Bertus de Jong 10/09/2025
Defeated semi-finalists Voorburg CC, who lost to VRA by 22 runs in the second semi-final of the Topklasse T20 competition on Sunday, are seeking to have the result of that match overturned on grounds that VRA fielded an ineligible player. VCC are understood to have challenged the eligibility of VRA opening bat Shirase Rasool – who scored a brisk 41 before retiring hurt in the match in question – on the basis that he had not played sufficient matches in the preceding league phase.
Rasool, a former regular at the top of the order for VRA, has played only intermittently this season owing to personal commitments. In total Rasool has made three appearances for VRA’s second team and five for the senior side this season, but crucially played only four matches in the T20 competition.
Under Article 18 of the Competitieregelement only players that have played a minimum of 50% of the first (league) stage matches of the T20 competition are eligible to participate in the final rounds. Under the current competition format the minimum is thus five matches in across divisions prior to the finals phase; Rasool therefore falling one match short.
However, a number of exemptions to these requirements are detailed in the same document, not least 18.II.7.b which exempts long-standing members of a club from the above participation requirements, under which Voorburg match-secretary and first team occasional Floris de Lange was able to play. VRA maintains that Rasool is similarly exempt under Articles 18.II.6 and 18.II.7.b, which provides for players who have regularly played for a club in preceding seasons, though the language of the document is arguably inconsistent as to whether this refers to all competition or exclusively divisions below the top flight.
“VRA is confident that we are fully within the regulations regarding the eligibility of Shirase Rasool. Articles 18.II.6 and 18.II.7 clearly state that he qualifies to play without needing to meet the five-match threshold or apply for dispensation. It is extremely disappointing how this situation has unfolded, as it distracts from the spirit of the competition and takes the focus away from the cricket itself.” VRA first team captain and General Manager Teja Nidamanuru told TKcricket.
Voorburg Chair Richard de Lange was equally confident however, stating; “VCC remains confident in the strength of our position and our rightful place in the T20 final based on the merits of our case and adherence to competition regulations. We respect the ongoing appeals process and trust that the proper procedures will ultimately ensure the integrity of the competition is upheld. We look forward to a swift and fair resolution that serves the best interests of cricket in the Netherlands.”
VRA immediately appealed the KNCB’s initial decision, which Tkcricket understands awarded the match and a place in the final to VCC and imposed a 100 euro fine on VRA. That appeal appears to have been at least initially successful in reversing the decision, but said reversal has duly been appealled in turn by VCC. At press time it remains unclear who, if anyone, HCC will face in Saturday’s final at the Loopuyt Oval.
TKcricket 
After re-reading article 18 part II of the Competition Regulations, I would like to offer my thoughts.
A player is eligible if he/she:
1. is on the player list;
2. has played 5 matches in the first phase (being more than 50% of a 9 match series);
3. if the player was called up for KNCB teams, these games will count to the ‘games played’;
4. regulary played for a team or teams in any form of Competition in the Lower
Divisions and/or in the Recreational Divisions (i.e. all other competitions than THE) (sub 6 of article 18 part II);
Now, the forth one is the kicker. Sub 7 of article 18 part II defines a regular player as (reverse order):
1. is an under 17 player (sub c) OR
2. has been a member of that club for at least 10 years and played in the last four years OR
3. a player that participated in at least three of the previous four Seasons or at least two of the
previous three Seasons and the current Season in any men’s Competition, with at least
one of those three Seasons including at least seven Matches in total across one or more
men’s Competitions, including those in the Recreational Divisions.
It is worth mentioning that this is all written with lower divisions (2e klasse and down and Zami/Zomi) in mind.
Now, apparently all parties are quite confident in their positions. Lets have a look.
1. I guess that both players were on the player list. CHECK!
2. Neither player had played 5 matches before last Sunday. FAIL!
3. Neither player is U17. Only the VCC player has a 10 year plus membership. Now it will boil down to: did one of them fulfill the ‘regular player’ (in lower Division cricket)? I have my sincere doubts. UNKNOWN!
I guess that the regulations are less easy to read than one would like. But…. we have to work with the rules that we have, not the ones that we want.
We can now just wait. This is a most unfortunate situation that could have been avoided either bij counting to five or, when in doubt, just asking for a ruling or clarification. The Dispensatiecommissie is there for a reason.
By now, I would not touch this one with a ten foot barge pole….
Reading and applying the regulations is quite simple – even for a not lawyer.
Het is weer cricket in Nederland ten top! Wat een droefenis.