Opportunity NOCs

GH on contesting forces

Shamsi to Starc-y

Tabraiz Shamsi has a delectable googly and a fun gag with what he pretends is a shoe phone to the third umpire. But the really notable aspect of his appearance for Adelaide Strikers is that he’s here at all.

Lately the thirty-two-year-old Shamsi has spent more time involved in court proceedings in Gauteng, having withdrawn from the SA20 for ‘personal reasons’, then gone into the IL20 auction and signed for the ensuing Big Bash League. When Cricket South Africa, mildly peeved, were loath to grant him a suitable No Objection Certificate, the permission slip every player must have stamped by their home board before declaring their availability for an ‘approved’ league overseas, he successfully sought relief in the country’s High Court, the board also having to pick up the tab. A statement from Shamsi’s management company quoted him as follows:

I am grateful that the Court recognized the urgency of my situation and granted interim relief. I was reluctant to take this matter to court, but it became necessary to bring certainty and resolve a situation that could not be resolved in any other way. This was never about maximising opportunities, but being able to approach my career in a considered and sustainable way.

The ICC’s Regulations on Sanctioning of Events and Player Release, updated in March 2025, describes the NOC in grandiose terms, as part of an enforcement mechanism to secure the primacy of international cricket as ‘a showcase for the sport’. NOCs, the regulations explain, are granted after the evaluation of ‘non-exhaustive factors’ that include whether an ‘affiliated’ player is likely to be selected for national duty during the period of a league or whether that player’s ‘form, fitness and/or upcoming commitments’ might be compromised by participation in the league. And so on and so forth. Yet their legal status is dubious. For all the importance ascribed to them, no penalties for non-compliance with an NOC are outlined beyond ‘prompt and effective disciplinary action’, and the appeal mechanism is designed simply for maximum inconvenience. The World Cricketers’ Association noted last year:

Any challenge to the legality of the ICC Regulations or decision made by the ICC under the ICC Regulations must be made by naming the ICC as a respondent before an arbitration body convened by the ICC (the “ICC Disputes Resolution Committee”). Similarly, any challenge to a decision made by a national cricket federation under the ICC Regulations (e.g. to not issue an NOC) must be made in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions in that same national cricket federation’s rules. Without questioning the integrity of the members of the relevant panels which would decide such disputes, it is simple to understand how a party might think they would not receive a fair and impartial review of their grievance in such circumstances.