The Bodyline series and logical fallacy
In order to counter the remarkable batting of the Australian Don Bradman, the English Ashes team of 1932-3 decided to bowl directly at the batsman rather than trying to hit the stumps. Bowling ‘in the line of the body’ quickly became Bodyline. It was a effective tactic - England won four of the five games and the series - but profoundly damaging. Faced with balls coming in directly at the body, the quality of cricket played, although exciting, was low and, crucially, was unsustainable as the batsmen were being bruised with many of the balls bowled and several were injured - Australian Bert Oldfield had his skull fractured. Bodyline even sparked a diplomatic incident between Britain and Australia, with the Australians protesting unsportsmanlike tactics. Indeed, the Australian Board of Control for Cricket cabled the Marylebone Cricket Club in London in the middle of one match saying that:
Bodyline bowling has assumed such proportions as to menace the best interests of the game, making protection of the body by the batsman the main consideration. This is causing intensely bitter feeling between the players, as well as injury. In our opinion it is unsportsmanlike. Unless stopped at once it is likely to upset the friendly relations existing between Australia and England.
The threat to withdraw from the Ashes and call on the public to boycott British goods was only removed when the then-Prime Minister of Australia, Joseph Lyons, met with the Australian Board of Control for Cricket and made it clear that the actions they were proposing could have severe economic and diplomatic consequences for the antipodean nation.
The end result was that the Laws of Cricket were changed to allow umpires to intervene if too many balls were bowled in the Bodyline style - with the intent to injure the batsman rather than defeat him. While it allowed England to win that particular match, the use of a nuclear option - and the metaphor is apt - it threatened the ability for cricket to continue.
In the past, on this blog and elsewhere, I have criticised people for using ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself; it is an example of ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant argument. There are three other, major fallacies that can be called ignoratio elenchi; they are the appeal to authority, the appeal to force and the appeal to the people. The appeal to authority is one of the most common; essentially, it is ‘noted Professor says x therefore x is right’; the appeal to force is ‘x happened after y, therefore x is a punishment or reward for y’; the appeal to the people is fairly obvious.
I am not attacking academic discipline or even saying that we shouldn’t pay attention to people who are knowledgable in a particular area. Christopher Hitchens, to take an example, is worth reading because he has interesting arguments and often presents facts in a novel way; to say that because he knows a lot and is therefore always right would make things difficult if he were ever to share a room with the Pope. It may well be worth looking out for his books, but not accepting his arguments straight off the bat. A worrying version of this (to my mind) today is the appeal to celebrity, where the endorsement of almost anything by almost anyone who has been on almost any television programme is seen as a good thing.
The appeal to force is less common, but it is implicitly held as a threat by religious groups; if you do not agree with us, you will be struck down.
The appeal to the people is a common fallacy; ‘Bontomax fertiliser is the most popular, therefore it is the best’ is an example, but it comes down to groupthink; because lots of people believe something to be so, it is so.
These fallacies are common - in advertising, in news, in politics and anywhere an argument is deployed. However, their use, unwitting or not, are damaging to the quality of our democracy and our government. Unfortunately, it’s hard to stop people using them as they are effective; part of the human condition is not to be strictly logical and to be emotional. By making these appeals, you can win the immediate contest but the result is damaging to the ability to compete in future contests. The similarity with Bodyline ends here; there was a higher authority - politicians and economics - that put paid to ad hominem bowling. The same does not exist when you are at the top of the pile so we must hope that people don’t go for the cheap shots but the ones that allow people to make their own decisions; to do otherwise would not be cricket.
xD.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Yes but think how many Scots are in the cabinet and how much cricket is played in Scotland.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Despite being called the England team and being run by the English Cricket Board, people from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are eligible to play for the side; for instance, Welshman Robert Croft), Scot Gavin Hamilton and North Irishman (or something) Martin McCague have all played test cricket for England.
There are Scottish and Welsh national sides, but the best players are cherry-picked by England. There is also the simple fact that cricket requires a large, flat space - something in short supply in the Celtic parts of the UK!
xD.