Players represent country or an association?

[Pratters]

Board's submission in the Supreme Court that the players represented BCCI and not India in international tournaments was made some time back.

I was a bit shocked by it as I thought the players always took pride in playing for their country and not the BCCI or MCC or ACB(Cricket Australia now) for international matches.

We cheer because they are representing India or Australia; not the BCCI or MCC

*confused*

 

[badgerhair]

Board's submission in the Supreme Court that the players represented BCCI and not India in international tournaments was made some time back.

I was a bit shocked by it as I thought the players always took pride in playing for their country and not the BCCI or MCC or ACB(Cricket Australia now) for international matches.

We cheer because they are representing India or Australia; not the BCCI or MCC

*confused*

The law only has a tenuous connection with reality, rather as the debates of epistemologists usually lead to conclusions which would be pretty absurd if you tried to act on them, even if the theory ends up being consistent.

Legally speaking, the Indian cricket team is only a team put together by the BCCI, just as the ECB puts together an England team. That everybody accepts them as the legitimate national team and cheers for or against them on that basis is simply social convention, although a very powerful one.

In legal terms, "representing India" is probably equivalent to being endorsed by the Indian government as their plenipotentiary representatives, and it is probably the case that the Indian government would be most unhappy at being held responsible for the actions of an Indian cricketer on tour.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Richard]

^ Couldn't have put it better myself, really.