Is lying in baseball a virtue?

Well if we’re telling players to intentionally violate the written rules, to gain an advantage (IMHO) we’re teaching a life lesson that situaional ethics is ok.

There are situations in life, though, that do require judgment calls- to act one way in one situation is acceptable, in another not. To recognize that there are some times where a sort of “situational ethics” applies does not mean that all sense of absolutes need be discarded.

The fact is, in basketball, there is always a degree of relativity. A pickup game will often be rougher than an officiated game. Officiated games will vary based on the way a referee calls the game and interprets fouls. What constitutes a foul in one setting may not be so interpreted in another.

As I mentioned earlier, even Jesus taught that there were exceptions to absolutes (like pulling your ox out of a hole on the Sabbath). Absorbing the consequences for an infraction for a strategic reason, like an intentional foul to slow down the pace of a game, is in one sense no less unethical than playing with some degree of hustle/reckless abandon with the knowledge that one might risk a charging foul. In your way of thinking, I could almost imagine you arguing it would be unethical to attempt a shot block, since there is a high degree of probability that one might miss clean contact with the ball and commit a foul instead.

[Greg Linscott] As I mentioned earlier, even Jesus taught that there were exceptions to absolutes (like pulling your ox out of a hole on the Sabbath).

Maybe you can clarify this in principle form. I am sure you are not saying that all absolutes have exception clauses. If not, then proving an exception to an absolute might not be the principle Jesus was teaching here.

There seems a lot of moral equivocation going on here, and not a little misdefinition. First, fouling at the end of basketball game is not equivalent to pornography or even defaulting on credit card debt. And no, one doesn’t lead to the other. They are not related. It is not a sin to foul at the end of a game. Confusing these categories is dangerous.

Second, an intentional foul is hardly ever committed in basketball because it doesn’t make sense to commit an intentional foul. An intentional foul, by definition, is a foul without trying to play the ball. It results in two free throws and the ball being given to the team that was fouled.

[Larry]

There seems a lot of moral equivocation going on here, and not a little misdefinition. First, fouling at the end of basketball game is not equivalent to pornography or even defaulting on credit card debt. And no, one doesn’t lead to the other. They are not related. It is not a sin to foul at the end of a game. Confusing these categories is dangerous.

The whole point of this is that some people do believe intentional fouling is a sin. And if so, who is to say whether it is equivalent to defaulting on credit card debt or not?

[Larry]

Second, an intentional foul is hardly ever committed in basketball because it doesn’t make sense to commit an intentional foul. An intentional foul, by definition, is a foul without trying to play the ball. It results in two free throws and the ball being given to the team that was fouled.

Anyone that watches basketball knows those fouls committed by the losing team at the end of a game are intentional by intent whether or not they are called so by the officials and that is the point here. The technical definition of “intentional foul” is not relevant to this discussion.

Chip, I don’t mean to say that is Jesus’ point. I am just observing that there are occasions where situations present possible exceptions.

I don’t think that I am going to persuade you (or Doug H) on this. I suppose the best I or the others can do is to have shown the reasoning behind why many don’t see a moral transgression with a purposefully committed foul near the end of regulation…

You run into all kinds. One of my profs at Faith would annually incense the students because of his principled opposition to playing or watching football because it intentionally damaged the body. I had to smile, though, because I also knew his wife was an avid Packers fan, and his son (who was in my youth group) was loyal to the Chicago Bears…

generally will not watch pro footbal due to it’s being played on Sunday, then on Thanksgiving while I’m sleeping off the turkey will slip in and change to some “chick-flick” :) or worse ice skating.

By the way my whole point is it is possible to play any game via the written rules and not resort to doing something that “intentionally” violates the written rules of the game. Most of the time the ‘intentional stuff’ is for one of two reasons you’re losing or you feel the other guy/team did something they shouldn’t have.

When my boys played baseball I always gave them a warning before the season started: You’re a Christian both off and on the field, so don’t do anything that would hurt your testimony or the cause of Christ on or off the field. Or I will sit you for a game/or portion there-of.

(By the way…No I would not make such an argument about a blocked shot, blocking/charging, reaching in and so on during the normal flow of the game. My disagreement comes with the intentional foul at the end of the game because your behind. )

The whole point of this is that some people do believe intentional fouling is a sin.

People believe all sorts of things, but some of them are wrong.

And if so, who is to say whether it is equivalent to defaulting on credit card debt or not?

People who know what sin is, and who understand the various issues that are being talked about.The rules of a sport do not set up a moral standard by which sin is measured.

Anyone that watches basketball knows those fouls committed by the losing team at the end of a game are intentional by intent whether or not they are called so by the officials and that is the point here. The technical definition of “intentional foul” is not relevant to this discussion.

So now the rules don’t matter? Up above, we were being told this issue was that rules were being broken, intentionally, to boot. Now you are saying that the rules of the game don’t really matter. Which conversation do we want to have here?

My disagreement comes with the intentional foul at the end of the game because your behind.

But remember that what you are calling an intentional foul is not an intentional foul by rule. What you are calling an intentional foul is an attempt to get the ball, according to the rules of the game. And that is legal. If, in the process of that, inappropriate contact is made, then a foul is called. But it is not, by definition, an intentional foul.

Technically, there is a difference between a foul (a violation of the rules in the course of play which may be accidental or intentional), an intentional foul (a deliberate violation of the rules in order to gain a perceived advantage), and a flagrant foul (an intentional foul that puts the opponent’s health at risk). Fouling while trying to block a shot deserves a penalty but is distinct in this conversation if it was done accidentally rather than intentionally. Playing hard and inadvertently crossing the line is different from making a choice to deliberately break the rules.

Chip, in the rules, the first two categories are the same category. There is no distinction. Where the confusion comes in is in confusing the first two categories with the third one. People are using the third term to refer to the first two situations.

[Larry]

The whole point of this is that some people do believe intentional fouling is a sin.

People believe all sorts of things, but some of them are wrong.

Exactly… And that goes for you too. Just because you state dogmatically this is a sin does not make it so.

[Larry]

And if so, who is to say whether it is equivalent to defaulting on credit card debt or not?

People who know what sin is, and who understand the various issues that are being talked about.The rules of a sport do not set up a moral standard by which sin is measured.

Again, there is reasonable debate on whether this is a sin or not. Your pronouncement that it is not a sin does not make it so.

[Larry]

Anyone that watches basketball knows those fouls committed by the losing team at the end of a game are intentional by intent whether or not they are called so by the officials and that is the point here. The technical definition of “intentional foul” is not relevant to this discussion.

So now the rules don’t matter? Up above, we were being told this issue was that rules were being broken, intentionally, to boot. Now you are saying that the rules of the game don’t really matter. Which conversation do we want to have here?

Trying to decide how to handle this. Do you really not understand how a foul can be intentional even if it is not called intentional by officials? It is not at all a hard thing to understand. The question is not whether an official calls a foul intentional. It is whether it is OK for a player to intentionally foul.

Exactly… And that goes for you too. Just because you state dogmatically this is a sin does not make it so.

I haven’t dogmatically stated this is a sin. It isn’t. There is no moral component here, Greg.

Again, there is reasonable debate on whether this is a sin or not. Your pronouncement that it is not a sin does not make it so.

Reasonable? I have yet to see any reasons that place fouling in a basketball game into a moral category.

Do you really not understand how a foul can be intentional even if it is not called intentional by officials? It is not at all a hard thing to understand. The question is not whether an official calls a foul intentional. It is whether it is OK for a player to intentionally foul.

So you are admitting that the rules don’t matter? That’s the point, Greg. What has been appealed to here constantly is the rules. But then when someone actually cites the rules, the rules aren’t the issue anymore.

You are correct that this isn’t hard. It has been addressed in the rulebook. As Chip says, there is a confusion of terms here, not to mention a confusion of morality.

[Larry]

Exactly… And that goes for you too. Just because you state dogmatically this is a sin does not make it so.

I haven’t dogmatically stated this is a sin. It isn’t. There is no moral component here, Greg.

Again, there is reasonable debate on whether this is a sin or not. Your pronouncement that it is not a sin does not make it so.

Reasonable? I have yet to see any reasons that place fouling in a basketball game into a moral category.

Do you really not understand how a foul can be intentional even if it is not called intentional by officials? It is not at all a hard thing to understand. The question is not whether an official calls a foul intentional. It is whether it is OK for a player to intentionally foul.

So you are admitting that the rules don’t matter? That’s the point, Greg. What has been appealed to here constantly is the rules. But then when someone actually cites the rules, the rules aren’t the issue anymore.

You are correct that this isn’t hard. It has been addressed in the rulebook. As Chip says, there is a confusion of terms here, not to mention a confusion of morality.

Where did I say rules don’t matter? It is ridiculous for you to keep saying that. What I said (and others are saying) is this:

* There are rules that supersede the official basketball rules that may apply here. The official basketball handbook is not the sole source of all rules and that is especially true for moral ones.

* There are two definitions of intentional foul (every child understands that). One definition is addressed in the basketball handbook. The other definition involves morality and is what people here are discussing for the most part.

Where did I say rules don’t matter?

When I cited the actual rule about intentional foul, you said “The technical definition of “intentional foul” is “not relevant to this discussion.”

But in the game of basketball (or anything game), the rulebook for that game determines what something is. I don’t think you can say that the rulebook is not relevant. It matters because it determines how the game is played.

* There are rules that supersede the official basketball rules that may apply here. The official basketball handbook is not the sole source of all rules and that is especially true for moral ones.

But again, fouling someone is not a moral issue. Otherwise, no game could be played without sin because fouls happen. To say that we should maintain our Christian testimony is true. To say that such requires one never to foul is not true.

* There are two definitions of intentional foul (every child understands that). One definition is addressed in the basketball handbook. The other definition involves morality and is what people here are discussing for the most part.

First, there’s only one defintion of intentional foul in the rulebook for the game, and those are the rules the game is played by. Every child may not understand that, but that’s the way the game works.

Second, if you think this involves morality, then I am willing to entertain that argument, but it has to be made. So why not show how fouls (that are not intentional by the rules of the game, which stipulate intent to hurt, flagrant, etc.) involves morality.

[Larry]

Where did I say rules don’t matter?

When I cited the actual rule about intentional foul, you said “The technical definition of “intentional foul” is “not relevant to this discussion.”

But in the game of basketball (or anything game), the rulebook for that game determines what something is. I don’t think you can say that the rulebook is not relevant. It matters because it determines how the game is played.

* There are rules that supersede the official basketball rules that may apply here. The official basketball handbook is not the sole source of all rules and that is especially true for moral ones.

But again, fouling someone is not a moral issue. Otherwise, no game could be played without sin because fouls happen. To say that we should maintain our Christian testimony is true. To say that such requires one never to foul is not true.

* There are two definitions of intentional foul (every child understands that). One definition is addressed in the basketball handbook. The other definition involves morality and is what people here are discussing for the most part.

First, there’s only one defintion of intentional foul in the rulebook for the game, and those are the rules the game is played by. Every child may not understand that, but that’s the way the game works.

Second, if you think this involves morality, then I am willing to entertain that argument, but it has to be made. So why not show how fouls (that are not intentional by the rules of the game, which stipulate intent to hurt, flagrant, etc.) involves morality.

The technical definition of “intentional foul” is not relevant to this discussion because that is not the scenario being discussed. The fouls being discussed here are fouls made intentionally at the end of the game by the losing team for the purpose of stopping the clock. I think everyone here besides you knows that and that is why your continued insistence to reframe this discussion to refer to another scenario (the intentional foul as defined by the rule book) is frustrating.

Personally, I don’t have a strong opinion on the morality of committing fouls intentionally to stop the clock, but there is a legitimate question as to whether committing a foul intentionally is rebelling against authority in the same way intentionally speeding might be. Regardless of whether you agree or not, there are some good arguments either way and I think it is a bit much to dogmatically dismiss the other side as you seem to have done.

Since I could not care less about basketball, I should probably not have jumped into this. I just wanted to point out that I don’t think dogmatism is appropriate here nor do I think you are being fair in refusing to acknowledge the difference between an intentional foul and a foul committed intentionally.