Why does Dixon make a distinction between recreational and competitive sports? Why does he make a distinction between unwise and unsporting behaviour?
- Recreational and competitive sports
- Running up the score for rec sports/teaching kids because you have specific goals (to have fun/teach). Dixon agrees that the purpose of rec sport is a ‘pleasant diversion’ and as such that keeping the score close will help ‘to avoid all the unpleasantness and conflict and to cultivate an unselfish and cooperative effort’. But competitive sports are different. - Unwise and unsporting
- It may be unwise to run up the score (instead of letting your third-string players play or instead of trying out new plays) but that doesn’t make it unsporting which is a moral transgression.
Describe any two arguments against running up the score and describe how Dixon responds.
- Winning is the only thing that matters. So once you’ve secured the win, it is gratuitous to score extra points
- Winning is NOT the only thing that matters. Other things matter like display of athletic excellence, personal and team records, excitement provided for fans, and playfulness. - Players who suffer lopsided defeats have been humiliated and diminished as human beings.
- Difference between weak humiliation and strong humiliation. Any loss, big or small is a weak Humiliation of the athletes. No loss big or small is a strong humiliation of the athlete unless it is that they didn’t try their best. May be worse than the opponent but shouldn’t feel shame over something they can’t control. If you don’t run up the score when you can, then that’s insulting to your opponent as it’s condescending.
According to Bordner, what is positivism (in sports) and what’s wrong with it?
Positivism = the fact of the matter about ‘what happened’ just reduces to whatever the ref says happened. By the standard of positivism, it’s literally impossible for a single bad call to exist.
Bordner’s response: Positivism is false, since the rules tell the officials what they are supposed to do – and that means that there is substance to the notion of officials getting it wrong. If officials could do no wrong, there would be no rules telling them what they are supposed to do.
What is the argument from theory as described by Bordner? What’s an objection to it?
If you do not follow the rules of the game, you are not playing the game at all. Since bad calls by officials result in players not playing by the rules of the game.
This theory is wrong. It’s simply not correct that breaking a single rule of a game entails that you are not playing that game. By this theory standard that has yet to be a single baseball game ever played.
What’s the argument for fairness as described by Bordner? What’s an objection to it? What are some responses to that objection?
Argument: Blown calls are unfair. And it’s bad for sports to be unfair. So we should work to prevent blown calls
Objection: Blown calls would only be unfair if they benefitted one player or team disproportionately. But blown calls cancel each other out. For every blown call that works against you, there’s a bad call in your favour.
Responses:
1. They don’t cancel out because they aren’t randomly distributed. Favour home teams or give more fouls to the team with fewer fouls.
2. Even if they were randomly distributed, they would still be unfair in situations where there are not enough games for the blown calls to cancel themselves out.
What is the argument for justice as described by Bordner? What are some objections to it?
Argument: Blown calls are unjust cause they fail to give players what they deserve. If you rush a ball 10 yards you deserve 10 yards to be denied is unjust
Objection: Players deserve only and exactly what they agree to by contract. And they agree by contract to abide by the calls of the officials.
Identify and describe any two of the objections to the use of tech that Bordner considers. Then describe his responses to those objections.
- It costs too much – people won’t be able to use this tech everywhere, in all leagues.
Response: That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t use it at all, people should use it to the extent that they can afford it. Also, if we used tech we could put less money into training the officials. - It is a traditional part of the game that humans and not tech decide calls
Response: Real tradition has been to officiate in the most reliable way possible. So if we use tech for that purpose, we are acting per tradition. Officials have always used some tech to help them make more accurate calls (eyeglasses/instant replay). The change being suggested by bordner is one of degree, not kind.
