WCF Management Committee Meeting 7th May 2009, National Croquet Center, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA
Present:
David Openshaw – WCF President
Charles Jones
Carole Jackson
Rhys Thomas
Keith Aiton
Brian Storey - Secretary-General
Rutger Beijderwellen (RB) (part)
Apologies:
Amir Ramsis
Andrew Hope - Treasurer
Max Murray
Rutger Beijderwellen – Nationality – Representation at WCF Championships – Statelessness – Non member players.
A situation had developed regarding the qualification status of player Rutger Beijderwellen (RB) and how WCF treats players that may otherwise have no previous declared allegiance to a country.
The circumstances are that RB has made himself available to play for England in the forthcoming “Home Internationals” Tournament. It is an International event controlled by a participating National Governing Body, played annually between England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The event is scheduled to take place in June 2009. The current WCF World Championship concludes on 17th May 2009. RB would be tied to any country he represented in the WCF World Championship for a period of 13 months from that date. Such representation would therefore have an effect upon his eligibility to play for any other country until that 13month period had elapsed unless renewed by subsequent representation in that period.
RB was born in the Netherlands to Dutch parents and has lived in England for the last 8 years. By WCF Statute he is qualified to play for Netherlands by birth and parentage and for England as he has been a permanent resident of that country for a period of 12 months immediately prior to the WCF World Championship.
In relation to the WCF World Championship, RB was specifically invited to play in the event by WCF as at that time as he could not be nominated by a member association for direct entry or wild card consideration as either he was “stateless” or fundamentally a Dutch national from previous indication given by him to WCF in 2005. However, the Netherlands does not have a member association affiliated to the WCF.
The Meeting heard from RB that he wished to be classed as “stateless” for the 2009 World Championship. If that was not possible, he wished to represent the Netherlands despite them not having a member association.
At this point RB left the meeting
The meeting then considered the following questions:
- Are these circumstances “unusual” within the meaning of WCF Statute 303.4 and hence capable of resolution within the terms of that Article?;
- What effect, if any, would there be if, or is it desirable that, any player is classed as “stateless”?
- In single WCF events, does a player represent a country or themselves?
- Can a player represent a country in a WCF or International event that does not have a member association affiliated to WCF?
Unusual
The meeting considered that the matter was unusual within the meaning of WCF Statutes in that it was peculiar to only one player who may otherwise may be disadvantaged in the future should his qualification and representation not be clarified.
Stateless
The meeting heard that in 1991, Reg Bamford had been assessed as “stateless” for the purposes of the 1991 WCF World AC Championship due to him being a representative of South Africa, which at that time was governed by an apartheid regime which was generally classed as unacceptable within the wider world sporting community.
In 2008 Mike Jenner who was born in England but who had lived in the USA for a number of years, and had played for them, wished to play in the 2008 WCF World AC Championship. The USCA was willing to nominate him for direct entry but Jenner has subsequently moved his permanent residence to Australia but he had been a permanent resident there for less than 12 months. (At that time, the WCF Statute requirement was to be a permanent resident for three years). Jenner indicated he wished to qualify for representation of Australia in the future.
He had played for USA in the 2005 World Championship ending on 14th August 2005 and was subsequently tied to that country for three years from that date. The 2008 event was due to start on 2nd February 2008.
As a consequence Jenner was qualified to play for England due to birth and parentage, was not qualified to play for USA as he had not been a permanent resident there for a period three years prior to 2nd February 2008 and was not qualified to play for Australia for similar reasons. It was also known that the time limit of three years was to be debated to be reduced to 12 months at the WCF Council Meeting on 6th February 2008 where it was genuinely expected that it would pass. (It was so adopted at that meeting).
In effect Jenner could only represent England, a country to which he had no affiliation for a number of years. On that basis he would be denied entry to the event.
The WCF had considered that the matter was unfair to Jenner taking into account all the circumstances. As he was also a strength player who would enhance the WCF World Championship he was offered and he took up a “stateless” position in the event. He actually later withdrew prior to the commencement of the event due to injury.
In discussion it was agreed that the instances of a “Stateless” position were small and limited to the individual circumstances of cases. They would be rare occurrences. However it was also agreed that it was not desirable to allow such a position where it was apparent that a player could represent a country legitimately or there was no perceived unfairness either to the relevant player or a member association.
Singles events
The meeting confirmed the long standing arrangement that players in WCF singles events do represent a country subject to their qualification for that country and that they do not represent themselves. The meeting were conscious that a proposal has been made to alter the process of nominations for such events and that this position may be reversed by the WCF Council.
WCF Membership affiliation, qualification and representation
The meeting heard that there was a body of thought that was uncomfortable with a position where a player could represent a country that did not have a croquet association affiliated to WCF.
In discussion, the majority nevertheless felt and the committee confirmed that non membership of WCF was not a bar to representation for that country.
Law 53 (b) (3)
Charles Jones asked that the question of using Law 53 (b) (3) decided on 6th May be re-considered.
Concern was expressed by him regarding the use of this Law in the light of its use in New Zealand where it was apparent that it was routinely abused by players to secure a replay where they probably should not. After this abuse, the inclusion of the Law has been abandoned in New Zealand.
A discussion followed concerning the reasons for inclusion in the Laws as an option and the detrimental effect of striker’s ball bouncing clear when a hoop was too small to allow it to jam in it.
It was decided to fully continue with the adoption of Law 53 (b) (3).
It was also agreed that to prevent and minimise any abuse of this law that Referees would be asked: once they had confirmed the reason of the calling of a referee as relevant to this law, that the position of the ball prior to the stroke being made be marked and that a question be posed to the striker, “What happened?” and “What did you see?”
The referee to use those responses as a guide for continuing the test.
Date of next meeting 7pm Monday 11th May 2009.