Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
coursework 1: Does the problem of strategic fouls undermine the formalist…
coursework 1: Does the problem of strategic fouls undermine the formalist account of
game-playing?
STRATEGIC FOULS
how does strategic foul undermine Formalism?
formalism claims the essense of playing a game is following the consitutive rules (suits, 1978) - however strategic fouls rewuire intentional rule breaking to gain an advantage, directly contradicting the idea that rules are voluntarily accepted.
players treat rules instrumentally, not as boundaries of the game but tactical options
this behaviour shows that rule following is not always essential to competitive participation
the lusory attitude (accepting rules for the sake of the game) loses integrity when rules are deliberately violated
therefore formalism cannot fully explain real sporting practise
there is a gap between formalism and practical sport norms
What is the problem with strategic fouls and formalist
FORMALISM
the theoretical approach in the philosophy of sport that defines games and sports in
terms of their formal rules
to play a sport/game you must follow the constitutive rules of said game
CONSTITUTIVE VS REGULARTORY RULES
Constitutive rules
: create the game, without them it doesnt exist. eg. the offside rule in football
Formalist psychlogists are more concerned with constitutive rules
Regulative rules
: regulate how the game is played (safety, fairness) eg. no dangerous tackles.
STRENGTHS OF FORMALISM
creates a clear definition of the sport and the games identity
emphasises fair-play of the game/sport
Protects the integrity of the sport and discourages cheating
CRITIQUES OF FORMALISM
True sport isn't just about following rules and formalism disregards the nuances of norms, conventions and ethics - eg. diving in football may not break constitutive rules but violates fairplay
strategic fouls and gamesmanship- players often intentional break or bend the rules of the game to gain an advantage eg. diving to win a penalty, strategic fouls to prevent a potential goal- these actions are seen as part of the game but are not however explained by formalism.
"PLAYING A GAME"
According to suits to play a game genuinely, you must voluntarily accept the constitutive rules with a lusory attitude (not for external rewards)
Philosophy
Bernard suits: The grasshopper, games life and utopia
prelusory goal:
the objective of the game- eg. getting the ball in the net in football
Lusory means
: the permitted methods under the rules- eg. kicking the ball, passing
constitutive rules:
the rules that define the game- eg. no handballs in football
Lusory attitude
: the voluntary acceptance of the rules for the sake of play- eg. agreeing not to use hands even though it is easier to be able to score
To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs [prelusory goal],
using only means permitted by the rules [lusory means], where the rules prohibit
use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means [constitutive rules], and
where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity
[lusory attitude].2