I agree with this to a certain extent.
If Oceania players are to be un-restricted then it needs be written into the legislation somewhere.

Having said that, getting a little tired of people blowing this out of proportion. Everybody knew this was able to be done with the signing of Tai Wesley.
Should of been common knowledge to all clubs after he signed with NZ.

My question is ; why is this being made a big deal now....after Perth signed Ross. Clearly wasn't an issue when NZ used the "unwritten" rule.

@Train: Rules & regs were released to the media on Friday. Nobody knew the rule didn't exist when NZ did it, or even immediately after Perth did it.

A bit nit picky for me, clearly just an over sight due to them having so many more important things to do which they have rightly focused on.

I'm sure they will just simply update the rule.

For me i want a league with the most talent possible, so am all for this rule, id open it up to all of Aisa too, plus allow 3 imports for all teams.

Get as much talent in the league as possible, to make it as high quality and entertaining as possible.

Those who say it costs Aussies jobs, the upcoming expansion of teams will more than offset that.

The league needs to focus on getting bums on seats and making the league sustainable and the best way to do that is getting the best players possible that the league can afford into the league, even if they are from the broader oceania/asia region or a 3rd import, there is still plenty of jobs out there for Aussies, especially with expansion that is coming, so no need to nit pick on this stuff imo, just allow it and other teams also have the right to grab talent from Guam, etc, no need to penalise/bag Perth and NZ for thinking outside the box and finding a way to bring another talented player to our league.

@Jono - Agree with you there, surely it not being included in the latest release of the rules is simply an oversight and will be corrected. Both Wesley and Ross's contracts were approved so there must be some clear understanding with in NBL HQ that it is allowed. Kinda think that Boti's article is a little on the "negative journalism" side .... not really what the league needs right now.

NBL front office newbies make an assumption based on what they have been told. Simple mistake but with big consequences.

You cant have a situation where clubs are recruiting by the rule book to have 2 teams end up with an unfair advantage over others.

Cross your t's and dot your lower case j's people

Post#350. Boti's point is that the 36ers didn't do it.

^ along with the other 5 teams following the rules

really? Boti's article states that Fraser says it is a rule.

Try get a copy of the rule, I would make a hefty investment that it cant be done. Would be most unlike Boti to throw a grenade like this unless he was very sure on his position.

The rules & regs were only released to the media this past Friday, so he couldn't have known then.

Give it a rest BOTI !!! Your 36ers are so behind the eight ball it's becoming a joke, don't blame a club that is single-handedly making this league viable. It's professionalism even puts some AFL/NRL clubs to shame, the league's HQ is still a dogs breakfast. I don't care for any bloody rules anymore. Just give me a competition that is worth watching, 2 or 10 imports per team, whatever it takes.

What do people want, watching a team play in front of 12,000 screaming fans in a world class stadium or watch a team that's just moved from an entertainment centre into a 1970's RSL tin shed fit for 800 spectators?

Do whatever it takes to grow this league.

I wonder whether the NBL is bound to BA rulings on these matters as part of being a FIBA-accredited league?

This is the same Boti Nagy that suggested the Sixers bungled the chance to snare Brad Newley?

The contracts have been approved by the NBL with no objections from any other clubs.

Lets move on please and look forward to an exciting season ahead.

Wouldn't be great if everyone got back to discussing all the great things to come out of this season. Getting a little tired of this subject now. Stop with the rubbish and look at the positives . NBL doesn't need this negative garbage.

Hmm do the rules allow you to sign 3 restricted players but only play two ? provided all the contracts are under the cap It may well be so, in which case the NBL only ratifies players and combined salary caps, and the number of restricted players playing in a game.

its all bollocks anyway - its just a typical BA cluster-F , - well judge I was told this was a freeway, and everyone said I could do 120KPH, so I did - Judge - "its all right cobber, the speed limits still actually 80KPH , and thats how its signposted - the minister just forgot to sign the papers back last year and nobody noticed- ahh F-it - she'll-be right - off you go- well just let ig go ehh ?! "

What exactly is the NBLPA's role?

Do they do anything?

In my opinion they aren't doing enough for the players.

Perth and NZ fans 'No problems here, move along now'
Everyone else while being pushed along 'Wait a minute ........'

Marcus Camby and A....its not fair if the other teams didnt look in this direction based on the RULES. As such, it wouldn't be fair to implement the rule now either as those other teams were still at a disadvantage when looking for and signing players.

Marcus, what is your point about Brad Newley? He would have come under the marquee rule and is an Aussie anyway?

I know this is out there but perhaps the NBL could just make a ruling on this and we move on

'It's not fair that the other teams didn't look into the rules'? C'mon, that is just silly. Why should teams that do look in to the rules suffer for that?

In Boti's article here (http://www.botinagy.com/blog/the-week-that-was--3/) it is suggested that Tai Wesley had the attention of multiple NBL teams which also suggests that multiple teams new of the agreement with the NBL and FIBA Oceania.

Even if it is omitted from the official NBL Rules & Regs, it is likely that any agreement agreement between the NBL and FIBA Oceania will still be valid. In Boti's latest, Fraser seems to indicate this, the league approved the contracts, multiple teams were interested in Wesley. The rule exists.

el presidente...it's not a written rule though - you cant look into a rule that doesn't exist?!

Other teams may have been looking at Wesley as an import? Alternatively, they may have been looking at him under the "supposed" Oceania rule but when they looked at the rules couldn't find one, therefore decided to go in another direction?

I think i understand what you are trying to say.

The issue at hand is that it isnt what was said , or implied, or was meant to be, it is what is written that must be followed.

Unless the NBL can demonstrate that at the end of last season they circulated a document to all the relevant people advising of the rule change then these two can't play.

The NBL successfully circulated a notice about the Marquee Player rule change and that amendment is included in the rules. The rule about FIBA Oceania players playing as non restricted doesn't exist. It may exist for next season but it doesn't exist this season, right now anyway.

I can tell you that Perth once tried to bluff a rule change that would have impacted on who their u/24 player would be. That is why they signed Jeremiah Trueman at the last minute.

"I can tell you that Perth once tried to bluff a rule change that would have impacted on who their u/24 player would be. That is why they signed Jeremiah Trueman at the last minute. "

What? Trueman was signed to a two year deal by the Cats in May 2010. How is that last minute?

This situation actually seems pretty simple.

Last year BA, which at that time controlled NBL, announced the rule change on a "from today" basis which would permit the signing of players such as Wesley and Ross.

All clubs had this information and went into the off season accordingly. NZ acted first in the case of Wesley and then Perth in the case of Ross.

Last week the written rules are circulated to clubs and dont contain the change

The CEO of NBL subsequently confirms that last year's rule change is still in place.

Not changing the written rules is clearly an administrative mistake and the NBL should fix it ASAP. The inability of the administration to deal with these simple things quickly is what continually allows small things to blow up in their face.

The NBL should re-issue the rules to match what was announced last year, what was clearly the intent, what all clubs were working on over the off season and what the CEO has confirmed is the case.

If they do so, all those posters who are sticklers for the written rules being followed will be happy and Wesley and Ross can just focus on playing.

Seriously people (including journo's) a very exciting season is right around the corner, the Blitz featuring most of the new imports is this weekend, lets talk about the exciting things and look forward to the league instead of nit picking a rule, that has been allowed and announced, just an admin error, which im sure will be fixed. But yes the rule is in play, hence Ross and Wesley are able to play.

im guessing the NBL has limited admin resources who focus there time on other things, rightly so imo. What would you rather NBL management do focus on growing the league, sponsorships, promotions, media coverage, etc or nit picking rules like this?

So lets get over, i for one look forward to seeing Ross and Wesley play and seeing what they can do for the league, if there is talented guys in the oceania region that are willing to play in the NBL we would be crazy not to let them.

So come on guys, the NBL has mostly done good things since the de-merger, the league looks like its heading in a good and exciting direction, lets get excited about the upcoming season, seeing some of these exciting new players play and not nit pick over what in reality is a petty issue.

Couldn't agree more Jonno people need to stop fixating on country of birth. Would much rather watch Wesley and Ross play over Ben Allen.
Very exciting season ahead.

If we nit picked on the written rules all the time all anyone would do is complain about the umpires every game..

exactly, lets get behind the NBL and your favourite club and enjoy whats looking to be a great upcoming season.

Its the only way the league will ever flourish/survive if people support the league not bash/nit pick at every opportunity.

The written rules are kind of important you know... You shouldn't have to wade through media releases to know what the rules are.

What Boti said was reasonable. He wasn't advocating either way, he only said:

1. if it is an oversight, fix it (which they should); and

2. don't get it wrong in the first place because it is an embarrassment (which it clearly is).

"The written rules are kind of important you know.."

What constitutes a travel is a written rule as well and I remember there being an earlier discussion on whether it should or shouldn't be enforced.

So the sticklers for the rules - do you want them all enforced or just some? What's going to make the league and the competition between teams better. I don't know the answer but, sometimes there has to be some give and take from both side of the argument.

Oh! and personally I'd like to see the travel rule enforced a little more. Why back in my day.....

Plastic Man - there are the rules, and then there are valid interpretations on the rules.

This is pretty black and white, and no present interpretation of the rules (not that I have read them) will make Oceania representatives eligible as locals.

Very good point,

If they called very little insignificant foul over the past few years the games would have been free throw contests by 3 mins into each quater, many players would have spent alot more time on the bench in foul trouble/fouled out. Do all you guys criticizing the NBL for not following the written rules want this?? Many of you wold be the first to complain?

Some things in that case are let go for the flow of the game. There is no written rule saying ignore this foul/travel at certain times/situations.

The Oceania rule is in place, the CEO said it himself, yes a mistake was made in the published rules, which im sure will be corrected. If i was the NBL id type up a quick amendment and email it around to all clubs today, with the rule being in effect from the time it was announced, as im sure it was approved at this time.

Why are we nit picking this?? I think most are just jealous there teams didnt think of it.

If Ross had signed with the 36ers/your team would you be complaining?

To me there are so many bigger fish to fry for the NBL.

As a fan i think fans, media, etc should be pumping up the upcoming season, encouraging others to get involved so our league and the sport we love can grow and flourish.

I for one say good on Perth/NZ, thinking outside the box is what this league needs in many areas. Its not there fault other clubs didnt research and find these guys were available to them as non-imports, as everyone knew (or should have known) the Oceania rule was in place.

XY - with the interpretations argument, there are no interpretations of the rules that allow some of the fouls, etc that have been let go in the NBL over the past decade or so Goorj/Bevo teams often being 2 of the biggest culprits.

It was let go for the flow of the game, refs didnt want to turn the game into free throw contest, so instead of coming down hard on the teams early and stamping it out like that, they just let way too much go,

which is why i liked how last years NBL was called, alot less was let go, it didnt take too many games for teams to adjust and those who didnt had a lot of foul trouble.

I think allowing players from Ocenia is a great thing for the NBL, i would personally extend it to Asia and allow 3 imports, my theory being the more talent we can get the better.

FWIW there is also very little point complaining about this even if you think NZ/Perth/NBL are in the wrong as come tip off time Ross and Wesley will be playing as 'locals', so no point really nit picking over this rule, which is in place, and im sure the rules will be corrected/amended to include this accidental omission,

to me is a great initiative, why do people want to stand in the way of this kind of thing??

Johnno, I am afraid you are very wrong. There are a range of interpretations of the rules that allow the game to be called in different ways. The advantage/disadvantage rule is an example which gives an umpire a discretion to call a foul or not.

A rule as to who can play for what team is entirely different. If we all agree it is a stuff up, then so be it, fix it and get on with it.

Getting the written rules right is not 'nit picking'. The rules are the legislation by which the teams have agreed to abide. Getting it wrong is an embarrassment. Boti is right and as a commentator it is his job to point it out where the league, the clubs and the NBLPA seem to have missed it.

What interpretation allows holding, bumping, elbowing,etc we have seen from teams and had let go??

The travel one is also another good example, many great highlight plays over the year have been technically travels and let go, which i agree with, but the rule never says you can take an extra step if its a great play.

I do see your point, but think this is over blown, would rather if the NBL had this pointed out to them quietly and made the required amendment as the rule is obviously in play.

I just dont see the point on bagging out the NBL publicly about it and diminishing the brand, when i think everyone including the media needs to be pumping it up the best they can to help the league flourish. You can say its not the media (Boty's job), which technically it isnt, but it kinda is, as if the league fails then he is sort of out of a job, so i would have thought it would be in his best interest to be talking positively about the NBL, players, teams, etc at all times to help generate interest.

If your constantly publishing things saying the NBL has stuffed up again.. it makes people think its very amateur and not worth following, which is what we cant afford.

Anyway just my opinion i guess, people can think/say what they like, for me i want the NBL to succeed, so would rather people didnt nit pick about these minor things, why would anyone want to stop 2 talented players from coming to the NBL?? for me the more talent the better. Lets not let nit picking and jealousy that my favourite club didnt think of it first get in the way of this. For me as a whole the NBL is moving in the right direction, get far more right than wrong at the moment, so we can let one or 2 things slide to the keeper, especially when they are to improve the league, and with the expectation this minor glitch is to be fixed.

Jonno...umpiring rules where decisions have to be made on the spot are always subject to human error. A written (or lack thereof) rule outlining elegibility of personnel should not.

You say you want what's best for the league. Basketball already struggles to attract fans in most areas as it is. With the competition becoming more and more lopsided with this Oceania rule and the Marquee player rule do you really think fans are going to rock up when they know their teams aren't a chance?

I for one am an avid basketball fan, been a season member for as long as I can remember but if the way the league is going continues I dont think I will bother anymore...there is the potential to lose fans rather than gain them as well.

I see your point,

But is it the marquee/oceania rules making it lopsided? or just the fact that Perth have often been one of the first to use them to there advantage?

If Townsville had signed Ross under the same rule i doubt anyone would care or complain, so i dont see it as the rules fault.

I guess my stand point is the more talent the better, and am still a fan of keeping the points and salary caps to keep it some what of a level playing field.

Perth on paper look to have lucked out with Ross, but he is no certainty to be a stud, but yes he looks to have the potential to be very good.

To me thats why i would like to see 3 imports allowed, Perth at there current state wouldnt be able to exploit it and keep all there current roster, many other teams with points to spare would be able to use it without having to let go as talented a player as Perth would, so could be a way of evening the talent gap a little. Eg Perth would have to let go something like Wagstaff and Ross to create 11 points, 10 for the 3rd import, 1 for there 10th man, which eats a way at there talent pool a little, and im pretty sure there are some teams with around 5 or so points to spare so would only have to let go a Demos level guy to fit in the 3rd import.

But there's still a salary cap, so I don't see how the third import rule would greatly enhance the quality as you could only afford a second rate import under the cap. Unless teams would go for a 'big three' setup.

The 3rd import would improve rosters within the salary cap as you can get decent imports at a close to min salary, ie guys like Lance Hurdle, Corin Henry, and probably many of the SEABL/NZ/State League imports.

If your bringing one of those guys in replacing say an average say 5-6 point player for the same/less money, then to me thats a pretty good upgrade.

Jonno...not so much the Oceania rule as it is the Marquee rule. However;

Oceania - How many Ross/Wesley types would be at their level from this region?

Marquee - Only a couple of teams can afford this and they generally are already successful teams.

This isn't a slant on Perth but they are often the example because they lead the way both on and off the court. I wish all teams could be at or around their level but the reality is, they arent and if things keep going in the direction they are they never will be. I am afraid this will further deplete interest in the NBL.

If you were Ross for example and had the choice between Perth and Townsville where would you choose?

For the record, had Townsville of signed Ross I would still be in disagreeance - but hey, thats just me.

Perhaps they could look at adjusting the points cap for returning college & Oceania players?

Yea see your point,

I also dont totally agree with the marquee rule, especially when half the teams struggle afford the normal salary cap, let alone go over.

Oceania rule, i like, but do see your point re being very few real options, but i like the fact we can atleast grab those couple of guys. The more talent the better, and would lower the points cap to about 65 to force the talent to be spread a bit more.

I see your point re the rich getting richer and poor poorer potentially ruining the league.

To help even it out, personally i would have the points cap at about 65, there are quite a few fielding teams at about that, its only the Melbourne/Perths struggling to fit within it at the moment, forces the talent to be spread a bit more, ie Perth would have likely had to have lost Wagstaff or Jervis in the past off season, which means another team further down the ladder with points to spare ie Crocs/Hawks gets to grab them and have a stronger team, i would also allow 3 imports, and further the Oceania rule to include Asia.

I like your idea of adjusting the points for returning college/Oceania players, could make it if you averaged more than say 10pts in college you are a 4 or 5 point player instead of a 3, Oceania players could have a default rating of also a 5 or something similar, to make it a bit fairer, as you usually are not going to grab a Oceania player if they cant play to the level of atleast a 5, it wouldnt be worth it.

The Marquee rule can stay but clubs have to fit in within the 65, and no down grading points of anyone to fit them in, especially not by 2, ie Perth cant have U'u from a 4 to a 2, they have to sign a 2 point player. FWIW U'U probably is a 2, so no too fussed with him specifically, just dont like the overall idea of being able to all the sudden down grade a player because you have spent all of your points on others and can no longer fit them in.

Are all returning college/Oceania players automatically a 3? Does this open the door for a team (say Perth) to sign someone like Thon Maker under the marquee rule for 3mil a season at a 3 point player rating and as a local?

Yea i think as long as they havnt played pro any where (eg NBA/Euro) or played for a Boomers team they are rated as 3, so yes in your scenario if Maker came to the NBL straight from college he would be a 3 regardless of his salary. Thats my understanding anyway.

Wilson & Jonno...the funny thing is an American out of college is 10 points but Thon Maker for example because he is an Aussie would only be a 3 - this is where the issue lies with the points cap/system I think.

I think all college players should be rated like any other player regardless of heritage. If they are from a Div 1 college then their starting points would be a 4, Div 2 - 3 for example. Then just like any other player they are rated based on their stats. It would take a lot more work behind the scenes but I think it could open up the comp and teams might get luckier with a bargain. Most first time imports are only signed on 1 year deals anyway so they could be re-rated at seasons end.

Jonno...could reduce the points cap or you could do something like make Marquee players an automatic 12 points?

All things the league could and should consider.

I'm all for the best talent being in the league so long as we can ensure the league remains competitive to initiate continued growth.

As it currently sits, I'm not convinced the NBL is ready for expansion.

Agreed Tornado, i like your idea rating all players based on stats coming out of college, obviously taking into account what division/conference they are in.

I like your idea re marquee players as 12, but what defines a marquee player, as you can sign a Josh Childress type without using the marquee player rule as such, ie under the normal salary cap. Maybe its defined as if you are exNBA/draftee (or have played Euroleague) you start off as a 12??

Which looking at this years teams would mean guys like Cedric Jackson, Josh Childress, Jordan McRae, DeAndre Daniels would be 12s and i reckon rightly so and the rest including the 6ers imports would be 10s, id even say if you have played more than 20 SEABL/NZ NBL games as an import you start off as an 8, encourage teams to look for bargain imports, and on the theory they are coming from a lower league so therefore should get a slightly lower ranking.

To me id do all those things and lower the cap to around 65, would force teams to share the wealth and make it basically impossible for the rich teams to have really deep rosters and mean some more talented guys fall to the rosters that need a bit more help.

If you did those things this year, it would make it impossible for Melbourne and Perth to put together there reallly really deep rosters and mean someone like Wagstaff, Ross or Jervis would fall to another team from Perth and guys like Tomlinson and Walker would fall to other teams, or they would have to chose to go with just 1 import or something if they wish to keep those guys, hence making them a bit weaker and bridging the gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots'.

I agree mostly with your points Jonno. Realistically though players like Childress, Daniels, Jackson (only came back this year because of the marquee rule) will only come and sign on if they get marquee money. The same goes for players like Kickert, Barlow, Ingles, Newley etc.

I like your idea of imports out of SEABL/NZ being an automatic 8 - unless they fit the criteria of above.

NBL take notice - Jonno and I just solved the leagues problems. hahahaha... :)

Sorry Anon 494633....I dont understand your question?

The 12 point suggestion was for 'marquee players, ie guys who are exNBA/draftees or have played Euroloegaue or signed under the marquee rule ie outside of the salary cap.

If you get a guy who is 10 points, doesnt fit under any of those banners, ie not exNBA and not signed outside the cap under the marquee rule, id leave him as a 10 even if his production is just as good, as power to you, but if a guy that good is signed and not under the marquee rule where you can pay them more it will be tough to keep them in our league so could be a short term advantage, and thats the advantage of scouting well and selecting a really good player. Ie good coaching and management.

To me it makes no difference if they are a import or a Aussie whether they should be a 10 or 12.

Guam is US equivalent to what Norfolk Island is to Australia