|
|
|
SOME PROPOSALS ABOUT
ZERO TOLERANCE
Part TWO |
part ONE
|
|
TWO
PROPOSALS FOR TWO CHALLENGES
There are two dilemmas that the examples in part one focus on: those times
when the rules are inappropriate as they are written, or those times
where rules actually don’t exist when they are needed.
Some people
will argue that it’s impossible to change or to write rules for
every possible scenario that can be imagined, and I would
wholeheartedly agree.
That’s why I’m suggesting a generic approach
to these issues with two ideas:
|
|
1. NWC: The Addition of a
‘Notwithstanding Clause’
This expression is well known to Canadian political buffs. It
essentially means that, even though there’s a certain rule that says
one thing, it’s permissible in exceptional circumstances to
disregard it. This could include an allowance for a Referee to make
a ruling where the rules themselves are silent. It might have two
forms in Squash:
a) In this first application, the NWC would allow the Referee to
suspend the letter of the law for the greater good of the match.
Stated informally, it might read: “Even though the rules specify a
certain outcome, we should suspend the provisions for this special
circumstance.” This would of course, need to be used sparingly, and
in restricted domains (see later), and a guideline would specify
criteria to avoid abuse – either by referees using such provisions
too loosely, or by players demanding suspension of the normal
provision too frivolously.
b) In this second application, the NWC would allow the Referee to
make a ruling in rare situations where the rules are silent. Stated
informally, it might read: “Even though the rules don’t address this
specific situation, we should allow the Referee’s best judgment to
invoke a ‘fair outcome’ principle.”
In Squash, nowhere is there an
allowance for such a thing. In fact, Rule 20.1 restricts the Referee
to making decisions “where the rules call for them”. Known as
‘elastic power’ in some other sports, a special rule allows for the
Referee to make decisions on any point “not specifically covered in
the rules”. The NBA rulebook actually uses that term ‘elastic
power’, and other sports like Baseball & Football have similar
provisions. Let’s be clear here that we are not talking about a
substitute for not knowing the rules.
c) It might be possible to blend the above two into a grand unified NWC such as:
In exceptional circumstances not dealing with normal play (such as
interference, player hit by ball, turning, further attempts, etc),
the Referee may suspend application of a provision that would
require the end of the match (or a game) if the infraction is
clearly unintended (re-bleeding, nausea, cramping, lack of
replacement equipment, etc). As well, the referee may make a
decision on a point not specifically covered in the rules using his
or her judgment of ‘fair outcome’ as the guiding principle.
|
What is this rule for?
We have to make it clear here that these proposals (to either
suspend or create provisions) are not meant for the usual 99.9 % of
all situations and decisions that deal with interference, broken
balls, player hit by ball, further attempts, turning, and so on.
They truly have to be unusual circumstances.
Perhaps a couple more comments might help to drive home the point of
where this first type of clause (suspending a provision) could be
used. Imagine having to forfeit a match because of not being able to
find replacement equipment within 90 seconds, or having to forfeit a
game or match because of a cramp instead of a sprain. There is often
precious little to distinguish between a cramp (disability) and a
sprain (injury), yet the semantic distinction can mean the end of a
match. Only a post-mortem autopsy might be able to distinguish them!
It seems to me that it shouldn’t be this way. Why should a game have
to be forfeited for a minor re-bleeding?
What’s so important about it in the grand scheme of things that a
player has to give up a game or possibly the match?
In contrast, why
is it that the rules of Tennis seems to bend over backwards to allow
players time for all kinds of injury situations – even without
evidence of injury? Could it be that they place the actual playing
of the game as paramount?
Sure, there a reason for the creation of
these provisions, but if they are so darned fair, why is it second
nature to try to gloss over their application when real play is
affected? Why are they routinely ignored? It’s to avoid such
situations that the NWC makes sense.
Regarding the second type of clause (creating a provision), the
introduction to the guidelines states that the rules are written “to
allow a fair outcome to each match” – but this refers to the rules
that are already there. Sometimes the rules are silent on a
particular situation – a rule is missing. Where is the authority to
create one or make a ruling on a point not specifically covered in
the rules?
A notwithstanding clause is the opportunity for a referee
to legitimately use his/her judgment and ensure a fair outcome – now
all in conformity with the rules. That’s what it is for.
Who is this rule for?
It might be easy for us to conclude that instituting such clauses is
reasonable, but should only apply to professional level events –
where so much is at stake – large audience, TV, etc.
But when you
think about it, it’s fairly certain that an organiser of a local
event who managed to scrape up a modest amount of money and a modest
sized audience would not be pleased with match-breaking zero
tolerance rules when faced with a potential default of the final
match in its infancy.
He would be very happy to know that there’s a
‘legal’ way out – without risking a potential breach of rules with
potentially dire consequences down the line from a sanctioning point
of view.
Is such a rule a slippery slope?
Some might suggest that this might put a referee in a bad spot,
having set a precedent during a given match that might come back to
haunt him or her. But remember, as we stated, this type of situation
would be rarely applied, and the chances of the need for it coming
up again in the same match would indeed be miniscule.
In any case,
it does originate with the referee, and if the need were to occur
again during the same match, since it’s the same referee applying
the clause, then fairness can be assured with simple consistency. If
such provisions are in the rules, then all unusual situations can
thereby by covered – thus maintaining the integrity of the rules.
|
2. THE MODIFICATION OF
CURRENT PROVISIONS
Some people might be genuinely concerned about the difficulties in
phrasing the previously described notwithstanding clauses. Others
might be concerned about the too-frequent application of such a
provision and the risks they feel it may pose – a slippery slope
concern, as it were.
Therefore, I offer a second proposal that
suggests actually changing the existing severe provisions that we
find in today’s rules – to lighten the consequences that presently
lead to the end of the game or match. This approach is simpler for
the most part, and would likely preclude the need for application of
any notwithstanding clause.
As an aside however, I’ll suggest writing new provisions is not the
way to go if we’re trying to fill in present voids in the rules.
I’ve already hinted that this is what several past rules revisions
have done, and unfortunately, despite all the good intention
accompanying the revision, it has certainly served to complicate
things. Golf already does this, and the thickness of that rulebook
speaks loudly against that approach.
Here, in order to be able deal
with any unforeseen scenarios, the second form of the
notwithstanding clause (elastic power) would be the ideal solution.
There would surely be little need for it – but like for most other
sports, it would be there.
A better way ?
So instead, let’s consider changing some of the provisions we
already have that might be considered too extreme. In contrast to
the notwithstanding clause, this approach does not use a generic
approach, but rather it specifically goes to each of the existing
rules and changes them.
Here are examples in the key areas:
|
PRESENT RULE |
POSSIBLE
ALTERNATIVE |
Self-inflicted injury – demands loss of
game after 3 minutes. |
Apply Rule 17 variably depending on delay. |
|
Re-bleeding - demands loss of
game |
Apply Rule 17 variably depending
on delay – or do nothing. Stop again. |
| Illness or disability – demands continuation
or loss of game |
Apply Rule 17 variably depending on delay. |
|
Vomiting – if significant – loss
of match |
Apply Rule 17 variably
depending on delay. A court can be cleaned. |
Change of equipment – loss of match if
no replacement within 90 seconds |
Apply Rule 17 variably depending on
delay. |
|
ZERO TOLERANCE?
The key consideration here is that these occurrences listed above
are virtually never intentional – just bad luck – and any associated
penalties (if in fact there should be any) should be much more
reasonable and minor. As we’ve asked previously, why end the match?
Why forfeit a game if you get a cramp instead of a sprain? Why lose
a game (possibly a match) because a wound starts bleeding again? Why
should a player be able to concede but one game? What is so sacred
or important about these things in the greater scheme of things that
the match should end?
Why is there an apparent zero tolerance policy
for occurrences that are obviously unfortunate – not caused by any
deliberate personal action?
Why not other penalties?
We could go a step further and possibly create provisions to allow
for more variations in the penalties between a stroke & a game - say
like two strokes - three strokes – whatever? Shouldn’t the
punishment where warranted be tailored to the delay in question?
Let’s eliminate the present lack of consideration for the great
variations that can exist for all these occurrences and trust the
judgment of the Referee a great deal more. Let’s have faith that
Referees can use common sense and project a better perception of
fairness.
Do we really fear some kind of dire consequences or some
blatant abuses or some degeneration of the integrity if we soften
the penalties?
Can we not address any real abuse by using Rule 17?
Let’s be more reasonable ...
|
|
Barry Faguy |
|
|
