Dein erstes Forum » good for the kids to be able to move wi

There is no knowing whether anyone in the BCCI is a fan of either Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin or Albert Einstein. Supreme Court judges definitely are, going by the opening paragraphs of the 143-page judgement issued by the two-man bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice FMI Kalifullah. The three mighty minds were quoted when discussing humankinds resistance to change, with the bench recognising that the BCCIs strident objections to the Lodha committee recommendations were meant to protect a continuance of the status quo.The Supreme Courts final order directly addresses and proceeds to upturn the BCCIs objections to the Lodha recommendations, which detailed organisational reform within Indias richest sporting body and crickets strongest board. The court accepted both the Lodha report and its recommendations with a handful of minor modifications and clarifications. This marks the end of three years of miscalculations by individual office-bearers, and collective decision-making by the BCCI that began with the arrest of three cricketers in May 2013.What happens next? In real terms, the day-to-day operations of Indian cricket will keep running. Like the Lodha report, the Supreme Court order once again separates governance from operations. The operational BCCI continues on its way, now armed with a CEO, an ombudsman, an ethics officer, and a full-time professional auditor. What has been rigorously shaken, with nuts and bolts now left rattling, is the existing frame of the BCCI, which is less stainless steel and more rusted metal.The order lays down a fairly watertight list of strictures for aspiring cricket officials, focusing on what posts they can hold in cricket administration, particularly at the highest level, and for how long. The much-advertised love for cricket of many seasoned, or indeed newly appointed, cricket officials will now be put to the test. The court has ordered that the recommendations be implemented within six months - by the time Justice TS Thakur serves his full term and hands charge for the BCCIs restructuring to the very individuals who held up a mirror to the board: Team Lodha.The Supreme Courts order was fairly considerate when hammering home a few disputed recommendations. Fussed about how to fund a players association? the court asked. The funding is your prerogative, but there has got to be an association. Angry about a cooling-off period between two terms in top BCCI posts? Arrive at a conclusion on how to handle this, but the cooling-off period stays. IPL franchises on the all-powerful IPL governing council? Lets ask the Lodha committee to work out if this is not a conflict of interest and then see what they say.The court divorced itself from issuing unyielding orders on matters that were not strictly within the Lodha panels reformative and recommendatory ambit. Like controlling the amount and nature of advertising on cricket broadcasts on television by reworking existing deals (this recommendation was dead on arrival on the grounds of common sense alone), or knotty legislative issues like legalising betting or placing the BCCI under the ambit of the Right to Information Act.Weighty, monumental (and cataclysmic for the BCCI), the Lodha report order carries much significance. If the BCCI, a financially self-sufficient, self-sustaining and globally significant sports body - and therefore an anomaly among Indian sports bodies - can be made answerable to writ jurisdictions, its functioning taken apart in court, so can any other Indian national sports federation. These bodies that run Indias Olympic sports, largely supported by public money, have previously been considered untouchable, backed as they are by political bigwigs and legal luminaries. The Thakur-Kalifullah bench has cited the governments National Sports Development Code 2011 - which applies to all nationally recognised sports bodies - in setting an age limit of 70 for the BCCIs office-bearers. What applies to other sports bodies must work for the BCCI. So too, what has been ordered upon the BCCI, could be wrought upon any other Indian sports body.An example has been made of the BCCI, until now considered well above these shambolically run associations, both financially and organisationally. No matter how much financial strength and global clout a sports body can acquire, it must work alongside with, rather than supplant, good governance, transparency and accountability.The BCCIs response in this affair from the outset - despite the presence of many weighty shining legal lights on its roster and on its side - was heavy-handed. Both in court and in the public. The boards first response was to let out a few high-volume sound bites: that the recommendations were not binding, that the BCCI was a private body and so it could not be approached as if it were a public enterprise. It was this line of argument that occupied far too much of the courts time, and must have set the judges teeth on edge.One of the more revealing parts of the order says: Neither BCCI nor anyone else has assailed the findings recorded by the Committee insofar as the deep rooted malaise that pervades in the working of the BCCI is concerned… either in the affidavits filed or in the course of arguments at the bar. Which in laymans language means that neither the BCCI nor anyone else has strongly criticised the Lodha committees findings with reference to the flaws in the BCCIs functioning, neither in written affadavits filed or verbal arguments made before the bench. The BCCI was not righteously claiming to having been unfairly criticised with reference to its functioning. What it was saying to the highest court of the country - and the highest judge in that court - was that you do not have the right to tick us off.The better option could have been to respond strategically to the Lodha committee report from the very beginning, by picking out early the recommendations they thought were the least amenable to implementation, or inconvenient, and work with that, approaching the court with humility rather than habitual hubris. They had a better chance of arguing the age limit and tenure continuity at length than they did about private vs public and the freedom of association as pertaining to the state associations. That too in a climate surrounding the BCCIs laissez faire attitude to the Goa Cricket Associations multiple scandals until the last month or so and the shenanigans of DDCA, also exposed in court.The BCCIs legal eagles should also have been able to sense two moods - that the BCCIs public image was far from the best to start with, particularly in terms of its engagement with the judiciary. Secondly, in the past few years, Indias courts have been particularly forceful in handing out judgements pertaining to governance or administration, a trend that has been referred to as judicial activism (or, in the words of policy academic Pratap Bhanu Mehta, judicial exasperation). For the BCCI it was certainly not the right time to show what would be called attitude. But show it they did.What might the BCCIs options now be? To start with, they could consider hiring a new legal team. A short-term response would be to disband the board and resume operations under a new name. Or dash off a letter to the ICC saying the Supreme Court has ordered them to accept government interference - in the form of the nominee from the Comptroller and Auditor Generals Office - at both national or state levels. Or attempt some off-court filibustering in front of Lodha to try and stall any action, till Justice Thakur retires in January and they can begin the legal roundabout all over again.But each of these counters has its counter-arguments. Besides, Mondays order says clearly that should any impediments arise the Supreme Court can be approached once again by a status report being filed.Many within the BCCI - and there are several who are well-intentioned and committed - may find their positions now rendered non-existent and their powers severely curtailed, and may well ask, How did we get here? The answer to that is simple - one mistake at a time. Wholesale NBA Jerseys . Catch all the action on TSN2 at 11pm et/8pm pt. The nine-time Big 12 champion Jayhawks are positioning themselves for another title, as they have run out to a flawless 6-0 mark in conference play thus far. Wholesale NBA Autographed Jerseys .ca NBA Power Rankings, ahead of the Miami Heat and San Antonio Spurs. http://www.wholesalenbachinajerseys.com/ . -- Playing time has been limited for Maxim Tissot this season, so the Montreal Impact defender made the most of his first scoring opportunity on Saturday. Cheap NBA Jerseys Outlet . As the crowd erupted, Davis knocked the ball off the glass and back into his hands. With 1:14 to go in overtime, Davis sixth block also became his 17th rebound. That, along with his 32 points -- which tied a career high -- proved too much for Denver to overcome, and the Pelicans held on for their third straight victory, 111-107 on Sunday night. Camo China NBA Jerseys . The Cleveland Indians, Tampa Bay Rays, and Texas Rangers all won on Sunday meaning the Rangers will host the Rays in a play-in game on Monday. Free agency could be coming to college sports.Well, it wouldnt exactly be free agency, according to the lawyer in charge of two cases that could become a game-changer in college athletics, one that would enable players to transfer without having to sit a year.Free transferring is more appropriate, said Steve Berman, the managing partner at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and lead attorney of a case involving a pair of ex-college football players against the NCAA.Whatever the terminology you wish to utilize, it would create a significant impact throughout the world of college athletics.If kids are allowed to transfer without sitting out, college basketball will never be the same, Arizona coach Sean Miller said Whatever the number is of kids transferring this year, 700 or so, I think you can double that.One of Bermans clients, former Northern Illinois punter Peter Deppe, visited Iowa during the fall semester of 2015 and was told by the staff he could have a scholarship only if he was eligible to play at the start of the 2016 campaign. However, the Hawkeyes werent willing to wait a year for him to transfer and become eligible, so Deppe wasnt able to make the move. Deppe ultimately decided to give up football and is currently enrolled at Kettering University, majoring in engineering.I just hope my case can make a change for other student-athletes wanting to transfer, Deppe told ESPN. Unfortunately, the NCAA makes the process a nightmare and confusing.While the overwhelming belief of the college basketball coaching fraternity is that players being able to transfer without having to sit a year is imminent, NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy told ESPN he isnt ready to go that far.I am confident we will be victorious in these cases, Remy told ESPN. If they win, we wouldnt be able to have the rule anymore.Berman told ESPN that the NCAA moved to dismiss the case, but he is optimistic it will move forward in federal court in Indianapolis. He is just as confident they will ultimately come out with a favorable ruling.Im surprised more people havent woken up and realized the impact and the implications this case could have, Berman added.Many college basketball coaches are well-aware and arent thrilled with the prospect of what they deem as looming free agency.College basketball will turn into the wild, wiild West, one head coach told ESPN.ddddddddddddhe transfer rate has increased over the past decade -- from 250 or so back in the 2008 to approximately 700 the past couple of years. Part of the up-tick is due to the graduate transfer rule. A record 125 Division 1 players took advantage this year. Another aspect is societal, where players are changing high schools more frequently and also summer league programs instead of fighting through adversity.Many coaches contacted by ESPN fear that last years number could rise to well over 1,000 if kids dont have to sit a year and youll see coaches literally recruiting kids who arent getting minutes in the handshake line following games.Itll be no-holds barred, another high-major head coach told ESPN. The tampering will be out of control.Two of the most powerful coaches in the game agree on what the next step should be in changing the transfer rules, and its not complete freedom for players.The thing that should happen is if a coach leaves, a kid should be allowed to transfer and play right away, Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski told ESPN. Thats what the coach can do. Before taking the leap that you may want to take, Id look at that.It isnt good for the kids to be able to move without penalty, Kentucky coach John Calipari added. If a coach leaves, they should all be able to leave and play right away. What are you going to do if a kid chooses to leave in December and join another program?Berman said the intent of the lawsuit is not to be able to change schools during the academic year and be able to play immediately. The intent is to avoid sitting a full academic year before being eligible.National Association of Basketball Coaches president Jeff Jones, also the head coach at Old Dominion, said there has been plenty of discussion recently about whether the one-year transfer residency will be a thing of the past.As some have said, and Id agree, if it gets to free agency, that would be a scary thing for college athletics, Jones said. Hopefully there can be a solution that is not restrictive to student-athletes.In the meantime, we wait and see whether a former punter from Northern Illinois can change the landscape of college sports. ' ' '