Paper Example on Intentional Rule Violations in Sports

Introduction

The issue of intentional rule violations in sports has been discussed severally in various publications. In the various philosophies of sport, there is a distinction between general rule violations, cheating and tactical or professional fouls. Some rule violations are praiseworthy while others are frowned upon. In most instances, an official's whistle is what is used to determine whether there has been a rule violation. During a sporting event, teams are usually in pursuit of value. In the event of doing so, some of them encounter cases that may be regarded as violations. However, whenever a violation is not called, it may not be a violation at all but simply the pursuit of value. It therefore goes without saying that officials wield a lot of power and can determine outcomes in a sporting event. Rule violations can be explained from various ethical viewpoints. The various perspectives to the issue has caused major debates regarding what should be allowed and what needs to be called out.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Part One

• Narrator
• Jenkins - Utilitarian
• Collin - Deontologist
• Carter - Formalist
• Combs - Conventionalist
• Mack - Broad Internalist

Narrator: You have all been selected to participate in this debate due to your varying perspectives on the topic of debate. To start off the debate, I will ask each one of you to chime in on what you think of intentional rule violations in sports.

Narrator: Let us begin by hearing Jenkins' view on the issue.

Jenkins: As a huge fan of soccer and Basketball, I believe the issue of rule violations should be left to the officials in match. Rules simply need to be understood by both parties and players in teams should be committed to securing wins for their respective sides. The quote, "such thinking is often used, for instance, as the basis for defending just wars." (Scott Kretchmar, The Rationalization of Ethics Under Utilitarianism) illustrates the concept of focusing on the win in any sport. In the 1999 World Cup Scurry scenario, it can be argued that a violation did not occur since it was not called. In my view, her actions should be supported since they led to a victory for her country. As a utilitarian, I believe in engaging in action which leads to the greatest good.

Narrator: Thank you Jenkins. Onto you Collin, what is your perspective on the issue?

Collin: In my view, intentional rule violations should not be tolerated in sports. Before intentionally breaking a rule, one needs to stop and consider if they would be pleased if the other team did the same. Even though sports are competitive by nature, rules need to be respected instead of simply focusing on individual team purposes. The rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on their consequences but on the ability to fulfill our duty. "In short, we need to act on the basis of duty, not desire") (Scott Kretchmar, Liberty, Equality, Morality).Narrator: Okay. Onto you Carter, what is your take on the issue?

Carter: I believe a sport is defined by its rules. "One can win the game by only playing it, and because cheaters do not play, cheaters can't win" (Robert Simon, Theories for Sport). By intentionally violating the rules, one voids the concept of contest and therefore should not be declared a winner.

Narrator: Thank you Carter. Onto to you Combs.

Combs: The issue of intentional rule violations is not new in sports and is therefore well understood by teams. Many teams conventionally violate rules in a bid to secure wins for themselves. "...players all accept the convention and each team knows the other team will strategically foul at appropriate points in a contest, no team has a special advantage over others" (Robert Simon, Theories for Sport). The acceptance of the issue by both parties is what has led to the social convention. I therefore believe intentional rule violation has a place in sports as long as it is understood by both teams.

Narrator: You make a good point Combs. What do you think of the issue Mack?

Mack: I believe players have to be committed to bettering the sport. "Athletes show respect for the game when they make its internal interests their own" (Robert Simon, Theories for Sport). Intentional rule violations do not better the sport and should therefore not be allowed.

Narrator: Now that we have heard the opinion of every person, I welcome counterarguments or agreements. Let us start with you Collin.

Collin: Well, I completely disagree with Jenkins point of view. The end should not always justify the means. Rules should be followed at all times.

Jenkins: I still hold on to the belief that teams should do everything in their power to win since it is the greater good. Rule violations should be determined by officials.

Carter: I agree with Collin's point of view. Rules are what enable teams to compete fairly. They should therefore be respected at all times.

Narrator: What do you have to say Mack and Combs?

Combs: Well, I slightly agree with Jenkins. Intentional rule violation is not new in sports. As long as both teams understand the issue, I believe it should be allowed.

Mack: I slightly agree with Carter's point of view. The intentional violation of rules does not benefit the sport as it prevents teams from competing favorably.

Narrator: I would like to thank everyone for their contributions on the subject.

Part Two

YOU: "What the . . . what are you doing here!?"

BAGGAR: "Well, there is one more piece to this assignment that you need to take care of. You need to take your authentic swing?"

YOU: "My swing . . ."

BAGGAR: "Yes, your authentic swing . . . what do you really think about that ethical issue? What is the best answer . . . and why? We all take a stand eventually . . . What's yours?

YOU: Well, first of all, I believe rules are very important in a sporting activity.

BAGGAR: So what is your stand on the issue?

YOU: I do not support the intentional violation of rules. When one intentionally violates the rules that govern a given sport, they stop playing the prescribed sport and cannot therefore be declared winners in that sport.

BAGGAR: So you agree with the formalists?

YOU: Yes. I believe it is the most pragmatic point of view.

BAGGER: Well, thanks for your opinion.