Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I was just saying that cricket has not always been played in accordance with the spirit, that people disagree as to what the spirit requires, and that many people think its better to go for the doctor and win than play in the spirit and lose.
Can't argue with that :)
Good win to round off the series. Congratulations to the Black Caps :)
-
I'm inclined to agree, WH. For example the stigma of being a chucker is enough to make most people get the act of bowling with a straight arm correct. The law says "don't chuck" and if an umpire calls you then it causes a lot of embarrassment and the bowler goes and takes a good long look at himself. End. Of. Story.
Instead we have Vettori making a fool of himself and a bunch of law makers lining up to pen the next bit of legislation.
Elliot got run out. Deal with it.
PS. What did you mean by:
even if it is more honoured in the breach than the observance (ball tampering, sledging, walking etc).
?
-
According to Law 42 (Fair and unfair play), 5. Deliberate distraction or obstruction of batsman, Collingwood acted within the rules
-
Russell:
There are perfectly good reasons to stipulate over-rates, some of them relevant off the field. Paying crowds have a right to see a decent amount of cricket played, and the broadcasters who put so much money into the game need it to run roughly to schedule.
I understand the reasoning for laws regarding over rates. However if players were inspired by the spirit of the game then there would be no need.
The more laws one introduces the more inventive players will become at breaking them which only leads to the necessity for more laws. What is needed is a simple set of instructions (the playing conditions) and then a fierce judicial process.
I use the word fierce to mean that any breach of the playing conditions should be met with immediate and sensible penalties. The player should be removed from the game or censured according to a set of guidelines. I believe there is such a system in place. Where it fails is that it is an attempt to judge intent. Cricketers should not be charged by what an official thinks they were trying to do. They should be charged with what they actually do.
So for over rates I think it is perfectly reasonable to penalise a captain for being tardy (though a little inane). The problem is this law was introduced to counter bad intentions. And it encroaches on every captain's freedom to express himself. Every time we see an intention and then try to legislate against it our freedom to play the game is hampered.
To simplify things a bit: More rules = Less freedom :)
He doesn't think he acted correctly, and it seems that no one with any stature in the game does. Boycott, for one, was emphatic that Collingwood's refusal to call Elliot back ran against the preamble to the laws of the game, added in 2000 and covering, yes, the spirit of the game.
It makes not an ounce of difference what Colligwood or any other punter says is right or wrong. All that matters is how his actions stand up against the laws of the game. He acted within those laws.
The unique character of cricket in this respect is demonstrated by the fact that a captain can call back a player who has been adjudged out. Is there another international sport that provides for this kind of thing?
Yeah. In soccer the opposing captain can call a guy over and then headbutt him. ...
... hmmm .. not quite what you were thinking, huh ... ?
No, perhaps you're right :)
Drawing a long bow, anyone? Vettori merely observed that the fact that they'd won after all made it easier to shake hands and move on. That's a perfectly logical statement, and I can't see how it relates to your splenetic outburst above.
I see. So you think that the outcome affected Vettori's reaction? Gee, Russell, it would be a lot easier for us all if you'd just say, "I agree" if you want to agree with me ...
-
Yes and no. Most of the game’s dramas, like that Indian – Aus soap opera from earlier in the year, are all about the spirit of the game.
What spirit was upheld there? All I saw were more rules against things we can say on the pitch. We aren't allowed to call people monkeys now? I enjoyed the fight, but the draconian measures in order to "stamp out" people's freedom to act like 4 year olds is ridiculous.
BTW, I think slow over-rates are a genuine blight on the game, in all forms.
Sure. I don't think rules against over rates are wrong. I just see no way that they can be used to determine intent.
-
Please. If players didn't cynically knobble their bowling rates to cripple the opposition, there would be no need for formal regulation of over rates. You're confusing cause and effect.
I understand why they introduced the rules regarding over rates, but it will always be impossible to legislate against the inner workings of a captain's mind. Rules are black and white things (by definition). When you try to make laws that determine a player's intent then it restricts freedom. In order to limit the damage the over rate rules have conditions and exceptions written into them to excuse captains in certain situations. But of course we will never be able to judge what his intent was.
If I am to make a point then it will be this: A rule must describe a particular behaviour or action as unacceptable. It should never describe an intent as unacceptable. A player should be held accountable to the spirit of the game because of the freedom the game offers. The rules will never ensure a players freedom of expression.
-
Professional cricket has less and less room for the notion of "the spirit of the game". If there were any spirit in the game then people would be motivated by it. Instead the only motivation left is what can be gained for oneself. The spirit of the game is constantly being legislated away. With each new penalty for over rates or behaviour or something equally ridiculous the freedom of expression that any sport thrives on is being turned into another set of rules by which we must conduct ourselves.
Collingwood acted correctly and Vettori is crying like a little baby. Easily evidenced by the fact that he bases his reaction on the outcome. If there is injustice then it deserves addressing regardless of the result and New Zealand's approach to the game, where they constantly push the letter of the law and further erode the spirit, is only helping to destroy tradition, fair-play, gentlemanly conduct and any respect they might have earned.
-
Wow. That's a really bizzare summation of the human condition, midnight! It's also not at all an accurate summary of what I have said or in any way a challenge. Would you like to try again?
James. That's an interesting take. I think I agree. How did you find this forum?
-
You wish to force yourself on others or else you wouldn't be talking about the choice a mother makes. A choice that the last I checked , as a male, you inheriently can not make.
I've never claimed that I am the one choosing to kill babies. Nor am I justified in taking any action against those who do choose to. You are hereby challenged to re-read this thread and show me where I have forced anyone to do anything. I think by the mere act of reading and rejecting what I say should be evidence enough for you that your accusations here are garbage.
I think you'll find that my conclusion based on my kumcuat belief system is just as valid as yours based on yours insomuch as any conclusion based on a belief system, i.e. something you take on faith and not fact, is true. I don't think I can deal with a reality that is defined by you. I think you missed the point of what a construct is.
The facts I stated are facts. The nonsense you outlined is nonsense. At conception we have a living human. That is indisputable fact. That you are disputing it makes you a fringe dwelling member of the thing we know as reality ...
Just thought you'd like to know :)
I like how you continue answer your own question by assuming you know what 'baby' 'alive' and 'human' consist of. I'd like to know what you made you decide to apply these labels to a zygote.
OK. Let me explain what I mean by the terms I use:
I call a baby a baby like a mother might when she learns she is pregnant. As soon as she learns that she is pregnant she will inform her husband. She might say, "We are having a baby". Sure, she may not be using the technically correct medical term, but I think we all understand the entity being referred to. If you do not like my terminology then don't use it. I happen to like it.
I call that baby alive because at conception we have a living baby. This is medical fact. You should not argue with it.
I call that baby human because at conception we have a human baby. That is medical fact. You should not argue with it.
If you prefer the term zygote then feel free to repeat what I just said and say zygote where I say baby. See if you can agree with yourself then. :)
Please oh divine Grant
I'm not divine. :nono:
tell us what "human rights" consist of that this two celled creature can participate in? Is it to be guaranteed shelter, food and the right to not be terminated?
The right to life encapsulates the right to nourishment, shelter and protection from termination. I think you summed things up well :)
Are you willing to extend and champion these rights to all humans?
Of course!
Last I checked, no, because you wish to 'string up adulters'.
Hmmm. That was an exaggerated expression from another discussion that really has no place here. But since you bring it up I suppose I could show you how even you believe that there is a time to kill. As I have said a few times the right decision requires the right judgment. Even you agree that sometimes it is the right thing to do to kill another person. That we do not agree on when life should be protected and when life should be taken is perfectly in line with the fact that we disagree on this topic.
We disagree over the legal right to abort babies and we probably disagree over the penalty for adultery. But we agree there is a time to kill and a time to protect. Am I correct?
Correct, I can not pass judgment on others as you are so willing to do.
Perhaps you just need some practice. Do you think it is right or wrong to pass judgment?
I personally am glad you are so tight with your God that you know exactly what he thinks about every scenario to the point that you are willing to speak on his behalf.
Thanks for the support. I wish what you said were moreso :)
Apparently he personally came to you and told you at what point something becomes a baby and becomes human.Perhaps you should publish and let the rest of the world know that you, GD, have your Gods answers to all the modern questions. You'd sell a million books as I am sure that nobody else has ever presupposed what God thinks before.
No personal revelation. Just a small understanding of what He said :)
Is what you say right or wrong? Only for you...
What does that mean?
-
That's an interesting article, James. What is your take on it?