Applying the “A Time to Kill Test” to Cespedes’ Golfing
In the movie, A Time to Kill, an all white jury in the deep South was set to convict Carl Lee Hailey, a black man, until his young white lawyer, Jake Brigance, stood before the jury of his peers and gave the closing argument of a lifetime:
What he did was absolutely brilliant. He took the same exact story and presented it to the jury exactly how it happened to a group of people that know what happened. The only thing he changed was the person. Instead of it being Carl Lee Hailey’s daughter, it was a little girl that could very well be close to them. Ultimately, that is what made the story hit home; that was what made them change their opinion.
Overall, the “A Time to Kill Test” is a good test to use whenever passing judgment on anything including how you feel about a player in a particular situation.
If you do not think it was a big deal that Yoenis Cespedes was playing golf with an injured quad, ask yourself would your opinion have changed if that was Matt Harvey? If you had a problem with Cespedes playing golf, would you have had the same opinion if you discovered David Wright was the one playing golf or taking part in any other activity that would have hampered his injury? Would it even matter if Jose Reyes or Asdrubal Cabrera were taking part in recreational activities that could have possibly had an effect on their ability to get back on the field from their perspective injuries? Essentially, no matter what the situation, choose another player, preferably one on the other end of the spectrum, and see if your opinion would change.
Overall, from looking at things from that perspective, it would be fair to say Cespedes shouldn’t have been playing golf while he was injured as it could have prevented him from getting back on the field. It would be fair to say his playing golf was ill advised because the possibility remained that he could have exacerbated the injury.
Sure, it is possible that your perspective may change if it was Harvey or Wright in the same situation, but that’s the issue. If it was the same situation, your opinion on the matter shouldn’t change.