An administrator’s guide: especially for netballers
Paddy Lewis
WELCOME to the Capital Times’ handy guide to nationality status for sports administrators.
First of all, we’d like to introduce everyone to Catherine, our first case study. Catherine says:
“My dad is Tongan-born and my mum is European. “He [her dad] has Tongan descendants, I mean Samoan descendants, so it’s in there somewhere.”
Catherine wants to play netball for New Zealand, but she’s already played for Samoa, her father is Tongan, and somewhere there’s something Samoan but we have no idea what it is or whether it might be Tongan too.
From a sports administrator’s perspective, should netball:
A) apply to the International Federation for a dispensation so Catherine can back up an ageing South African?
B) quietly change Catherine’s name and put her in the team, thus saving on pesky paperwork?
C) beg Donna Wilkins to make a comeback?
D) or whack themselves in the head with a hammer to achieve the same headache as a) to c) above?
If you said “I don’t know”, congratulations! Netball New Zealand has a job for you as chief executive!
The Catherine Latu case, despite Netball New Zealand’s whinging (“…to not have the opportunity to have it heard by an independent body due to a technical ruling on timing is very disappointing”) is a worst practice scenario. As noted by one of the major dailies, the Netball NZ appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport was only 335 days outside the deadline.
Surely Netball NZ or its legal team would have read the rules for appeals and noted this? I mean, it’s quite clear on the Court of Arbitration for Sport website what the deadline is for appeals. To then whine the timing issue was a ‘technical delay’ shows a lack of responsibility on someone’s part.
Netball has a funny history when it comes to nationality. Anyone remember Irene van Dyk, who went from captaining the South African team to eight months later playing for the Silver Ferns?
Netball NZ took advantage of the International Netball Federation’s eligibility rule then, which simply said players cannot represent more than one country in a calendar year. That all changed after the 2003 world championships.
The bizarre aspect to all of this is that the international federation’s (IFNA) rules are crystal clear on this issue. Netball NZ had no leg to stand on from the first time it was raised with IFNA in 2009.
They have wasted resources, time and seriously mucked Latu about. They’ve made themselves look silly and reinforced a long-held opinion amongst many that we don’t bother developing our own talent, we just get it in from South Africa, Fiji or Samoa.
For a supposedly professional organization, they have a very ad hoc and discriminatory approach to issues. The slap on the hand from the Court of Arbitration for Sport should have wider repercussions for all those involved in this fiasco.
On another sporting governance note, it was odd to see former Wellington rugby union chair Rhys Barlow climb into the Hurricanes’ board over the criticism coach Mark Hammett is getting.
Barlow should know better than anyone that the board doesn’t coach the team (it doesn’t even appoint the coach), and the board doesn’t run on to the paddock. The Hurricanes’ woes (that marvellous win on Saturday aside) lie squarely with the coaching team and the playing 22 selected each week. To suggest the board is responsible for what happens on the park is nonsensical.
First of all, we’d like to introduce everyone to Catherine, our first case study. Catherine says:
“My dad is Tongan-born and my mum is European. “He [her dad] has Tongan descendants, I mean Samoan descendants, so it’s in there somewhere.”
Catherine wants to play netball for New Zealand, but she’s already played for Samoa, her father is Tongan, and somewhere there’s something Samoan but we have no idea what it is or whether it might be Tongan too.
From a sports administrator’s perspective, should netball:
A) apply to the International Federation for a dispensation so Catherine can back up an ageing South African?
B) quietly change Catherine’s name and put her in the team, thus saving on pesky paperwork?
C) beg Donna Wilkins to make a comeback?
D) or whack themselves in the head with a hammer to achieve the same headache as a) to c) above?
If you said “I don’t know”, congratulations! Netball New Zealand has a job for you as chief executive!
The Catherine Latu case, despite Netball New Zealand’s whinging (“…to not have the opportunity to have it heard by an independent body due to a technical ruling on timing is very disappointing”) is a worst practice scenario. As noted by one of the major dailies, the Netball NZ appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport was only 335 days outside the deadline.
Surely Netball NZ or its legal team would have read the rules for appeals and noted this? I mean, it’s quite clear on the Court of Arbitration for Sport website what the deadline is for appeals. To then whine the timing issue was a ‘technical delay’ shows a lack of responsibility on someone’s part.
Netball has a funny history when it comes to nationality. Anyone remember Irene van Dyk, who went from captaining the South African team to eight months later playing for the Silver Ferns?
Netball NZ took advantage of the International Netball Federation’s eligibility rule then, which simply said players cannot represent more than one country in a calendar year. That all changed after the 2003 world championships.
The bizarre aspect to all of this is that the international federation’s (IFNA) rules are crystal clear on this issue. Netball NZ had no leg to stand on from the first time it was raised with IFNA in 2009.
They have wasted resources, time and seriously mucked Latu about. They’ve made themselves look silly and reinforced a long-held opinion amongst many that we don’t bother developing our own talent, we just get it in from South Africa, Fiji or Samoa.
For a supposedly professional organization, they have a very ad hoc and discriminatory approach to issues. The slap on the hand from the Court of Arbitration for Sport should have wider repercussions for all those involved in this fiasco.
On another sporting governance note, it was odd to see former Wellington rugby union chair Rhys Barlow climb into the Hurricanes’ board over the criticism coach Mark Hammett is getting.
Barlow should know better than anyone that the board doesn’t coach the team (it doesn’t even appoint the coach), and the board doesn’t run on to the paddock. The Hurricanes’ woes (that marvellous win on Saturday aside) lie squarely with the coaching team and the playing 22 selected each week. To suggest the board is responsible for what happens on the park is nonsensical.
Have Your Say
0 Comments
No comments.