HS 104_ 2_Gilchrist Incident_Add on

Ajouté : 2026-05-30

[00:00:01]so this this incident in sports is typically used as an example to you know explain the difference between legality uh ethicality and ethics as a code and you know the incident actually happens in the 2003 world cup you could find similar examples from other sports i'm sorry that uh i took this particular example which was familiar to me and that was an easy job but you could always find examples from other sports as well as from other professions so uh what happens is that it's the 2003 cricket world cup and uh it's the semi-final between sri lanka and australia uh what happens is that the bowl was uh bald baller appeals amber doesn't give out but he walks and replays showed that he was clearly out okay now the question is should he have walked or should he have stayed okay i wanted to watch the clip and then once you come back the whole buzz about uh that the whole bus that followed that incident into three and it continued and even continues right now as to whether a sports person should uh abide by the codes of ethics of the team or for the team or a sports person should abide by the course of ethics or principles that he or she follows okay there's a huge difference [Applause] has played a sweep shot they've gone up the empire didn't look just to me as if he was gonna give him out and adam gilchrist has walked off the ground that is great everyone always asks me the greatest excuse me question is what did everyone say in the change rooms when you got in the change rooms that was my next question well it wasn't what they said is what they didn't say it was just silence and then ricky came up and sat down well ricky went in after i got out and i thought i will be right here i haven't really caused any drama you know ricky will score 100 and we'll be right and then he was out within about 10 balls and he's sitting next to me he said didn't you see the umpire give your not out and i said yeah i did an australian cricketer only walks when his cars run out of petrol now if he had followed his own heart which means his own principle uh which we sort of highlight here as the principle of the individual the core of the individual then in this incident that is in conflict with the core of ethics of the team and you know that as a professional side the team doesn't want the batsman to come back when the umpire has given note out okay right now situation is different you have drs and a whole lot of different angle to the whole you know context is available which means that given that technology will assist the batsman doesn't really need to work now these kinds of questions second order discourses uh happen in the right hand side okay so their ethics is a professional ethics professional ethics is a philosophical discussion but in the actual game or in the actual profession uh there can be codes of ethics by the organization which is in conflict with course of ethics by the individual okay and that's a tricky business now uh the question of legality is beyond scope in this particular incident because everyone knows that it's perfectly legal for him to stay there if the empire has given him not out now it becomes illegal only when he doesn't walk and the umber has given him out the umber has given him out and if it doesn't work if a player doesn't walk then it's an issue with legality and therefore punishment punishment and you know fines and other things follow you you might have seen such incidents where you know rebellious players you know raise questions with the empire's decision and therefore they are given fine as a punishment so this was not an issue of legality the gilchrist incident was an issue about whether the course of ethics of the individual is consistent with the course of ethics of the working environment okay and that's the australian cricket team now there was a conflict and that doesn't really invite punishment but it does definitely invite uh scrutiny and we do that scrutiny all the time and he might have lost friends he might have gained fronts those are the consequences for the player but you know at the philosophical level we need to ask was he right in doing that or should he have followed the team's principle okay that is to stay there and in which context should the player have the right to walk or not walk or in which context the player should access exercise those rights to perform a certain action okay so uh quick recap uh the legal ethics uh ethics difference ethics in two different ways okay uh is very simple in definitions and in appearances uh at the economic level but it's very complicated when put in practice okay so say for example if a superior is giving an order to you to perform something which you definitely don't want to do based on the principles that you believe in should you have gone for it or not for it not gone for it now these kinds of discussions are the second order discourse happens in ethics as a philosophical discussion okay [Music]