The rule has been passed by FIBA it is just paperwork that hasn't been done by the NBL. That is all that needs to be resolved.
Just because other teams didn't choose to explore this rule that they were all aware of is no reason to exclude 2x players.
Wesley has already played in the New Zealand NBL with the Southland Sharks as a local under the new rule & attracted interest from other NBL teams who were obviously also well aware of the new ruling but chose to sign with NZ probably due to already having a relationship with Breakers assistant Coach Paul Henare who coaches Southland & Gary Wilkinson's recommendation (they played together at college).

If the other teams were unaware of this rule they should find new jobs as it was widely reported. It is more likely that they chose not to explore it further as they were too busy chasing stud imports.

"When they do adopt the rule they will also have to tidy up wether they take up the must have lived there for atleast 5 years part also, under these grounds i think Wesley and Ross would also be ineligible"
Ross maybe, but Wesley is eligible either way.

Both play for the Guam national team, so they're presumably both eligible even under the residency requirement, so it becomes merely about whether the rule is in or not.

FWIW im with Mystro, im all for the rule, allowing it as of right now and allowing Ross and Wesley to play.

just threw this out there in case an opposing club kicks up against it and as Boti suggests they wouldnt have much trouble beating this rule as its not in law, etc. His article is a decent read.

To me if this happens then what i was suggesting is a decent compromise imo.

Just interested to hear what people think, and what should happen, especially if a club tries to vote against Ross/Wesley due to the rule not being in writing per what Boty suggests.

much like your literacy skills

rekt

FWIW, BA's general bylaws seem to let NBL set its own rules:

"10. The National Basketball League
This clause has not been repeated. BA Limited has licence agreements with each club in the national league and the national league rules and regulations from time to time apply."

The reference to "not repeated" reflects the bylaws being a review of the original 2004 bylaws when ABF became BA.

The current BA Foreign Player and Coach Policy sets a limit of 2 male players per team with allowance for NBL to have three:

"two male overseas players per team (active at any one time, valid in all leagues ), however the NBL has an exception where a third male player may be permitted to play in accordance with the rules of the NBL."

That policy states that it applies to "people that are non-Australians and are participants or potential participants as a player or coach in...[the] NBL". There's no reference to Oceania exemptions. Unfortunately, the policy is 5 years old (August 2009) and may not capture the BA Board decision of September 2013 when it "agreed to a request from FIBA Oceania to treat the Oceania region as a "common market" for basketball players competing in Australian club competition". The BA press release also stated that the decision was "effective immediately". It also referred to "players of New Zealand or Pacific Island nationality [being] free to participate in leagues in Australia without restriction". No definition of what defines NZ or Islander nationality was included in the press release and I couldn't find the definition anywhere on the BA web site, in its regulations, guidelines, policies or bylaws.

Perhaps it's about eligibility to play for NZ or the Islander nation's team at a FIBA championship or Olympic tournament? That seems a reasonable assumption, given FIBA was driving this change.

Meant to close above post by saying two things. The BA general bylaw makes it clear that NBL can set its own rules. The BA Board decision of September 2013 was after NBL had formally separated from BA. Presumably NBL inherited the rules in place when the separation happened. So that suggests it comes back to whether NBL has formally changed its rules to allow Oceania players to participate as locals. Based on general reporting of this issue since the NBL rules since they were made available to the media (i.e. in the last 2 weeks), that didn't happen.

Regardless of the merits either way, NBL needs to decide what it wants the rule to be and then act or not to deal with the current situation. Given the furore this issue has raised, imagine reactions should a successful legal challenge late in the coming season see Perth and NZ tipped out of the finals. NBL must not leave that door open.