Post history

History for Optimist

Nike Cup 2014

Back to topic

Current version

Posted March 04, 2014 10:09 · last edited March 04, 2014 22:43

chopah wrote:
Optimist wrote:
Smithy wrote:

I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.


Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.


Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.


Up to one of the clubs to appeal.


Let's put the player to one side, because given his age he is at the affect of what is going on around him.  But the club and coach are party to an arrangement they know is being put in place as an exception/precedent so they have agreed to be party to this "arrangement of convenience" - so they deserve any and all the grief any reader of this thread feels moved to throw in their direction.


who said anything about it being his son - where did that come from?  this is not accurate as far as I know.


Whoa, what a huge fail on my part!!

Previous versions

4 versions
Optimist edited March 04, 2014 22:43
chopah wrote:
Optimist wrote:
Smithy wrote:

I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.


Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.


Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.


Up to one of the clubs to appeal.


Let's put the player to one side, because given his age he is at the affect of what is going on around him.  But the club and coach are party to an arrangement they know is being put in place as an exception/precedent so they have agreed to be party to this "arrangement of convenience" - so they deserve any and all the grief any reader of this thread feels moved to throw in their direction.


who said anything about it being his son - where did that come from?  this is not accurate as far as I know.


Whoa, what a huge fail on my part!!


I have just re-read the thread through and I can now not find what my first comment referenced to.  I have edited my original post and retract my first sentence of my above quoted post.  (Chopah, can you please edit my incorrect statement - my first sentence - from the quoted area of your post? Thanks).


Apologies to the person I referenced to and sorry for any confusion/angst caused by my earlier mis-reading and resultant miss-firing.



Optimist edited March 04, 2014 10:19
chopah wrote:
Optimist wrote:
Smithy wrote:

I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.


Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.


Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.


Up to one of the clubs to appeal.


Except this was the rule keeper giving the green light to a question, the answer of which benefited his own son.


Let's put the player to one side, because given his age he is at the affect of what is going on around him.  But the club and coach are party to an arrangement they know is being put in place as an exception/precedent so they have agreed to be party to this "arrangement of convenience" - so they deserve any and all the grief any reader of this thread feels moved to throw in their direction.


who said anything about it being his son - where did that come from?  this is not accurate as far as I know.


Whoa, what a huge fail on my part!!


I have just re-read the thread through and I can now not find what my first comment referenced to.  I have edited my original post and retract my first sentence of my above quoted post.  (Chopah, can you please edit my incorrect statement - my first sentence - from the quoted area of your post? Thanks).


Apologies to the person I referenced to and sorry for any confusion/angst caused by my earlier mis-reading and resultant miss-firing.



Optimist edited March 04, 2014 10:17
chopah wrote:
Optimist wrote:
Smithy wrote:

I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.


Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.


Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.


Up to one of the clubs to appeal.


Except this was the rule keeper giving the green light to a question, the answer of which benefited his own son.


Let's put the player to one side, because given his age he is at the affect of what is going on around him.  But the club and coach are party to an arrangement they know is being put in place as an exception/precedent so they have agreed to be party to this "arrangement of convenience" - so they deserve any and all the grief any reader of this thread feels moved to throw in their direction.


who said anything about it being his son - where did that come from?  this is not accurate as far as I know.


Whoa, what a huge fail on my part!!


I have just re-read the thread through and I can now not find what my first comment referenced to.  I have edited my original post and retract my first sentence of my above quoted post.


Apologies to the person I referenced to and sorry for any confusion/angst caused by my earlier mis-reading and resultant miss-firing.



Optimist edited March 04, 2014 10:10
chopah wrote:
Optimist wrote:
Smithy wrote:

I don't agree that you can call it cheating. If you have a question on the rules, and you raise that question with the rule-keeper, and get a green light, you can't be said to be cheating.


Cheating implies an element of dishonesty or trickery, which can't be said to exist if you've put your hand up and asked for a ruling.


Anger at New Zealand Facepalm Football I can understand. But the club/player/coach in question don't deserve any grief in my opinion. At least not on the facts disclosed so far in this thread.


Up to one of the clubs to appeal.


Except this was the rule keeper giving the green light to a question, the answer of which benefited his own son.


Let's put the player to one side, because given his age he is at the affect of what is going on around him.  But the club and coach are party to an arrangement they know is being put in place as an exception/precedent so they have agreed to be party to this "arrangement of convenience" - so they deserve any and all the grief any reader of this thread feels moved to throw in their direction.


who said anything about it being his son - where did that come from?  this is not accurate as far as I know.


Whoa, what a huge fail on my part!!

I have just re-read the thread through and I can now not find what my first comment referenced to.  I have edited my original post and retract my first sentence of my above quoted post.

Apologies to the person I referenced to and sorry for any confusion/angst caused by my earlier mis-reading.