FreshRSS

🔒
❌ About FreshRSS
☷
△
There are new available articles, click to refresh the page.
Before yesterdayPhilosophy of Sport

Call for Abstracts | 50th International Association for the Philosophy of Sport (Split, Croatia)

By: Shawn Klein

 [Reposting from IAPS.net]

The International Association for the Philosophy of Sport invites the submission of abstracts to be considered for presentation at the 50th annual IAPS meeting and essays for the 2023 R. Scott Kretchmar Student Essay Award. The conference will be jointly hosted by the University of Zagreb and University of Split in Split, Croatia and organised by Professor Matija Škerbić and his team.

The conference will be primarily in person but there will be opportunity for some online presentations as well as recorded Keynotes available to watch remotely.

Abstracts are welcome on any area of philosophy of sport (broadly construed), including metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics, and from any theoretical approach, including analytic philosophy and critical theory. While IAPS recognizes, values, and encourages interdisciplinary approaches and methodologies, acceptance is contingent on the philosophical content of the project. Emerging scholars are encouraged to submit works in progress.

Deadline for abstract submission is 27 March, 2023. Contributors will be notified about the status of their abstracts by 5 May, 2023.

Proposals for round table and panel discussions, including a tentative list of participants, are also welcome and should be directed towards the IAPS Conference Chair, Emily Ryall ([email protected]).

About IAPS

The International Association for the Philosophy of Sport (IAPS) is committed to stimulate, encourage, and promote research, scholarship, and teaching in the philosophy of sport and related practices. It publishes the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, which is widely acknowledged as the most respected medium for communicating contemporary philosophic thought with regard to sport. IAPS members are found all over the world and constitute a growing and vibrant international community of scholars and teachers. More information on IAPS can be found at www.iaps.net.

2023 R. Scott Kretchmar Student Essay Award

IAPS is proud to announce the ninth edition of the “R. Scott Kretchmar Student Essay Award.” Interested undergraduate and graduate students who will be presenting their paper at the conference should submit a full paper of 2800-3000 words by 27 March, 2023 (in addition to an abstract, both through easy chair, see below) and notify the Conference Chair by email ([email protected]).  A separate announcement is posted at the IAPS website (http://iaps.net/conference/r-scott-kretchmar-student-essay-award/). The selected winner shall present their paper and receive the award at the annual IAPS conference. Previous winners are not eligible to receive this award. Please indicate on your abstract submission if you plan to apply for the essay award and/or student travel grant.

Conference Requirements

All conference presenters shall register for and attend the conference (if you wish to present remotely, please indicate this on your abstract) to have their paper included on the conference program. Presenters must also be members of IAPS (either student or full). New members may register for IAPS membership at the following www.iaps.net/join-iaps/

Abstract Guidelines

IAPS will be using the “Easy Chair” conference management system. Submitted abstracts should be 300-500 words long, in English, and must be received by 27 March 2023. Abstracts MUST follow the template (http://iaps.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/IAPS-Abstract-Template.docx) and include:

  • A brief summary of a philosophical research topic
  • Keywords (three to five)
  • At least three references to relevant scholarly publications that contextualize the topic.

Submission Instructions

To submit an abstract, go to https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=iaps2023. New users for Easy Chair must create an individual account login. Please complete the submission information and upload your abstract. Please note on your abstract if you wish to submit remotely otherwise it will be assumed that you wish to present in person.

Social Program

The organizers are planning for a social program throughout the conference and a pre-conference social program will also be arranged. More details will follow in the newsletter and conference updates.

 

New Book: Sport Realism: A Law Inspired Theory of Sport

By: Shawn Klein
I'm thrilled to announce the publication of the newest book in the Studies in Philosophy of Sport Book Series.
Sport Realism CoverIn Sport Realism: A Law-Inspired Theory of Sport, Aaron Harper defends a new theory of sport—sport realism—to show how rules, traditions, and officiating decisions define the way sport is played. He argues that sport realism, broadly inspired by elements of legal realism, best explains how players, coaches, officials, and fans participate in sport. It accepts that decisions in sport will derive from a variety of reasons and influences, which are taken into account by participants who aim to predict how officials will make future rulings. Harper extends this theoretical work to normative topics, applying sport realist analysis to numerous philosophical debates and ethical dilemmas in sport. Later chapters include investigations into rules disputes, strategic fouls, replay, and makeup calls, as well as the issue of cheating in sport. The numerous examples and case studies throughout the book provide a wide-ranging and illuminating study of sport, ranging from professional sports to pick-up games.
Table of Contents:
  • Chapter 1: Interpretivism
  • Chapter 2: Hard Cases for Interpretivism
  • Chapter 3: Legal Realism and Sport Realism
  • Chapter 4: Cheating
  • Chapter 5: Sport Realism and Ethics
About the Author:
Aaron Harper is associate professor of philosophy at West Liberty University.

Available now at Amazon, Lexington, and other book sellers.

Studies in Philosophy of Sport Book Series 
Series Editor: Shawn E. Klein, Ph.D. ([email protected] // [email protected] ) 
The Studies in Philosophy of Sport series from Lexington Books encourages scholars from all disciplines to inquire into the nature, importance, and qualities of sport and related activities. The series aims to encourage new voices and methods for the philosophic study of sport while also inspiring established scholars to consider new questions and approaches in this field. 


IAPS @ Pacific APA 2022

By: Shawn Klein

IAPS is hosting a session at this year's Pacific APA. The Pacific APA is being held in Vancouver, BC Canada , April 13-16, 2022.

The session is Friday April 15, 2022, 7-9 pm

Chair: Shawn E. Klein (Arizona State University)

Speakers:

Christopher C. Yorke (Langara College)
“Bernard Suits and the Paradox of the Perfectly Played Game”

Comments by: Jack Bowen (Independent Scholar)

Jeff Fry (Ball State University)
“Is Anyone on First? Sport, Agency, and the Divided Self”

Comments by: Nathanael Pierce (Arizona State University)

More Information about the Pacific APA 2022.

Repost from: https://sportsethicist.com/2022/03/16/iaps-pacific-apa-2022/

CFP: College Sports and Ethics

By: Shawn Klein

This is an open call for College Sports and Ethics, an edited collection to be published as part of Lexington Books’ Studies in the Philosophy of Sport series.

This new anthology, edited by Chad Carlson and Shawn E. Klein, focuses on foundational ethical issues in college sports, including the fit of intercollegiate sports with the university and the question of professionalism. It will also tackle several important ethical topics that pertain particularly to college sports, such as athletes’ rights and recruitment. This edited collection brings together top scholars of sport to examine college sports and analyze the important ethical issues in college sport. We invite you to submit a proposal to contribute as well.

There are many possible topics to focus on and we are open to almost any topic so long as it directly addresses a normative issue within intercollegiate athletics. We are looking for papers that focus on the particular ways an issue affects or arises in college sports specifically.

Topics of particular interest or need:

  • Athlete mental health
  • Academic concerns in connection to athletics
  • Recruitment of athletes
  • Religious issues impacting college athletics
  • Team names/mascots
  • Spectatorship/fandom

These suggestions are not exhaustive and we welcome proposals on many other topics as well. Feel free to reach out to us before abstract submission to discuss a possible topic.

To contribute, please email the following:

We will notify contributors of acceptance no later than January 2022, and look for manuscripts to be submitted by May 1, 2022. All contributions will go through peer-review. We are expecting publication in early 2023.

Call for Session Proposals: IAPS @ APA 2022

By: Shawn Klein
[Crossposted: https://sportsethicist.com/2021/08/16/call-for-session-proposals-iaps-apa-2022/ ]

I am seeking proposals for the IAPS affiliated group session at the 2022 Pacific APA. It is set to take place in beautiful Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, April 13-16, 2022.

I am looking for either a proposal to present a paper or a proposal for a set of thematically connected papers.

Any topic within philosophy of sport is welcomed. 

 What I need for the proposal:
  • Name and institutional affiliation
  • CV
  • Paper title & short abstract
  • Deadline: Sept 30th, 2021
If you are proposing a theme:
  • Names and institutional affiliations of each participant
  • CVs of each participant
  • Paper titles & short abstracts for each paper as part of the theme.
  • Deadline: Sept 30th, 2021
All presenters will need to be IAPS members. (Joining is easy: iaps.net) 

Also, if you are planning on attending the Pacific APA and are willing to provide comments to any of the potential papers, please contact me. 

 Please send proposals by Sept 30th to Shawn Klein: sklein at asu.edu Thanks!

CFP: Studies in Philosophy of Sport

By: Shawn Klein

[Cross posted from: https://sportsethicist.com/2021/07/01/cfp-studies-in-philosophy-of-sport-2/]

This is an active and ongoing call for proposals for the Studies in Philosophy of Sport series from Lexington Books.

This series encourages scholars from all disciplines to inquire into the nature, importance, and qualities of sport and related activities. The series aims to encourage new voices and methods for the philosophic study of sport while also inspiring established scholars to consider new questions and approaches.

The series encourages scholars new to the philosophy of sport to bring their expertise to this growing field. These new voices bring innovative methods and different questions to the standard issues in the philosophy of sport. Well-trodden topics in the literature will be reexamined with fresh takes and new questions and issues will be explored to advance the field beyond traditional positions.

A few possible topic ideas:

  • A deep analysis of one of the central concepts or theories in philosophy of sport.
    • Internalism, conventionalism, mutualism, etc.
    • Fouls and rules
    • Technology and its philosophical implications
    • Competition
    • Sportsmanship
  • Epistemological issues in sport: can sport teach us anything about how and what we know?
  • Metaphysical issues in sport: mind/body, personal identity, time, etc.
  • Application of contemporary approaches to philosophy to sport.
  • Look at a specific sport (rugby, tennis, gymnastics, etc.) and examine what philosophy can tell us about that sport and/or what that sport can teach us about philosophy.
  • Philosophical/ethical issues in the Olympics, college athletics, or youth sports.
  • Adaption of dissertation to a monograph.

Proposal Information

Review the proposal guidelines.

The series publishes both monographs and edited volumes. The “philosophy of sport” should be construed broadly to include many different methodological approaches, historical traditions, and academic disciplines.

I am happy to discuss topics before a formal proposal is submitted. Just email me and we’ll get the ball rolling.

Philosophy of Sports: From a Wrestling Plato to Modern AI

By: Mike Austin
Philosophy of Sports: From a Wrestling Plato to Modern AI

By Keith Tidman


The towering ancient Greek philosophers were not immune to the allure of athletic competition. Much to the contrary. Take Socrates, for example, who once uttered, in an outpouring of unabashed sports partisanship,


             “I swear it upon Zeus, an outstanding runner cannot be the equal of an average wrestler.”


Plato might have blushed if he had overheard Socrates, as Plato — whose name was derived from “platon,” or broad-shouldered — was himself a wrestler, who in the 5th century BCE competitively wrestled in the Isthmian Games. Such realities, along with the astonishing thousand-year history of the original Olympic Games, speak to the reverential place of sports, athleticism, and physical training in human development and enrichment those many centuries ago. So, fast forwarding, what are the purposes — from virtues to vices — of sports in today’s world? I’ll focus on two related themes: Ethical values and character building; and imitation of society and life.


Ethics is a key place to start in assessing the purposes of sports. Indeed, ancient Athens, Sparta, and Rome, as did earlier civilizations (like Egypt and China), accentuated the importance of physical activity to the development of a moral foundation and in coming to an understanding of one’s ethical duty. That is, the rigors of athletics were viewed as essential in complementing the rigors of academics and of intellectualism in order to form a better-rounded, accomplished person. Plato and Aristotle, among others, seemed to believe so: Plato having prophetically included women as moral beneficiaries of athletic activity (witness the all-female Heraean Games); and Aristotle, fervent about pentathlons, his having taught at the Lyceum (gymnasium). 


In this vein of character building, Aristotle inspired a core tenet that we now take for granted in athletic (and of course academic) performance:


            “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”


As he went on to explain, “You become just by performing just actions, temperate by performing temperate actions, and brave by performing brave actions.” To Aristotle’s point, we associate with practice and morality in athletics innumerable behaviors, among them the following: not cheating, adhering to game rules, engaging in fair play, eschewing illegal performance-enhancing measures, accepting the role of chance, relating positively with spectators and communities, and not aiming to harm competitors. Some of these practices are long based in history, whereas others (like performance-enhancing drugs) more reflect current capabilities and cultural norms. The intent is for athletes to acquire the qualities listed above increasingly as what Aristotle referred to as “habits,” in helping to manage and steer the competition.


These behaviors also reflect the core guiding values of modern Olympics: courage, equality, determination, inspiration, friendship, respect, and excellence. Ethical values that apply not just to Olympic competition, but to sporting activities across the board, of course. As do other virtues, like resilience, collaboration, honesty, compassion, justice, and loyalty. That the challenges confronted in sports are artificially manufactured just for purposes of the contest does not diminish the meaningfulness of these virtues; these challenges count in sports as much as in the rest of life.


“Courage is the most important of all the values because without courage, you can’t practice any other virtue consistently” — Maya Angelou, American intellectual and poet


Moral behavior is enshrined in the principles of how to treat others in the contest, with the reasonable expectation of reciprocity. The situation is two-edged: Athletes’ acts in the simulated fray of competition are assessed on their own intrinsic ethical merits, apart from their consequences; and, too, they are assessed on the basis of their (beneficial or harmful) outcomes. Assessments based on outcomes represent a utilitarian, rather than solely principle-based, frame of reference. Based on this ethical model, some people may regard those sports that intend to inflict harm — such as boxing and “ultimate fighting” — as morally problematic, even though both parties in the contest freely consent. “Nothing in excess” and temperance, being among the Platonic ideals, are arguably scarce (and even absent) in such sports.


There’s similar ethical concern directed at the physicality of such sports as ice hockey, rugby, and American football — although, with irony and visions of Roman amphitheaters, many spectators regard that physicality as the sports’ core allure. Spectators, some fretting over the mundane stressors of daily life, find the physicality a welcome diversion, turning their attention to team support at the stadium. Although debilitating harm is not the prescribed intent of such intense sports, major injuries of course occur as a byproduct of highly conditioned players moving astonishingly fast and calculatingly colliding, sometimes with devastating effect (like lifelong brain injury). Competitors’ regard for values such as integrity, responsibility, and respect may, at moments of intense rivalry, be temporarily suspended, at least until the dust of competition has settled.


A second key dimension to assessing the purposes of sports is how athletic competition broadly imitates other aspects of society and life, with implications for behavior, character, and values. One way this occurs most fundamentally is as sports-cum-business: at both amateur and professional levels, there are patrons with competing interests, fueled by multibillion-dollar stakes. This dimension of athletic competition reflects the commoditizing, monetizing, and politicizing of especially professional sports in society.


As further context for sports imitating life, many societies are competitively tribal and siloed — plugged into political, social, demographic, and other classifications. Each group vies for recognition, plaudits, and some manner of gain, be it tangible (material resources) or intangible (influence, fame, and adulation). In similar fashion to society writ large, sports form tribal-like teams, seeking gain (wins, honors, stature, adulation, statistical performance measures) and engaging in rituals: visceral game-time chants and scripted celebrations of scoring, among them. Teams coalesce around players, who share characteristics (for example, particular talents); complement one another, even in their diversity (for example, across racial, ethnic, and national categories); overcome obstacles before them; and pursue typically zero-sum stakes (such as the spoils of victory, from trophies to money to rankings).


Antipathy toward the “collective other” — the competition, on the field of play and among enthusiastic spectators — is never far from the surface. A point Noam Chomsky descriptively underscored in evocatively referencing ancient Rome’s iconic competitors:


“Sports are designed to organize a community to be committed to their gladiators.” 


Yet at the same time, sports paradoxically help cross team borders, through socialization and reciprocal respect, once the clock expires and the earnestness of the contest, zealousness, and contrived “antipathies” (grudges, even) are set aside. Also, athletic competition crosses national borders as globalization has increasingly taken root. This dynamic encourages personal relationships, understanding, and camaraderie internationally while helping to lessen cultural stereotypes and racial and ethnic typecasting.


Crucial to big-picture performance is development of the objectives of individual athletes and whole teams. To achieve those objectives, competitors must cultivate, share an understanding of, and internalize complex strategies, tactics, and techniques, for almost-instantaneous reaction on the field of play. That process also entails attempting to mitigate those regulations perceived to unduly constrain performance as opposed to their shaping the sport itself. The American philosopher John Searle elaborated on the two different functions of regulations this way:


“Some rules do not merely regulate, they also create the very possibility of certain activity…. The rules are constitutive of [a sport] in the sense of playing [that sport] is constituted in part by acting in accord with the rules.”


The ancient Delphic aphorism “Know thyself” relates to athletes, as elsewhere in society. It’s incumbent on athletes to understand their capabilities, including limits — as well as how to apply this knowledge in competition. This is as much a mental activity, harnessing the mind. The power of such perceptual training — repetitively imagining game execution and results — is a critical mind-body discipline, believed to shape performance. This harnessing of imagination affects whether and when, in sports, events in the contest are really as they appear to athletes during the flow of the contest: the power of perception and its power in shaping reality. Perception (derived in the mind) and work ethic (derived from both the mind and body) compatibly supplement one another.


Athletic competition has two other aspects that parallel life and society — both diametrical yet compatible with one another. On the one hand, the notions of “contest” and, especially, “conflict” point to the not-uncommon conceptualization of athletic competition as a proxy for war. Although the metaphor has long become over-worn, it still manages to stir and rationalize spectator passion. At the same time, this bellicose aspect of athletic competition is balanced by an aesthetic aspect. The latter is reflected in the choreographed fluidity of the game — captured by some sports, like figure skating, diving, gymnastics, skiing, and dressage, more than others. This pursuit of aesthetic perfection is characteristically elusive.


Humans seem instinctively drawn not only to compete in sports and games, but also to invent new games: witness the recent novel use of artificial-intelligence algorithms — beyond the imaginations of even the great ancients — to help design and create Speedgate. It’s an increasingly popular outdoor sport internationally, described by its founders as a blend of aspects of rugby, croquet, football, and ultimate Frisbee. Team players use hands and feet to move the ball in accordance with strategies, as well as rules and regulations, ultimately to kick the ball through the “gates” to score.


The kind of algorithmic influence of modernity apart, the purposes of sports today probably haven’t deviated very far from sports’ ancient roots. Wonder; motivation; traditional virtues (like honor, resilience, fairness, heart, and loyalty); the tension between sportsmanship and competition; and spectators’ quenchless thirst — they all remain firmly grounded millennia later. As do suspense in how the next contest unfolds, the derivation of personal worth from athletic success, and sports’ remarkable fit in deeply different cultures across the globe. Sports today thus still echo the essences of Plato’s ideal of the “good” and of human excellence.



CFP: IAPS @ Pacific APA 2020

By: Shawn Klein
I am organizing the IAPS meeting at the Pacific APA and I am looking for participants to present or comment.

I like to have a theme. I already have a paper on “fair weather” fandom, so other sports fandom papers/ideas would be great. But other topics are also welcome.

Where: San Francisco, CA

When: April 8–11, 2020

What I need for the proposal:
  • Name and affiliation
  • CV
  • Paper title
  • Paper abstract
Just interested in being a commentator? Send: Name, affiliation, CV

Send to: sklein _at_ asu.edu

Deadline for proposal: Friday October 11, 2019

 If you are interested, please let me know ASAP. It's quick turn around, the deadline for submitting the group request for the program snuck up on me and I need to get the APA the information by Monday October 14.

IAPS @ Pacific APA: Sport and Admiration

By: Shawn Klein
The IAPS meeting at the Pacific APA will focus on Sport and Admiration.  The Pacific APA is being held in Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 17-20, 2019.

IAPS Session: Thursday, April 18, 6 - 8 pm

Chair: Shawn E. Klein (Arizona State University)

Speakers:
  • Jack Bowen (Menlo School)
  • Kyle Fruh (Stanford University)
  • Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin)
Abstracts for the talks:

 Appreciation of Sport: How the Seemingly Trivial Becomes Essential 
Jack Bowen, Menlo School

Sport is considered by some as trivial: athletes spending countless hours honing a skill which only has value in the institution of that particular sport (throwing a ball through a circle, in the case of basketball for example). Though, it is actually becauseof this that sport and the athletes who play it are worthy of our appreciation. Throughout human history and until recently, we have needed to hunt for our own food, fight in various wars and battles and, yet, at a time of great peace and abundance, sport now fills that niche for many of us. Sport provides a venue in which we can show appreciation on various levels: regarding physical accomplishments, moral achievement, and, from there, an appreciation of our own good fortune to even be able to appreciate—which has its own benefits. In doing this, it turns out we may actually need certain mantras in place often dismissed by those who love sport such as, “winning is everything,” and that sport is a matter of “life and death,” and other such hyperbole. In addition, we may need to continue the narrative of athletes as making sacrifices, etc, despite the fact that such assertions fall flat outside of the sports context. In a sense, we’re asking of ourselves and those who participate to maintain a sense of dissonance in order that our appreciation rings true with what we otherwise rightly celebrate and hold dear.

"Moral Achievement, Athletic Achievement, and Appropriate Admiration"
Kyle Fruh, Stanford University

There is a strong presumption that when we respond to moral excellence with admiration, the object of our admiration is virtue. I develop three arguments to show that morally reflective practices of admiring should generally spurn this widely shared presumption about the object of admiration and take instead as their object what I will call moral achievements – discrete, morally remarkable actions – rather than aspects of an agent’s character. In each argument, I draw on an analogy with a domain of non-moral admiration – namely, admiration of athletic achievement. As a rich terrain of admiring responses, sports offer us relatively well-understood distinctions among possible objects of admiration – a particular feat or play, a set of skills, a career, a team, etc. I suggest, in each of the three arguments I develop, that the analogy is instructive for reflective moral admiration. The upshot of the paper is, on the one hand, theoretical, inasmuch as it develops a tension between the conditions governing appropriate admiration and an empirically informed view of the nature of character. But there is also practical upshot, especially in the context of collective, public practices of admiring and honoring, as when we build statues of heroes or name buildings after them.

"On a Pedestal—Sport as an Arena for Admiration"
Tara Smith, Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin

In philosophical analyses of the value of sport, a relatively unheralded feature is the opportunity that sport offers for admiration. While we readily salute many of the things that people admire (the amazing catch, the sensational comeback), we do not sufficiently appreciate that admiration itself is a positive good, potentially beneficial to the admirer. At a time when much in the world around us seems distinctly unadmirable and when admiration itself is often dismissed as naïve, athletic achievements and the qualities that propel them present palpable counter-evidence to our darker conclusions. The paper proceeds in four stages: first, explaining what admiration is; second, identifying the kinds of things that sport distinctly offers to admire; third, demonstrating the value of athletic admiration, tracing how this contributes to a flourishing life through the role-modeling that it offers, the action that it encourages, and the feelings that it fosters; fourth, addressing objections, which serves both to clarify and to fortify its central contention.

Pacific APA Call for Commentators or Presenters

By: Shawn Klein
I will be organizing the IAPS session at the 2019 Pacific APA. It takes place in beautiful Vancouver, British Columbia, April 17-20, 2019.

I have one paper lined up that looks at the relationship of sport to the value of admiration. If you are interested in commentating on this paper, please contact me.

If you have a paper on some related (broadly construed) topic, please contact me.

If you know you will be at the Pacific APA and are willing to provide comments to any of the potential papers, also, please contact me.

sklein(at)asu(dot)edu

Thanks!

2nd Global Congress on Sport and Christianity

By: Mike Austin
Location and Dates:

Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, October 23-27, 2019

Co-Conveners/Directors: 

Professor Brian Bolt, Calvin College, Grand Rapids Michigan, US, email: [email protected]
Professor Chad Carlson, Hope University, Grand Rapids Michigan, US, email: [email protected]

Sponsoring Institutions:  

Calvin College and Hope College

Conference Administrator:  

Emily Dock 

Link to the website:    https://calvin.edu/events/2GCSC/

Congress Twitter Account: @SportTheology

Negative Soccer, or What's Wrong with Mourinho's Bus?

By: Mike Austin

I'm team-teaching a course in our Honors Program this semester, "The Philosophy & Politics of Soccer." We cover a lot of different issues, but recently we discussed the morality of negative soccer vs. playing beautifully, using two chapters from Soccer and Philosophy: Beautiful Thoughts on the Beautiful Game, edited by Ted Richards.

Consider the different approaches of Jose Mourinho and Arsene Wenger. Here are Mourinho's 7 Winning Principles:

1. The game is won by the team who commits fewer errors.
2. Football favours whoever provokes more errors in the opposition.
3. Away from home, instead of trying to be superior to the opposition, it’s better to encourage their mistakes.
4. Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake.
5. Whoever renounces possession reduces the possibility of making a mistake.
6. Whoever has the ball has fear.
7. Whoever does not have it is thereby stronger.

In contrast to this, in John Cross's biography of Arsene Wenger, Arsenal's manager is quoted as follows:
“Let’s not forget you can win and lose playing with different styles. I believe the big clubs have a responsibility to win—but also to win with style. I believe our sport has moved forward a lot on the physical side, tactical side but we must not forget the values that it carries through the generations. One of them is the vibe coming out of team going into the stand…I always like to think that the guy who wakes up in the morning after a hard week of work has that moment, that fraction of a second, when he opens his eyes and says: “Oh, today I go to watch my team.” I like to think it makes him happy, he thinks he can maybe see something special. We can’t guarantee that, but we have to try…It’s amazing the effect you can have on people’s lives" (p. xi).
 So what's wrong with negative soccer? According to Stephen Minister in Soccer and Philosophy, it involves an entire team giving up on the pursuit of excellence. Parking the bus, getting stuck in, and taking no risks eliminates or greatly reduces a lot of what is beautiful about the sport. Players and teams are inhibited from freely expressing their creativity.

While I prefer attacking football to parking the bus, I think more can be said in defense of negative tactics. For example, it takes great skill and patience, as well as discipline, to play a defensive game well. Excellence can be demonstrated by neutralizing a team with great attackers. And surely there is something of beauty and excellence in a lethal counterattack. So while at the end of the day I agree with Wenger and Minister, I think more can be said for the excellence on display when a soccer team uses negative tactics.

Notice: Sport and the Politics of In/Equality

By: Shawn Klein
Readers might be interested in this Research Topic: 'Sport and the Politics of In/Equality' in the journal, Frontiers in Sociology.

It is open for submissions until April 27. More on the journal's Research Topics.

This topic is run by Andy Smith of Edghill University, and Elizabeth Pike of the University of Hertfordshire.

CFP: Special Issue on "Bernard Suits' Legacy: New Inspirations and Interpretations"

By: Shawn Klein
A Call for Papers for a special issue of Sport, Ethics and Philosophy is out. The topic: “Bernard Suits’ Legacy: New Inspirations and Interpretations.”

The editors of the special issue: Filip Kobiela, José Luis Pérez Triviño, and Francisco Javier López Frías

The special issue is dedicated to philosophical and moral questions related to Bernard Suit’s legacy.
  • Abstract submission deadline: October 30, 2017
  • Notification of abstract acceptance: November 30, 2017
  • Full manuscript submission deadline: May 30, 2018
  • Publication: End of 2018/Early 2019
For more information and details, including possible topics and submission instructions: http://philosophyofsport.eu/sport-ethics-and-philosophy-special-issue-bernard-suits-legacy-new-inspirations-and-interpretations/

Announcing: Examined Sport podcast

By: Shawn Klein
Some readers may have been familiar with my old Sports Ethics Show podcast. That podcast has been on hiatus for far too long. Instead of just starting that back up again, I am relaunching it with a new name, Examined Sport, and a new concept. You can read more about the new concept over at SportsEthicist.com.

The first episode is, logically, on Bernard Suits classic article: “What is a Game?” It will be released Tuesday, May 30. Episodes will follow every week or two after that.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes. You can also watch each episode on The Sports Ethicist YouTube channel.

New Book: Golf As Meaningful Play: A Philosophical Guide

By: Shawn Klein
I am pleased to announce the publication of a new book in the Studies in Philosophy of Sport series from Lexington Books:

Golf As Meaningful Play: A Philosophical Guide by W. Thomas Schmid.
Golf as Meaningful Play offers a philosophical introduction to golf as a sporting practice and source of personal meaning. It is intended both for scholars interested in the philosophy of sport, and for intellectually curious golfers who seek a better understanding of the game. This book describes the physical, emotional, mental, and ethical aspects of the game and how they influence golf instruction.
It looks at golf as play, game, sport, and spectacle, discusses golf’s heroes, communities, and traditions, and analyzes the role of the virtues in golf, linking them to self-fulfillment, the ultimate good of golf experience. The book concludes with discussions of classic works of golf literary and film art, including Caddyshack, Missing Links, Tin Cup, and Golf in the Kingdom, which celebrate its follies and glories. 
The fact that golf can serve as a playful laboratory to test oneself is a deep part of the game’s attraction. Golf, if played well, conveys an experience which unites happiness, excellence, and interpersonal flourishing. This book strives to give an account of golf both as it is and as it ought to be—how golfers may improve their games and even themselves, in meaningful play.
Available at Amazon, Lexington, and other book sellers.

IAPS 2017 CFA Deadline Extended

By: Shawn Klein
I just saw that the deadline for abstract submission for IAPS 2017 is now April 21, 2017. I am sure this is a much welcomed reprieve for those, like me, who haven't quite finished their abstract proposal yet.

I've reposted the Updated CFA at SportsEthicist.com. Also at IAPS.net

By: Robin Luke Varghese
The Field:

Decision Review System and the Dressing Room Intervention


Technology has undoubtedly embraced almost all domains of human life and sport as a human activity is of no exception to that fact. A recent controversy emerged during second test in the ongoing India-Australia test match series-2017 about the on-field behavior of the Australian captain Steve Smith gives us an opportunity to understand some of the ways in which the game of cricket evolved after the introduction of DRS technology.  Such technologies which Emily Ryall (2016) calls as adjudication technologies in sports has remarkably changed sporting activities in various respects.  Many of the sport administrative bodies have had reservations about the implementation of such technologies in elite sports. In cricket, there are two kinds of DRS are available at present; Umpire Decision Review System (URDS) and Player Review System (PRS). In the first, the umpire can take the help of a technologically aided TV umpires help to decide the otherwise less accurate instances. The latter gives the opportunity for the playing teams to review the on –filed umpires’ decision with the same process. Till recently, the Board of Control of Cricket in India was reluctant to adopt PRS (Player Review System) technology due to the alleged non-reliability of the mechanism(s) which enables the latter. They resisted the use of PRS for bilateral series till last year, but now started showing some faith in such technologies perhaps with the claims of improved reliability of the latter.

. 

However there is only a limited number of reviews are available for each team in elite cricket. So clever decisions from the part of teams is required for the careful use of the reviews. The instruction given in the rule book tells that the striker from the team which bats should take a decision on whether to review or not review the decision of the field umpire. It can be done in consultation with the non-striker who is physically positioned closer to the umpire who makes the decision at the time of making the decision. For the fielding team, it is the captain who should request for the review in consultation with the concerned players. This is considered as a fair means of strategically making use of the available reviews.  Rule 3.2 (c) of the ICC categorically says the following.

“Under no circumstances is any player permitted to query an umpire about any aspect of a decision before deciding on whether or not to request a Player Review. If the umpires believe that the captain or batsman has received direct or indirect input emanating other than from the players on the field, then they may at their discretion decline the request for a Player Review. In particular, signals from the dressing room must not be given” (p. 35)

The underlying presumption upon which this practice is based is that the ‘play’ must happen within the field and not outside of out. The importance of ‘field’ in any game of sport as a space of ontological importance is not disturbed by this practice. The test of sporting abilities should happen transparently in a given space called the field. On the other hand, when the players decide to take reviews in consultation with some agency which is positioned external to the `field of play it is an unfair practice given the existing rule. This has a strategic importance which can affect the ontological course of the game, the winner/loser, statistical records etc.  

With the advent of television replays and DRS based on the video footages and other allied technologies, the sole epistemic superiority of the filed umpire has diminished. An important change is that the video footages are made available to the spectators, television viewers and to the dressing room. Any one belong to these groups, if she is knowledgeable regarding the rules is a much better epistemic position compared to the field umpire.  But the ontological authority that is the authority to make decisions in the field is mostly remains with the field umpires except in cases where the decision is reviewed by any one of the teams. 

The dressing rooms’ access to the live video footage of the game gives them a privilege which we shall call ‘technological privilege’. Though no replay would be shown in the screen between the on –filed decision and the players’ decision to review the former, the dressing room has access to the video of the particular bowl bowled. They may not be able to look at it repeatedly but that real time access on an electronic screen is enough to give solid clues with regard to the accuracy of the decision. In real-time telecast of cricket matches at the elite level, every ball bowled is shown from a best superior position as that of an umpire. The camera facing the batman from a straight position may not give the accurate information to the viewer in real time (for lbw decisions), but it is still an advantage that the batsman lacks. 
What if the players decide to quickly consult their dressing room about reviewing a particular decision of the umpire? Steve Smith’s gesture of turning back to the dressing room when he was declared OUT for lbw by the filed umpire is such an attempt, though he claimed that it is a ‘brain-fade’.  This goes against the spirit of the game, if we see that in terms of fair play because by asking the dressing room, the batsman is trying to rely on a piece of information which is not otherwise available for him. The batsmen by doing that is already taking the help of a proto-adjudicating technology, (if not the technology itself) well ahead of time, which the TV umpire later relies on. The use of technological privilege to determine the strategic use of DRS amounts to cheating in the present scenario.  The player’s dressing room act as a strategic factor which it shouldn’t be, given the rule. This is a clear case of trespassing the ontological territory of the play and this is an undesirable act given the existing rules of the game.
We may thematically conceptualize the notion of field of play is part and parcel of sporting activity. It is a clearly defined space where only players and a few officials have the permission to enter into. The game begins and end within the field. Any other intervention would be unauthorized and counted as trespassing. Information flow is even restricted between the field and outside the boundary when the play is on.

But with the advent of technology, especially adjudicating technologies, the notion of field of play started getting changed. There is exchange of information and intervention by the factors from beyond the boundaries to the actual course of the game.  So the game goes well beyond the boundaries set around the field.  In this backdrop, the Steve Smith incident however would not be a problem of cheating in future. The dressing room may be one day part of the acceptable norm of the game. I submit that this is an open possibility. This concern emerges from the fact that game of cricket like any other sport  is a technological mix now a days which does not give importance to the within- the –field matters of the game alone. External technological intervention is not completely alien to sports in general now as it happens in the case of umpiring. Moreover technology blurs the traditional boundary between the field and non-field. Technological privilege of the dressing room may have a role in future  DRS

Blog of the APA: Golf as Meaningful Play

By: Shawn Klein
I was interviewed about the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport’s session at the APA Central Division Meeting in March 2017 in Kansas City. The session, as readers of this blog are probably aware, was an Author Meets Critics on Golf As Meaningful Play: A Philosophical Guide (forthcoming) by W. Thomas Schmid (University of North Carolina at Wilmington).

You can read the Blog of the APA interview here.
❌