Morals and the law

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That's not how the games went when I played. There were argued calls, and sometimes there was no other way to resolve them than one side conceding just to keep the dispute from stopping the game. There were also somewhat dishonest players who got away with fouls when they could.

There is no standard expectation of an invisible, omnipresent, omniscient ref. Where would that come from, anyway?

There were arguments because you didn't play with gentlemen.

A professional doesn't require anyone to remind him of the rules or his infractions thereof.

There is no standard expectation of an invisible, omnipresent, omniscient ref. Where would that come from, anyway?
I think it finds its roots in integrity.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There were arguments because you didn't play with gentlemen.

A professional doesn't require anyone to remind him of the rules or his infractions thereof.

And a gentleman wouldn't suddenly start cheating just because there is a ref there.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And a gentleman wouldn't suddenly start cheating just because there is a ref there.

It's only cheating if you get caught.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Morals have nothing to do with it, whatsoever. You may as well as call a player who travels a sinner...

I am sorry but I don't play basket ball so I don't know what 'traveling' is but if its against the rules, then yes, someone who does it deliberately in a game would be a sinner whether the ref catches him or not. You yourself implied that you follow the rules when there is no ref, so the rules clearly do not require a ref to be present and to identify infractions for them to be infractions.
I am also willing to bet that you cannot quote a rule book that says 'anything goes when the ref isn't looking', or even one that lists the rules as being 'what the ref sees'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am sorry but I don't play basket ball so I don't know what 'traveling' is but if its against the rules, then yes, someone who does it deliberately in a game would be a sinner whether the ref catches him or not. You yourself implied that you follow the rules when there is no ref, so the rules clearly do not require a ref to be present and to identify inf ...[text shortened]... goes when the ref isn't looking', or even one that lists the rules as being 'what the ref sees'.

I am sorry but I don't play basket ball so I don't know what 'traveling' is but if its against the rules, then yes, someone who does it deliberately in a game would be a sinner whether the ref catches him or not.
There are obvious limitations when using any analogy, but this one still has juice to squeeze. It is decidedly not an infraction if the ref doesn't call it! If the whistle isn't blown, if the other team neither gains possession nor shoots a free throw, then no infraction took place!
This is exactly what I meant by the presence of the referee changing the game, causing the juxtaposition between the gentleman's game and the one refereed.

I follow the rules when it improves my team's chances of winning. That is what I am tasked to do. If I can use the ref's inability to see all of the inner machinations of grappling which are not inherently part of the game, I will.
Why? Because that is part of the game!

Originally posted by SwissGambit
They can afford refs in rat ball? 😕

The refs I am referring to (Edit: if there is not self constraint) have badges and carry guns.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There were arguments because you didn't play with gentlemen.

A professional doesn't require anyone to remind him of the rules or his infractions thereof.

[b]There is no standard expectation of an invisible, omnipresent, omniscient ref. Where would that come from, anyway?
I think it finds its roots in integrity.[/b]

...and off-court discipline.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It is decidedly not an infraction if the ref doesn't call it! If the whistle isn't blown, if the other team neither gains possession nor shoots a free throw, [b]then no infraction took place![/b]

Yet oddly enough, you claim that when there is no ref, the infraction does take place. How is this?
I dispute your claim that no infraction takes place when the ref is not there. I believe this is just you making excuses for your ungentlemanly behaviour.
I do know that the ref gets to call whether the whistle should be blown or possession change etc, but that is because the ref acts as a judge for the sake of fairness and to deal with cheats like you. But this in no way means it becomes OK to cheat as long as the ref doesn't see.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There were arguments because you didn't play with gentlemen.

A professional doesn't require anyone to remind him of the rules or his infractions thereof.

[b]There is no standard expectation of an invisible, omnipresent, omniscient ref. Where would that come from, anyway?
I think it finds its roots in integrity.[/b]

Integrity should persist even with a ref.

Arguments happen even amongst gentlemen, especially if it's a close call. Well meaning people can disagree on what a call should be.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet oddly enough, you claim that when there is no ref, the infraction does take place. How is this?
I dispute your claim that no infraction takes place when the ref is not there. I believe this is just you making excuses for your ungentlemanly behaviour.
I do know that the ref gets to call whether the whistle should be blown or possession change etc, bu ...[text shortened]... cheats like you. But this in no way means it becomes OK to cheat as long as the ref doesn't see.

Yet oddly enough, you claim that when there is no ref, the infraction does take place. How is this?
I dispute your claim that no infraction takes place when the ref is not there.

Is the whistle blown?
Has the card flown?
Is there in anyway, shape or form
Any indication a foul has been borne?

Sorry for the crappy song, but the fact remains, unless the referee both observes and calls it, it didn't happen.

I believe this is just you making excuses for your ungentlemanly behaviour.
Ha! Let's not make this about me, shall we?

A gentleman is one of good, courteous conduct. Where does this have application in a refereed game, exactly?

I do know that the ref gets to call whether the whistle should be blown or possession change etc, but that is because the ref acts as a judge for the sake of fairness and to deal with cheats like you.
You mad, bro?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Integrity should persist even with a ref.

Arguments happen even amongst gentlemen, especially if it's a close call. Well meaning people can disagree on what a call should be.

Well meaning people can disagree on what a call should be.
Irrelevant.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Well meaning people can disagree on what a call should be.
Irrelevant.[/b]

Well, at least now I can dismiss your non-point. 😴

Originally posted by twhitehead
I saw a question on Facebook. It asked what you would do if there were no laws for 24 hours. One of the responses was someone who said he would go out and rape a whole lot of girls. It struck me as odd. This suggests the only thing holding him back from being a serial rapist is fear of punishment.
How many here would completely throw away their morals if ...[text shortened]... ties (or think they can) and atrocities happen. What percentage of people behave in this manner?

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt2184339/
I want to see this movie. I have not yet.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Is the whistle blown?
Has the card flown?
Is there in anyway, shape or form
Any indication a foul has been borne?

Sorry for the crappy song, but the fact remains, unless the referee both observes and calls it, it didn't happen.

And I am sure you have heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty".
But don't try to tell me that you are morally correct until found guilty in a court of law.
The fact that we let you get away with infractions doesn't mean you don't commit them.


Ha! Let's not make this about me, shall we?
But it is about you. You have the weirdest ideas about sports morals I have ever heard. You think the presence of a ref means anything goes so long as the ref doesn't catch you.

A gentleman is one of good, courteous conduct. Where does this have application in a refereed game, exactly?
That you think a ref removes the requirement for courteous conduct is amazing to me.

You mad, bro?
Not sure what you mean by that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I am sure you have heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty".
But don't try to tell me that you are morally correct until found guilty in a court of law.
The fact that we let you get away with infractions doesn't mean you don't commit them.


[b]Ha! Let's not make this about me, shall we?
But it is about you. You have the weirdest ide ...[text shortened]... for courteous conduct is amazing to me.

You mad, bro?
Not sure what you mean by that.[/b]

But don't try to tell me that you are morally correct until found guilty in a court of law.
We're not discussing moral behavior when it comes to a refereed game: we're discussing strategies used to win the game. Surely you've seen a game wherein the defense purposely commits a foul to stop the clock?Reveal Hidden Content
Are you suggesting the contestants are immoral?
Are you really that self-righteous?

You have the weirdest ideas about sports morals I have ever heard. You think the presence of a ref means anything goes so long as the ref doesn't catch you.
You clearly have not been a close observer of sports, it appears.
Ironically, you continue to overlook my personal philosophy when it comes to playing games of sport. You know, that part where I play as though the ref is perfect?

Not sure what you mean by that.
For some inexplicable reason, you insist that it's all about me when I'm merely pointing out how students of the game approach it with a strategic mindset.
It's only your self-righteousness which blinds you to the reality of the distinctions between a refereed and a gentleman's game.