Neither of those instances are comparable, because, as I said in my previous posts, a "fake" within a play is a completely different thing.
HUH? My examples were fakes within a play. The video that started this whole conversation was a fake within a play. How in the world can you state that as a reason for them not to be comparable???
Bill V, what if someone were to fake a serious injury (I dunno, maybe by sticking a leg of lamb shank through a tear in their pants), and say they got all theatrical about it, and fell down, and moaned, all while a play was commencing. Let's say further a bunch of the team members in on the trick helped orchestrate it by yelling, gasping, etc...
The answer to that one is easy--to fake an injury (without using illegal props as you suggested), the player would need to pretend to have reduced capacity. To do that, they would actually DIMINISH their ability to play the game--which the other team would likely then exploit to their advantage! So it actually works AGAINST the faking team--unless the fake convinces the officials that a foul was commited even though no such thing happened. All sports have rules against doing that, if it's caught--and if it's done well enough to not be caught, frankly, that's part of the game. Happens all the time in soccer, and in football (when a punter or kicker fakes being run into when no contact occurred), and in baseball (when a player claims to have been hit by a pitch that made no contact). It's part of the game--just like how almost all football coaches teach their linemen how to hold the defenders in a way where it's hidden from the officials.
Also, regarding the open wounds and the blood/AIDS--I believe all sports now have rules stopping play when blood appears (with the possible exception of boxing, where AIDS tests are required instead). Whether it's a fake or not, the play stops immediately--so the point and the question are moot.
So faking an injury is an illegal move, punishable by the ref...in soccer or in football. But faking something else that not actually part of the play (yeah, subjective I guess), whether it be the "wrong ball" or anything else anyone can possibly imagine, is legal.
That seems very "convenient" to me.
That's where you're getting lost in this--the whole "wrong ball" thing
WAS PART OF THE PLAY.
If something provides a competitive advantage it will sooner or later be deemed against the rules.
WRONG! If that were true, it would be illegal for teams to practice, as practicing could give a team a competitive advantage. What you should have said is that if something provides an UNFAIR competitive advantage, it will sooner or later be deemed against the rules. Plays like this "wrong ball" play, or the Grand Illusion, or "The Play", or the "Music City Miracle", don't give either team an unfair advantage, as the opponent is completely free to do what they can within the rules to defend against them. That's why the rules allow these plays, despite the fact that they've been around for years.
Batter at this point refuses to get in the box.
Take on this? Who is at fault, if anyone? Anything illegal?
Depends on the league, and on what the umpire has actually witnessed/heard. If the umpire has actually heard the threat, in most amateur leagues, the catcher would be ejected, and the pitcher and bench would be warned against any such action. Again depending on the league and level, that warning may be that if the batter is thrown at, ejections may occur, or it may even be a threat of the game being declared a forfeit, with further league action likely. In the Majors, it likely results in the warning being given, with no ejections until a batter is actually hit or thrown at.
At any level, IMHO, the game situation is such that relaying signs is unsportsmanlik
