Division 2 Cup

Division 2 Cup

The arrangements for the Division 2 Cup had to be revised at the last minute following the restoration of Holme to Division 1. It was designed to give clubs in the Division the amount of cricket that they wanted.

Last month, Netherfield complained that Penrith had breached the eligibility rules in the second meeting between the teams. Their complaint was based on WCL rule 11 (b):

"Teams must field players that are recognised players in that particular team. In general it should be demonstrated that the player has played less than three consecutive games in a higher League or Division or by dropping the player there was no intention of seeking advantage. The onus of proof of eligibility will lie with the club."

It was initially determined that Penrith would be disqualified from the competition, subject to an appeal. Penrith did appeal and submitted a statement explaining the reasons why they felt it was important for the player in question to play in the second team and that they had not sought any advantage in relation to the match v Netherfield through dropping him. Penrith provided information which supported their contention and as a consequence this appeal was upheld.

Normally it is accepted that the criterion for Cup selection is that players have played more games for the team in question rather than that in the higher League. As Penrith had not sought prior approval of their selection it was determined that it was fair for all if the result of the match was declared null and void, and therefore both clubs were advised that the match would have to be replayed.

This was important because the structure of the competition is that the best runner up (based on Net Run Rate) qualifies for the semifinals along with the three group winners.

Netherfield has refused to replay the match. It is worth pointing out that in the first t20 Netherfield played against Penrith, Netherfield played with prior permission a player who in 2019 had not previously appeared for the Third XI and who had played four consecutive games for Netherfield 2nd XI in Division 1b of the Palace Shield. The records of the Penrith and Netherfield players in the higher leagues at the time of their demotion were remarkably similar. The Netherfield request was approved because the principal focus of the League is to encourage the playing of cricket. Had Penrith sought prior permission it is likely that it would have been granted on the same basis. Expulsion for not asking permission therefore seemed a disproportionate penalty and hence the decision was made to rule that the match be replayed.

In Group 3 another club has played an ineligible player or players during its Group matches. This only came to light this week. Westgate has won Group 3, but the Net Run Rate of the runner-up, Shireshead, was affected by the performance of an ineligible player.

The Net Run Rates in Group 2 are significantly worse than those of the second placed sides in Groups 1 and 3. Recognising that there is not a simple nor ideal solution it has been decided that the fairest option is to require the runners up in Groups 1 and 3 to play off for the semi-final. Penrith and Shireshead have therefore been asked to play off to decide who progresses to the semifinals at Cartmel on 28th July.

The current Cup rules were written when the competitions were played as knockouts rather than with a Group stage where expelling a team can disadvantage another team in the group. This will be reviewed for subsequent seasons.