Since the rules define the boundaries of acceptable (and presumably ethical) behavior as well as the nature of the competition, Josephson believes officials must do more than know and enforce a game’s rules: they must revere them.

“Officials are responsible for the integrity of the game,” declared Josephson. “The integrity of the game is defined fundamentally by the rules. The rules, as written, must be enforced without regard to whether or not it will please or displease the fans or any particular person. To do otherwise is to be intimidated from doing your job.” That statement seems simple and logical enough, but officials know it’s not always that easy.

Constitutional scholars would describe Josephson’s approach as constructionalist — a literal and essentially non-negotiable reading of the black ink on the white paper of the rulebook. The strike zone extends from here to there, for example, or a hockey player cannot use his stick to impede the progress of another player — no questions asked. The reflexive response from officials to Josephson’s ideal: Anyone who has been an official for more than 24 hours knows that rote enforcement of written rules is only part of the job. Any official who relies solely on that skill courts complete disaster.

A literal reverence for the rules seems to be in conflict with the concept of game management, an indispensable skill for officials who wish to succeed at their current level or advance to the next one.

The art and science of game management means applying rules and making decisions that advance competition that is safe and fair for all participants. Basketball is supposedly a non-contact sport, but officials routinely ignore that designation. Rather than wearing out their whistles trying to eliminate contact, officials use their authority to regulate it. Josephson’s goal is not to eliminate judgment, but to increase awareness of the sanctity of the rules that do exist. This, he believes, leads to more consistent decisions from one official to another.

“You don’t want two judges to look at the exact same facts and come to different decisions based on personality rather than the rules,” he explains. “The whole reason we have rules rather than just kings who get to say who wins and loses is to say that if we agree on what the facts are and line up 10 referees, all 10 refs ought to call it the same way. To make that happen we may have to train them and we may have to define the rule.”

Josephson notes that one way to prod the powers that be to define a rule (essentially, to update a rule so that it reflects contemporary reality) is to call it precisely as written. That’s also an excellent way for an official to get him or herself removed from the scheduler’s speed dial. An official who whistles 100 personal fouls in a basketball game or calls a knees-to-chest strike zone stands a better chance of being out of work than of being celebrated and named to chair a rule-change committee.

“My point is not to say that you should be a strict-blind-eyed-never-look-at-the-consequences rule enforcer,” Josephson clarifies. “When you decide to interpret a rule, the reason ought to be because you think it’s advancing the purposes of the rule and the game, not in order to advance the entertainment or to protect your job or to affect anybody else.”

“There are two kinds of ethical problems,” he continues. “One we call a problem of discernment. You’re not sure what the right thing to do is. Did a player do something intentionally or not? If you’re not sure, you have to be more careful. The second kind of ethical issues we face are problems of willpower. It’s very clear what we should do, but we may not want to pay the cost.”