B9011-1 Rules

     Some years ago I attended a high school girl’s basketball game and sat behind a young boy whose sister was playing in the game.  The boy noticed that whenever the basketball went through the net, the  scoreboard numbers changed. Most of the time the score increased by two points when the ball went through the net.  One time, however, the boy noticed that the score increased by three points. He seemed to be quite alarmed by that, and he turned to his father and said to him, “They gave her three points for that shot.” The father told his son, “That’s because the referee likes her better than he likes the other girls. That’s why he gave her three points.” One could see that the young boy was quite distressed by the apparent injustice of that.  “That’s not fair,” he said.
 

     But why is it unfair?  Why is it unfair to give one person three points for a basketball shot while another person only gets two points for the same shot?  And really, what difference does it make how many points one gives a particular person for a basketball shot?  It’s just a game, isn’t it?  Couldn’t the referee announce to everyone when the team players first step on the basketball court that all the girls wearing blue uniforms will get three points for their shots and the girls wearing red uniforms will only get one point?  What would be wrong with that?
 

     Most of us would have some rather severe problems with that. Most of us would cry out at the severe injustice of such a decision because we have in the back of our minds a knowledge of the rules of basketball. What we find offensive is not the raw, arbitrary nature of such a decision; rather, what we find offensive in the referee’s decision is the noncompliance with the established rules of basketball. We object to his arbitrariness because it fails to obey the basic rules of basketball. At the end of the day, we object to his decision because it will not allow the game of basketball to be played in an orderly manner.

     If rules do not exist in a game, the players will concoct the rules as they play. Little by little, a process of refinement will take place. There is, of course, a great deal of give-and-take in that rulemaking activity. And it’s almost impossible to say at any given time that the rules are now fixed and complete and finished and that no further refinement as possible. And yet, there are basic requirements for rules that have to be met in almost any game and those requirements might look something like this:

Place: Playing the entire game within a defined boundary marked by painted perimeter lines, walls, etc.

Time: Playing for a defined period of time: periods, quarters, innings, etc.
 

Behavior: Playing the entire game with coherent standards of player conduct and scoring.
 

Authority:  A particular person (referee, umpire, line judge, etc.) - alone - decides any contended issues between the contestants, teams, players, etc.

     When rules are established and sports competitors play according to those rules - however those rules are established - the winner(s) of the competition can be ascertained with certainty, and without recourse to arbitrary and biased influences.  Rules allow the true or objective winner of a competition to emerge.  Rule-less competition, by allowing a subjective and arbitrary “winner” to triumph, offends the common-sense notion of justice that each of us holds.