Strategic Intentional Fouls,Spoiling The Game and Gamesmanship

The analysis of so-called ‘strategic intentional fouls’ (SIF) as well as the discussion of their validity in the normative systems of sports have a long track record. These fouls can be characterised as rule violations committed in order to be detected and which accept the corresponding sanction. However, there is an additional goal of obtaining an advantage or subsequent benefit in the competition. In fact, this practice is not infrequent and it is even occasionally accepted by the players themselves, referees, judges, sports authorities and spectators. In this work I have analysed the internal structure of SIFs (the features of an axiological gap and a ‘special intention’) with a view to providing a deeper understanding and stressing the differences with closely related concepts: cheating, and especially fraus legis or what in Anglo-Saxon culture is called ‘spoiling the game’. Finally, I try to show some difficulties in distinguishing SIF from gamesmanship.     

A PSYCHO-PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF FOULS AND INTENTIONS IN CONTACT SPORTS

This paper examines the notion of fouls in sports. In the first part of the paper, we examine some actual distinctions and classifications between different kinds of fouls. In the second part we examine the significance, validity, and justification of these classifications from a normative perspective.The term ‘foul’ evokes negative connotation; some would say—negative normative connotations. Conventional wisdom suggests that typically to commit fouls is, by definition, to go against the rules or principles of the contest. Since sport contests are constitutive activities—this means that to foul is to go against the essence of the contest. In other words, to commit fouls seems not to play the game; it seems unsporting. Consider the following typical example: in a premiership match in 2014 Hull’s forward Nikica Jelavic spun around Company and had a clear path to the goal. Manchester City’s defender Vincent Kompany then held him back. Although immediately ejected from the game, it is noteworthy that Kompany was later banned from one match, rather than the usual three match suspension, because the foul was not violent or dangerous in any way. Nevertheless, the example shows that some fouls are considered unsporting even though they do not involve violent or dangerous play. If a player gets past her opponent and finds herself in front of the goal, and then her opponent hugs her forcefully from behind, then such a foul falls outside the bounds of play. It amounts to a refusal to accept the rules of the games. We explore this issue from both a philosophical and a psychological perspective. The first half of the paper shows how actual distinctions between fouls depend on awarding a normative role to intentions. In the second part, a difficulty regarding the possibility that intentions play this role is presented, and a solution is proposed. It will emerge that some fouls are a legitimate part of the game. According to the proposed view, some actions that are forbidden by the official rules of football are illegitimate when performed with intention of a certain kind. Specifically, we will argue that it is legitimate for a player to play so as to take the risk of fouling, so long as fouling is not her intention. When fouls are committed with such a state of mind, they are a part of the game. Furthermore, whereas intention is necessary for illegitimate fouls, it is not sufficient. We will argue briefly that there are also legitimate intended fouls, since some deals or exchanges—fouls in return to penalties—are considered an integral part of the game, and that this view of (some) fouls is legitimate.     

Conventional Fouls - A Note on Strategic Fouls

ABSTRACT

Strategic fouls (SF) are intentional violations of the rules ‘in which the violator expects to be detected and penalized but expects some benefit to his or her competitive effectiveness’ (Fraleigh 2003, 169). Sometimes SF are widely viewed within a playing practice as acceptable—possibly as legitimate prices) e.g. stopping the clock in Basketball). In other instances, they are considered illegitimate (e.g., handling the ball to prevent a goal in dying minutes of a football match). And of course sometimes the issue is contested (e.g., fouling to stop a counterattack in football). My aim is to defend Converionalsim: Conventionalism: SF of a certain type in a particular sport is justifiable if there is a legitimate agreement or a convention according to which it is legitimate. Simply put, Conventionalism means that stopping the clock in Basketball is justified because there is a convention that it is legitimate. After briefly setting out the initial case in favor of conventionalism, I will utilize some prominent discussions of SF to challenge Conventionalism, and will offer a response to these challenges.