Our discussion in class quickly lead to the conclusion that there are multiple levels of cheating, multiple levels of "gaining an unfair advantage." Of course, just what is unfair is also questionable.
I feel that the multiple levels of "gaining an unfair advantage" file into two categories: 1) The action is outlawed by the rules of the game, and 2) The action is intended to deceive the official(s) (although this is technically outlawed in most sports anyways, it is usually not considered a "rule"). Neither of these are permissible in my book.
I play sport for these two most prominent reasons: I love the beauty of sport, and I need the competition and excitement. For me, cheating takes away from of these aspects. A goal in soccer is not impressive (and thus beautiful) if it was put in with the hand. Similarly, what are my opponents to do if I continuously deceive the referee by diving? They cannot defend against such an offense in a manner that is both effective and is not cheating itself. If I cheat, it is as if I am no longer playing the game. The rules are just those of everyday life in the physical sense, and all of a sudden the ability to put the ball in the back of the net seems a worthless and boring talent. At that point, it is time to leave the field and continue living life. That is, life minus sport. There was no point in being out there in the first place. How dull.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes, you touch on a point there that will come up later (in Caillois and Hyland, from memory): that it's the restrictions placed on how you can behave on the sports field that give it its challenge, its meaning, and if you remove those restrictions - or undermine them - then you remove the "magic" of being in that special place and time with its own rules. You're no longer in that different country, but back in the everyday.
Post a Comment