rough..
Same here. Someone with some experience in doing this would be pretty usefull here..
For now, I thought we could try and put together what we want on the petition.
Let me try and beat a few points around.
See if you can cut things off, add points, and come up with something so we have something effective reasonably fast. I am going to intentionally draw this out, so we have several starting points to make a petition....
Like Greg said, Saqlain and Adam Hollioke dont gain anything from supporting the charity. Infact they lose money according to BBC.
Second, Ben Hollioke's unfortunate accident happened not long back. It's still fresh in public memory and it is natural that people who have played with or against him want to show their respects, albeit in a different manner than having black bands around their arms.
Third, making an 'exception' in this case will not hurt the ICC, unless they had a contract drawn up with a bat company. In the absence of such a contract, why Saqlain and Adam shouldn't be allowed to support a charity without offending any section of cricket followers anywhere in the world, is not very clear.
Fourth, making an exception is not new to the ICC. (we don't need too many examples. One will do for precedence) Dalmiya made an exception once so Shoiab Akhtar could play cricket.
Fifth, ICC's concerns about another charity making a request following this one is quite valid. However, it is our arguement that granting this will not imply that another charity that approaches the ICC can similarly claim an exception. A fundamental difference between this and other charities is that it is being raised in the name of Ben Hollioke, a cricketer whose unfortunate demise is still fresh in everyone's memory, and one of the players involved is his brother. If this had happened to an employee of a company, it wouldn't be very odd to see other employees supporting a cause in the name of the deceased. It surely doesnt mean that the company should/would support a neighbourhood charity. Similarly , there is a difference between this request and any other request from the odd church or spastic children's society.
At any rate, there is no move to make this charity officially recognised by the ICC.
Sixth, cricket fans expect ICC to run cricket, and also be a representative body for the game. An event where no party is hurt financially, and has popular support from cricket watchers around the world, shouldn't swept away in general garble about rules. It is important for rules in their spirit they are meant to be upheld. Steve Waugh's support for Udayan has been well documented. There also, cricket's image is being used. Cricket matches are played for benefit of players around the world. Surely there is room for discretion in this case where a charity for children with terminal illness is supported by two individuals, in an act not officially recognised by the teams or the ICC, without causing financial damage or ill-feeling for any party and one in which the players do not have any profit motive.
Rules may be used to prevent the players from supporting the charity, but clearly it is not beyond the ICC to use their discretionary powers- they have done it before and cricket followers support it.
!
