Quote:
Originally posted by rwest
Another example, in Baseball. Is it not true that the refs give a little more leeway to the SS or 2nd Baseman when turning a double play? I know I've seen plays where the SS was off of 2nd base but in the vicinity when he got the ball, yet they still turned a double play. Why give them that if they are so much better than college players? Entertainment value.
[/B]
|
Reaching way the heck back to my days "in blue," I recall that the reason you let the "in the vicinity" play go are the same reasons you let the "swipe tag" play go. It's about the safety of the player. It's dangerous enough in "friendly" amateur play, doubly so in the pros where the guy sliding into second wouldn't think twice about ending the SS's career to break up the double play.
You seem to be reasoning from the premise that high school and NCAA rules reflect "how the game should be played." Think about this for a minute. What would the game look like today if Naismith's original 18 players had the kind of athleticism and talent that MJ, Shaq, Kobe, and LeBron have?
The rules of basketball are completely and totally arbitrary. They don't represent sacred truth or the natural order of things. They exist for no other reason than to create a contest that is competative, balanced and
interesting. Basketball owes its very existence to the fact that some malcontent PE class was
bored with gymnastics and other contemporary wintertime athletic pursuits. What is competitive, balance and interesting at one level may simplistic, lopsided and dull at another. The rules exist to serve the game, not the other way round.
And yes, sports are inherently entertaining. If they weren't, we as a society wouldn't have embraced them. The entertainment value that you seem to abhor allows us to use sports as a vehicle for pursuing other worthy ends: fitness, education, recreation, and even friendly debate over the virtue of the various rulesets.
Peace
[Edited by Back In The Saddle on May 5th, 2005 at 05:55 PM]