profernity (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} profernity) wrote,@ 2008-06-27 14:15:00 |
|
| Current mood: |  tired |
| Entry tags: | nz cricket |
Wow.
It's been a hell of a week, hasn't it? I will now attempt to collect my thoughts to form some kind of response to the events of the 4th ODI.
Moral equivalency and its applications
Moral equivalency arguments have always been a bugbear of mine. In particular I think its use in forums, blogs and Youtube comments is of concern because I feel it is faulty logic, and on the Internet it is difficult to stop before rude, untrue and libelous statements proliferate.
A simplification of the argument against moral equivalency is "two wrongs don't make a right". When applied to the Elliott runout at the Brit Oval, for instance, I feel it is incorrect to believe that New Zealand did not have the right to be aggrieved simply because they themselves have engaged in unsportsman-like practices in the past. Claiming moral equivalency between this runout and McCullum/Murali or Pietersen/Pollock, etc. takes away the culpability of the perceived offender (England). Each incident must be dealt with in isolation, because it's the act itself we need to be controlling, not the teams and players. What good is gloating if nothing is going to be done to stop it happening again in the future. Because you know what? If you don't, one day it'll happen to your favourite team, and you'll be stuffed.
In effect the last three sentences above is what many people have been saying, in criticism of Vettori's profanity-laden outburst at the end of the match. The question being asked is, "NZ were dismissive of Sri Lanka's expression of offense, gloating even, so how could they act so offended now?" The part I think is missing in the argument is the distinction between the right to feel wronged, and the right to expect something to go your way. To give an example, did NZ have a right to feel wronged by England? Yes. Did NZ have a right to expect Collingwood to withdraw his appeal? No. This is a distinction I try to make when viewing any controversial incident in sport. And boy have I had to do this often. In motorsport, rugby, cricket, whatever, it seems people have trouble distinguishing between a basic right, and an expectation.
An offshoot of moral equivalency is that other much-hated cliché, "karmic justice" or equivalent. Firstly, karma does not require ironic punishment of similar weight to the offence, ie. "Oh they exacted a dodgy runout, now it's happened to them, that's karma". Secondly, karma is not a justification for bad events occurring. Thirdly, karma is not a simplistic cause/effect system between two parties. It is a complex interaction between every living thing that's ever had any impact on anything else. So GAGF with the overuse of the word karma already, I don't want it used ever again in sport.
The run out itself...
...was exacerbated by Elliott's running on the wrong side of the wicket. Happens all the time. Usually nothing comes of it and the batsman scrambles to safety. In this case, given that Elliott was injured to some extent, not simply fallen, I don't think the run out should stand. In this sense, the fact that Elliott tried to get up and run actually worked against him, he should have just stayed on the ground. The next logical question is, "So how will you stop players from intentionally running into bowlers and faking dives?" My answer is that this is the judgement of the umpire, in that a player who makes no effort to avoid collision/tries to cause a collision in the umpire's eyes will be adjudged run out. The reason why I suggest such a blurry rule is because I think the umpires would do a good job if the laws allowed them to apply their judgement and common sense. The rain issue in Edgbaston demonstrated how the game could actually suffer if umpires responsibilities are taken away from them. Rugby refs can judge on whether players are making a conscious effort to roll away from a ruck, motorsport officials can issue a bad sportsmanship flag for excessive blocking, what's different about cricket umpires?
Collingwood's appeal...
...was perfectly understandable. He desperately wants to win. It's not like they're Australia and can afford to be a little magnanimous from time to time, this is England, who are constantly under pressure by fans and media to exceed their 7th-placed ODI ranking. People have jumped on his use on the phrase, "split-second decision", but to me a few minutes would probably seem like a short time when you're out there. It's a well-used cliché anyway, it doesn't literally mean a split second, so what's the problem?
Vettori's response...
...was also perfectly understandable. He also desperately wants to win. NZ are 3rd-ranked in ODIs, but that's really the legacy of a team that no longer exists, what with Fleming, McMillan, Astle, Bond, Hamish Marshall and Vincent gone in the space of a few months. At the time, he may have felt like the run-out could cost them the game. When you look back at it, really, it's the top order batting failure which has put the team under pressure once again. Nevertheless, with the Elliott run out occurring less than an hour previous, you are going to be ropeable if it turns out to be crucial.
That being said, I would have preferred it if he didn't go down the finger-pointing route. I don't mind the "f**k you" if its directed at no one in particular. And the "RUN!RUN!RUN!!!!!111!!!!1!" was pretty damn funny. But to specifically direct it at the English support team, then fail to shake hands at the end...very poor form and a reflection of character.
The apologies...
...were the best that could be done, and hopefully will nip it in the bud before the next match. I'm sure there will be niggle, but if there's one thing that irritates me, it's bad behaviour off the field.
In conclusion...
...in essence the runout shouldn't have been too big an issue, there certainly have been worse. The biggest problem is that England and New Zealand have been playing each other for 19 straight games over 6 months. It's pure insanity.
Moral equivalency arguments have always been a bugbear of mine. In particular I think its use in forums, blogs and Youtube comments is of concern because I feel it is faulty logic, and on the Internet it is difficult to stop before rude, untrue and libelous statements proliferate.
A simplification of the argument against moral equivalency is "two wrongs don't make a right". When applied to the Elliott runout at the Brit Oval, for instance, I feel it is incorrect to believe that New Zealand did not have the right to be aggrieved simply because they themselves have engaged in unsportsman-like practices in the past. Claiming moral equivalency between this runout and McCullum/Murali or Pietersen/Pollock, etc. takes away the culpability of the perceived offender (England). Each incident must be dealt with in isolation, because it's the act itself we need to be controlling, not the teams and players. What good is gloating if nothing is going to be done to stop it happening again in the future. Because you know what? If you don't, one day it'll happen to your favourite team, and you'll be stuffed.
In effect the last three sentences above is what many people have been saying, in criticism of Vettori's profanity-laden outburst at the end of the match. The question being asked is, "NZ were dismissive of Sri Lanka's expression of offense, gloating even, so how could they act so offended now?" The part I think is missing in the argument is the distinction between the right to feel wronged, and the right to expect something to go your way. To give an example, did NZ have a right to feel wronged by England? Yes. Did NZ have a right to expect Collingwood to withdraw his appeal? No. This is a distinction I try to make when viewing any controversial incident in sport. And boy have I had to do this often. In motorsport, rugby, cricket, whatever, it seems people have trouble distinguishing between a basic right, and an expectation.
An offshoot of moral equivalency is that other much-hated cliché, "karmic justice" or equivalent. Firstly, karma does not require ironic punishment of similar weight to the offence, ie. "Oh they exacted a dodgy runout, now it's happened to them, that's karma". Secondly, karma is not a justification for bad events occurring. Thirdly, karma is not a simplistic cause/effect system between two parties. It is a complex interaction between every living thing that's ever had any impact on anything else. So GAGF with the overuse of the word karma already, I don't want it used ever again in sport.
The run out itself...
...was exacerbated by Elliott's running on the wrong side of the wicket. Happens all the time. Usually nothing comes of it and the batsman scrambles to safety. In this case, given that Elliott was injured to some extent, not simply fallen, I don't think the run out should stand. In this sense, the fact that Elliott tried to get up and run actually worked against him, he should have just stayed on the ground. The next logical question is, "So how will you stop players from intentionally running into bowlers and faking dives?" My answer is that this is the judgement of the umpire, in that a player who makes no effort to avoid collision/tries to cause a collision in the umpire's eyes will be adjudged run out. The reason why I suggest such a blurry rule is because I think the umpires would do a good job if the laws allowed them to apply their judgement and common sense. The rain issue in Edgbaston demonstrated how the game could actually suffer if umpires responsibilities are taken away from them. Rugby refs can judge on whether players are making a conscious effort to roll away from a ruck, motorsport officials can issue a bad sportsmanship flag for excessive blocking, what's different about cricket umpires?
Collingwood's appeal...
...was perfectly understandable. He desperately wants to win. It's not like they're Australia and can afford to be a little magnanimous from time to time, this is England, who are constantly under pressure by fans and media to exceed their 7th-placed ODI ranking. People have jumped on his use on the phrase, "split-second decision", but to me a few minutes would probably seem like a short time when you're out there. It's a well-used cliché anyway, it doesn't literally mean a split second, so what's the problem?
Vettori's response...
...was also perfectly understandable. He also desperately wants to win. NZ are 3rd-ranked in ODIs, but that's really the legacy of a team that no longer exists, what with Fleming, McMillan, Astle, Bond, Hamish Marshall and Vincent gone in the space of a few months. At the time, he may have felt like the run-out could cost them the game. When you look back at it, really, it's the top order batting failure which has put the team under pressure once again. Nevertheless, with the Elliott run out occurring less than an hour previous, you are going to be ropeable if it turns out to be crucial.
That being said, I would have preferred it if he didn't go down the finger-pointing route. I don't mind the "f**k you" if its directed at no one in particular. And the "RUN!RUN!RUN!!!!!111!!!!1!" was pretty damn funny. But to specifically direct it at the English support team, then fail to shake hands at the end...very poor form and a reflection of character.
The apologies...
...were the best that could be done, and hopefully will nip it in the bud before the next match. I'm sure there will be niggle, but if there's one thing that irritates me, it's bad behaviour off the field.
In conclusion...
...in essence the runout shouldn't have been too big an issue, there certainly have been worse. The biggest problem is that England and New Zealand have been playing each other for 19 straight games over 6 months. It's pure insanity.
