Student’s name
Instructor’s name
Course
Date
Rules in Games
Does breaking the law mean that the game is no longer being played?
Breaking a rule does not mean that the game is no longer being played. The reason behind being that laws are broken for other effective ones to be made (Constantinou and Kallinikos 51). People should be given the free will to systematically apply critical thinking to answer the question at hand to ensure that no party has been humiliated by the existing law. When critical thinking is used at certain points, issues and concepts are clarified better and with deeper meaning, making people reach a point of formulating and evaluating logical arguments. When breaking the law to get another one, one should be very careful and adopt a neutral attitude when reading the rule to ensure that they do not bend on one side of the matter. One should also read more about the traditional rules in fine details before making any resolution, and they should not skim them. Having fully read, one should be slow to judge it and have clear reasons why they have arrived at that judgment. To effectively know how they apply critical thinking, they should first read the conclusion and understand the key points upon which it is based and then summarize it to get fine details by comparing the newly drafted rules with the old ones.
Would your answer be different if the rule was deliberately broken?
My answer will be different if the rules are deliberately broken. This is because no game is supposed to be played if it has no rules since a game’s notion is usually defined in terms of its formal rules.No winning in a match if the specified team did not follow the rules and regulations (Jenkins 28). The regulative rules should as well uphold and apply in gaming at all times. For example, if a player accidentally steps inside a prohibited area in a netball, they are penalized by having the ball awarded to the opposing team. The old rules should as well apply because the culture was very good in that if the ball is kicked off by the wrong type of kick or in the wrong place, the opposing team has, therefore, two choices to make of whether to have the ball kicked off again or to have a scrum at the center of the halfway line and they throw in the ball. It, therefore, restores penalties to allow justice to be served, thus leaving only space for no deliberate mistakes to be made. On another circumstance, it calls for a penalty if one uses the hands while playing football, and the same sentence will be held if one uses the hand while playing football. Without these rules being upheld, or others being broken anyhow, it is the same as saying that there is no need to have the games because everywhere it is the law that should be prevailing. I can firmly say that gaming rules should not be broken, and any party caught not following the rules should be held responsible with the proper punishment being put in place.
Would your answer be different if the rule was inadvertently broken?
My answer would be different if the rules were inadvertently broken. When the sporting rules are broken this way, it means that they did it without their knowledge, which is not a great threat as far as sports are concerned. To avoid this issue, people should develop familiarity with the experience and philosophical questions concerning sports. They should yearn to get finer details and deeply study more about sports by bringing knowledge and the relevant, intelligent methods of studying sports by holding debates on marks. All of this will enable them to understand the types of knowledge acquired through the sport experiences and organize philosophical ideas about sports. It will therefore be hard for them to make mistakes unknowingly in the future.
Work cited
Jenkins, Simon. “Coaching philosophy.” Sports coaching: Professionalisation and practice (2010): 25-29