Today, I went up to visit the Chattanooga Zen group for the first time since my departure from the Atlanta center. I was kindly invited up as today was the initiation ceremony for a young man whom I mentored for several years while I was making my monthly visits up to Chattanooga. I was pleasantly surprised to learn while I was up there that the idea for inviting me up came not from the initiate or even a Chattanoogan, but from the roshi of the Atlanta center, with whom I had the falling out.
But anyway, that's not want I want to talk about. Like many others, I want to talk about the ending of last night's Game 3 of the World Series between the Boston Red Sox and the St. Louis Cardinals. Since Red Sox and Cards fans seem to see it differently, being a fan of the former I have my own built-in biases. To at least partially counteract my own biases, here's a version of the events from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
The lollapalooza commenced when Jon Jay hit a sizzling ground ball, snatched by Red Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia, who threw a dart home to cut down (Yadier) Molina. The opportunistic but physically limited (Allen) Craig took off for third base on Pedroia’s throw . . . Boston catcher Jared Saltalamacchia shouldn't have done it but he fired the ball to third to nab the sliding Craig and snuff the Cardinals’ threat. But an overthrow zoomed beyond third, into foul ground near left field. Craig tried to get up, but was tangled with Boston third baseman Will Middlebrooks, who was face down on the infield dirt. Craig dislodged himself, but Middlebrooks raised his legs, and Craig tripped. Finally a free man, Craig made a desperate bid to score, not knowing that (third base umpire Jim) Joyce had already made the obstruction call that had brought Game 3 to a chaotic close.
No one likes to see a game, much less a World Series game, decided by any umpire's call other than balls and strikes. In almost every sport, it's said that the best officiating is when the officials are "invisible." But there are several interesting (at least to me) observations that can be drawn from last night's game:
1. As alluded to earlier, Boston and St. Louis fans seem to view the events completely differently. St. Louis fans justifiably claim that the rules are the rules, everyone has to abide by them, and that by raising his legs, Middlebrook was unquestionably attempting to interfere with Craig's run. Red Sox fans point out that Craig tripped over Middlebrook's torso, not his legs, and besides, what was he supposed to do? If he got up, he'd unquestionably would have been interfering, but if he stays down, apparently that's interference as well. And as the diving baseman and the sliding runner both got themselves tangled up, don't they share some responsibility for the results?
In a game of this importance, Red Sox fans argue, the umpires should give the players a little leeway and let the outcome of the game be decided by the players, not the officials. For example, in the NBA Finals, the refs usually allow a little more contact than they might during the regular season so that the game isn't decided by their opinion on who initiated contact with who in the closing seconds. St. Louis fans, in turn, accuse the Red Sox of cheating.
There's some validity to both arguments, but this is a good example of how one's perception is altered by one's loyalties. To a St. Louis fan, it's obviously interference and an attempt at cheating (the raised legs). It's more complicated than that to Red Sox fans. How you see it largely depends on who you're cheering for.
2. I've often thought of the Democratic-Republican argument over the size and role of government in terms of a sports analogy. To Republicans, the best government is the one that governs the least, while Democrats seem fine with government regulation. In sports, everyone agrees that referees or umpires are necessary, but disagree over how much influence they should have on the game. The Republican analogy would be to prefer the game where the refs let the players push each other around a little and decide the outcome of the game for themselves, without a lot of "pass interference" calls or "personal fouls."
In this analogy, the Democrats want the officials to ensure a level playing field, not let anyone bend a rule that might affect the outcome of the game, and make sure the victors played completely within the bounds of the rules.
That being the case, last night's victory by St. Louis should be anathema to Republicans, while Democrats should be comfortable with Boston's loss.
3. On the other hand, if we apply Jonathan Haidt's sets of moral values to the game, we get the opposite conclusion. According to Haidt, it's the left that values "fairness" and "care over harm." If you can accept that Middlebrook's actions technically violated the interference rule but was unintentional, then "fairness" says that he and his team shouldn't have been penalized for the unintended consequences of the play. Further, if you can accept that the players got entangled with one another due to the actions of both the sliding baserunner and the diving baseman, "fairness" does not dictate a one-sided penalty, even if that's all that the rules allow. Therefore, the left should be aghast at last night's decision.
However, the right values heirarchy, allegience, and purity in addition to fairness and care-over-harm. These values are more sympathetic with the view that the umpire has the ultimate authority (heirarchy), you should accept the conclusion that's most favorable to your team (allegience), and the sanctity of the rules shouldn't be compromised (purity). That being the case, you're more likely to look favorably at last night's outcome if you're on the political right, especially if you're a Cardinals fan.
Okay, okay, okay - I'll admit I've thought about this WAY too much. As mentioned at the top of this post, I drove up and back to Chattanooga today (four hours total), not to mention the sitting meditation, so I've had a lot of time to think about this.
Game 4 is tonight. Let's hope that we don't have to have this conversation again.
No comments:
Post a Comment