Sportsmanship/legitimacy -There are Rule then there are Rules

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 151958

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:

> 
> Magpie:
> No one has disagreed that good character is more important and 
> more difficult than following the rules in a sporting event.  
> ...edited...
> 
> If this were my kid I, as his mother, could certainly reward him
> for holding humanitarian principles above the rules of a game--I 
> could praise him in the car on the way home.  If my son missed a
> fly ball in his little league game because he was off helping 
> another kid I wouldn't demand he be given credit for catching 
> the ball because he would surely have caught it had he been 
> standing there and he showed better character by not caring 
> about the game enough to put it over another player's feelings 
> anyway.  ...edited...
> 
> -m
>

bboyminn:

I really have a problem with people using standard sports analogies to
describe the Tri-Wizards Tournement. Yes, there are general rules that
guide the tournement, but each task does not have a thick book of
'rules of play' which controls it. Each task in conceptual; the rules
are contained in the defining of the task. 

For example, the rules for the Dragon Task are to 'get /past/ the
dragon' and get the egg, which makes it clear that 'Accio Egg' is
outside the rules. But the manner of solving the task is wide open and
freeform as long as it conform to the basic concept of the task. And,
the judging is very subjective. Each judge within his own mind
determines the quality, ingenuity, and character of the solution.
Again, this is much more like figure skating than baseball. 

Further, as I said before, I do think character is an aspect of
judgement. The judges aren't looking at the pure mechanics of the
solution; he got the egg-full points, he didn't get the egg-no points.
 They are looking at the abstract qualities such as uniqueness,
inventiveness, ingenuity, resourcefullness, and I believe to a degree
the character reflected in the play and the player. 

While KarKaroff was irritated that Harry was given extra points, he
did not formally protest which he surely would have if it was against
the rules. Cedric was given 47 out of fifty, which means Karkaroff
gave Cedric a 7 out of 10. Harry was given 45 out of fifty, which
implies that Karkaroff still gave Harry FIVE points for his task. On a
final note, Fleur who failed completely was STILL given 25 points.
Maybe we should consider her 25 points cheating. Why should she be
given any points for failing the task? Why should she get what we
might metaphorically consider a 'do over'? Also, note that Madam
Maxime awarded Harry full points even though that hurt her own
champion. Certainly, if she felt it was unfair or against the rules,
she would have deducted points or protested. 

Last point, no judges formally protested, and more importantly, none
of the other contestants complained, in fact, it seems as if their
respect for Harry grew because of the 'character' he showed in the
Underwater task, and none of them seem to begrudge him the points he
earned.

While the overal tournement is formed around specific rules, I think
the rules for each task are very basic and general. I really don't
think there were specific ridged rules of play controlling individual
tasks like those found in Soccer or Baseball. The tasks were
conceptual and the judging was subjective. 

I'm not denying anyone the right to think otherwise, but so far, no
one has convinced me, and so far, I haven't seen any evidence that the
rule of play for each task were as precise as is typical in a muggle
team sports. These were very much freeform tasks, that only had basic
conceptual rules as guidelines. COnsequently, the judges were well
withing their rights to award points as they saw fit.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn