I feel you are citing the obvious here. Sport has always been a business, one only needs to look at football around the world in its various incarnations to recognise that.
The business of winning is what all sports are about. There is not a competition out there that is not predicated on there being a winner and a loser, with the winner going on until such a point that they win the prize. Whether that be a glorious trophy and a million dollars in prize money, or a voucher for the local butcher, it has always been a business.
Rule changes are made to sell the game. When people got sick of the grappling in the NRL, rules were introduced to reduce the instances of grappling. The UFC have had bans placed upon what is known as the '12-6 elbow' due to the fear instilled by fake martial art practitioners breaking bricks with the move. Head kicks to a downed opponent have been banned due to the inability to sell a product containing them.
Warnings for stalling in boxing, restrictions on field placement in cricket, engine specifications in racing, and the new rules in MLB designed to 'speed up the pace of the game' are all designed to sell the product to the advertisers over the masses. This has always been the case.
However the reality is that there is a ruleset at the base of it all. This ruleset doesn't always make sense. Basketball banned dunks to stop teams loading up on tall players. Then they introduced the three point line to encourage shorter players. Both seemed to be detrimental to the game at the time. The end result is a product with well defined rules that players have adapted to, resulting in a product that is far superior to the initial offering. Seeing Steph Curry drain three point shots is a highlight of his games.
Once the initial moaning subsides, and the obvious commentary of 'sport not being sport anymore' dies off, the spectacle will return and the changes will be forgotten as changes and will be simply considered to be the status quo.
What is the purpose of your commentary?
First things first : Hello and welcome :)
I am assuming your question is to me the poster of the OP .
" Obvious updates to the " game " will always occur with the strength of technology used to record it. With that in mind, it seems logical that rules and regulations would seem to be
stricter today than in times past. And so they must. Humans haven't suddenly become ' holier than thou ', and people like Mr Johns seem to have more thought for the enjoyment
( and money ) from the people who fill the stadium for their pleasure. I have to wonder why sloppy play is considered by Mr Johns to be more important to the game than the players
making the effort to improve their " game " skill. Would it be more about new players being able to play without having to have a decent skill for the game, meaning the " game " goes
on and keeps the money rolling in for the sponsors and rest of the huge works and jerks that are seen as needed ? To keep the pay checks coming in ? And also, when the players are seriously injured there will always be someone
just capable of filling the slot ?"
The above is a quote from my OP. I think it states my commentary pretty well. It seems you don't have an issue with rules adapting to suit the pay scale so to speak. Does that mean you'd be willing to think of ball tampering as not cheating per say ?
Or players not adhering to the rules of the day so's the play looks to be more fluid ... so the play would look a bit like a dance maybe, rather than a sport ?
Edited by eveln, 21 April 2018 - 12:50 AM.