The Big Shrek wrote:I have decided I'm against the banning of Rosewater.
Not many people have mentioned that this decision is punishing 60 odd entirely innocent players and officials.
The justification for punishing innocent people seems to be either based on some notion that they have a collective responsibility for the actions of other players, or that the end(protecting umpires) justifies the means.
Sometimes bad things happen. You can't prevent everything. How Rosewater could have reasonably foreseen this or prevented it is beyond me. How far is the concept of collective responsibility to go? Should we sack the CEO of the league for not preventing it?
Given how rarely umpires are assaulted is the club ban going to deter others anymore than the 20 year individual ban? We must remember that the vast majority of people wouldn't assault umpires anyway. They don't need a deterrent to prevent them assaulting them. Is a club ban going to deter the very small subset of people who would contemplate hitting an umpire. Are they thinking rationally at the time of hitting an umpire such that a deterrent might work or have they lost the plot?
My concern is that punishing the entire club does not achieve anything in this instance. It won't protect umpires any more than punishing the individual. I am concerned that the penalty was driven by the desire to appear tough rather than to actually achieve anything.
It's also important to distinguish between putting a club on a good behaviour bond and punishing them after the fact. The former is far more likely to have some prev
Do you think the League is liking the limelight a bit too much? Seems any opportunity to grab a headline they take with both hands. I totally agree with you regarding punishing the club in this case and any other club that loses points etc etc because of the behaviour of an individual.