Dear Sir,

I would like to respond to the headline “Bascome not Bermudian enough to play — ICC”, which appeared in The Royal Gazette on Friday, October 21, 2016.

I found it quite strange that a person born in a country cannot represent that country. I decided to look up the ICC rules on eligibility and have come to the conclusion that Okera Bascome may be qualified after all.

According to the article, Neil Speight says that the Bermuda Cricket Board offered the fact that Bascome’s father and brother both have represented Bermuda. I don’t know how much weight that would carry in this situation. I wonder what other reasons the BCB gave other than this. I can’t see how that would sway anyone.

Had they quoted some of the rules, I probably might not have taken a look. So, here is what I found, and you the sporting public can judge for yourselves whether or not due diligence was done in this case.

The ICC rules regarding player eligibility state:

“A. Core qualification criteria

A player shall be qualified to play for a national cricket federation where he/she satisfies at least one of the following requirements:

1, the player was born in the relevant country

2, the player is able to demonstrate (by his/her possession of a valid passport issued by the relevant country) that he/she is a national of the relevant country”

There is a 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, which we need not concern ourselves with, as I would imagine that Bascome qualifies by either one or both of the above.

However, there is another part that he must satisfy. The ICC rules regarding player eligibility state:

“B. Additional development criteria for associate or affiliate members

In addition, where a male player is seeking to play for an Associate or Affiliate member, he must also satisfy at least one the following criteria:

4, the player has played a minimum of 50 per cent of the domestic league matches that his club team was scheduled to play within the domestic structure in any three of the preceding five domestic seasons

5, the player has spent a cumulative total of at least 100 working days in the relevant country coaching cricket, playing cricket or working in the administration or development of cricket in that country in the preceding five years; or

6, the player has previously represented the relevant country at under-19 level or above after satisfying the additional development criteria in these regulations or similar requirements under predecessor eligibility regulations”

It is my opinion that, based on this, Bascome must have spent a cumulative total of 100 days in Bermuda over the past five years playing cricket. If I am correct on this, it and the fact that he was born in Bermuda qualify him to represent us.

It would be interesting to know when the BCB received word from the ICC that Bascome could not represent us in the upcoming tour to the United States.

They must have seen something in this young man for them to take him on tour to Canada recently, unless they did not have an available wicketkeeper.

Neil Speight, the BCB chief executive, says the rules need to be overhauled. It is too bad that he now sees that when he can no longer help us having lost his seat on the ICC Board as a representative of the Affiliate and Associates. It is my opinion that his interpretation of these rules is incorrect, as they appear to be plain as day to me.

He quotes the rules that Bascome is not eligible under but had he read — which I am sure he did — those for which he is, he would have arrived at the same conclusion as I have. I should not be surprised at the BCB stance on the rules as they don’t seem able to get their own rules correct, as I have pointed out to them in the past.

I also researched the original 54 players chosen in January to train for this tour and found Bascome’s name included in the list. They, the BCB, have had nine months to sort this out. In fact, it appears that there are about six wicketkeepers included in the original list.

No disrespect to Dean Minors — his record speaks for itself — but there are 13 teams in the Premier Division and First Division. We bypassed all of them to select a wicketkeeper from the Evening League. Sad, to say the least. I cannot and will not believe that not one of the 13 was available.

Maybe one of them was available, but someone failed to communicate with them.

WILLIS DILL