Uruguay [R]
in [World Football]
|
From: Bob on 2 Jul 2010 18:33 Bob wrote: > I agree, but more often than not the penalty for cheating should be > sufficient to dissuade cheaters (if the rules are enforced) but in > this is one case cheating is always worse the risk of getting caught blech ... but in this one case cheating is always worth the risk of getting > because the aggrieved team trades a sure goal for a pk.
From: MH on 2 Jul 2010 19:07 d0asta wrote: > On 3 Juli, 00:12, MH <MHnos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: >> d0asta wrote: >>> On 2 Juli, 23:30, Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!.com> wrote: >>>> [Alessandro Riolo <alessandro.ri...(a)gmail.com>] >>>> [Fri, 2 Jul 2010 22:27:40 +0100] >>>> : This night they did what they had to do, WC are won any way you can really, >>>> : and as already stated, this wasn't cheating, Ghana got the chance to right >>>> : it, and squandered it ... >>>> I'm sorry, Alessandro, but to say that's not cheating is just plain >>>> stupid. Of *COURSE* it is bloody cheating! The fact that the rules >>>> don't adequately punish it doesn't make it any less dishonourable. >>> Eh, the fact that the event was punished according to the rules, means >>> it of *COURSE* wasn't cheating. >> It was cheating. That is why it was punished to the full extent of the >> law by the referee. > > Is every player who commits a fouls a cheater? Yes. By definition, breaking the rules is cheating.
From: MH on 2 Jul 2010 19:06 Bob wrote: > Bob wrote: >> I agree, but more often than not the penalty for cheating should be >> sufficient to dissuade cheaters (if the rules are enforced) but in >> this is one case cheating is always worse the risk of getting caught > > blech ... but in this one case cheating is always worth the risk of getting > >> because the aggrieved team trades a sure goal for a pk. > > This is a fundamental sporting rules dilemma, though. To be rational and fair the rules have to be the same from the first minute of the game all the way to the very end (wish hockey refs would actually apply them that way in the playoffs). However, that concept obviously means that as the end of the game approaches, the motivation for cheating gets stronger, and the comparative cost of getting caught decreases. A yellow card in the 89th minute of the world cup final is trivial. In the first minute, it could eventually be game changing (limits action of defender, could lead to sending off). A red card that saves a breakaway in the last minute of a tied game (or one when offending team is leading by one goal) is cheap compared to one in the first half. I don't see how this can be resolved.
From: Sven Mischkies on 2 Jul 2010 19:24 MH <MHnospam(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: > Bob wrote: > > Bob wrote: > >> I agree, but more often than not the penalty for cheating should be > >> sufficient to dissuade cheaters (if the rules are enforced) but in > >> this is one case cheating is always worse the risk of getting caught > > > > blech ... but in this one case cheating is always worth the risk of getting > > > >> because the aggrieved team trades a sure goal for a pk. > > > > > This is a fundamental sporting rules dilemma, though. To be rational > and fair the rules have to be the same from the first minute of the game > all the way to the very end (wish hockey refs would actually apply them > that way in the playoffs). However, that concept obviously means that > as the end of the game approaches, the motivation for cheating gets > stronger, and the comparative cost of getting caught decreases. A > yellow card in the 89th minute of the world cup final is trivial. In > the first minute, it could eventually be game changing (limits action of > defender, could lead to sending off). A red card that saves a breakaway > in the last minute of a tied game (or one when offending team is leading > by one goal) is cheap compared to one in the first half. > > I don't see how this can be resolved. Red card in the 1st half: 1 player off. Red card in the 2nd half: 2 players off. Red card in the last 5 minutes: 5 players off, 5 minutes IT. ;)) Ciao, SM -- http://www.gourockviews.co.uk I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously. Douglas Adams
From: Bob on 2 Jul 2010 19:39
MH wrote: > d0asta wrote: >> On 3 Juli, 00:12, MH <MHnos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: >>> d0asta wrote: >>>> On 2 Juli, 23:30, Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!.com> wrote: >>>>> [Alessandro Riolo <alessandro.ri...(a)gmail.com>] >>>>> [Fri, 2 Jul 2010 22:27:40 +0100] >>>>>> This night they did what they had to do, WC are won any way you >>>>>> can really, and as already stated, this wasn't cheating, Ghana >>>>>> got the chance to right it, and squandered it ... >>>>> I'm sorry, Alessandro, but to say that's not cheating is just >>>>> plain stupid. Of *COURSE* it is bloody cheating! The fact that >>>>> the rules don't adequately punish it doesn't make it any less >>>>> dishonourable. >>>> Eh, the fact that the event was punished according to the rules, >>>> means it of *COURSE* wasn't cheating. >>> It was cheating. That is why it was punished to the full extent of >>> the law by the referee. >> >> Is every player who commits a fouls a cheater? > > Yes. By definition, breaking the rules is cheating. Really? I'd say it's cheating only if the foul is purposeful, otherwise it could be incidental. |