Last night's Lions game

I've said that I don't follow sports as closely as I used to, and I don't. But I do still pay some attention. Yet last night's Lions-Packers game has reaffirmed my decision to pay less attention, particularly, quite frankly, to football.

It's for more reasons than the sheer brutality of the game (and it is too brutal; there are far too many lifelong, debilitating injuries suffered as a result of it). Football officiating, I believe in both the NFL and the college ranks, is simply too much of an influence on the outcome of the games.

I think it's because the rules are too loose. Football officials have far too much leeway in interpreting them, and this leads to far too much individual opinion on what is and is not called. Yes, I know this happens elsewhere: too many baseball umpires have their own strike zones. Yet the strike zone itself is quite clearly defined, and simply needs to be called more exactly across the board. In football, I've been told by a former official that's there's holding on virtually every down. As such, they should only call the egregious examples or ones which directly affect the outcome of a particular play. It leaves too much to interpretation, especially when the action is fast and furious.

I am not one of those who argue that referees and such should not call penalties. I do not accept the argument that they should 'let the players play'. If you're going to have meaningful games you have to have rules. If you have rules they have to be enforced. It's only fair: it's only right. Yet the rules and the people calling them must themselves be fair, must themselves have integrity. Without that I wouldn't want to play. If sports were only about chance, you may as well play roulette or poker rather than a more physical game of any type.

As such, I'm happy that my bedtime now precludes staying up late to watch debacles such as last night's Lions-Packers contest. I'm a happier, healthier man for it, and no thanks to the officials.

Time Outs are Evil

Time outs in any timed sport (except for those called by officials) simply lack integrity. No player, team, or manager/coach, indeed anyone with a direct interest in the outcome of the game, should be able to stop the clock merely because it's to their advantage. It is nothing less than unsportsmanlike.

It's entirely just to argue against nonofficial time outs. Part of a timed sport almost by definition is how well one can play during the time allotted. If you run out of time it generally says something about poor clock management, poor decision making, and poor play more than anything else. As such, time outs punish good defense and reward error. How many games, especially football and basketball games, are won by teams who took leads which they should not have had the opportunity to take simply because they could stop the clock merely because it suited them and only them, or prevented another team from running out the clock when they led? Either instance is hardly a fair measure of athletic ability. And neither have integrity.

Isn't that what sports are supposed to be about, integrity, fair play, and sportsmanship? If they aren't, why play them? What could they teach us otherwise except that it's okay to win any way we can, so long as we win?

But let's call time outs what they really are: manufactured excitement. The fans are getting played because the powers that be want more excitement any way they can generate it, to keep interest and make more money. Fans have bought into this hook, line, and sinker, so much so that they don't even realize their allegiances are being toyed with, so much so that they don't even care about whether the rules are sportsmanlike or not. It's become the Roman Colosseum all over again, bread and circuses, and it indicates a serious flaw in our society.

Time out rules are inherently partial because they play solely towards one side at a given, uh, time. But a good rule must be impartial; it should never play only to one side's advantage. Rules ought to be wholly impartial, and not simply in sports but in life in general. They require impartiality so that they may be applied fairly and justly.

Part of it too is that time outs separate acts from their natural consequences. If a team plays poorly for 58 minutes but can stop the clock often late in a game it makes light of their earlier mistakes. Does life give us such chances? Then why ought sports, if part of their intent (as defenders of athletics so often say) is to make us better people? Can they really make us better people if they allow wanton selfishness at critical points during play?

No, they can't. Until we learn that a game holds no lesson for us unless it has the most completely impartial rules possible then that game will only teach us that winning is everything. But when the Great Scorekeeper comes, will he accept that defense?