It was Barack Obama’s second presidential term. Professional basketball was hurting because of a deep depression that had developed during the first term, it was deemed too much fun to fail, and so the government nationalized the NBA. Then the president made an announcement.
“Empathy, it seems to me, is what counts in refereeing,” he said. “I found in my first term that it changed our court system when I stressed empathy, and so my nominees for refereeing positions will all be people who have moving personal stories and have compassionate rapport with the least advantaged players.”
At first, a great many people, especially liberals, were excited about the idea. Rules were fine, they said, but you did not want to forget the human element.
Skepticism began to grow, however, during the last minutes of a close playoff game in which a ball was stolen and passed to a seven-foot center who had positioned himself under his basket.
A point guard from the other team rushed down the court and tackled him from behind. The referee called the foul on the center and the point guard made his free throws. Some fans were upset.
“Oh, for Pete’s sake, these people should learn to care for others,” said the referee during a post-game press conference meant to give transparency to government-owned operations.
“Didn’t anyone notice how much shorter the point guard was than the center? Why, there was a foot’s difference in their height. You think that’s fair? I can empathize with the guard because I am just six feet tall myself.”
Reporters had some questions. They wanted to know what difference the rules make if they can be ignored. Wouldn’t a decision like this one lead to all sorts of intentional abuses of the rules, they asked. One reporter went so far as to inquire why anyone would take time to learn the rules if they could not count on referees to try to enforce them fairly and consistently.
“We all know mistakes can happen in refereeing,” he said, “but when a referee makes it known he is giving up on impartiality and that this is the way fouls will be called from here on, aren’t we making the whole game kind of a joke that won’t make much sense to fans? How can you set yourself up over all these rules that have evolved over time to keep the game fair, sensible and engaging?”
“Impartiality?” replied the referee with a tone of astonishment. “That’s an impossible goal. We are all subjective. We all have our prejudices whether we admit it or not. We were taught as much in a lecture by Sonia Sotomayor at Berkley in 2001, and lots of people jumped in to support her, explaining this was a nuanced issue. We need to get referees who understand the frustration that causes someone to foul, who can see that the teams from some communities don’t win as much as we would like and can best be served by fudging what the rules say. Don’t any of you guys grasp nuance?”
And that theory pretty much governed the sport from then on. Gradually, players forgot the rules, scoring however they could and hoping for the best from activist referees who would speedily invent new rules themselves without much if any reference to what officials had previously decided. The game began losing fans, and then most players left, too, until there were just a few teams, a few games and a few fans.
The Obama administration then threw an air ball that finished off pro basketball entirely: As an energy-saving measure, games were required to be played in the dark.
Examiner Columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies. He can be reached at: [email protected].
