▲ | empath75 10 hours ago | |||||||
Sure, but the pretense is that the game is a self contained reality and once the game is over, everyone has a life they can go on living. Tripping someone on the way to scoring a goal is _unfair_, and there is a defined penalty for it, but when the game is over, that's the end of the consequences for it. There are, though, lots of penalties in hockey that are about not hurting or maiming (or even killing) people, and those sorts of penalties are very much not rewarded or encouraged by coaches or players. | ||||||||
▲ | pixl97 8 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
I mean, it just seems like a false or unrealistic pretense to me. For example while a hockey game is a 'game' what about a person making a bet on that game that now loses a bet because of the penalty actions? Or a team loses that would have won because of said penalty and does not go to the world championship. So yea, saying there is no consequences is like rejecting the premise of causality as the game doesn't live in a closed system. | ||||||||
|