There should be some rules about rules. We need fewer. I was watching rugby at the weekend (don’t even mention our loss in the Sevens final, it was horrible), when the number of stoppages (time from when the whistle is blown for an infringement until the game gets going again) started to get to me.
It’s not the fault of the referees, though as in every walk of life there are those who take themselves too seriously and have the game centred on them. That was never the plan and we don’t like that, just saying.
The different degrees of enthusiasm different referees apply to different rules in the game is so marked it features in preparation for a match. In the same way teams watch replays of their opponents to pick up habits, plays and styles, they watch for referee inclinations. I’m not for a minute suggesting there is ever bias. (Would I?)
It’s sometimes difficult to make a decision in real time (which can be pretty fast time) in a rugby game. Making decisions in such time is difficult and technology is brought in. Again, there are various levels of enthusiasm.
Every sport has its challenges. Professional soccer might well lead the pack. It’s often difficult to tell whether the player lying on the ground in apparent agony, holding onto his chin and crying out, barely conscious from the pain, was, in fact, involved in a vicious foul attack or is putting on a show to get a free kick. Inside the penalty area the stakes are so much higher and the quality of the performance has to be that much more convincing and elaborate. Replays can be insightful.
In cricket the technology is really good and “kyk-weers” show the truth clearly. In water polo it's all a bit of a mystery as the action takes place below the surface, I’m told. Ouch!
Besides all of this “interference”, my real issue is that we need to keep reminding ourselves what the purpose of the rules is.
Safety is often a big driver and you can’t argue against it. We all watch to see tough boys in action in rugby, but one broken neck because of a high tackle is one too many. I get that.
Beyond such primal purpose as safety, the rules should enable, not restrict. The anti-lock breaking system (ABS) wasn’t developed to slow cars down. It enables them to drive faster, knowing they can stop safely.
The rules that govern us are mostly prescribed, but we can choose, to some extent, by freedom of association
Rules that govern society and enterprise management are vastly more complex. Rules differ across nationalities, religions, geographies and many more of the criteria that categorise us. The rules that govern us are mostly prescribed, but we can choose, to some extent, by freedom of association. A diverse set of motivations makes universal rule design (let alone its application) almost impossible to achieve.
Typically we only expose a sample of the rules to which we are subject, to which we’ve chosen to abide — hard to tell someone’s rule book unless you know them really well.
A resilient set of rules requires a high degree of common purpose or at least a sufficient intersection between disparate groupings to form a sound foundation for consensus.
How can we get it right?
Peace and harmony (or such things), you would have thought, would be the drivers of rules designed to regulate our endurable coexistence.
But we’re not robots, yet. We can’t be programmed and we’re not predictable. Nowadays, as much time is required to deal with tolerance and exception as might be spent on enforcing a standard. A new normal arrives almost as regularly as a new dawn, and the right of the individual often prevails over the rights of society. In such a complex, ever-changing ecosystem, exaggerated pendulum swings are commonplace and damaging. You’ve no sooner complied than the goalposts move.
Popular thought hierarchies emerge, aided by social media, to create fashionable influence as the new law, as the currency for existence — from debates on inequality to the final say-so of the courts.
In the now, we have to obey the law. The only way to change laws is to change the lawmakers. That’s not easy and it takes time.
So, often laws and rules are used for the opposite purpose than that for which they were intended — to retard, to exploit, to interfere and, ultimately, to destroy. We’ll need more laws as technology develops, that’s for sure.
I’m not a fan of increased oversight or regulation. I don’t think it works.
I think it’s personal. I think it’s about attitudes and values. What’s your endgame?
We need to be aware of and work towards the common good and fight against this misuse of rules for alternative agendas.
We’ll need less rules the better we demonstrate we can behave without them. A better result will come from peer pressure than more restrictions, yet we need to keep the bullies off the playground to maintain civilised behaviour. Anarchy plays into their hands.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.