One does not have to know much about basketball to know who Shaquille O’Neal is. The seven and a half feet tall, three hundred and fifty pound center for the Los Angeles Lakers is so immense that he has spilled over the brim of the National Basketball Association (NBA) into popular culture. His obvious athletic ability and his gentle-giant personality make it easy for the general population to love him just as much as the hard-core Los Angeles Lakers fans do.
If you are not one of those hard-core Lakers fans, you may not remember the Lakers’ game against the Chicago Bulls in January of 2002. Even though O’Neal outweighed his opponent by almost one hundred pounds, the giant was not so gentle when he attacked the Bulls’ center Brad Miller. After receiving a flagrant foul from Miller, severe enough to earn him an automatic ejection from the game, O’Neal retaliated by taking two swings at Miller’s head.
It is tough to judge who should and should not be ejected from such a tumultuous game. While Miller instigated this round of fighting, O’Neal and Miller had actually been exchanging hard blows and even harder comments throughout the entire game. At one point, earlier in the game, O’Neal pulled Miller’s jersey during a pile in a deliberate attempt to choke him. In order to separate the two players, security guards had to actually remove Miller from his jersey. In response to the choking incident, as well as to various others during the same game, Miller admittedly decided to foul O’Neal and came down hard on him with both hands. While many of the previous fouls of the game earned very little, if any, response by the officials, this flagrant foul, as well as O’Neal’s heated response, caught their attention.
This type of behavior should catch our attention as well. Basketball has not always been fraught with this kind of violence. In fact it was created, in part, to prevent such wrongful aggression in athletes. Developed by James A. Naismith, basketball was an indoor game to help athletes at the School for Christian Workers in Springfield, Massachusetts, stay in shape and, more importantly, out of trouble during the cold months between the football and baseball seasons. As a devout Christian, Naismith was committed to the development of the young men’s character just as much as he was to the development of the sport that he created. In fact, years after basketball’s inception, Naismith suggested that basketball should be played “on such a basis that it will be a factor in the molding of character, as well as … a recreative and competitive sport.” [1]
During his life, Naismith enjoyed seeing his game continue to develop. Had he lived longer, he may have also enjoyed the increased competition found in today’s NBA, but it’s not likely that he would approve of its character. Naismith’s idea of character, as it applies to sports, is called sportsmanship. While Naismith did not coin the word, he clearly understood its definition. Sportsmanship is the “conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy, striving spirit, and grace in losing.” [2] Sportsmanship exhibits character beyond what the rules require. Somewhere along the way, however, Naismith’s idea of sportsmanship and character development has given way to the today’s idea of gamesmanship.
Gamesmanship is a philosophical approach to competitive sports that fundamentally conflicts with sportsmanship. The Institute for International Sport defines gamesmanship as “the method or art of winning a game or contest by means of unsportsmanlike behavior or other conduct which does not actually break rules but breaks the spirit of the rules.”[3]
There are two fundamental approaches to gamesmanship found in the NBA. Distinguishing between the two is both important and difficult. Ed Graney, sports writer for San Diego’s Union-Tribune, suggests that “it’s often difficult to recognize the difference between inappropriate gamesmanship and rightful strategy, but two factors most consider are safety and integrity. In other words, don’t create needless risk of injury for opponents and don’t deviate from the proposed nature of a certain sport.” [4]
Graney calls the first approach a “rightful strategy,” but this label fails to communicate that it too is a questionable form of gamesmanship. Because of that, we will label the first approach with a more accurate and familiar term—bending the rules. Bending the rules is a widely held approach; so much so, that its proponents do not often consider it gamesmanship at all. This approach suggests that players can play as aggressively as possible within the limits of the documented rules. In addition to that, players may attempt anything that is not explicitly forbidden within the written rules of the game. The emphasis here is on the fact that the rules are recorded. The implied purpose, or the spirit of the rule, as defined by the NBA, is subject to being reinterpreted or discarded altogether if it will provide a competitive advantage. While this position tends to be a slippery slope leading to other less acceptable behaviors, in and of itself it can be justified as morally permissible because it does not seek to actually break the written rules. However, the term morally prudent should be avoided. Once actions do begin to slide down the slope, into what is unacceptable but not yet forbidden, they become catalysts for high risk behavior and the creation of new rules.
Graney calls this high-risk behavior “inappropriate gamesmanship.” Using another familiar phrase, we will call this second approach breaking the rules. Breaking the rules, as it suggests, allows for the intentional disregard of the rules. It is often coupled with the hope that the offense is either not seen or, at least, not called by the officials. While some people would think that bending the rules is okay, most would agree that intentionally breaking them is morally unacceptable.
Although unacceptable, intentionally breaking the rules is a common practice in the NBA. In any other context this would be deemed cheating, but in the NBA players are even encouraged by their coaches to break rules because the perceived advantages, even with the penalties, provide greater advantages than playing by the rules. For example it is a common practice in basketball for a player to foul an opponent to stop the clock and prolong the game.
One notable concern with breaking the rules is the risk for the players themselves. Players who belittle or discard the rules of the game, as those who practice gamesmanship do, are placing themselves and others at risk. Many of the discarded rules were written, not only to guarantee the integrity of the game, but also to ensure the safety of the players themselves. The NBA rulebook claims that the rules are intended to not only “create a balance of play” but also to “provide reasonable safety and protection for all players.” While one could possibly place his or her self at risk without incurring moral blame, one could never jeopardize another player without being morally culpable.
Not only does gamesmanship feed the possibilities of players getting hurt accidentally, it also increases the likelihood of intentional violence as well.
One of the key concerns with gamesmanship is that, in the heat of competition, it becomes a very slippery slope. As shown with O’Neal and Miller, gamesmanship can easily escalate into violence when practiced in a competitive physical environment. In this type environment, what is often considered gamesmanship is actually a form of retaliation called “reactive aggression.” Reactive aggression is the source for most of the violence found in sports.
In a 1989 report, Ismat Abdal-Haqq defines sport violence in a way that could be easily confused with gamesmanship. Abdal-Haqq sees sport violence as “behavior which causes harm, occurs outside of the rules of the sport, and is unrelated to the competitive objectives of the sport.” In this definition, sports violence is considered to be behavior that breaks the rules, as does most gamesmanship, and “causes harm.” There is, however, no mention of the player’s intent. Therefore a player, who intentionally breaks the rules resulting in an accidental injury, is just as guilty of violence as the player that intends to both break the rule and to harm an opponent.
The report contains two forms of sports aggression, identified by W.M. Leonard, that often stem from gamesmanship. Leonard calls the first type of aggression instrumental. Instrumental aggression is defined as non-emotional and task oriented. While instrumental aggression may not rise to the level of true sportsmanship, it is a legitimate expression of the sport and could be considered as “just part of the game.”
The second type of aggression, as mentioned before, is called reactive aggression. Reactive aggression entails an “underlying emotional component, with harm as its goal.”
Earlier in the game, O’Neal and Miller were playing antagonistically within the rules of the competition. It was not necessarily very sportsmanlike, but, at least, it was still legal. But when two aggressive players push one another to the limits of the rules it is just a matter of time before they go beyond the limits. This increasingly hostile exchange between the two centers is considered reactive aggression. The two centers used physical, verbal, and psychological intimidation, all of which are explicitly outlawed in the NBA regulations, to try to gain an advantage over his opponent. What was acceptable gamesmanship earlier in the game, quickly became unacceptable violence.
Moral decision making in the NBA, and other competitive sports, is based on established rules and penalties. While these regulations provide the general rules and the basic definition of the game they are intentionally kept vague on certain issues to allow for flexibility in their application.
Referring to breaking the rules and other unsportsmanlike behavior, proponents of gamesmanship will suggest that “it’s all part of the game.” The statement is true enough; it is indeed part of the game. It is the part of the game that the rules were intended to prevent.
Naismith’s original game had only thirteen rules. More than anything, these rules simply defined the game. As time passed, additional rules and regulations were required to address various issues that arose. A majority of the additional rules implemented, in some way, relate to gamesmanship.
One needs only to check the rules for proof. Under rule number twelve; one can find them called “Fouls and Penalties.” Included in this long list of items not allowed in the sport of basketball are things such as the use of profanity, taunting, and any illegal contact. In light of the brawl between O’Neal and Miller, one may not be surprised to find that rule number twelve also includes throwing punches, even if you miss.
Quality of Officials
One key element in gamesmanship is fooling an official
Under the premise of gamesmanship each player pushed the other to see where the officials would draw the line. No matter what their actions were, they were not deemed foul unless they were called such by the governing officials.
Accept responsibility
Once players know the rules they must be responsible to keep them
Players allow rules and officials to act as consciences
Contracts
If, given every opportunity to comply, players refuse to compete in a sportsmanlike manner within the letter and spirit of the rules, team owners should exercise the termination clause in the player’s contracts. According to the basic N.B.A. contract, a player can be terminated “if the player shall at any time, fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to standards of good citizenship, good moral character (defined here to mean not engaging in acts of moral turpitude, whether or not such acts would constitute a crime), and good sportsmanship.[5]”
Not to excuse their participation, but it was gamesmanship, more so than either O’Neal or Miller, which led to the violence that Saturday night in Chicago. It was a hideous show of disrespect for the rules, for one another, and for the game itself. Gamesmanship begins based on the same premise as the bully on the playground and often ends with the same results as a bar-room brawl. Basketball by its very nature is defined by a necessary set of rules. When those rules are ignored, the players cease to be athletes and the game ceases to be basketball. A victory under those circumstances is indeed most shallow.
[1] Kevin Ding, “Brawl Ball: Lakers, O’Neal lose it in Chicago; Shaq throws two punches at Brad Miller and gets ejected from the overtime loss to the Bulls,” Orange County Register, (Santa Ana, CA), 01/13/2002, http://www.ocregister.com; Internet.
[2] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed., s.v. “Sportsmanship.”
[3] Institute for International Sport, http://www.internationalsport.com/nsd/qfacts.cfm; Internet.
[4] Gamesmanship By Ed Graney UNION-TRIBUNE http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20040711-9999-lz1s11c8cheat.html July 11, 2004
[5] © 2002, Philadelphia Daily News.Visit Philadelphia Online, the World Wide Web site of the Philadelphia Daily News, at http://www.philly.com/Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.Source: Philadelphia Daily News, The (PA), Jul 16, 2002Item: 2W71190381680
No responses yet