![Sample our Sports and Leisure journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5949/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Sports-Leisure.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Commentators on strategic fouling have not focused on what is most ethically relevant. I contend that strategic fouling in basketball is unethical in all of its forms because it violates the essence or true ethos of the sport: the display of the full realization of the skills of the game. I give an account of the essential skills, how they are determined, and how historical rule changes about fouling have principally been directed toward rewarding skill and increasing freedom of player movement. I explain why the disciplined restraint from strategically fouling is a competitive virtue as well as a way to show full respect to opponents. Moreover, I contend that the physical contact involved in strategic fouling can elicit a desire to retaliate, an indication of an ethical aspect of strategic fouling that has been overlooked in the scholarly debate.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the following for their thoughtful and useful feedback on previous drafts: the JPS editor and former intercollegiate basketball player, Paul Gaffney; the JPS blind reviewers; Gary Smith, my former basketball coach at the University of Redlands; Bill Johnson, former intercollegiate and international basketball player; Scott Kretchmar; Pete Schroeder, former intercollegiate football player; and Sigmund Loland.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. For examples, see Fraleigh (Citation2003), Simon (Citation2005), Loland (Citation2005), Simon, Torres, and Hager (Citation2015b), and Moore (Citation2017).
2. My account does not apply to recreational level basketball since there are other goals and purposes to play the sport. I also don’t explore the extent to which my analysis can be generalized to other contact sports with different rules and customs, but my position should at least provide a critical framework to consider the issue in other contact sports.
3. D’Agostino (Citation1981).
4. ‘Impermissible’ intentional fouls form their own category in basketball as ‘flagrant’ fouls.
5. I have extensive experience with this reaction as a former NCAA and German club basketball player, competitive youth basketball coach, and parent of children (Jared, Mason, Avery and Tyler) who play the medium and high contact competitive sports of American soccer, basketball, football, and lacrosse.
6. Fraleigh (2003, 173-74) described five different categories of intentional tactical rules violations. Acts that intend (1) to injure an opponent in order to reduce his or her effectiveness, (2) to negate the earned advantage of an opponent, (3) to interfere with the movements of an opponent who is not in a position of earned advantage, (4) to attain an illicit advantage for the violator without interfering with an opponent, and (5) to reduce a negative impact of time or geographic position on the violator’s effectiveness. Loland (Citation2005, 13-14) described three types of rule violations: cheating, play-acting, and tactical or professional fouls.
7. See Kavusannu (Citation2007, 272-273).
8. Simon, Torres, and Hager Citation2015b, 47 ff).
9. In the context of the conventionalist/interpretivist debate, my rationale for the essential skills is ‘conventionalist’ in the sense that it is only through the lived experience of playing and coaching basketball – of what is done in the conventions of practices and games – that the essential skills are known and defined. On the other hand, my rationale is also ‘interpretivist’ since I focus on skill excellences based on the theory of mutualism as well as on the historical revision of rules, which indicate essential purposes of the game and the rules, like creating more freedom of movement, rewarding skill, and penalizing intentional fouling. For an account of the different theories of sport, see Simon (Citation2014).
10. My argument that the essential skills are determined by a combination of a consensus about the skills to be most practiced within the context of the formal rules and their evolution implies that variations of the sport might lead to different essential skills and what is considered a foul. For example, there are overly aggressive forms of ‘wrestling basketball’ that involve some different offensive and defensive skills. See https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=4341543202628494. I’m indebted to Bill Johnson for bringing these forms of basketball to my attention.
11. https://official.nba.com/comments-on-the-rules/. The italics are mine.
12. Immanuel Kant’s ethical distinction between the negative and positive aspects of duty or obligation can help illuminate the difference between playing by the rules and playing according to the ethos of the sport. For Kant, to refrain from breaking laws and rules is a lower form of doing one’s duty or respecting persons. The higher form of fulfilling one’s duty is to promote another’s good or welfare. For Kant, the former generally represented legal duties of justice enforceable by law, whereas the latter represent duties of virtue that are not enforceable by law or external constraint but by individual conscience and an ideal of character perfection. See Kant (Citation1964, 97-98).
13. My argument is also a criticism of Simon, Torres, and Hager’s defense of strategic end-game fouling that it can add more drama to the game by extending it and creating pressure-filled situations. They also contend that if two teams have equal constitutive skills, then it is reasonable for restorative skills like free throw shooting to be a deciding factor in the outcome of a contest. However, their scenario of Team A and Team B seems to be a self-defeating argument since the very reason why Team A resorts to end-game fouling is that they were inferior in their constitutive skills.
15. See Simon, Torres, and Hager Citation2015b, 222-223). My critique is inspired by a similar argument that Kant makes regarding the good will in Part I of the Groundwork.
16. 2021-22 NCAA Rules, 6. In particular, the committee expects reduced physicality with regard hand-checking/body bumping, post play, and screens.
17. NCAA Constitution 2.4, Principle of Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct at https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/18/committee-on-sportsmanship-and-ethical-conduct.aspx.