On 7/31/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Potentially libelous statement? Check. Unsourced?
Check.
Lol. Here's the original quote (actually from [[Underarm bowling]], I
was confused):
*The match had earlier controversy: in the Australian innings, Martin
Snedden took a spectacular low outfield catch off the batting of Greg
Chappell. It was disallowed by the umpires, although TV replays
clearly showed it was a clean catch. Some commentators believed
Chappell should have taken Snedden's word that the catch was good.
Arguing that a player should have accepted another's word is
definitely not libellous. In cricket, it's a question of honour or
moral or whatever you want to call it: refusing to take a player's
word for a catch and letting the umpire decide is perfectly legal and
the most common situation.
No, "better" is not better than
"best", when you're talking about an
unsourced statement like that. The proper solution is deletion unless
and until a source can be attributed with the statement.
That's going too far. For a genuinely "libellous" statement, sure. But
not that one.
Steve