Special Correspondent
What began as an eligibility objection between Sportive CC and Charminar Cricket Club has now exposed a deeper, more troubling failure—the deliberate shifting of the question itself.
This is no longer a routine club dispute. It is a test of whether cricket administration values process over convenience, and verification over haste.
Yet, instead of answering the real issue, the debate has been repeatedly reduced to a single, misleading refrain:
“The player has not played State cricket.”
That was never the question.
And by pretending it was, the process has already failed.
Charminar’s objection was not about domicile.
It was not limited to whether the player appeared in senior State matches.
The objection went to the heart of mandatory disclosure, cooling-period norms, and No Objection Certificate (NOC) regulations—rules specifically designed to prevent players from:
- Straddling multiple State associations simultaneously, and
- Occupying parallel eligibility pathways that deny opportunities to genuinely eligible players.
These safeguards apply across all BCCI-approved competitions, not selectively, and not only after matches are played.
Despite attempts to simplify the issue, three facts remain unresolved—and inseparable.
- Vijay Merchant Trophy Selection (2021)
The player was selected by Andhra Pradesh for the Vijay Merchant Trophy in 2021.
Yes, the tournament was eventually cancelled due to COVID.
But selection itself is formal recognition within an Association’s system.
Cancellation of matches does not nullify selection.
Administrative acknowledgment does not vanish because no ball was bowled.
The player’s name appeared in the APL auction list, a BCCI-approved tournament.
This is not a casual occurrence.
Entry into such auctions is routed through Association-level verification and endorsement.
Which raises the unavoidable question:
How did a player considered “local” in Hyderabad simultaneously enter another Association’s BCCI-approved league ecosystem—without triggering disclosure, cooling period scrutiny, or NOC verification?
Silence is not an answer.
A written statement from the player’s parent now claims the player did not “play State or APL.”
This only deepens the problem.
Because:
- The issue is not limited to playing, but to selection, listing, and eligibility pathways, and
- Post-event affidavits are explanations, not substitutes for mandatory disclosures required at the time of registration.
Compliance is not retroactive.
Eligibility is not clarified after objections arise.
By narrowing the enquiry to “no State matches played,” the administration has sidestepped the only question that matters:
Was full and truthful disclosure made at registration, given prior Andhra Pradesh selection and inclusion in a BCCI-approved auction process?
That question remains unanswered.
Everything else is deflection.
Despite unresolved facts, outcomes were awarded and fixtures scheduled—including a crucial match at short notice.
This haste invites a far bigger controversy.
What happens if subsequent clarification from the Andhra Cricket Association confirms facts that validate Charminar’s objection?
- Does relief go to Charminar?
- To the team that defeats Sportive?
- Or does the competition spiral into reversals, protests, and legal chaos?
By refusing to pause at the right moment, the administration has chosen momentary progress over lasting credibility.
This is no longer Sportive versus Charminar.
It is process versus expediency.
The Hyderabad Cricket Association had a clear, defensible path:
- Seek independent clarification from the Andhra Cricket Association
- Maintain status quo until verification was complete
- Issue a reasoned, speaking order addressing the entire timeline, not fragments
That path would have protected everyone—players, clubs, and the competition itself.
It was not taken.
Eligibility rules exist to protect fairness, not paperwork.
Cooling periods and NOCs exist to protect opportunity, not semantics.
When questions are selectively answered and decisions are rushed, trust erodes—not because of a single ruling, but because of the process behind it.
Cricket administration is not judged by how fast tournaments move forward.
It is judged by whether uncomfortable questions are answered before the scoreboard changes.
That question still stands.
And for now, it remains unanswered.
