks like one), meaning that only an KHL budget would supposedly be able to persuade them to come to Zagreb.

  21. #71
    IHF Member Pršljen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dubrovnik, Croatia
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by BASSA View Post
    who realized thanks, who didn't -> huge sorry for all this time... the situation is not equal in develope and undevelope, or poor, countries.
    But who says that Serbia and Croatia must develop into some great hockey nations? If they don't have enough money and investment that will develop their hockey then Div II is their reality. If they don't have conditions and money for good program that would make their hockey better, then be satisfied with that what you have. Everyone wants to be better but if you don't have conditions to do so then don't do it at all.

    That poor countries can must develop with the conditions and money they have. I already wrote about it. If that poor countries would have IIHF permission to bring players with roots from their country from NA or anywhere else and other countries with better hockey program wouldn't have that permission then it would be really unfair.

    If you don't have money to develop your own program then you play at lower level than countries that can develop better and have better program. Everybody can bring bunch of players from NA (Armenia) but that can't be successful if hockey in your country has no real vision and no possibilities for something better.

    Nobody can help poor countries if they don't help themselves. And not by bringing players from overseas.
    Hokej u Hrvatskoj ima svijetlu budućnost SAMO AKO mjerodavni ljudi rade svoj posao kako treba - Pršljen
    Hockey in Croatia has a bright future ONLY IF relevant people do their job right - Pršljen

  22. #72
    IHF Member Spitfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    2,068
    Quote Originally Posted by zamo86 View Post
    Really? I didnt know Vienna has enough budget for a couple of 0,5 million euros wages. And at least two of the mentioned above has a good chance that they will become solid NHL players (Oreskovich Victor allready looks like one), meaning that only an KHL budget would supposedly be able to persuade them to come to Zagreb.
    They surely woudn't play for 500.000 euros onces when they decide to come in Europe. Nick Drazenovic saw very little of his NHL money because most of the season (only three games in NHL) he played in AHL and there his salary this season was 75.000 USD, and just for compare Banham salary in Medvescak is close to 100.000 Euros.

  23. #73
    IHF Member BASSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Pršljen View Post
    But who says that Serbia and Croatia must develop into some great hockey nations?
    nobody?
    If they don't have enough money and investment that will develop their hockey then Div II is their reality.
    yes, i agree
    If they don't have conditions and money for good program that would make their hockey better, then be satisfied with that what you have.
    - how?, it's not cuold be normal?
    Everyone wants to be better but if you don't have conditions to do so then don't do it at all.
    realy, I can't beleive what you have said?

    That poor countries can must develop with the conditions and money they have. I already wrote about it.
    and what? waiting 1000 years?
    If that poor countries would have IIHF permission to bring players with roots from their country from NA or anywhere else and other countries with better hockey program wouldn't have that permission then it would be really unfair.
    but why? - why some strong hockey nations must fear of some weak countries with only 5 players with roots from their country (strong hockey nations have large number of icehalls, with strong hockey programms, big numbers of players, that can't be problem for those countries)

    If you don't have money to develop your own program then you play at lower level than countries that can develop better and have better program.
    i agree, and we play where our place is, no problem
    Everybody can bring bunch of players from NA (Armenia) but that can't be successful if hockey in your country has no real vision and no possibilities for something better.
    maybe if we bring some our boys and that will be interesting for media, or for some people which can find something good by this and go to give money, why not... maybe some kids will go to hockey schools in huge numbers if they watching our serb players in nt serbia?

    Nobody can help poor countries if they don't help themselves. And not by bringing players from overseas.
    great words, but who spoked about that?


    mostly i spoked about this, basic point!
    6
    Quote: nobody thinks that these players may have been the best advertisement for underdeveloped countries if they play for national team,

    or, it's much better that we have some rules - who cares about advertismant?
    and this:
    what is point of that rule, I do not understand?... stronger countries will easily avoide the laws like this..
    Last edited by BASSA; 28-04-2011 at 08:17.
    Serbian hockey
    Senior 2A - U20 2B - U18 2B

  24. #74
    IHF Prospect
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Padova
    Posts
    5
    ..hi guys, interesting forum and interesting comments. I just wanted to point out a couple of things regarding the "naturalized players" issue. The principle many of you tend to defend is understandable and of course, it's highly desirable to have all NTs completely formed by home-grown players. But it's not THAT easy. There are MANY "special" cases you should consider before drawing a line between the "naturalized" and "pure" players. Just consider people with double citizenship, who REALLY consider themselves at least half italian, but are born in Canada and of course they played most of their career there. They're good players but not enough to get to the canadian NT. They play many season in italian clubs and become eligibile for the italian NT.
    Do you really want to tell them "I'm sorry you are not italian enough to play with their NT. And yes, you're stuck, no way out. Maybe in your next life! Bye."
    ...you can't judge players (who ARE people too) just reading their surname or their birthplace.

    Second point: in late 80s and early 90s our National Team usually had 3-4 italian-grown players (in some years, 1 or 2). The rest of them were italo-american/canadian. Now, we have more than 50% of "true italians" (and pls: South Tyrol IS Italy, period) and a couple of them are just over 20 but among the most important (Insam and Larkin). Some other good prospects are just "outside the door" waiting for their chance.
    ...give us some time. And don't blame us if we have a huge community of emigrants in Canada, many of them playing hockey at quite high levels...

  25. #75
    IHF Staff
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    5,144
    "South Tyrol is Italy" is in first place a false statement. Southern Tyrol is NOT Italy and Italy is NOT Southern Tyrol (just as Tuscany is not Italy). Southern Tyrol is a part of Italy, true. A pretty different part however if it comes up to the majority of people. That said, that doesn't matter at all for hockey. Just as it doesn't matter whether the Italos feel/consider themselves to be Italian or not. The only thing that matters or should matter is does a ceratin person a) have an Italian passport and b) has the person played there for some long enough time.

    The current rules allow players to move and follow their perceived nationality (or the money, the thrill...whatever) the question is whether two (four) years is long enough.

  26. #76
    IHF Staff Marc Brunengraber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Islip, New York
    Posts
    9,944
    Earlier in this thread is the IIHF rule on whether two or four years is enough, depending on circumstances.

  27. #77

    Netherlands

    Quote Originally Posted by zamo86 View Post
    Bringing in mercenaries for better results on NT level doesnt necesarily means that hockey will grow in a certain country. Italy is the prime example. Their domestic hockey is geting weaker season by season.

    To think about it, there were only two countries that brought importing players to the extreme (OK, Croatia seems to be the third one in a season or two). One is Italy which continues with the same pratice to this day, the other was Great Britain.
    Don't forget The Netherlands.
    We were even dubbed "Canada 2" at the Olympics in Lake Placid...

    And the 'second wave' of Ned-Can's in the early 2000's brought us nothing but two bronze medals at the Div. I level. And most of these dual nationals aren't playing anymore either.

    As you may be able to tell: I am not a fan of dual-nats either. I have nothing against Jamie Schaafsma or Phil Groeneveld playing in out National Team (and without them, we'd probably be in Div. II already) but I am against making it a policy of the teams to get as many dual nats into our Eredivisie to get them eligible for the NT.

    I did some research on this topic as we had the same discussion on ijshockeyforum.com . There are still some people who think that stocking up on Canadian born/trained Dutchmen in the National Team will help develop the sport in our country.

    Here's the data, taken from the seasons 1999-2000 up to 2010-2011:

    (Please note: Data is without the WC Div. I 2011 in Budapest. Games played for the Dutch National Team only include games at World Championships and Olympic Qualification Tournaments. Friendly Exhibition Games are not taken into account).

    I found 43 players that can be viewed as dual nationals, that were brought to The Netherlands by Dutch Eredivisie teams. In the aforementioned period, there were more dual-nationals playing (Kambeitz, Cuomo, Tenbult, Arts, Bultje, Nazarov) but they entered the league before the 1999-2000 season and are therefore not taken into account.

    Of the 43, 18 players (41,8%) only played one season in The Netherlands are therefore could never play for 'Oranje' (the nickname for the Dutch National Team)

    Remarkable: of the 26 players that have not (yet) played for Oranje, only two are still active: Jason Visser and Raphael Joly. The other 24 all retired from playing professional hockey. The average age of these 26 players is 31 years.

    17 of the 43 players (39,5%) did play for 'Oranje', but the average number of games played is just 15, or more or less three World Championship Tournaments.

    Only five of the 43 players (11,6%) were active at the last World Championship (Tilburg, 2010), and at Budapest 2011 that number will be reduced to four (Schaafsma, Vanschagen, Kars, Groeneveld).

    9 out of 17 (ex-)internationals have already retired from professional hockey (or 10 if you include Phil Groeneveld).

    Full data:

    Name 1st season seasons in NED 1st x NT last x NT games in NT current age status
    Joe van Volsen 1999-2000 1 - - - 36 retired
    Sean Klaver 1999-2000 1 - - - 35 retired
    Bill Minkhorst 1999-2000 2 - - - 33 retired
    Chad Euverman 1999-2000 7 2005 2009 26 32 retired
    Josh Oort 1999-2000 5 2004 2005 8 36 retired
    Ryan Esselmont 2000-2001 1 - - - 37 retired
    Ben Vanderklok 2000-2001 4 - - - 30 retired
    Sjon Wynia 2000-2001 4 2003 2004 9 36 retired
    Adam Bonneveld 2001-2002 2 - - - 34 retired
    Micah Wouters 2001-2002 2 - - - 32 retired
    Justin Bekkering 2001-2002 8 2004 2006 15 34 retired
    Kevin Hoogsteen 2001-2002 4 2004 2006 13 39 retired
    Ryan van Diemen 2001-2002 4 2005 2005 3 32 retired
    Dale Crombeen 2002-2003 1 - - - 39 retired
    David Hoogsteen 2002-2003 2 - - - 37 retired
    Jesse Heerema 2002-2003 3 - - - 34 retired
    Bob Vandersluis 2002-2003 1 - - - 32 retired
    Marcel Kars 2002-2003 8 2005 2010 35 34 active
    Phil Groeneveld 2002-2003 2 2005 2010 34 37 rec league
    Matt Korthuis 2002-2003 8 2007 2009 15 30 retired
    Doug Stienstra 2002-2003 7 2005 2008 13 35 retired
    Jamie Visser 2002-2003 9 2005 2006 13 32 active
    Nathan Vanderbaaren 2003-2004 1 - - - 31 retired
    Josh Verbruggen 2003-2004 1 - - - 29 retired
    Casey Vanschagen 2003-2004 8 2006 2010 28 31 active
    Nick Verbruggen 2003-2004 7 2009 2009 5 28 retired
    Karl Dykhuis 2004-2005 1 - - - 39 retired
    Dean Byvelds 2004-2005 2 - - - 28 retired
    JJ Vanderstam 2004-2005 1 - - - 28 retired
    Kyle Schutte 2004-2005 2 - - - 28 retired
    Dan Idema 2004-2005 1 - - - 27 retired
    Jamie Schaafsma 2004-2005 3 2007 2009 18 28 active
    Brad Smulders 2004-2005 7 2007 2008 12 28 active
    Aaron van Leusen 2005-2006 1 - - - 30 retired
    Mark Tanner 2005-2006 6 2010 2010 5 30 retired
    Chad van Diemen 2006-2007 1 - - - 30 retired
    Jason Visser 2006-2007 1 - - - 29 active
    Jeff Moor 2007-2008 1 - - - 25 retired
    Marcel Bruinsma 2007-2008 4 2010 2010 5 25 active
    Ben Heersink 2009-2010 1 - - - 25 retired (?)
    Blake Pronk 2009-2010 1 - - - 25 retired (?)
    Terry Harrison 2010-2011 1 - - - 33 retired (?)
    Raphael Joly 2010-2011 1 - - - 23 active

    The conclusions that I draw from this are:

    - Most dual-nats come here in the 'autumn' of their career (or even 'winter': many retire after playing in The Netherlands).
    - Many will not stay long enough in our league to qualify for the NT.
    - If they do stay long enough and actually play for the NT, many will only do so for a short period of time. There is no long term commitment to playing for the NT.
    Last edited by Ro Herregraven; 28-04-2011 at 18:40.
    You can be sincere and still be stupid - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

  28. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennison View Post
    All players holding only one nationality (passport) from birth is automatically eligible to play for that country. Any Serbian national moving to USA is not exempt from playing for Serbia. Rules regarding playing 2 years in a country relates to dual nationals or players acquiring a new citizenship. 4 years is recquired if they have previously represented another country in IIHF tournaments.
    Interesting case here: Raphael Joly was born in Amsterdam but migrated to Canada at a very young age. He received all his hockey training in Canada and has dual citizenship.

    He cannot play for the Dutch National Team unless he plays in the Dutch Eredivisie for two full seasons (with one done and dusted at the moment).
    You can be sincere and still be stupid - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

  29. #79
    IHF Prospect
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Padova
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by RexKramer View Post
    "South Tyrol is Italy" is in first place a false statement. Southern Tyrol is NOT Italy and Italy is NOT Southern Tyrol (just as Tuscany is not Italy). Southern Tyrol is a part of Italy, true. A pretty different part however if it comes up to the majority of people. That said, that doesn't matter at all for hockey.
    You perfectly understood what I was meaning. I wrote IS instead of IS PART OF just to strengthen the concept. Concerning "people", it's not "a different part" at all. South tyrolean people are ALL italian citizen, even if the majority of them consider themselves ...just south-tyrolean. Laws are laws, rules are rules, feelings are feelings...as you too seem to think, reading your post.
    BTW: I AM south tyrolean (but live in Padova). And italian, of course

    Just as it doesn't matter whether the Italos feel/consider themselves to be Italian or not. The only thing that matters or should matter is does a ceratin person a) have an Italian passport and b) has the person played there for some long enough time.
    I was OBIOUSLY talking about players who already fulfill these well-known requirements AND "feel/consider" themselves italian too

    The current rules allow players to move and follow their perceived nationality (or the money, the thrill...whatever) the question is whether two (four) years is long enough.
    Reducing the problem down to a "season quantity determination" doesn't resolve anything. The most important thing is to understand the issue and to consider the considerable amount of different cases that may happen (and already happen). Otherwise it's impossibile to find a really "balanced" solution (if one exists)

  30. #80
    IHF Member Snype's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    170
    i have a question on 3 players whether their eligable to play for their respected country/'s
    -Heatley was born in Germany i believe when his dad played pro their? but grew up in Canada
    -Nabakov with Kazakhstan? and N.Zherdev with Ukraine
    not saying they would play for those countries just wondering if they are eligable to

  31. #81
    IHF Member Spitfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    2,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Snype View Post
    i have a question on 3 players whether their eligable to play for their respected country/'s
    -Heatley was born in Germany i believe when his dad played pro their? but grew up in Canada
    -Nabakov with Kazakhstan? and N.Zherdev with Ukraine
    not saying they would play for those countries just wondering if they are eligable to
    They are not !

    All of them should play four years in respective leagues to play for GER/KAZ/UKR national team. Four years because they already played for Canada/Russia.

  32. #82
    IHF Staff Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Snype View Post
    i have a question on 3 players whether their eligable to play for their respected country/'s
    -Heatley was born in Germany i believe when his dad played pro their? but grew up in Canada
    -Nabakov with Kazakhstan? and N.Zherdev with Ukraine
    not saying they would play for those countries just wondering if they are eligable to
    You can't ask the question based upon where someone was born. Its about passports.
    "It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
    ---
    "Night Watch", Terry Pratchett

  33. #83
    IHF Staff
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    5,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Nash View Post
    You perfectly understood what I was meaning. I wrote IS instead of IS PART OF just to strengthen the concept. Concerning "people", it's not "a different part" at all. South tyrolean people are ALL italian citizen, even if the majority of them consider themselves ...just south-tyrolean. Laws are laws, rules are rules, feelings are feelings...as you too seem to think, reading your post.
    BTW: I AM south tyrolean (but live in Padova). And italian, of course
    I thought that this is what you mean but I tend to think in logical terms sometimes ;-)


    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Nash View Post
    I was OBIOUSLY talking about players who already fulfill these well-known requirements AND "feel/consider" themselves italian too
    Of course you were talking about players that pass the rules, anything else wouldn't make a lot of sense. The second qualifier (and that's my point) is irrelevant from a perspective of the rules. That's a completely blurred and non-objective category.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Nash View Post
    Reducing the problem down to a "season quantity determination" doesn't resolve anything. The most important thing is to understand the issue and to consider the considerable amount of different cases that may happen (and already happen). Otherwise it's impossibile to find a really "balanced" solution (if one exists)
    Don't think so. I agree that there is nothing like the universally true solution to the problem because the problem (what is national team competition) itself is not defined properly and can be interpreted in various partly mutually excluding partly mutually including ways. That said, for pragmantic reasons it all comes down to finding a rule that is easily implementable, legally waterproof and accomodates what (obviously) a majority of IIHF members thinks national team competition should be about. The rule the IIHF has adopted seems to me basically as being a reasonable compromise between allowing player movement and restricting it and I can't think of any other kind of rule that would do the job equally well. That is not to say that the details of the rule are unambiguously optimal. Maybe it is the case that the 2 year clause favours countries like Italy too much making it too easy to bring in non domestically trained players, maybe it should be three or four seasons. That are details but not irrelevant ones as they would alter the relative position of certain countries towards each other which is what the sports politics are partly about.

  34. #84
    IHF Prospect
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Padova
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by RexKramer View Post
    Of course you were talking about players that pass the rules, anything else wouldn't make a lot of sense. The second qualifier (and that's my point) is irrelevant from a perspective of the rules.
    I agree. My point was just to let some people understand that not all "naturalized" players are simply mercenaries with some forgotten italian ancestors. There's something more involved, and I think it's important to consider things from different points of view

    Don't think so. I agree that there is nothing like the universally true solution to the problem because the problem (what is national team competition) itself is not defined properly and can be interpreted in various partly mutually excluding partly mutually including ways. That said, for pragmantic reasons it all comes down to finding a rule that is easily implementable, legally waterproof and accomodates what (obviously) a majority of IIHF members thinks national team competition should be about. The rule the IIHF has adopted seems to me basically as being a reasonable compromise between allowing player movement and restricting it and I can't think of any other kind of rule that would do the job equally well. That is not to say that the details of the rule are unambiguously optimal. Maybe it is the case that the 2 year clause favours countries like Italy too much making it too easy to bring in non domestically trained players, maybe it should be three or four seasons. That are details but not irrelevant ones as they would alter the relative position of certain countries towards each other which is what the sports politics are partly about.
    I agree on the general principle that of course, there have to be clear and universally acceptable rules, and this means all federations have to sacrifice something to obtain something else. What I'm NOT agreeing on is that because some rule "favours countries like Italy" the rule has to be changed. Increasing the years amount to 4 doesn't change anything substantial about "domestically trained players", if this is the issue, the rule should talk about the player formation, meaning the period from age 12 to 18, for example... but this point of view has LOTS of side effects too - think about parents who love hockey and have the money to let their sons study and play overseas... not so uncommon here in Italy...
    ....final consideration: changing the rule (from 2 to 4 straight seasons) at the present time does in fact affect only Italy, as you state.. do you really think we're sooooo bad we deserve such an honor? let us develop step by step, as we already do, btw....

  35. #85
    IHF Prospect
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Padova
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by zamo86 View Post
    Bringing in mercenaries for better results on NT level doesnt necesarily means that hockey will grow in a certain country. Italy is the prime example. Their domestic hockey is geting weaker season by season.
    This is a COMPLETELY false statement. The average level of our national championship in the last 3-4 years was quite good compared to previous seasons and we had some of the most balanced seasons of our entire hockey history. Just look at the rosters and you'll need just a few minutes to understand what I'm talking about. This doesn't mean all the games are incredibily spectacular, but that doesn't have anything to do with level (in fact, it's often the opposite, more balance, less "show").
    If you're judging our hockey compared to the "golden age" of the early 90s, well that wasn't the "real" level we can actually afford here. It was fun, but it ended in blood and tears for many teams.
    We still have lots of problems, first of all "continuity" in the rules-formula and of course MONEY, but hockey isn't "getting weaker and weaker". Stop.

    To think about it, there were only two countries that brought importing players to the extreme (OK, Croatia seems to be the third one in a season or two). One is Italy which continues with the same pratice to this day..
    As I stated in my previous post, you seem to completely ignore that the trend on the long period is CLEARLY in the right direction. The amount of so-called "imports" in NT is slowly but constantly decreasing. Meanwhile, a bunch of new young talents are growing, some of them played in Hungary too.... and our junior national teams are doing well, the U20 got good results in Div. I and U18 even better (easily beaten GB and Hungary, won against KAZ, beaten only by Latvians, just one step away from the Top Division - meaning being among the TEN best u18 in the world..!).
    I truly think a country's hockey health status has to be judged by the level of the junior players. And we're doing quite well, step by step... despite having SOME naturalized players in the Senior NT.

  36. #86
    IHF Member zamo86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Maribor, Slovenia
    Posts
    338
    IMO, a player should play at least four consecutive years in a country to gain eligibility to represent that country. Players that represented one country on a official IIHF U18, or maybe U20, tournament forfeit their right to switch nationality and represent some other country in the future.

  37. #87
    IHF Member Conesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Currently Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    2,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Snype View Post
    i have a question on 3 players whether their eligable to play for their respected country/'s
    -Heatley was born in Germany i believe when his dad played pro their? but grew up in Canada
    -Nabakov with Kazakhstan? and N.Zherdev with Ukraine
    not saying they would play for those countries just wondering if they are eligable to
    I know this might be semi irrelevant to this whole thread, but if I got it right, Kazakhstan and Ukraine were part of the former Soviet Union at the time Nabokov and Zherdev were born, so technically they were Russian trained
    Twitter: @CSmeeth

  38. #88
    IHF Member GX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Riga, Latvia
    Posts
    1,451
    Quote Originally Posted by RiaRiaHungaria View Post
    I really hope the rules get changed - you're only eligible to play for the country whose youth system you came up in.
    How should it be defined technically?

    Latvian hockey system after U14 groups becomes weaker and weaker compared to the global scene, thus many players choose to play abroad. According to a list I gathered throughout the season on my blog, I would estimate that there are at least 100 U20 Latvian players abroad. Won't they be eligible to play for Latvian NT later on?

  39. #89
    IHF Member BASSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    1,079
    Year is past and what is changed in the hockey world about naturalized players - IIHF good rules made progress??? Still my oppinion is 5 naturalized palyers max per Nt.
    Serbian hockey
    Senior 2A - U20 2B - U18 2B

  40. #90
    IHF Member Dompa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by BASSA View Post
    Year is past and what is changed in the hockey world about naturalized players - IIHF good rules made progress??? Still my oppinion is 5 naturalized palyers max per Nt.
    One important thing happened! Maybe not a clear one, but still...

    Liam Stewart becomes eligible to play for team Great Britain.
    Games from Croatia live at :

    http://www.icedominator.posavec.com.hr/

  41. #91
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Dompa View Post
    One important thing happened! Maybe not a clear one, but still...

    Liam Stewart becomes eligible to play for team Great Britain.
    And as it turned out today, Hári Norbert is not eligible to play for Team Hungary in the U18 IHWC...

    The case with Hári is pretty delicate. Hári went to Sweden when he was 11, but at that time he was already considered as a talented player who had 4 (four) full seasons as a registered player of Budapest Stars. Last year he got a swedish passport for some reason (don't ask me why), but he never lost his Hungarian. Now IIHF declared him as not eligible saying that the four full years he spent in the hungarian system does not count since most of it was in the under 10 agegroup. The problem is that I can't see anything in the IIHF rules which can be used as a basis for this decision.

    The Austrians can also be "happy", since Jordan Pfennich, who has a dual citizenship from Austria and the non-IIHF member Dominican Republic, is also banned from the U18 IHWC. Anyway, his case is a bit less complicated since - as far as I know - he never played for any Austrian teams. But after the Liam Stewart case I think he also must be eligible.
    Last edited by kerusz; 10-04-2012 at 18:36.

  42. #92
    IHF Member Conesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Currently Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    2,329
    Stefan Matteau of the USNTDP was ruled ineligible a few days ago by the IIHF to play in the U18 tournament, as they said that he wasn't in the US long enough to qualify for them
    Twitter: @CSmeeth

  43. #93
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Conesy View Post
    Stefan Matteau of the USNTDP was ruled ineligible a few days ago by the IIHF to play in the U18 tournament, as they said that he wasn't in the US long enough to qualify for them
    And again, according to this and this articles, the reason is that he did not play enough after the age of 10 (like in the case of Hári), but where is this written in the official IIHF rules?

  44. #94
    IHF Member Conesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Currently Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    2,329
    It does seem like the IIHF is getting too anal about that. If he's played for two years, he should be eligible.
    Twitter: @CSmeeth

  45. #95
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Conesy View Post
    It does seem like the IIHF is getting too anal about that. If he's played for two years, he should be eligible.
    In the case of Hári: http://regi.icehockey.hu/magyar/reg_profil.php?mit=1243 for me it is four years.

  46. #96
    IHF Member Bennison's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Hagestad, Sweden
    Posts
    3,183
    Quote Originally Posted by kerusz View Post
    And as it turned out today, Hári Norbert is not eligible to play for Team Hungary in the U18 IHWC...
    Now IIHF declared him as not eligible saying that the four full years he spent in the hungarian system does not count since most of it was in the under 10 agegroup. The problem is that I can't see anything in the IIHF rules which can be used as a basis for this decision.
    I just read through the relevant portion of IIHF Statutes and Bylaws, http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_u...Amendments.pdf, and there is no mention of any age requirement. It seems an odd rule to have, but I can understand that U10 player records are perhaps not registered with the member association.

    Quote Originally Posted by kerusz View Post
    The Austrians can also be "happy", since Jordan Pfennich, who has a dual citizenship from Austria and the non-IIHF member Dominican Republic, is also banned from the U18 IHWC. Anyway, his case is a bit less complicated since - as far as I know - he never played for any Austrian teams. But after the Liam Stewart case I think he also must be eligible.
    IIHF Bylaw 205, 1.7 reads:

    Quote Originally Posted by IIHF
    When a player has multiple citizenships where the relevant citizenships are for countries of
    member national associations and he has never represented any country in any IIHF
    championship or an Olympic competition or in qualifications to these competitions, then in
    order to play for the country of his choice he must
    a) prove that he has participated for at least two consecutive years in the national
    competitions of and resident in the country that he wishes to represent during which
    period he has neither transferred to another country nor played ice hockey within any
    other country and
    b) if the country of his choice is one to which the player has transferred then he must
    have had an IIHF international transfer card approved and dated by the IIHF at least
    two years prior to his proposed participation.
    The relevant section here seems to be "where the relevant citizenships are for countries of
    member national associations
    ". As The Dominican Republic is not a IIHF member, there should be no issue with him representing Austria. Unless he also holds a Swiss citizenship?
    Cum bibam cervisiam gaudeo.

  47. #97
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennison View Post
    I just read through the relevant portion of IIHF Statutes and Bylaws, http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_u...Amendments.pdf, and there is no mention of any age requirement. It seems an odd rule to have, but I can understand that U10 player records are perhaps not registered with the member association.



    IIHF Bylaw 205, 1.7 reads:



    The relevant section here seems to be "where the relevant citizenships are for countries of
    member national associations
    ". As The Dominican Republic is not a IIHF member, there should be no issue with him representing Austria. Unless he also holds a Swiss citizenship?
    I agree with you completely. Still, he's not eligible. As far as I know he has no swiss citizenship. At least he writes this on his website:

    "August 2008 wechsel zum Österreichischem Eishockey Verband OEHV, (Bild Camp 08 Zeltweg) da der Schweizer Eishockey Verband SEHV nur bis U 14 Regional, nicht Schweizer akzeptiert." = In august 2008 switch to Austrian Federation since the swiss federation accepts any non swiss up to U14 regional only.

  48. #98
    IHF Member jaaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    EUSSR :(
    Posts
    2,968
    The question is whether these U10 players had owned a "registration certificate" from the federation of the country they were playing in. AFAIK the Slovak federation for example only requires players aged 9 and older to be registered with them this way. (even though much younger players practice and play in clubs that are members of SZĽH, but there isn´t an official competition for their age cetagories) So I guess it´s possible that it´s the same in other countries as well and therefore some of these guys wouldn´t count as registered...But I might be completely wrong too...
    25th of June 2015 - Worst day in the history of modern hockey in Slovakia

    See you in 2019...perhaps...

  49. #99
    IHF Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by jaaa View Post
    The question is whether these U10 players had owned a "registration certificate" from the federation of the country they were playing in. AFAIK the Slovak federation for example only requires players aged 9 and older to be registered with them this way. (even though much younger players practice and play in clubs that are members of SZĽH, but there isn´t an official competition for their age cetagories) So I guess it´s possible that it´s the same in other countries as well and therefore some of these guys wouldn´t count as registered...But I might be completely wrong too...
    In the case of Hári, for sure. Every players should have a player registration card if he/she wants to play on official HIHF matches. Hári had it for 4 consecutive years.

  50. #100
    IHF Member BASSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by kerusz View Post
    In the case of Hári, for sure. Every players should have a player registration card if he/she wants to play on official HIHF matches. Hári had it for 4 consecutive years.
    As i said before Kerusz, IIHF have their favorite countries and for someone is allow to do what they want and for others that is not possible. So, I agree with you 100% and it's clear that kid must have some kind of registration if Hungary have competitions in categories like u8 and u10 - like every kid must to have permission of doctors, that he is healthy.
    Serbian hockey
    Senior 2A - U20 2B - U18 2B

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •