Foul Play and Strategic Deception

Along the talks of sportsmanship and fair play, there arises the discussion about strategic plays or deceptive movements or even intentional fouls.  It is often debated whether any of these tactics are considered fair, equitable, or even ethical, let alone sportsmanlike.  In reading two articles discussing this very topic I have my own thoughts supported and reinforced regarding such behavior in athletic games. First watch this Youtube video from the 2010 World Cup of Uruguay vs. Ghana.  The clip highlights a common problem, not just in soccer, but in many other sport games as well.

http://youtu.be/A1WlBpe9Kvo

Luis Suarez, the man penalized for his actions, later admits that he intentionally used his hands to stop the ball.  He also took credit as the man who saved his team from defeat.  The video does not show but this action takes place in the last five minutes of the game, already in overtime, with score tied one to one. When Ghana misses the their penalty kick the teams have a shoot out, which Uruguay wins.  It is clear that Suarez’s behavior after the penalty kick was atrocious, at least to me, but the behavior in question here is the handball.  He knew ahead of time he would be red-carded, but he accepted that—-albeit poorly—-and did it anyways.  I claim that such action is unsportsmanlike conduct and is unethical behavior.

Kathleen Pearson wrote an article, “Deception, Sportsmanship, and Ethics,” in which she discussed why such an act as the intentional foul is unsportsmanlike.  Familiar with arguments that since Suarez, in this case, was penalized therefore the rules account for such behavior making them inclusive to the game’s experience, points out why such is not true.  Having watch this video, and others like it, in my sport philosophy class and having a class discussion regarding his behavior, I too have heard such arguments.  But in my opinion that argument misinterprets the purpose of the rules in the first place.  Pearson extends the argument of fouls accounted for by the rules and therefore acceptable to the laws of land.  The laws prohibit certain behavior, and if such behavior is committed it is penalized according to the law.  Pearson argues, logically, that it makes no sense to say that all acts are lawful because they are included in the law book.  If such were true, then what would be the point in having laws.  Such logic applies to sports as well.  If penalties are included by rules, then why are there rules in the first place.

It is clear there is a difference between accidental and deliberate fouls, and that difference extends to the morality of the two.

Pearson defines fouls in two ways: accidental and deliberate.  The deliberate foul is “an act … designed to deliberately interfere with the purpose of the activity.”  Clearly Suarez committed a deliberate foul, that no one argues.  What is  argued is the ethical nature of deliberate fouls.  If the foul is committed to make sure that the game cannot continue then it is clearly unethical.  It is unethical to pretend to play the same game as your competitors when in reality you are not.  Once you break the rules, deliberately, you cease to play the game.  The charade may continue but, in the words of Pearson, “neither the logic of analysis, nor the intuition of experience permit us to call whatever is left a game—-for that is shattered.”

Such behavior, intentional fouling, is common in many sport games.  But just because it is common doesn’t make it justifiable.  In fact, I am reminded by the age old saying, “If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you join them?”  In this case the question can be extended to include many more people than just our friends, and the argument can be upheld.  Popularity does not determine moral or ethical standards.  The intentional foul, the blatant violation of the rules, is an act of selfishness on behalf of the offender, claims Warren Fraleigh in his article “Why the Good Foul Is Not Good.”  Fraleigh calls the intentional foul the “good” foul referring to the intentional fouls committed in the game of basketball, but I apply it to all intentional, and popularly accepted, fouls.  What is “good” about such fouls?  Didn’t I just say that they are morally wrong?  I did, and they are.  Fraleigh explains what’s “good” about these fouls.  The only good that can be attributed to these fouls “is in the prudent self-interest of the fouling player.”  Whether it be to force a penalty kick or two free-throws in basketball, had the foul not been committed a point (or points) had a higher probability been awarded.

So it is that the “good foul” is only good for the person, or their team, of the offender such an act is selfish.  Selfishness is mutually agreeable as being morally and ethically wrong.  Rules are established to protect the integrity of the sport as well as to regulate the manner in which the game is played.  Games are games because they have rules.  In order for someone, or someones, to play a recognizable game, they must play by the rules established previously.  Allow me to use chess as an example.  Although not a sport, it is a game that has clearly established rules that dictate the actions of the components.  Even if I am playing alone, if I am playing chess then each piece on the chess board must move according to the rules.  If I want to use the pawn, then I can only move it forward one square with the exception of taking an opponent directly one square up and to the left or right.  If I want to use the bishop then I must move along the squares of the same color (white or black) and connected to one another at the corner.  Likewise, if I wanted to protect my king, then I must use the pieces around it or move it away one square at a time.  But what if I lose my bishop and decide to use my pawn to substitute for my bishop.  And what if my king was in check (threatening to end to the game) but decide my king is a warrior king and can move how many squares I want it to in any pattern I choose, thereby defeating the piece threatening my king.  Am I still playing chess?

Yes, the question is silly, as is the example.  You might even wonder if I was playing with a five-year-old, or if I am immature, or perhaps a sore-loser.  But that is beside the point.  The answer to if I am still playing chess is NO.  Anybody can see, with an understanding of the rules of chess, that I am no longer playing chess but some imaginary game with chess pieces.  Now, apply the same logic to athletic games.  Soccer is a game with a prescribed set of rules to which everyone who plays the game agrees.  One such rule is to not use your hands unless you are the goal keeper.  For those who follow not this rule are penalized, but that is to discourage the use of hands, not to justify the use of hands.  So, when the game is in play, and someone uses their hands to stop or hit the ball, then logically that person is no longer playing soccer, but some other game.  This defeats the purpose of the athletic contest, which is to challenge each other’s skill in a setting of fairness and equability.  If one person is not playing the same game as the rest, then it is hardly fair.  No amount of justification can makes this right.

However, that is not to say that accidents don’t happen.  In fact, Kathleen Pearson makes it clear that there are two ways in which fouls are committed, one of which discussed above and the other is accidentally.  Accidental fouls happen, for whatever reason, but they are committed without the intention of deliberately interfering with the purpose of the game, and therefore are forgivable and without ethical significance.  Even Warren Fraleigh makes a distinction between rules broken inadvertently or unintentionally.  Such violations only “temporarily disrupts the good sports contest and does not destroy the agreed-upon mutual test of entering participants.”  Sometimes, when these accidental fouls are committed, the offender demonstrates true sportsmanship by gracefully accepting the penalty and apologizing to his opponent.  Such a person is morally blameless in his offense and the game can continue unimpeded   This is a far cry from the “good foul” which is intentional wrong doing, both ethically and morally.  It is also distinct from the foul that is intentionally committed to gain some advantage while the offender attempts to escape punishment.  A clear demonstration of cheating.

But there are actions in sports that are strategic in nature, which may appear unfair or unethical.  I disagree with such opinion, as does Pearson.  The purpose of sport contests is to test the skills of one person (or team) against another person (or team) to demonstrate who is  more skillful in that particular contest.  With that in mind, when one person in an athletic game, demonstrates a strategic movement that deceives his opponent, within the rules of the game, that person embodies the spirit of the games.  Strategic deception is ethical because it does not seek to deliberately interfere with the purpose of athletics, which is to distinguish the skilled players from the unskilled players and is actually contributory to sports.  At what level should strategic deception be introduced in sports is a matter of debate.  Some wonder if the youth sports should allow strategic deception or if they should focus on physical maneuvering.  I believe that strategic deception should be introduced to youths as they are capable of understanding the purpose of their actions.  It makes no sense to teach six-year-old’s strategic deception when they do not comprehend strategy, they barely comprehend the rules of the game they play.  Pee-wee football, tee-ball, little kid soccer, contain children who play because they find it fun.  It is common that many “leagues” or coaches of such sports that no score is kept.  If that is the case, why then utilize strategic deception?  Don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that strategy used at that level is unethical, for my position is that it is ethical as long as the maneuvers are within the rules.

I have come to understand sportsmanship much better now than previously as I have become more aware of what is involved in determining what is fair, ethical, and moral.  When athletes like Luis Suarez reduce themselves to cheating, purposely violating the rules because they are unable to compete on the same skill level as everyone else, they not only cheat themselves of demonstrating their superior skill, they defame the sport they refuse to play.  I would go so far as to say that those that cheat are cowards, afraid to compete fairly for fear of their inferiority being evident.  Anyone can cheat, but true skill is demonstrated through adherence to the previously agreed-upon rules and keeping with the spirit of the games.  A true contest of skill is more than a physical display but also incorporates strategy.  Strategic deception in a game, whether it be a feint to the left to distract from the move to the right or the attempt to kick a field goal when in reality it is going to be a pass or charge, is celebrated as superior skill and is not unethical but morally acceptable.  Sports have evolved over time, and rules try to accommodate the evolving sport, but it is tedious to make a rule to prohibit every possible scenario in which a rule could be broken.  It is up to the athletes to embody the spirit of the rules, of the games, to demonstrate true sportsmanship in playing fairly and at their best.

Competition and Morality

This week I read a few more articles regarding sportsmanship, but one article–or in this case chapter–stuck out to me the most.  It had less to do about sportsmanship as a whole and looked at the morality of competition.  In the second chapter of  Robert Simmons’ book “In Fair Play: Sports, Value, and Society” (1991), he discusses how competition is sports and morality are considered together.  When I first started reading this chapter, I wasn’t very excited, but the more I read the more interested I became in his thoughts.  He talks about both the critics view of competition in sports as well as offering his opinion on the matter.  Here,  I am going to agree with Simmons and support the importance of understanding how competition plays an important role, not just in sports, but in our lives, and how it is morally acceptable to encourage competition in athletics.

Many people, i imagine, think of something negative when the topic of competition is mentioned about sports.  I can understand how the critics would argue how competition is selfishness in action.   Competition calls for one person (or team) to win and the other to lose, what is called a “zero-sum game.”

Should games such as these encourage competition, defining winners and losers, or should be more about having fun where everyone is considered a winner?

The critics call such a position selfish as it does not take into consideration the welfare of the opponent.  Thinking of the soccer games I played as a kid and I compare that to the tee-ball games of today, I tend to believe that competition is a part of life and where better to prepare for it than in a–preferably–friendly atmosphere of the sports arena.  When I played soccer as a kid, we understood that scores were being kept, winners were being decided, even ranking of teams took place.  As a result, we strived to win our games, even though as kids we had very little sense on how to effectively play soccer, as a team.  When I watched my nephew play tee-ball, and I learn that no one keeps score, nor does any player actually get “out,” I wondered what, then motivates the kids to keep playing.  Sure, everyone has a turn at bat, and numerous tries to hit the ball off the tee, but the only motivation they have to play is the reward, always in the form of treats.  So what’s the answer?  In my opinion, and Simmons’ too, coaches must learn to balance learning or improving skills with competitive success

To attempt to use your skills, however limited, to achieve victory in a contest, requires competition.  Yes, there are people, athletes, spectators, and coaches, that take competition too far.  They are the ones that make competition seem so morally reprehensible.  There problem is that their only focus is on winning, often by any means necessary.  If you remember the conversation of sports and violence, these are the people that blur that line.  For them, sports are combat experiences.  Opponents are enemies that need to eliminated, wiped out, destroyed, annihilated, etc.   I have to be honest here.  In high school, I had believed this was what competition was.  It bothered me.  I liked sports, what I didn’t like was this war-like competition that threatened all that played.  So I didn’t play.  I might run some drills, kick or toss a ball around, but no serious games.  I turned off by the competition.  It didn’t help me any hearing “war stories” from my brother as he played collegiate soccer.  But, I grew up, matured, and began to understand sportsmanship was more than playing by the rules, but it meant respecting the spirit of friendly competition.

With that understanding I began to see the other people as cheaters.  They break the unspoken contractual agreement to abide by the rules and regulations that enable fairness and equality. They ignore the spirit of friendly competition and focus only on what they can do to dominate others.  The thing about people who cheat at sports, is they are not alone.  There are cheaters in- and outside the wide world of sports.  As commuting bicyclist, I have seen drivers make some of the dumbest choices simply because they think they are superior to everyone else.  Whether it be to use the right lane that is about to end to speed ahead and cut in front of others waiting patiently in traffic to their left, or solo drivers using the carpool, or even people in the middle lane making a right turn, all these people are cheating–outside of sports.  Competition doesn’t breed cheaters, the predilection to cheat, according to Simmons, is a preexisting character flaw.

The moral view of winning, somehow, has become polarized.  Either you see it as wrong because “winning at all costs” promotes cheating or you see winning as having nothing to do with sports.  Really, winning does have a place in sports, as is does in life.  The feeling that accompanies victory in sports is like the feeling of finishing a big project for school, or tackling the job assigned to you at work, or even overcoming a personal challenge in life.  If none of these other victories receive criticism, then why should winning at sports, Simmons argues and I agree.  Life is full of challenges and opportunities to be successful, sport is just one more of those challenges that we can feel good about winning.  Still, some of us who feel competition is acceptable, but lack the knowledge to back ourselves up, might concede competing is morally wrong, when competing to compete.  But when you compete against yourself, there is no one who loses, so it must be right, right.  Well, critics happily complain about that notion as well.  Simmons says they do it so saying we change the meaning of competition.  But they are wrong, as Simmons clearly demonstrates. First, he clarifies what it means to compete against oneself.  It is better to say that you are “striving for self development or self improvement.”

Competing against your talents is a method of improving or developing your talents. However, a true measure of improvement requires a comparison of your skills against the skills of another, perhaps more talented.

This might sound like the answer to winners and losers, and it could be, possibly, but it does not rule out the need for competition against another person.  Once again, Simmons provides a clear example of a remote village and the person who can sink 15 of 150 jump shots with a basketball.  Compared to the other villagers, who can only sink one, he is highly skilled.  He might think of improvement as reaching 17shots out of every 150, until one day when a professional basketball player visits the village.  As a professional, his skills are unmatched by any in the village, but his ability sets the criterion against which the others now judge themselves.  As Simmons puts it, “success or failure is partially determined by how others perform.”  This means even when avoiding direct competition against others, there is an element of comparison of another’s skills.  All participants can improve, Simmons says, but not all participants can be win.  Putting it simply, competition is the ruler that measures improvement.

To conclude, now that I am an informed individual, I understand better the benefits of competition.  It is not some aggressive form of reducing your opposition to mere objects needing termination and removal from the arena.  It is not a selfish desire to be better than everyone else.  Competition is “a mutual quest for excellence.”  There is a reason why the word “friendly” is frequently used in conjunction with “competition.”  It is there to remind us the purpose of competition.  When people who truly love sports, play a game, they expect the other player (or team) to play their best as they will.  Whether they win or lose is not the top priority.  Often, the feeling of cooperative respect and admiration for one another’s talent prevails.  When I play a sport, even if it is just for fun, either on a team or one on one, I give everything I have.  I know winning the game is of minor consequence, but it still matters, even just a little.  Even if I lose (which is most likely given my specific lack of proficiency at any skill), I know I can measure my performance against my competitors.  But most of all, I know that friendly competition is a morally acceptable component of sports.

Sportsmanship

This past week the topic I have been attempting to read about is sportsmanship.  Sportsmanship is generally understood to be about the character of the participants of sports while engaged in their game.  Take Lucy and Charlie Brown for example.  Lucy tells Charlie that she will hold the football for him to kick, but every time he draws near she wisks the football away allowing the momentum of Charlie’s kick to carry him off the ground and land him on his back.  With regards to sportsmanship, it would be said of Lucy that she characterized unsportsmanlike behavior by not holding the ball, or she simply cheated.  That is a primary concern about sportsmanship, whether or not you follow the rules.  There are other things too, but that’s the oversimplification of sportsmanship.

Truth be told, none of the articles I read were fascinating enough to inspire me to write about them.  Nevertheless, there was one article that is sufficient enough to help me with this blog.  Peter J. Arnold’s “Three Approaches Towards an Understanding of Sportsmanship” was the clearest of the articles I read.  As his title states, Arnold looks at sportsmanship from three different perspectives, which are not mutually exclusive.  He looks at sportsmanship as a (1) form of social union, (2) provider of pleasure, and (3) form of altruism.  I shall discuss each of these areas as I understand them, but it is important to know, according to Arnold, “what must be emphasized is that fairness, if understood only in a legalistic or formal rule-following sense, can only be regarded as a necessary condition of sportsmanship, but by no means a sufficient one.”  In other words, there is more to sportsmanship than playing by the rules.

Social Union

Sports are commonly held to be a social activity, so it makes sense that sportsmanship

Australia’s Pendleton took England’s Meares by pleasant surprise when she embraced her long-time rival after winning gold knowing Meares planned on retiring. What an excellent example of the social union form of sportsmanship.

can be perceived as a form of social union, uniting players in a common cause; namely “the preservation and continuation of its [sports] best traditions, customs, and conventions.”  This is done so that everyone can feel equal as participants in the game they engage in.  But sportsmanship is more than playing by the rules, it is a way of life that deserves to be maintained and displayed as it demonstrates “cooperation and mutual satisfaction.”  But for this way of life to excel among participants there must be something more than following the rules.  There must be a genuine commitment to uphold and embody the values of fellowship and goodwill.  These values must be greater than the desire to win and the feeling that accompanies victory.  With these values players and officials can come to together and, ideally, participate without complications or contentions.

Promoting Pleasure

Here Arnold gives less his own opinion with regards to sportsmanship as a means of promoting pleasure as he debates the opinion of another author.  Nevertheless, the overall message that Arnold permits to be presented is that sports have the propensity for fun and diversion.  But overall, sports promotes a feeling of magnanimity and generosity.  I felt cheated when reading this section of Arnold’s article since there was little else but why someone else was mistaken instead of how he thought sportsmanship was a form of promoting pleasure.  How can I understand his point of view if it is never mentioned.  By the title I would think that sportsmanship allows players to enjoy the game by not worrying about someone breaking the rules or behaving poorly.  Like a comic strip of Calvin and

Sports are meant to be fun. That’s why sportsmanship is so important. If players abide by the fellowship and morals that accompany sportsmanship (similar to the social union aspect) than everyone is able to enjoy the game.

Hobbes where the two are playing Calvinball.  They started with one game, but not knowing how to play they evolve the sport into something new but maintain the spirit of sportsmanship as a means of promoting pleasure.  Whatever the sport, sportsmanship upheld by all players makes the sports much more enjoyable.

Altruism: the unselfish concern for others

Speaking of sportsmanship as a value to uphold, naturally that value would tend to be something like altruism.  When speaking about the altruistic values associated with sport, Arnold pay particular attention to the moral sense to go beyond the obligation to follow the rules.  It is important to remember that altruism, in the sport sense and as defined by Arnold, “is a genuine concern for an interest in and concern for one’s fellow competitors, whether on the same side or in opposition.”  This speaks to me particularly because of my personal belief of altruism permeating my entire life.  I also reflect on my time in sports as a kid and my adult life watching sports and participants, noticing instances of altruism on and off the field.  But more on that later.  Arnold states that there are least two ways in sports that someone can go beyond the simple obligatory obedience to the rules.

One way is to act selflessly, even to the point where you could jeopardize your chances in

There are at least two ways to demonstrate altruistic sportsmanship and one of them is to act out of concern for someone else even at risk, cost, or sacrifice to oneself.

winning the competition.   The picture displayed here is a visual of the example that Arnold provided; that of a runner helping a fellow competitor in a state of distress even at the cost of her own victory. If you have ever witnessed one of these types of scenes you will know that this person is considered a victor in a different sense.  Her actions are applauded, her feeling of accomplishment greater than the person who actually won the competition.  Such is action is going well beyond obedience to rules, but exemplifies the type of people we want to call heroes, true sportsmen.  Another way in which altruism in sports can be demonstrated is by “acting on behalf of another so that more good is brought about than id one had merely acted in accordance with the rules.”  As Arnold indicates, performing a generous act on behalf of another is just one more way to be altruistic.  The amazing thing about this method is how often such acts go unnoticed, which makes all the more impactful.  Acts such as asking for a fellow competitor to have an extended break time to recover from their previous event, or even confessing to an act that negatively impacts, such as correcting a referee who called the ball out on your competitor even when you know it hit your foot on the way out.  Alturistic sportsmen are not only sympathetic to the plight of another but are willing to do something to improve that other person’s situation, even if it means it hinders their chance of victory.

Again, I use the example of Calvin and Hobbes.  The two are playing football, but because Hobbes is much bigger than Calvin,

Had Hobbes demonstrated altruism, he, instead of Calvin, would have recommended that they play touch football so that Calvin has a more equal chance.

he is unphased by Calvin’s attempt to tackle him.  Calvin suggest changing the game to touch football, to make more fair, but had Hobbes been more altruistic (and not a stuffed tiger) he would have been the one who noticed Calvin’s plight and suggested the change in game to better suit his ability.

All these different forms of sportsmanship can overlap and that is because there is no singular definition for sportsmanship.  It is something everyone should practice, and should be taught players alongside the drills and techniques they need to know.  Overall, sportsmanship is concerned with acting beyond the obligatory, to behave in such a manner that others will want to play the sport, especially with you.  When I was a kid playing soccer, sportsmanship was ingrained in me, albeit not in a sportsmanship way.  Nevertheless, I never shied away from any opportunity to help someone in distress.  As an adult watching children play tee-ball with the “no points” system that is used to prevent any team being considered losers, I wonder if that is truly the sportsman thing to do.  No one really benefits, or do they?  I don’t know, I don’t have an answer right now (at least not one that short enough for this blog).  Then I watch sports on television or represented in movies and again I wonder what is being celebrated.  Do we care more about the winner who won at the cost of another player, or do we encourage the player who risked his own standing to help someone in need.

That is one aspect of sportsmanship that I was disappointed no one talked about, the aspect that applies to spectators, coaches, support staff, etc.  Sportsmanship is not just for players of sports while engaged in a game.  It is something everyone needs to practice.  Coaches, especially of children teams and even more especially if their child is on their team, are people in desperate need of possessing sportsmanship.  It should be them who are pillars of example to their players.  Speaking as a kid whose father “coached” his little soccer team, it seems the coaches forget that there is more to sports than abiding by its rules.  The coach that encourages unsportsmanlike behavior, in my opinion, is ruining the sport they claim to love.  I don’t mean to say that all coaches need to coddle their players, that just illogical.  But, understanding and encouraging players to go above and beyond the call of rules they make better players.  Fans/spectators, too, are guilty of having a lack of sportsmanship.  Too often, currently, it is better to argue and fight over differences than agree and harmonize over the enjoyment of the game.  Trash talk, distractions, and whatever else “fans” do to oppose the competitors who they do not support, again in my opinion, reflect poorly on the competitors they do support.  Since there are no rules governing spectator behavior it is difficult to go above and beyond them with your actions.  But just because there are written rules doesn’t mean there are not unspoken rules everyone tends to agree on with regards to sport watching.  Will we succumb to having regulatory rules for watching sports?  Perhaps.  But to avoid such scenarios, all we have to do is embody sportsmanship, in any form you can.

Sportuguese

For this week’s reading assignments I thought I would be talking about Suits’ article “Tricky Triad: Games,Play, and Sport,” but despite his entertaining writings and his attempt to differentiate between sport and game, his is not the article that captured my attention.  Maybe it was Klaus V. Meier’s follow-up article to “Tricky Triad,” “Triad Trickery: Playing with Sports and Games.”  Although a follower of Suits, Meier felt that Suits did not properly define sports, even though he did agree with the definition of games.  I agree with Meier and his explanation, or categorization, of sports, but that his not what I want to talk about.

Instead, as the title suggests, I want to talk about the language of sports.  Jeffery O. Segrave wrote a fascinating article investigating the use of language in sports and about sports.  His article, “A Matter of Life and Death: Some Thoughts on the Language of Sport” resonated with me.  His introduction talked about the use of sports metaphor and how common it is in American vernacular that we sometimes don’t realize we’re using them.  Segrave said in his introduction, “To understand the power of metaphor is to understand how we shape our arguments, organize our perceptions, create our ideologies, control our feelings and, in the end, construct our public and private selves.”  Who knew sports metaphors were so ingrained in our lives as to help shape them.  Admitting that each sport  has its own metaphors and jargon Segrave focuses on three aspects of sport speak that involve all sports: “the conventions of violence, sex, and the machine.”  I am going to add my input along two of these sections as they relate to me or as I understand them.

The first segment Segrave discusses is the language of violence.  Sure, everyone knows sports are violent, especially when played at the professional level, but Segrave is talking about the words we use to describe sports, sporting events, or even athletes themselves.  He mentions how no one wins their competitions anymore.  Instead, we insert as many synonyms we can to describe the “beat down” one team received at the hands of the other, or how badly the losing team was “annihilated.”  I found it entertaining that Segrave adds snippets of newspaper articles that talk about the colorful, exaggerated language used when writing or describing a sports event.  But that train of thought extends to describing the teams themselves.  In choosing mascots or team names, the intent or thought (and correct me if I’m wrong) is to choose something that intimidates your opponents.  When I read this, I immediately thought of my time as a kid playing soccer league soccer.  So I want to extend that metaphor even further.  In choosing or allocating nick-names for players, often there is the same intent.  My team was told that we choose any nick-name we wanted to place on our jersey, so naturally we started picking names that we intimidating, like weapons.  For me, I wanted something that was lethal and powerful because that is how I wanted to perceive myself and my skill–which was neither lethal or powerful, but hey, I was only six or seven years old.

Another example of football’s adoption of “war” terminology with the “Draft.”

Violence in sport is best exemplified by the language we use to describe American Football. If you’ve ever listened to a sports broadcast of a game or have been keyed in on a description of a play, then you’ll know football is often compared to war.  Segrave says “the language of football is the language of war,” which tends to be true when you think about it.  With words like “blitz,” “bombs,” “offensive and defensive lines,” “ground attacks,” it is clear war metaphors describe the sport, and is also occasionally applied to coaches and players.  But just because football uses war metaphors to describe its behavior doesn’t mean it is the same as war.  There are many more sports out there that use war metaphors to describe themselves and make no qualms about how violent they are.  Admitting to its violence Segrave makes a fascinating observation.  Sports are looked at as controlled violence.  “It is in fact only by controlling violence that sport sustains our interest and enliven our attention,” claims Segrave.  He continues to claim that sports prevent destructive behavior which is detrimental to society.  I find myself on the fence with this statement and the observation of sports as controlled violence.  It reminds me of similar claims by completely different companies that their products are outlets for aggressive behavior.  I have two that I am thinking of, in particular, but I will mention only one; video games, specifically violent video games.

Having grown up with video games, there is a fondness for them, a feeling of nostalgia that tempts me to be sympathetic to their claims, but I cannot allow memories of good times negate rational thinking.  Some time ago there was a huge outcry by concerned parents that violent video games were to blame for violent behavior.  The video game companies countered by saying their games were mere outlets for which aggressive behavior could be channeled, and not the producer of violence.  I am not here to discuss which side is right or wrong, but am merely trying to bring to mind the video game companies’ claim that they control violence.  That their violent video games keep people from going out and expressing their aggressive behavior on society.  It is hard for me to believe that video games can do this, but I can see how sports does, although with the advancements in technology making their way into the video game world it can be more possible.  My thinking is that it is possible, but I am not entirely convinced, that sports, through its physical nature, can drain away the violent energies we store up each day.  But that is through the participation in sports, not just spectating (which recently has become more violent too).  Isn’t that why we want children to engage in sports, so they drain all their energy on the field and come home much calmer, easier to manage?  In that same sense, wouldn’t the world be less inclined to fight one another if the political leaders of respective nations that disagree would settle their differences in a boxing ring?  Why make so many die just because you don’t like your neighbor.  If you really think yourself superior, then prove it on the basketball court.  Or better yet (and for example let me use the US and Iran), have the leaders and their cabinets or supporting council form two teams and play a game of football, getting out all their violent desires on the field and taking it out on each other instead of the people who are forced to war on behalf of their leaders. (I could go n forever but that is another topic entirely, which I may revisit someday).  So, I can agree to a degree that sports does control violence, but through participation in the physical nature of the game.  It actually reminds me of, just slightly, how Meier defined sports as requiring “the demonstration of physical skill and prowess,” in his article “Triad Trickery.”

Since the language of the machine is used in sports, is this what we see?

The other aspect of sport mention by Segrave that I want to talk about is “the language of the machine.”  What fascinates me more than what Segrave points out, is how obvious it was and how accustomed I was to hearing sports described in a mechanized manner that I didn’t think how much we compare sports to machinery–or how the language sometimes evolves with machine technology.  Especially when playing team sports and wanting to work together to accomplish your goal, you think of cogs or gears, each working with the other to make something function.  When doing well, then the gears are “well oiled.”  This extends even to individualized participation as well.  When I tire of pedaling my bicycle, I will think to myself, “I ran out of steam,”  as if I were a steam engine.  Similarly is the phrase, “ran out of gas,” to demonstrate the modern times.  It is intriguing how we relate human performance to machines.  Segrave delves a little into the possible psychological reasons we might do this.  Maybe this helps us dehumanize competition thereby emboldening us to defeat our adversary.  More than anything else, Segrave believes that mechanizing sports is done for control.  It has been an endless battle of man against nature, and by using the language of machines, something man-made, we can exert control over the uncontrollable.  His argument makes sense to me, especially with the illustration of our use of stadiums and arenas to, in essence, create a controllable environment.  Segrave worries that there is another reason why the language of the machines is used in sports.  There is a battle that every person will lose (if you fight against it, anyways), the battle against mortality.  By comparing athletes to machines it may be an attempt to immortalize them.  Segrave worry is about the bid for immortality but what it will cost; namely dehumanization.

If you see sports as one big machine and the players nothing more than the parts of the machine then there is a disconnect from the sport and the players.  This actually reminds me of a movie I re-watched recently, “Real Steel” with Hugh Jackman.  For those few who have no idea what this movie is about allow me to explain, briefly (or go here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433035/).  Basically, it is a world, just slightly in the future (maybe 20 years or so) and where large robots “box” one another instead of people, hence the use of “steel” in the name.  For the purposes of my point this is all you need to know about the movie, expect for an explanation made by Hugh Jackman’s character about the evolution of the sport of boxing, he himself being a former boxer.  He explained that boxing evolved from simple boxing, where people use their fists only, to mixed martial arts, where any part of the body could be used.  The thirst for violence and the limitations (and ethics) of the human body, prompted the use of robot fighters.  Since they were not human, they could exact and withstand harsher punishment.  And just like the sport of boxing, when humans still fought, robot boxing evolved, albeit with the advancement of technology.  But I digress.  Perhaps, this is Segrave’s fear, that the more we dehumanize sport, the easier it becomes to place them in life-threatening situations, all for the sport of it.

The language of life and death is an overarching language of sport which is probably why Segrave uses it in his title.  Yet, despite the instances where sports reminds us of death and violence, it also inspires us with words that make us feel alive.  Segrave uses an excellent example; baseball.  In baseball, the proactive players, like the pitcher or the batter, are described “at” or “being’ their roles.  A pitcher “pitches,” a batter “bats.”  Even the time of the year in which sports are played, or venues, remind us of life and death.  Segrave postulates, like with the language of the machines, the language of life and death are our ways of trying to control what we cannot control, namely our lives.  We live and die beyond the restrictions we try to exert.  Sure, we can influence our lives for better or for worse with our life style choices, like playing sports is a positive influence on our lives, but ultimately control lies beyond our capabilities.  So, we compensate.  And sports, speaking of metaphors, fits perfectly into this equation.  It is something we control and our choice of words in describing it creates the illusion of mastery over the elements.  If there is one thing to take from this lesson, it is how beautiful and creative we are when it comes to describing sports.  It was mentioned in Segrave’s article that the sports section of newspapers were the most descriptive, colorful, illustrative section of the entire paper.

One last thought on the language of sport.  So far I have talked about sports locally, but a lot of what was explained, theorized, and talked about extends past the borders of this country.  Sport can be a language unto itself.  Using sports to transcend language and cultural barriers.  I have done that with soccer (football to the rest of the world).  Though brief my physical involvement in the sport, my love for the game allows me to communicate to others despite differences we may have.  My own brother was able to do this very thing in Pakistan.  He didn’t speak Pakistani or any other Arabic language, nor did his teammates, but they were still able to teach football soccer to the children there, using the international language of sports.  I will pay more attention to the language of sport used in sport reports but I will also recognize the power of sport to be a language unto itself as well.

Play

Having just read four different articles each discussing the different aspects essential to understanding play, I can tell you I was slightly overwhelmed.  While a couple were easier to understand than others, all contained information vital to understanding the philosophy behind sports.

Johan Huizinga’s “The Nature of Play” although short in comparison was packed with heavy terminology.  Once I was able to understand what he was saying I was amazed.  His three characteristics of play seem like the foundation upon which the philosophy of sport was built upon.  To understand sports we must understand play, which is why we read multiple articles on the subject.  Freedom, Imaginary, and Limited or Secluded are the founding characteristics Huizinga teaches.  When all are combined and the player creates a “tension” or demand that needs to be met, an element of “fairness” must be learned.  When someone refuses to participate in the play with another they are often considered “spoil-sports” as they spoil the illusion of the activity.  Sometimes, these “spoil-sports” will splinter off and form their own cabal with rules more to their liking.

Once play has been fundamentally described by Huizinga, Joseph Esposito attempts to answer a question that he had been pondering that had not been answered; why do we play?  In his article “Play and Possiblity” Esposito explores the social nature of play.  Sadly, he used the the word “game” interchangeably with “play” which should not have been done since they have different meanings.  Anyways, for Esposito, the fundamentally integral human activity is game-playing.  The reason why it is so integral is the possibility that is present.  That is what makes game-playing so interesting; the multiple possibilities that we try to control.  Of all the long-winded on-goings of Esposito, for me his article picked up when he said life is a game.  When looking at life in a non-religious point-of-view we can be captivated by the myriad of possibilities and not loose track of the sense it is just a game by understanding we don’t have to explore every possibility.  I think Esposito was saying that enjoyment can be had in discovering new possibilities while remembering we are in control of which possibilities we will take advantage of.  For Esposito, the goal “is not spontaneity itself, but rather the reward of alert action.”  For me, his was the second most complicated article to read as not everything he said made sense to me, but I understood the point he was trying to make, even if I am not sure I agree with him, that is play is all about finding the possibilities.

As with with Huizinga’s article about understanding the characteristics of play, Eugene Fink wants us to understand how play is related to being in his article “The Ontology of Play.”  Talk about heavy articles, it seems Fink wrote to people with a clear understanding of metaphysics, which is not me.  Regardless, I read, slowly, and here is my understanding.  He divides his article into three sections, each equally complicated.  When discussing the characterization of play, as a phenomenon, instead of redefining it,he proceeds under the notion that since everyone plays everyone knows–roughly–what play is.  Characteristically, play exists unto itself Fink details.  Next, he goes on to analyze play’s structure.  First, he identifies it has something joyous, a joy that is unique in that it is not tied to the senses of the body, physical intoxication, nor is it purely spiritual or intellectual.  It just is. (much like his article, doesn’t make too much sense, it just is.)   Play is intrinsically and extrinsically involved and is tied to social life, even if it is solitary play.  It governed by rules and always incorporates objects, artificial or natural, tangible or intangible.  Fink talks a lot about the dualistic nature play creates.  It is both “real” and “imaginary.”  While what we “see” may be imaginary, where we are is a “real” location and to us the experience is perceived as “real.”  When explaining the relation of play and being, I almost fell asleep on multiple occasions.  It is heavy reading, and just reviewing it makes my brain strain.  Fink mentions that a relationship exists with the imaginary and real, what is “appearing-to-be” and what is objective.  With what we perceive, the world of play inhabits both spheres, reality and imaginary, which makes scientific explanations difficult, since science is not a fan of the imaginary.

Yet, just because a person is highly educated doesn’t mean they have to limit the scope of whom he wants to impact.  Fink was way over my head, ontology has that effect on many people, I imagine.  But Bernard Suits wrote an article much easier to understand.  He may not have involved as much existantialism as Fink but because of that he got his point across much clearer.  Of the four articles I read, his was not only easy to follow, but entertaining as well.  “Words on Play” was written to help clarify the meaning of play.  Despite his use of scientific words, Suits explained well what he means.  Case in point, play is an autotelic activity.  Graciously, Suits explained simply that autotelic means an end unto itself.  Like Fink said, play exists for no other purpose than to play.  However, Suits believes, and I understand why, that calling play an autotelic activity is just a step in defining it.  There is error that arises in stopping at auotelic activity as a definition.  Suits masterfully illustrated his point with an excerpt from Lewis Carrol’s famous story Through the Looking Glass.  Humpty-Dumpty, in talking to Alice, decided to change the meaning of certain words, making the conversation irrational and irritating. Using this illustration Suits argued that calling play an autotelic activity is a stipulation not a fact, that those who believe it to be the sole definition are doing so in their opinion.  If it is their opinion, then it is certainly not fact.  The reason why is that all play can be described as autotelic activities but not all autotelic activities can be described as play.  By similar reasoning Suits claims, and logically it makes sense, that games are not a subspecies of play despite the popular belief that is.  The connection tends to occur most when both words are used together; like “playing a game”.  But, if the word “playing” can be substituted with another word and not change the meaning of the phrase, then logically play is not related to games.  So what is play then: an autotelic activity that voluntarily utilizes resources that are instrumental for survival.  Think about what we need to keep on living: food for nourishment, sticks for shelter or defense, or any number of things.  Since it is an autotelic activity, these resources are not being used to better the situation or maintain survival.  Others have said that play is part of life and have tried to use complicated terminology and science to support their argument.  Suits explains why play is a part of life in manner anyone can understand.  Since play requires that we use something essential for continued existence, Suits informs us of one of the most instrumental resources available is time.  Choosing to set time aside, or use it for non-survival purposes, is play.  To finish his article, Suits creates an illustrative story of his own to help the reader understand better the meaning of play.  I found this example fun and insightful as it reinforces everything he just explained using a context I am familiar with, a tennis match.

All in all, each article had its own contribution, but I found it more difficult to understand the language a few authors used which diverted my attention from understanding the point they wanted to get across.  At least on was simple enough for those of us without Ph.D. after our names to understand without feeling like he is talking down to us.  Personally, I never thought much about play on such a deep level.  Philosphically, I understand that play is the basis of our interest in other activities, like sports.  Learning about play makes me more aware of what I am doing and fosters a desire to expand into how play influences the world of sports.  I know Suits, and just about everyone else, says that play has no value, that is unto itself, but I think there is something to be gained or learned while engaged in play.  It has been proposed that play has a social context, but I think there is more to it than that.  Perhaps, play contributes more than we are willing to admit simply because we tend to think of it as childish or wasteful.  Or it could be that because there is no way to measure its effect or affect, then there is nothing taking place?  Whatever the case, play is fun and everyone should engage in play once awhile.

Test Entry

Tyson Reyes

Test entry for Knes 516 (CSUF)

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!