Basketball On The Internet.

THE way I read the NBL By-Laws, if any of the six clubs not suiting someone from Guam legally wants to challenge player eligibility, NZ Breakers and Perth Wildcats are dead in the Pacific Ocean.

Yes, many of us vividly can recall former Basketball Australia CEO Kristina Keneally loudly proclaiming BA's intention, while it ran and administered the NBL, to change player eligibility to allow anyone from Oceania to play as a local.

Clearly it is the premise under which Perth has signed Earnest Ross and New Zealand secured Tai Wesley.

But guess what?

For all of KK's noise, BA's chest-pumping and the former brow-beaten NBL's tacit approval, no-where did it pass into NBL legislation.

It never happened.

Oh, it may well have been intended and even embraced as a bold, progressive idea.

But check any copy of the NBL rules and regulations and, as at Friday of last week, you only will find Australian and New Zealand-born players officially can play as locals in the NBL.

The Oceania umbrella?

It definitely was opened but it never passed into NBL legislation.

I am surprised Nick Marvin (Perth) and Richard Clarke (New Zealand) never noticed, given their hefty involvement in saving the league just over 12 months ago.

But there you go. They would have had a great deal on their minds, so that lack of any official alteration to the eligibility rules now potentially could come back and bite them.

NBL chief executive Fraser Neill confirmed today making the players from Oceania countries eligible to play as locals did occur while NBL was under the stewardship of BA.

He believes that is the rule now.

Well he can believe all he likes.

Where is it written?

Given the attention to detail which regularly can go missing at key times for our sport, this becomes a perfect case-in-point.

Under NBL rules as written and as they exist - and that's as at Friday - Oceania players not born in Australia or New Zealand cannot play in our league unless they do so as restricted players, e.g. imports.

Never mind the intent, it is NOT legislation.

Maybe it is time for the NBL Players Association to step away (if only momentarily) from its anti-Player Points System stance, to investigate how pathways for Australian and New Zealand players now are being subverted under some alleged Oceania legislation which, for all intents and purpose, DOES NOT EXIST.

Otherwise, teams may just play against Perth and New Zealand, then post-game claim those clubs suited an ineligible player and have a win recorded.

I am old enough to remember when the Adelaide 36ers were awarded a game against Melbourne Tigers who suited Mark Bradtke against them prior to his final release papers arriving from the NBA.

Bradtke was and is an Aussie and everyone knew him to be a Tiger. But at that moment in time, he was ineligible to play.

He played. The Tigers won. The result was reversed.

This is different, I know, and I'm not taking a position on the Oceania ruling, even if it doesn't exist.

Let's make our league as good as it can be - that's always been my stand.

But while the Oceania-as-locals rule does not actually exist or did not pass into the NBL's rules and regulations as written, Ross and Wesley are ineligible players.

It's that simple.

The ball now firmly is in the NBL's court.

Change the ruling or reaffirm the current ruling.

But you can't have an actual written rule and also a "we thought that had happened" interpretation.

It makes the NBL look just a tad Mickey Mouse.

And the NBLPA a little negligent, an accusation I am sure it would be mortified to realise.

TOMORROW: Flashback time as the Adelaide 36ers take on the Newcastle Falcons, circa 1988.