It is always interesting to unertand how Mozart's Logic works in rugby. Now lets get this one straight by quoting a few examples:-
Example 1
Player NZ gets the ball and start running at the defense in what is normally a backline attacing move - so the following is the defensive sequence:-
* PLayer A rushed out of the defensive line creating a gap in the said line and is stepped;
* Player B makes a feeble unsuccessful tackling effort and player NZ went past him with ease; and
* Player C missed his attempted tackle
allowing player NZ to score a try.
Normally logical people would say all three defenders buggered up - so all three has to be partly responsibe for a poor defensive effort. However - Mozart's Logic works differently. He likes players A and B and dislikes player C - so the blame is entirely shifted to player C.
Example 2
There is a breakdown ball rcovery \a bout 5 metrs out and Player Arg gets the ball and charged straight at a rgeww neter gap between two defenders A and B. Neither player A and Player B makes any attempt to tackle Player Arg. The situation is that player Arg passed player A by going outside of him by just over a meter and insideof B by 2 meters.
Normally logical people would say both defenders buggered up - so both has to be partly responsibe for a poor defensive effort. However - Mozart's Logic works differently. He likes player A and dislikes player B - so the blame is entirely shifted to player B.
Example 3
Team NZ is attackinng and in the 22 of team S where a tackle breakdown is taking place seconds before halftime - tem B made a huge effort and effect a turnover in possession. Now followed the following sequence of events:-
* Player A gets the ball instead of making the expected relieving kick - passed the ball to player B;
* Player B made an off-load to player C;
* Player C is in a jam. He is covered by 2 defenders and tackled about 5 meters outside Team A's 22.
There is no ball protection and playerC has two choices - hang onto the ball and take the danger of a penalty or even yellow card or do the legal thing and allow the one defender to make a turnover in possession.
Normally logical people would say player A should have realized that if he kicked the ball out of play halftime would be called and he should make sure the ball is kicked out of play. However - Mozart's Logic works differently. He likes players A and B and dislikes player C - so the blame is entirely shifted to player C.
Example 4
Team S is defending and has one player benched - the time of the ebnching is up and the player is expecting to return to the field to make sure Team S has a full team for the last 3 minutes of te game. Team A gets a penalty inside their 22 and all Player A has to do is to kick the ball out of touch allowing for the ebnched player to return to the field and having aline-outon own throw. Player A missed to find touch and a sequence of plays following quickly and team Au scored a try thuis wiinningthe game for Team Au.
Normally logical people would say player A is entirely to blame for the whole problem since all he had to do was to find touch - get the 15th player back from the ebcnh and the line-out won which effectively have won the gae for Team S. However - Mozart's Logic works differently. He likes player A so the team as a whole gets the blame for poor defense and PlayerA is exconnerated.
Now in another game there is a sequal. Team S gets a penalty 10 meters inside the opposition half and its captain decides on a corner kick. Player B is asked to kick for the corener - but the ball went to touch behind the goal line.
Normally logical people would say both A and B fouled up - but they would realize the consequences and realized also that player A made a sfatal and very serious mistake - while player B's mistake has vastly lesser consequences. Both players A and B buggered up - so both should be responsible for the consequences what happened subsequently. Logical people would also relaize that Player A's fault was vastly more serious than the one made by Player B. However - Mozart's Logic works differently. He likes player A and dislikes player B - so the impact of the mistakes is ignored and while excuses is found for Player A - player B is blamed for making a mistake.
SUMMARY
Controversial occurrences happens in every match and members have to tread carefully when it coes th Mozart's Logic. His decriptions of occurrences will be made in such a way that the players he dislikes will get books written about their mistakes and poor play , while the problems caused by other players he favours involved in the incident or consequence of the incident are ignored - normally not even mentioned or if mentioned a string of excuses - mythical or pentirely imabinary - are added to it.
THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS IF MOZART DESCRIBES AN INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED ON THE FIELD OF PLAY - BE CAREFUL AND SEE FIRST WHETHER A PLAYER HE LIKES IS INVOLVED OR NOT. HE IS IN TEH CASE OF A PLAYER HE LIKES WHO FOULED UP LIKELY TO DESCRIBE TE INCIDENT AND CONSEQUENCES IN A DECEITFUUL WAY TO ALLOW FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE IMAGE OF ANY PLAYER HE LIKES. THE SAME APPLIES TO PLAYERS THAT HE DISLIKES. HE IS BOUND TO MAGNIFY THEIR PERCEIVED MISTAKES IN A MANNER WHICHIS BEYONG NORMAL LOGIC. ONE PENALTY IN A MACTCH IS TUNED INTO "PENALTIES" - ONE MISSED TACKLE IN A GAME IS TURNED INTO "MISSED TACKLES"
