Should ICC allow overseas players in international cricket too ?

[Serani]

Maybe you should tell that too a young English kid growing up' date=' seeing a team full of South Africans and Irishmen playing for England.[/quote'] english people can generally see past race, nationality, religion etc.

[achilles]

yeah it is true ... if an Indian lives in any foreign country for x(5-15 yrs) no. of years he can become a citizen of that country & can eventually play for that country in any sport ... same is with India ... say any Aus citizen lives in India for 5 years or more & applies for Indian citizenship he can too play for India ... only restriction would be that he should not have represented Aus in international cricket (same thing goes in any sport)

Thankfully, India doesn't have a Kolpak-like loophole in the law. You may like to read this- http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Only-Indian-citizens-can-represent-India-in-sports/403240/ It doesn't work in India.

[Serani]

Yes and to play for england you need to be a UK citizen and have a British Passport, you cant just come over and play straight away.

[The Outsider]

Robin Singh was born and brought up in Trinidad before moving to India. IIRC, he also played Under 19s for West Indies or Trinidad.

[Serani]

India stealing playerz.

[SRT195]

Thankfully, India doesn't have a Kolpak-like loophole in the law. You may like to read this- http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Only-Indian-citizens-can-represent-India-in-sports/403240/ It doesn't work in India.

actually what i said works in India & is similar to case of KP & all ... the link which u provide says that only Indian citizens can represent India ... & i am saying that if some one resides in India for x no. of years (12 in case of India differs from country to country) & applies for Indian citizenship ... then he will become Indian citizen & can represent India in any sport ... here u can see how 1 can become Indian citizen ... http://www.mha.nic.in/citizenship/acquisition.htm

(5) By Naturalisation (Section 6) Citizenship of India by naturalization can be acquired by a foreigner (not illegal migrant) who is ordinarily resident in India for TWELVE YEARS (throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of application and for ELEVEN YEARS in the aggregate in the FOURTEEN YEARS preceding the twelve months) and other qualifications as specified in Third Schedule to the Act. Application shall be made in Form-XII.

[achilles]

@ SRT... That makes sense. :hatsoff: @ Serani... This doesn't-

english people can generally see past race' date=' nationality, religion etc.[/quote'] http://ibnlive.in.com/news/wc-organisers-apologise-to-indian-shooters/115479-5-23.html This is the only recent one I referred to. And don't we all know about a particular British user and his histrionics here? PS- Articulation seems to be your forte. Loved the term "generally" mentioned in your post :winky:

[Gunner_Mania]

Thankfully, India doesn't have a Kolpak-like loophole in the law. You may like to read this- http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Only-Indian-citizens-can-represent-India-in-sports/403240/ It doesn't work in India.

Kolpak doesn't allow players to represent for England either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolpak_ruling#Cricket Infact as per the link you posted the loophole existed in India not in England. American Citizens with American Pasports representing India. Only now has it been fixed. In the UK, to represent England you have to be a British Citizen and what is wrong with that.

[Serani]

Im sorry are you calling England a racist nation based on a few random cases? A country that welcomes anyone and has over 1 million Indians living here? Ok then.

[Temujin Khaghan]

i dont think english people would like asian players in their football team. its just that they dont care about cricket and who plays in that... what u guys think?

[Serani]

i dont think english people would like asian players in their football team. its just that they dont care about cricket and who plays in that... what u guys think?

Are you joking?

[achilles]

Kolpak doesn't allow players to represent for England either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolpak_ruling#Cricket Infact as per the link you posted the loophole existed in India not in England. American Citizens with American Pasports representing India. Only now has it been fixed. In the UK, to represent England you have to be a British Citizen and what is wrong with that.

Nothing wrong. I was just rebutting Serani. I have been unbiased in my judgement on this issue of 4 Foreign players in Int cricket. You may scroll up and read all my replies again.

[Gunner_Mania]

Nothing wrong. I was just rebutting Serani. I have been unbiased in my judgement on this issue of 4 Foreign players in Int cricket. You may scroll up and read all my replies again.

My response was about your earlier post of England having a loophole , it must be fixed. I am just saying there is no loophole. This is not even an issue. Dude, seriously I give you more credit then this. KP & Kieswetter are British citizens. Irrespective of how, they are British Citizens and representing their countries. How is this even an issue?

[The Outsider]

Also, Vijay Amritraj continued to represent India at the Davis Cup even after he became a US citizen. His nephew or son was also playing for India as a US citizen, along with a few other tennis players, till the government barred non citizens from representing India.

[Gunner_Mania]

The only contentious bit about this is Eoin Morgan, you shouldn't be allowed to represent another country if you have already represented your country internationally. Dirk Nannes is another one that comes to mind.

[Temujin Khaghan]

The only contentious bit about this is Eoin Morgan' date=' you shouldn't be allowed to represent another country if you have already represented your country internationally. Dirk Nannes is another one that comes to mind.[/quote'] fannie de villiers anyone?

[The Outsider]

The only contentious bit about this is Eoin Morgan' date=' you shouldn't be allowed to represent another country if you have already represented your country internationally. Dirk Nannes is another one that comes to mind.[/quote'] The ICC regulations say that for associate or affiliate members you can do it. Not for the main member nations.

[Gunner_Mania]

fannie de villiers anyone?

Didn't know about him.

The ICC regulations say that for associate or affiliate members you can do it. Not for the main member nations.

I think the regulations are unfair especially for associate & affiliate members. Most Ireland members hope to do exactly that play for Ireland as long as possible but the ultimate aim is to play test cricket for England. They will never ever develop when they know their players are going to be poached.

[achilles]

My response was about your earlier post of England having a loophole ' date=' it must be fixed. I am just saying there is no loophole. This is not even an issue. Dude, seriously I give you more credit then this. KP & Kieswetter are British citizens. Irrespective of how, they are British Citizens and representing their countries. How is this even an issue?[/quote'] On emotional grounds, its an issue. Ask the Irish & Saffers (GS was quite upset that Kieswetter refused to come back despite a personal request to him). On other grounds, it isn't. Ask the Brits for whom KP is the best thing to happen to English cricket for quite a while.

The ICC regulations say that for associate or affiliate members you can do it. Not for the main member nations.

Just like Robin Singh maybe played for WI, Kieswetter played for South Africa. Infact, an interesting opinion from Sunny bhai comes to mind, w.r.t your post- Nannes playing for Netherlands and Australia? - By Sunil Gavaskar

[Serani]

Kieswetter prefers england to south africa, so what?