著者

大峰 光博 友添 秀則 長島 和幸

出版者

日本体育・スポーツ哲学会

雑誌

体育・スポーツ哲学研究 (ISSN:09155104)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.35, no.1, pp.7-19, 2013 (Released:2014-04-16)

参考文献数

78

被引用文献数

2 1 1

---

In this study, we focus on arguing about whether retaliatory-hit-batsman is right or wrong, elicit issues which should be solved by reviewing each theorist's theory which is different from each view and aim to provide a new viewpoint for the argument by addressing these issues. As a first issue, we suggest whether retaliatory-hit-batsman which is performed against the intentional hit by the opponent's pitch is appropriate for the justifiable defense or not. We discuss the issue in accordance with the finding based on the fields of legality and legal philosophy in which there are accumulated discussions about the justifiable defense. As a result, “imminent and unlawful infringement” is suggested as a condition which necessitates the use of justifiable defense and it was concluded that because it's too difficult to consider the retaliatory hit batsman which is performed against the intentional hit by the opponent's pitch as the justifiable defense, it's not justified from the viewpoint of justifiable defense.As a second issue, we question whether priority should be given to the external principles (the agreement of participants) or internal principles (the excellence) of the game. We address the issue by reference to Rawls and MacIntyre's theories. The result here are as follows: with the Rawls' stance of liberalism, agreement is acquired with the external principles, and on the other hand, with the MacIntyre's stance which is communitarianism with which the concept of “good” has the priority, internal principles (the excellence) should be given the priority. Furthermore, sustaining the game might be more difficult if the agreement is considered as the more important matter than the excellence. Therefore, even if there is the agreement of participants for retaliatory-hit-batsman, when the excellence of the game is undermined, we suggest that retaliatory-hit-batsman is not permitted.

著者

大峰 光博 友添 秀則 長島 和幸

出版者

一般社団法人 日本体育・スポーツ・健康学会

雑誌

体育学研究 (ISSN:04846710)

巻号頁・発行日

pp.13011, (Released:2013-07-08)

参考文献数

37

被引用文献数

3 1

---

In baseball games, there are instances where a pitcher deliberately targets a batsman of the opposing team with a pitch in order to retaliate against a previous strike on their own player by the opposing team. The present study focusing on major league baseball aimed to clarify the nature of the responsibility sensed a pitcher who finds himself in a similar position after a batsman on his team has taken an intentional hit from the opposing team's pitcher in order to analyze the structure of the pitcher's dilemma. We looked at the situation not only from the viewpoint in which the pitcher's responsibility is considered an obligation, as proposed by Takikawa, but also from the obligations concept proposed by Sandel. We found that there is a responsibility to comply with the official baseball rules to discourage any retaliatory hit on a batsman in order to avoid any intentional injury to a member of the opponent's team. On the other hand, responsibility for an intentional hit on a batman can be considered an obligation in order to implement an unwritten rule that condones such retaliatory action. Therefore the structure of the responsibility is considered to be an obligation that generates a dilemma for the pitcher and promotes conflict. On this basis, the difficulty of resolving the problem related to a retaliatory hit was highlighted. Furthermore, the possibility of analysis in accordance with the responsibility concept for ethical issues in sport was suggested. We discuss the concept of responsibility as an obligation that presents a conflict, and consider which course of action should have priority in such cases.

著者

長島 和幸 Nagashima Kazuyuki

出版者

早稲田大学

巻号頁・発行日

2022

---

早大学位記番号:新8950

著者

長島 和幸

出版者

日本スポーツ教育学会

雑誌

スポーツ教育学研究 (ISSN:09118845)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.39, no.2, pp.13-26, 2020-01-31 (Released:2020-05-20)

参考文献数

28

---

The aim of this study is to establish Ichiro Hatta’s “konjo” theory through analysis of his criticism of this trending term, “konjo”, along with his “training” concept, both terms he used during the 1960s. The first analysis identifies Hatta’s definition of “takeyari konjo” and “makeinu konjo” in his criticism. These definitions condemned training methods as “irrational”. Athletes and coaches who were supposed to aim at winning, yet focused on cultivating just a “mental” side without accessing “authentic strength”. Therefore Hatta defined any victories as mere coincidences. Hatta’s concept of “konjo” was grounded in the importance of both the “physical strength and mental strength” components of athletic ability. The second analysis of this research clarifies Hatta’s focus on consistent victory by targeting athletes’ “physical strength and mental strength” under seven types of “training” provided in his coaching. In essence, this study finds Hatta’s “konjo” theory was different from the popularized notion during the 1960s. We can characterize his perspective as being “physical strength and mental strength”. As will be outlined, his theory was embodied in his coaching.

著者

小野 雄大 友添 秀則 長島 和幸 根本 想

出版者

日本スポーツ教育学会

雑誌

スポーツ教育学研究 (ISSN:09118845)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.36, no.2, pp.15-30, 2016-11-30 (Released:2017-04-03)

参考文献数

34

---

Previous research has shown that physical education was introduced to young men’s associations through the strong encouragement of Giichi Tanaka. However, there has not been sufficient research on how Tanaka promoted physical education to young men’s associations or specifically what kind of plans were set forth.Accordingly, this study aims to clarify in detail the concept of promotion of physical education to young men’s associations.As a result, the following points were clarified:1) Tanaka positioned youth education in France, Russia and Austria as single-minded military school education and while he recognized its usefulness, he perceived it as negative. Meanwhile, he perceived German youth education favorably as discipline for the body and mind as a prerequisite to activities in the military.2) In the backdrop of German youth education as a model, Tanaka had a sense of impending crisis with respect to the current state of youth education in Japan which was in a trend of implementing excessive military style education. Based on these points, the education in Tanaka’s concept was, at least, positioned as activities in order to become healthy in terms of both stamina and spirit.3) The promotion of physical education to the youth was, for Tanaka, keeping in mind the combination of military education and national education, an experiment that required strong and healthy spirits and bodies as a basic prerequisite for the promotion of national power and war potential at time of generalized war as well as an expansion of military training.

著者

大峰 光博 友添 秀則 長島 和幸

出版者

日本体育・スポーツ哲学会

雑誌

体育・スポーツ哲学研究 (ISSN:09155104)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.35, no.1, pp.7-19, 2013

被引用文献数

1

---

In this study, we focus on arguing about whether retaliatory-hit-batsman is right or wrong, elicit issues which should be solved by reviewing each theorist's theory which is different from each view and aim to provide a new viewpoint for the argument by addressing these issues. As a first issue, we suggest whether retaliatory-hit-batsman which is performed against the intentional hit by the opponent's pitch is appropriate for the justifiable defense or not. We discuss the issue in accordance with the finding based on the fields of legality and legal philosophy in which there are accumulated discussions about the justifiable defense. As a result, "imminent and unlawful infringement" is suggested as a condition which necessitates the use of justifiable defense and it was concluded that because it's too difficult to consider the retaliatory hit batsman which is performed against the intentional hit by the opponent's pitch as the justifiable defense, it's not justified from the viewpoint of justifiable defense.<br>As a second issue, we question whether priority should be given to the external principles (the agreement of participants) or internal principles (the excellence) of the game. We address the issue by reference to Rawls and MacIntyre's theories. The result here are as follows: with the Rawls' stance of liberalism, agreement is acquired with the external principles, and on the other hand, with the MacIntyre's stance which is communitarianism with which the concept of "good" has the priority, internal principles (the excellence) should be given the priority. Furthermore, sustaining the game might be more difficult if the agreement is considered as the more important matter than the excellence. Therefore, even if there is the agreement of participants for retaliatory-hit-batsman, when the excellence of the game is undermined, we suggest that retaliatory-hit-batsman is not permitted.

著者

大峰 光博 友添 秀則 長島 和幸

出版者

Japan Society of Physical Education, Health and Sport Sciences

雑誌

体育学研究 (ISSN:04846710)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.58, no.2, pp.473-482, 2013

被引用文献数

1

---

In baseball games, there are instances where a pitcher deliberately targets a batsman of the opposing team with a pitch in order to retaliate against a previous strike on their own player by the opposing team. The present study focusing on major league baseball aimed to clarify the nature of the responsibility sensed a pitcher who finds himself in a similar position after a batsman on his team has taken an intentional hit from the opposing team's pitcher in order to analyze the structure of the pitcher's dilemma. We looked at the situation not only from the viewpoint in which the pitcher's responsibility is considered an obligation, as proposed by Takikawa, but also from the obligations concept proposed by Sandel.<br>   We found that there is a responsibility to comply with the official baseball rules to discourage any retaliatory hit on a batsman in order to avoid any intentional injury to a member of the opponent's team. On the other hand, responsibility for an intentional hit on a batman can be considered an obligation in order to implement an unwritten rule that condones such retaliatory action. Therefore the structure of the responsibility is considered to be an obligation that generates a dilemma for the pitcher and promotes conflict. On this basis, the difficulty of resolving the problem related to a retaliatory hit was highlighted. Furthermore, the possibility of analysis in accordance with the responsibility concept for ethical issues in sport was suggested.<br>   We discuss the concept of responsibility as an obligation that presents a conflict, and consider which course of action should have priority in such cases.<br>

著者

大峰 光博 友添 秀則 長島 和幸

出版者

一般社団法人 日本体育学会

雑誌

体育学研究 (ISSN:04846710)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.58, no.2, pp.473-482, 2013

被引用文献数

1

---

&nbsp;&nbsp;In baseball games, there are instances where a pitcher deliberately targets a batsman of the opposing team with a pitch in order to retaliate against a previous strike on their own player by the opposing team. The present study focusing on major league baseball aimed to clarify the nature of the responsibility sensed a pitcher who finds himself in a similar position after a batsman on his team has taken an intentional hit from the opposing team's pitcher in order to analyze the structure of the pitcher's dilemma. We looked at the situation not only from the viewpoint in which the pitcher's responsibility is considered an obligation, as proposed by Takikawa, but also from the obligations concept proposed by Sandel.<br> &nbsp;&nbsp;We found that there is a responsibility to comply with the official baseball rules to discourage any retaliatory hit on a batsman in order to avoid any intentional injury to a member of the opponent's team. On the other hand, responsibility for an intentional hit on a batman can be considered an obligation in order to implement an unwritten rule that condones such retaliatory action. Therefore the structure of the responsibility is considered to be an obligation that generates a dilemma for the pitcher and promotes conflict. On this basis, the difficulty of resolving the problem related to a retaliatory hit was highlighted. Furthermore, the possibility of analysis in accordance with the responsibility concept for ethical issues in sport was suggested.<br> &nbsp;&nbsp;We discuss the concept of responsibility as an obligation that presents a conflict, and consider which course of action should have priority in such cases.<br>