A clear-cut case of 'restraint of trade'
The cheap fight between the BCCI and the Indian Cricket League has now plunged to new depths.
The BCCI today announced that India's contracted players would not be allowed to play in the English domestic season if the side they were representing had ICL players in it.
The ECB had initially followed the BCCI's diktat and banned ICL players from playing in the English domestic season. But just over 2 months ago, three South African players won an appeal and they were ruled eligible to play for their counties. The ECB's requirement was that players' home national cricket boards provide permission in the form of a 'No Objection Certificate'. Andrew Hall, Justin Kemp & Johan van der Wath did not get the NOC and were not allowed to register.
In the case that Kerry Packer filed against the ICC and TCCB in 1977, Justice Slade ruled in favour of Kerry Packer & his motley crew. He said "A professional cricketer needs to make his living as much as any other professional man."
In the light of that judgement, it seems to me that preventing Piyush Chawla, Ajit Agarkar and VVS Laxman from playing for county sides just because those sides have ICL players in them is a clear-cut case of 'restraint of trade'. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says (Article 23) "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
I really hope someone forces the BCCI to quit the hallucination drugs and get back to reality. Today, cricketers are stopped from playing for other teams because those teams have ICL players. Tomorrow, will they be asked to stop staying in touch with those friends who've played in the ICL? After that, will the records of the ICL players be deleted?
If you do have an opinion, leave a comment and also vote in the poll.
Labels: bcci, ecb, indian cricket league, restraint of trade, twenty20
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
|
Hello,
Nice posts.. I had a question on the net run rate posting of yours. In case of a walkover given by a team, can you tell me how the net run rate should be calculated?
Thanks
RR
By 
Raja Ramasamy (20 Jul 2008, 12:44:00 am)
Raja
I think you are referring to this post - http://cricket24x7.blogspot.com/2007/03/time-to-review-net-run-rate-rule.html
Remember that team's cant declare their innings in limited overs games. They can concede a game though (which is what you refer to as a walkover?). In that situation, their run rate should be calculated as total runs scored / maximum allotted overs, i.e. similar to that of an innings where the team was dismissed before the 50 (or whatever the limit was) overs were completed.
By Jagadish (23 Jul 2008, 2:21:00 pm)
Nice blog..
Check mine too
www.sanath189.blogspot.com
www.mysterymendis.blogspot.com
By Sujan Rao (18 Sept 2008, 12:22:00 pm)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment