...to allow Waringstown and Instonians to postpone their senior cup games because their players were on Ireland duty was predictable given that this issue has been around for some time and has never been satisfactorily resolved.
Most people would be sympathetic to Waringstown’s plight given that their three best players are in the current Ireland squad, but Instonians have only Andrew White on duty, and with so much pressure on getting fixtures fulfilled, can this postponement be justified? Andrew is a talented player, but where do you draw the line, and is his absence enough reason to deprive 21 other senior cricketers of a Saturday afternoon game in the heart of the season?
The other sting in this tale relates to the differentiation between league and cup games, where it would seem the NCU legislators rate the senior cup above the league in importance, since league games are played without concession in similar circumstances. I doubt if many senior cricketers would agree with this assessment, but you only get one chance in the cup so on that basis perhaps there is some justification.
Finding a solution to club and country clashes is always challenging and the sooner we come to the conclusion that there is no solution, certainly no solution that will satisfy all parties, the sooner we can set some sensible ground rules in place and move on with transparency.
In days gone by the NCU allowed postponements if three players were on representative duty, but over the years the criteria has become blurred and confusing as some games were postponed while others were not. If my memory serves me right, the AGM around 2000 revoked the rule that allowed postponements but then the management committee brought it back in 2004 for cup games and therefore set the precedent. This appears to be the basis on which the current decisions were made and adds another tier of confusion because I doubt if many people knew it was possible to get a cup postponement with only one player absent. This is a much bigger problem these days with Ireland playing so many games, so the issue might raise its head again before the season is finished and perish the thought, what happens if we have another wet summer? Re-arranging fixtures is already a nightmare in a packed fixture list so we don’t need any additional burden.
The legislators are in an impossible situation on this issue, given that we all want to see NCU players play at the highest level but can we protect the best clubs from their own success? Currently Waringstown are hurting most, a problem likely to be exacerbated because they will figure prominently in both league and cup campaigns, so once again they could become victims of their own success. If anyone has a simple solution to this scenario let’s hear it because you either allow postponements and manage the ensuing chaos, or you don’t allow them, and let clubs sink or swim as happens in Leinster cricket. There could be a halfway house that caters for three players off, but when you add the other representative fixtures that pull players from clubs into representative cricket, this could open floodgates of abuse.
If this precedent was set in 2004 after the previous AGM had kicked out the previous rule then the committee must have had strong reasons for doing it which haven’t been addressed in the official explanation. However, even if that is the case, clubs that feel strongly about such matters should raise them at this year’s AGM and place a rule not a precedent in place for the future.
One positive thing that came out of this unwelcome scenario was the quick public response from NCU chairman Wylie McKinty who should be commended for coming on to the Forum to give a comprehensive account of the circumstances behind the decision, and then follow it up with a press release. We all know the Forum is widely read and we don’t expect the officers of the union to be dragged into every cricket debate, but it is always helpful to get their official verification of the circumstances and of any decision taken. Wylie and his team don’t want for critics these days; so let’s give them credit when they do the right thing, albeit it is a simple communication issue. That said, there is still a little confusion surrounding the 2004 decision at committee level when the prior AGM sent out another message. Perhaps that could be clarified?
The real challenge is setting rules and regulations in place that are fair and supported by the majority of clubs, and inevitably that can only be achieved in the wider forum of an annual general meeting.
Clarence Hiles
Editor
