Walking: What is it good for?
Old wine in a new bottle. A modified version (one concentrating on the ethics of walking alone) of an older piece David Coady and I wrote is available in Res Publica, a publication of the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (at Melbourne University).
The older piece alluded to above is titled "Not Cricket", and was published in Sport in Society, Volume 10, Number 5, September 2007. That entire special issue, titled "At the Boundaries of Cricket", is worth checking out.
The older piece alluded to above is titled "Not Cricket", and was published in Sport in Society, Volume 10, Number 5, September 2007. That entire special issue, titled "At the Boundaries of Cricket", is worth checking out.
Labels: philosophy, walking
posted by Samir Chopra at 11:15 AM
2 Comments:
Samir, I'll be reading the articles over the Thanksgiving break, but I wanted to share a link I wrote about a little-noted walking controversy starring Murali Karthik and Ricky Ponting. It adds another layer to the walking debate (namely, can we openly talk after-the-fact about not walking in the event of a nick).
See: http://duckingbeamers.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/should-we-go-for-a-walk-and-talk/
The whole walking thing needs to be put to rest. If there were no umpires, I can understand having an honor system. Now, if you are gonna have 2 on-field umpires and a third with access to slo-mo replays, I don't subscribe to the walking strategy. Let the umps do their job. If the batter is expected to take the wrong decision in his stride and walk away without as much as a little jawing at the ump, he is well within his right to stand his ground. We need to stop pretending like the players are saints. They are human, just like the fans and its unfair for the expect them to be something they are not.
Post a Comment
<< Home