Philosophy Now Forum

contingent., adj.
1. that which can be or can not be other than it is; that which happens to be actual. 2. that which is changeable or perishable in being, disposition, or operation. 3. that which is an indifferent or non-necessary means; hence, the object of a free judgment. 4. that which can fail in its proper or intended effect. 5. that which is not necessarily or essentially true; that which is only historically real and true. Ant. necessary. Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, Bernard Wuellner, S. j.[/i][/quote]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb_eXyhlHaA

If a football or soccer free field goal kick is inherently a contingent event, is it just to criticize the kicker if the kick is missed?

Discuss.

Discuss?? What are you hoping for? Why not put your opinion first, it would be polite and more social.

kriswest wrote:Discuss?? What are you hoping for? Why not put your opinion first, it would be polite and more social.

“I don't see an obvious defect in the kicker's technique. So there could be another reason for the football veering to the left of the goal. It is possible, I'll argue, that a burst of wind moved the ball at the last second, the wind not being perceptable at ground leve . Therfore I won't criticize where there is a reasonable doubt.
What is your position?l.

tbieter wrote:

kriswest wrote:Discuss?? What are you hoping for? Why not put your opinion first, it would be polite and more social.

“I don't see an obvious defect in the kicker's technique. So there could be another reason for the football veering to the left of the goal. It is possible, I'll argue, that a burst of wind moved the ball at the last second, the wind not being perceptable at ground leve . Therfore I won't criticize where there is a reasonable doubt.
What is your position?l.

I suspect that blaming "climate change" would work for many people.

kriswest wrote:Discuss?? What are you hoping for? Why not put your opinion first, it would be polite and more social.

I tendered a definition, fact situation, and question - all brief to facilitate rhe reader's attention. I thought that the tender would provoke thought on a forum devoted to philosophy.

My tender was intentionally open-ended. I was not hoping for anything in particular. Initially, I did not intend to present an argument. I wanted a maximum of responses.

A question: Why did you not think about the tender and reply responsively? Instead, you choose to insult me. What is your justification for your response?

tbieter wrote: “I don't see an obvious defect in the kicker's technique. So there could be another reason for the football veering to the left of the goal. It is possible, I'll argue, that a burst of wind moved the ball at the last second, the wind not being perceptable at ground leve . Therfore I won't criticize where there is a reasonable doubt.
What is your position?l.

Presumably, then, if it had been on target the kicker wouldn't deserve any credit for it. I'm assuming your principle works both ways.

Harbal wrote:

tbieter wrote: “I don't see an obvious defect in the kicker's technique. So there could be another reason for the football veering to the left of the goal. It is possible, I'll argue, that a burst of wind moved the ball at the last second, the wind not being perceptable at ground leve . Therfore I won't criticize where there is a reasonable doubt.
What is your position?l.

Presumably, then, if it had been on target the kicker wouldn't deserve any credit for it. I'm assuming your principle works both ways.

Good point. I'll have to think some. But, right now I must attend to the Packer-Cardinal playoff game.

My position is:
The kicker entered the game knowing and accepting that he/she could get criticized or applauded. Accepting this makes it acceptable to criticize a missed goal. It is part of the game that players must deal with.
No insult intended just a query.

Harbal wrote:

tbieter wrote: “I don't see an obvious defect in the kicker's technique. So there could be another reason for the football veering to the left of the goal. It is possible, I'll argue, that a burst of wind moved the ball at the last second, the wind not being perceptable at ground leve . Therfore I won't criticize where there is a reasonable doubt.
What is your position?l.

Presumably, then, if it had been on target the kicker wouldn't deserve any credit for it. I'm assuming your principle works both ways.

I asked the wrong question at the start of this thread. It is obvious that a field goal attempted kick is a contingent event. It will be either a successful or an unsuccessful kick.

The correct and more fundamental question is:
What cause or causes resulted in Blair Walsh's missed field goal?

tbieter wrote:contingent., adj.
1. that which can be or can not be other than it is; that which happens to be actual. 2. that which is changeable or perishable in being, disposition, or operation. 3. that which is an indifferent or non-necessary means; hence, the object of a free judgment. 4. that which can fail in its proper or intended effect. 5. that which is not necessarily or essentially true; that which is only historically real and true. Ant. necessary. Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, Bernard Wuellner, S. j.[/i]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb_eXyhlHaA

If a football or soccer free field goal kick is inherently a contingent event, is it just to criticize the kicker if the kick is missed?

Discuss.[/quote]

The contingency or not of a missed kick is not relevant to blame. A missed kick is always held to be the responsibiltiy of the kicker.
Which version of contingency, do you wish to offer here?