SportsLink: Old argument senseless
In my almost 30 years of covering athletic events, I’ve heard a full spectrum of arguments about the relative merits of different sports or recreational activities or games.
One of the old bar standbys revolves around whether something is a sport. Fans are quick to dismiss sports like bowling or golf because you can be out of shape and still compete. Or Australian rules football or curling because they don’t understand them.
But the one argument I have never understood goes something like this: “It can’t be a sport when it’s judged, man. When judges decide who wins, that’s like a killer. … Pass the beer nuts.”
Right. That’s the argument that’s used to disqualify diving, gymnastics and, yes, figure skating, from the sports pantheon. But if that’s the criteria, then we have to disqualify baseball, basketball and football as well.
What? Those are sports. We all know that. But if being judged disqualifies a sport, then they’re out. Because that’s what umpires, referees and officials are: judges.
Oh sure, they have a rule book that serves as guidelines for their interpretation – just like skating judges have – but when it comes down to it, they judge whether any action is a violation of those rules. One ref’s penalty is another’s incidental contact. You see it all the time.
But, the anti-judging crowd says, in things like diving or ice skating, the judges are the final decision makers. They are the only ones who decide who wins. They determine the final score.
Like officials or referees don’t? Just ask Seahawk fans if referees’ decisions can decide whether points are scored or not. Even better, I’ll give you a more recent example: two plays from Sunday’s NFC Championship game.
With 5:32 left in the third quarter and New Orleans’ trailing 16-14, Drew Brees retreated to the end zone to throw a short pass. The Bears knocked his receiver off the route and Brees was in danger of being sacked. So the Saints quarterback just tossed the ball in the direction of two offensive lineman. A flag came out and intentional grounding was called. A safety and two points for Chicago. The right call, right punishment.
On the ensuing Bears possession, Rex Grossman faced a third-and-12 from his 34. Chicago tried a similar play, with similar results. No receiver could get out, Grossman tossed the ball toward two offensive linemen and a flag came out. But instead of intentional grounding, which carries a loss of down, holding was called on offensive lineman John Tait. Without the loss of 10 yards – the holding penalty was declined because the incompletion made it fourth down – Bears punter Brad Maynard was able to put the ball in the end zone, instead of letting Reggie Bush return the punt.
Two plays almost exactly the same, but judged differently. The difference may have changed momentum in a game the Bears won 39-14.
Want more? How about umpires’ strike zones? Every game is played under the same definition of what is a strike, but every game is played with one person’s strike zone, and that may not be what the book dictates. As a guy who caught for years, nothing was better than an umpire who gave you a strike 1, 2, 3 inches off the outside part of the plate. As a guy who tried to hit for years, nothing was worse than an umpire who give the pitcher a strike 1, 2, 3 inches off the outside part of the plate.
So don’t tell me sports aren’t judged. Every one is, including track – was he outside his lane or not? – or swimming – did she leave her blocks too soon? – or golf – is that grounds for a legal drop or not? – or anything else in which people compete.
There might be other arguments about what defines a sport – sweat, maybe – but just because there are judges involved, that doesn’t disqualify anything.