Good ole Herb.Always gets to the crux of the matter
Doesn't that presume that all opponents are of equal ability though?
Yet we know this is not the case, so in what way does it negate a great innings or a great goal, for instance?
To be honest, though, it's only the widespread televising of games that causes these issues.
Without all the replays and camera angles, we'd simply have to do what we used to do and take the ref's word for it whether we liked it or not. I doubt diving is any more prevalent now than in the past - it's just more easily identified after the event.
" I believe cheating is integral to football".....what does that mean?
If footballers didn't cheat, the game would die?
Interestingly, self-regulation is shown to work perfectly well in school playgrounds the world over, where the players themselves have to referee the games. Of course, this system works because if you claim a ball that clearly went over your jumper (i.e. the 'post') was a goal then you know your opponents will do the same the next time they hit the 'post'.
No, but it wouldn't be football as we recognise it.
There are sports where cheating is effectively impossible (Tennis?) that seem to still be quite
No, but there is a sliding scale. A hundred against Bangladesh is not worth as much as one against
This sounds like the Suarez defence of
'what makes biting so different from all the other, perhaps more dangerous fouls'?
It is a taboo, a crossed line of cheatiness. We can spend as long as you like analysing why, but that's what it boils down to.
It is hardly a part of football to be encouraged, so when someone makes it an important part of his.
game, and goes unpunished, the game suffers. Successful cheating spawns a host of imitators.
Again, there is a reason why punishment for repeat offenders - "three strikes and you're out" and the like - exists. The idea that if someone is committing crimes regularly the punishment has to become more severe to discourage it.
