St.George's Cricket Club remain at odds over Bermuda Cricket Board's (BCB) final ruling which declared Social Club the winners of last month's limited overs clash involving the Premier Division rivals at Wellington Oval.

The result condemned the East Enders to First Division cricket next season.

Social Club won the rain-affected July 17 match by one run.

However, controversy erupted when it was discovered umpires Randy Butler and Richard Burrows had "inappropriately" applied the Duckworth/Lewis scoring system to determine St.George's winning target instead of reverting to run rate.

In reply to Social Club's 262 runs for nine wickets in 50 overs, St.George's were penalised five overs for bowling a slow over rate and were 98 for three when rain forced the teams off the pitch with 21 overs remaining in the match.

After an additional 16 overs were lost to rain, St.George's' target was reduced to 159, requiring them to score 61 runs for victory in five overs, according to the Duckworth/Lewis system.

However, BCB rules governing limited overs league matches prohibit the use of the controversial scoring system, meaning St.George's' target should have been 170 runs for victory.

The East Enders were eventually dismissed for 158, one run shy of the inaccurately reduced target and, as such, relegated to the First Division.

Alerted over the umpires' error, St.George's appealed the outcome of the match.

But while acknowledging the umpires had blundered, the Board allowed Social Club's victory to stand.

"The regulations do state the match should have gone to run rate and had the rules been applied appropriately then St.George's would have had to chase 170 to win instead of 159. And so they directly benefited from the umpires' mistake," stated BCB secretary Marc Wetherhill yesterday.

"But albeit the umpire did misinterpret the rules, there is also an onus on every captain and player on the field to know the rules of the game.

"The fact that not a single player on the field raised an objection to me seems as though 23 people have made a mistake.

"They should have had a copy of the rules and presented them to Mr.Butler who I am sure would've applied run rate instead of Duckworth/Lewis.

"But we (BCB) reached the position the umpires made two mistakes and so how can the Board set aside one mistake but not the second, namely the 170 runs St.George's should have chased instead.

"Butler's ruling was 159 to win and anything less would have been a loss.

"Now if we set aside that then surely we have to set aside the first mistake which was the 170. The full Board made a decision on this match."

But in response, St.George's sports chairman Lewis Foggo argued the Board's final decision did not comply with Law 21.5.1 ? entitled Interrupted matches and calculation of the target score ? in the International Cricket Council's (ICC) playing handbook.

"I personally do not have a problem with the umpires' decision in this matter as the two captains agreed to the terms and the spirit of the game was played under this format. However, I do have a problem because the umpire, using the D/L method, reduced the overs accordingly and posted a target score of 159," Foggo stated in a two-page letter forwarded to (see Page 20).

"St.George's went on to score 158 in the required amount of overs, which is one run short of the target score posted by Mr. Butler, which according to the law book, constitutes a tie. And this is why we appealed."

According to Wetherhill, however, "ICC regulations had recently been changed".

"Mr.Butler thought that when you have one run less than a target score it is a loss. But that rule was changed by the ICC not that long ago," he added.

Foggo also claimed his club were only notified of the Board's ruling via an article published last week in the

"I find this to be a blatant disregard for an affiliate club and definitely unacceptable as we should not have to hear about decisions made by the BCB in the media before we are notified officially," he said.

"If this is how the Board which is put in place by the affiliates deals with matters, then in my opinion cricket at the Board level is a farce.

"They are dictating to make up for inadequacies and doing as they like."

He also claimed the Board denied St.George's the right to a "fair" hearing.

"An individual shall not be penalised by a decision affecting his rights or legitimate expectations unless he has been given prior notice of the case against him.

"Each individual must have the opportunity to present his version of the facts and to make submissions on the relevant principles of the Code of Conduct and the allegations against him," Foggo argued.

"This is the reason why hearings are needed, not just decisions, so as to wipe any discrepancies an individual or club might have.

"St.George's Cricket Club wrote a letter showing our intention to appeal and although we did this, up until now we still have not received any official reply from the BCB to inform us of a hearing in reference to our appeal or notice that they have awarded the match to Social Club."

Wetherhill denied Foggo's claims, insisting the East Enders had in fact been notified via a telephone call.

"The letter (St.George's appeal) was received by the Board on July 27 and Neil (BCB executive Neil Speight) was asked to call them," the BCB's secretary stated.

"And from my understanding St.George's were notified by telephone, something they seem to acknowledge in the letter itself.

"The BCB also received an official reply verifying their position and so my understanding is that they did call to inform of what the official result was.

"As far as my understanding is, we followed the umpires' decision.

"We received an appeal which was investigated and the facts presented to the full Board. And I don't believe the Board haven't abided by the laws. I don't agree with that at all."