On 7/31/06, Anthony wikilegal@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