Exactly. There are a vast number of sport-comment cliches (My favourites being “It’s a game of two halves” and “At the end of the day, I think [sport] was the winner”) that everyone knows are valueless bullshit thrown out there by very muddy, exhausted players at the end of a match so they’ve got something to keep the sports journos happy whilst the athletes really want to take a shower, have a drink, and unwind after the match.
As has already (correctly) been pointed out, an athlete saying “I scored the winning goal/try/bowled the Indian batsman/etc because I’m fucking awesome and I spend most of my time training to be fucking awesome at this sport” will be instantly regarded as an arrogant, egotistical, stuck up wanker. So passing off some of the praise to [Deity of Player’s Choice] allows them to appear less arrogant and egotistical, whilst scoring major brownie points with Fellow Believers™.
It’s basically shorthand for “Yeah, we did really well and it was a good game.” There’s no need to call the athletes on their invocations of divine providence because everyone either takes it as read (for the devout) or knows it’s just airtime/column filler anyway.
I wonder what the whole point of all these athlete interviews are anyway. Does anyone care? Do you want to hear your favorite player say how great it felt that he scored the winning touchdown but it was really a team effort and we just came out to play today and give 110% like they coached us to…?
I think pestering an athlete for evidence of God would be about as useful as walking into the diner on the corner and demanding proof that the establishment could back up its claim of serving “the world’s greatest cup of coffee.”
I agree. None of them ever saying anything interesting. They’re just cliche generators. Feed in a question, get a cliche.
I think that a lot of the time there really isn’t anything to say. “Yeah, I threw the ball at my receiver and he caught it. That’s a play that we’ve practiced a lot and it worked.”
I don’t think there’s anything more useless than an NFL sideline reporter, and I imagine that’s why some of them are just eye candy.
I wasn’t suggesting that the athlete be asked for evidence of God, just exactly how God affected the physics of the game. It’s only a question about the game.
Do you want Academy Award winners who thank their parents in their acceptance speeches to explain how Mom and Dad affected the physics of the moviemaking process?
I was just referencing the OP, not your line of argument.
However, I am curious how the athlete would be able to answer a question about how God affected the physics of the game without providing evidence of God.
The flaw here is, if the question is asked and Bubba T Footballhead says, “Well, Christ made sure my spiral was tight,” what then? Are we looking for a paper on aerodynamics?
No, it isn’t. The *concept *is quite simple. The *application *may become contentious, because people value their self interests above others’, but the question of what constitutes a fair deal is pretty easy to understand.
I think this is sort of a silly distinction to make. If you mean to say “Everybody agrees fair deals are good,” I don’t think you’ll get any dissent. But when you add “And therefore it follows that determining what’s fair is easy to do (it’s just that people resist “applying” these simple, good judgments!),” then you go completely off your rocker. Disputes over fairness are more often than not real disputes, not negotiating strategies. Self-interest causes us to think about fairness in a variety of ways, but those notions are not necessary false or inauthentic or less rational merely because of the motivation from which they issue.
If you mean that people can easily come up with synonyms and near-synonyms for fair (such as “equitable” or “even” or “everyone gets his due”), then I don’t disagree. But when people say “What is ‘fairness’?” they are not usually looking for semantic facts about the English language, they are looking for a theory of fairness.
Notice that in the foregoing posts, I would occasionally gloss Dio’s “it’s only fair…” as being a claim about propriety. Obviously, I know so synonyms for this concept. I am not interested in learning more synonyms, I am interested in a story about why that action is proper, even in light of possible objections.
If a reporter decided to get in the face of the athlete in the fashion described by some in this thread, there would at least 3 backlashes:
Viewers would find it rude, and complain to the networks (they would switch if they could, but that is difficult when one channel has your game).
Players might refuse interviews. That went down during the baseball playoffs (last year?). A reporter from one network got in the face of a player, and the rest of the team decided to not do ANY interviews with that network. Sorry - maybe someone can remember when this happened.
The Glen Beck / Rush Limbaugh brigade would be all over the reporter and network, and not in a good way.
The question won’t get any sort of an interesting answer, and will only instead create a controversy where the journalist BECOMES the story.
It is “proper” because it’s the reporter’s job to ask questions about the game, and a statement by a player that supernatural forces affected the game is a statement about the game.
If a player said that the game was affected remotely by extraterrestrials it would be “fair” and “proper” to ask him what the fuck he was talking about, and the claim that extraterrestrials remotely affected the physics of a ball game is actually less extraordinary than a claim that invisible, supernatural spirits did it.
It’s a question about the GAME. Not about proving or defining the existence of God, but a follow up to a specific claim made by a player that the physics of the GAME was affected by the supernatural.
None of this changes the fact that it would be a fair and reasonable question. It only means that people would respond unreasonably to hearing a reasonable question.
No, it is a nonsense question. What answer are you looking for from our athlete? Do you want him to answer that he is inspired by his faith? Do you want him to state that since he is made in God’s image, that he is thankful that God made him tall/strong/athletic?
Other than being a prick (which is how the question comes off), what is accomplished by asking? What great bit of information will you uncover, information that the viewing public wants and that you, as a journalist, are paid to gather?
The journalist will accomplish nothing other than ensure that they (the journalist) will become the story of the week.
The funny thing is, if a player was asked the question in a reasonably respectful manner (and not as a “so do you think the Sky Bully altered the flight of the ball?” gotcha question), they’d probably come out with a five-minute testimonial about how since they accepted Jesus into their hearts, they’ve been more dedicated to their practice and better able to focus on the important things and bounce back from adversity. And I’m sure Diogenes would LOVE to hear more things like that in his sports coverage.