***Unofficial*** Ireland Discussion Thread

[BoyBrumby]

The eligibility rules for Associate members are far murkier and more complicated than for Full members. It is harder to represent an Associate than a Full member.

It is a far clearer that a British player could play Tests for Ireland than if they are an Associate. Though even then maybe they still could if they challenge the interpretation of the more complicated rules.

The same rules do not apply to Full (Test) members as to Associate members so the situation is not comparable. It becomes far more easy to interpret once full membership is granted.

EDIT: For example for full members you have to only ba a national defined by the government but for Associate and Affiliate Members, a player must also meet at least one of the following development criteria;
B2.1 Played 50% of games in national / domestic competition of the country
in any three of the five preceding years
B2.2 Spent a cumulative total of 100 days over the preceding five years
doing cricket work in the country
B2.3 Represented that country at Under 19 level or above in the past (in an
ICC sanctioned match), either under previous ICC rules (i.e. prior to
Annual Conference 2006) or where the current ICC development
criteria had applied

The nation/country mentioned there is not based on Governement definitions (as the passport and citizenship is.) That can mean work within Ireland. They are two completely different sets of requirements with terms defined differently.

You're missing my point. UK nationals, regardless of birth, may be eligible for Ireland according to the ICC's criteria, but the Irish board may choose to apply their own criteria over and above these, as we seem to. For instance, the ICC doesn't require nationality to represent a test nation if a player has lived 183 days in the country in each of the previous 4 years (rule A4), but we limit selection to UK & Irish citizens.

You're also missing rule B2.4 from your list of associate/affiliate criteria, which seems a get-out fudge:

B2.4 Done enough to convince the Chairman of ICC Cricket Commitee that he has genuine commitment to the developmentof cricket in that country (i.e. special dispensation of development criteria granted, upon appliaction)

It was presumably because of this that Dirk Nannes could play for The Netherlands as he doesn't seem to statisfy any of the other three.

 

[silentstriker]

I may not be up to date on my English county cricket history but didn't Yorkshire have a rule for the longest time that only players born within the county limits can represent Yorkshire? Clearly, the criteria were their own, even though a person born somewhere else in England had all the same rights. Was that restriction illegal?

 

[Uppercut]

I may not be up to date on my English county cricket history but didn't Yorkshire have a rule for the longest time that only players born within the county limits can represent Yorkshire? Clearly, the criteria were their own, even though a person born somewhere else in England had all the same rights. Was that restriction illegal?

You'd think so, but a lot of anti-discrimination employment law here falls under the umbrella of the EU for obvious reasons, and they don't seem to have a problem with Athletic Bilbao.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I may not be up to date on my English county cricket history but didn't Yorkshire have a rule for the longest time that only players born within the county limits can represent Yorkshire? Clearly, the criteria were their own, even though a person born somewhere else in England had all the same rights. Was that restriction illegal?

If memory serves Sachin was the first non-native Tyke to play for Yorkshire for a good many decades. Although, famously, the Grandfather of all things cricket Yorkshire, Lord Hawke, was a son of Lincolnshire.

Re, the illegality, I dunno. The practice was abandoned in the early 90s when we weren't perhaps as welded to EU employment law as we are now.

 

[Goughy]

You're missing my point. UK nationals, regardless of birth, may be eligible for Ireland according to the ICC's criteria, but the Irish board may choose to apply their own criteria over and above these, as we seem to. For instance, the ICC doesn't require nationality to represent a test nation if a player has lived 183 days in the country in each of the previous 4 years (rule A4), but we limit selection to UK & Irish citizens.

The point you miss is that if England had such a policy as you state then all of its citizens are still being treated equally. The extra layer is being added to a group that is outside the system. There are clear differences legally. Assuming the example you state, they could let them play but they decide not to. They could not exclude some citizens and include others though.

To allow some citizens the right to play and others not is clearly discriminatory. It is perfectly fine, IMO, for the Irish board to say they only want citizens to play however they cant say that they only want certain citizens. Ie British citizens are ok, but only those born in Northern Ireland. You cannot allow a right to some citizens and deny it to others.

The ICC may not require nationality but that is irrelevant to how people with identical status get treated diferently.

The key to this is the ICC rule that being a national is defined by the Government and that there is no difference in nationality between English and Northern Irish. As such they must be viewed and treated as the same.

If the ICC rule changed then this would be a non-issue.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The point you miss is that if England had such a policy as you state then all of its citizens are still being treated equally. The extra layer is being added to a group that is outside the system. There are clear differences legally. Assuming the example you state, they could let them play but they decide not to. They could not exclude some citizens and include others though.

To allow some citizens the right to play and others not is clearly discriminatory. It is perfectly fine, IMO, for the Irish board to say they only want citizens to play however they cant say that they only want certain citizens. Ie British citizens are ok, but only those born in Northern Ireland. You cannot allow a right to some citizens and deny it to others.

The ICC may not require nationality but that is irrelevant to how people with identical status get treated diferently.

The key to this is the ICC rule that being a national is defined by the Government and that there is no difference in nationality between English and Northern Irish. As such they must be viewed and treated as the same.

If the ICC rule changed then this would be a non-issue.

How so? Surely making overseas-born UK nationals serve a 4-year qualificaton is treating them materially differently to the British born. Legally and politically they have the same rights.

 

[Goughy]

I may not be up to date on my English county cricket history but didn't Yorkshire have a rule for the longest time that only players born within the county limits can represent Yorkshire? Clearly, the criteria were their own, even though a person born somewhere else in England had all the same rights. Was that restriction illegal?

I dont have a good grasp on the legality of this but I guess it would have been challenged at some point in the future if they had not got rid of it. A future Devon Malcolm may have wanted to challenge the rule that prevented him from playing for the county in which he was raised and lived just because he was not born there.

Whether it still is, I dont know (I possibly doubt it), but Yorks was run by its members and was effectively a members club and possibly exempt from some workplace laws.

Yorkshire got rid of its policy for 3 reason-
a) To improve on the field in the long term
b) to allow Michael Vaughan to sign
c) to get some immediate fast bowling help

Craig Mcdermott was signed but was injured and Tendulkar was a hastily aranged late replacement to become the first overseas player.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Surely it can't be a legality issue? There aren't any job applications (I think?) involved with becoming a cricketer, so you just choose who you want to employ without giving any particular reason.

 

[morgieb]

An Irish side (including passport holders & poached players)....
1. Porterfield
2. H Marshall
3. Joyce
4. Morgan
5. N O'Brien
6. Cusack
7. Ervine
8. McCallan/A White
8. Johnston
10. Connell
11. Rankin

 

[morgieb]

Probably forgetting heaps of others too.

 

[NZ Guy]

Ryder?

 

[morgieb]

Ryder?

Currently in the Kiwi side. Plus I think his grandparents are English rather than Irish.

 

[Oscillatingmind]

The fact that Bangladesh got Test status and Kenya did not at a time when Kenya were far more deserving of it than Bangladesh (that is, Kenya did not deserve it and Bangladesh most certainly did not deserve it) is what allows the conspiracy-theories about Bangladesh only being promoted because the BCCI bloc wanted an extra guaranteed vote to prosper. It may or may not be true but it's certainly possible.

argh, recently stalking these forums I'm hearing so much before unknown cricket politics, whats the deal here, I want low-downs.

That being said two tiers of test cricket should totally be implemented, 9 teams top tier, 4 or 5 teams second tier. That way minor teams are a possibility of entering the first tier but major teams aren't forced to fall to second tier.

 

[Oscillatingmind]

DP, Morgan and Joyce + co MUST be allowed to play for Ireland in ODI's its only rational tbh

 

[turnstyle]

An Irish side (including passport holders & poached players)....
1. Porterfield
2. H Marshall
3. Joyce
4. Morgan
5. N O'Brien
6. Cusack
7. Ervine
8. McCallan/A White
8. Johnston
10. Connell
11. Rankin

Surely you'd have to include Paul Stirling.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Surely you'd have to include Paul Stirling.

That'd be a bridge too far

 

[Uppercut]

Regan West the glaring omission for mine.

 

[morgieb]

Regan West the glaring omission for mine.

Cricinfo says West is a quick. Probably didn't because I overrate Trent Johnston and Kyle McCallan.

Surely you'd have to include Paul Stirling.

Not ahead of Joyce and Morgan though.

 

[silentstriker]

The fact that Bangladesh got Test status and Kenya did not at a time when Kenya were far more deserving of it than Bangladesh (that is, Kenya did not deserve it and Bangladesh most certainly did not deserve it) is what allows the conspiracy-theories about Bangladesh only being promoted because the BCCI bloc wanted an extra guaranteed vote to prosper. It may or may not be true but it's certainly possible.

I am not doubting BCCI's motives, but it is important to keep in mind that the vote was unanimous. Obviously, the others (who were no doubt aware of the political implications) saw something....

 

[Uppercut]

Cricinfo says West is a quick. Probably didn't because I overrate Trent Johnston and Kyle McCallan.



Not ahead of Joyce and Morgan though.

Paul Stirling's an opener. Regan West is a left-arm spinner, he's been our best player of the past six or seven months. Peter Connell isn't in the side any more. Attitude issues, allegedly.