It takes character to make the tough calls and character is the defining trait that ethicist Michael Josephson wants to see back in sports. Addressing attendees at the June 22-25 NASO National Officiating Conference, Josephson raised some intriguing questions about sports, ethics and the roles of officials.
The words “character” and “sports” used to appear in the same sentence almost as often as “money” and “sports” do now. Whether sports developed character or merely revealed an athlete’s character was debatable, but one thing not debatable was that officials needed a strong set of ethics to compensate for players and coaches who may not have had any.

That hasn’t changed, not with the increasing rewards that come with victory or gaudy individual statistics; officials must still stand as ramparts of ethical decision-making in stadiums or arenas where some of the very characteristics that sports once nurtured (teamwork, respect for opponents, coaches and officials, composure in the face of adversity, etc.) have now nearly disappeared under assault from a relentless pressure to obtain victory or at least individual recognition at virtually any cost.

Into that battleground comes a man with a vision of sports as a place of honor and integrity. The good news: he is an articulate and passionate spokesman for his cause.

The bad news: he’s a former lawyer and law professor from California.

“When you hear my background is in law and as a lawyer, does my credibility soar?” chuckles Michael Josephson, founder of the Josephson Institute of Ethics. “Sure,” he deadpans, “if you want to talk about ethics or character let’s bring in a California lawyer.”

While Josephson is no lone voice of reason wandering through the thicket of modern-day sports in search of an honest person, he is interested in getting people thinking about ethical issues in sports. Today, sports are laced with intrigue, agendas (hidden and otherwise), rule-stretching, old-fashioned cheating and other things, such as trash talking and deceptive play. It sometimes seems like enough to make people concerned with ethics throw up their hands and surrender. Josephson’s expertise is ethics rather than sports, but he has crafted a second career out of injecting the discussion of ethics into areas often hostile to them, such as business and politics. His career in the law has given him extensive experience in an environment where ethics are often viewed as expendable nuisances rather than inviolate principles.

Some challenges to ethical officiating surfaced at the 2000 NASO National Officiating Conference, held in Colorado Springs, Colo., June 22-25, during a session moderated by Josephson. Panelists at the session were Dave Yeast, NCAA national coordinator of umpires; Julie Ilacqua, NASO chair; Tom Crawford, former U.S. Olympic committee director of coaching; Bryan Lewis, former NHL director of officiating; Bob Ottewill, Colorado High School Activities Association commissioner; Barry Mano, NASO president; and Pat Rosenow, high school and FIBA-certified basketball referee and Chief Circuit Trial Judge in the U.S. Air Force.

One of the most contentious case studies that emerged concerned balls, strikes and game management, and a spirited discussion between Yeast and Josephson caught everyone’s attention.

Yeast’s argument concerned game management. If an umpire is getting a bit too much grief from a pitcher or catcher about strike zone dimensions, he asserted, he or she may watch a pitch slice off the outside corner of the plate and still call “ball” simply to send the message that pitchers pitch, catchers catch and umpires decide. Experienced officials in all sports are likely to perceive that as legitimate game management. Josephson’s alternative perspective triggered an interesting exchange.

“In every sport there are things that officials do to maintain control of a baseball game or basketball or football game,” said Yeast. “In baseball we are charged with maintaining control of the contest.”

“So you can call a ball a strike in order to achieve your goal?” asked Josephson.

“At times, yes,” Yeast replied. “I am doing my job as I see fit.”

The former attorney and law professor had his follow up questions ready.

“So you’re saying that you have the right to lie in order to accomplish a higher purpose?” he asked. “Can you also kick (a player) if that works?”

The audience chuckled but Yeast answered that by saying using one call out of more than 400 to send a message is legitimate game management while kicking a player is obviously unacceptable. Josephson then took a quick poll of the audience and discovered that many attendees sided with Yeast.

“What else can you do?” continued Josephson. “Can you also call a safe player out? You don’t believe in the principle of calling it the way it is or calling it the way you see it. You believe in the principle of calling it the way you want to.”

“Absolutely not,” answered Yeast. “I am officiating the entire contest. If I’m working the plate in a Division I baseball game I’ve got 350 to 400 calls to make.”

Neither side ever came to complete agreement, but the question was raised on everyone’s mind: How far can you go with game management before you have a material affect on the outcome?
NEXT