Fairness, Foulness, the Formalist/Realist Split and the . . . NBA

Was it a foul? With two seconds and change on the clock Tuesday night last, the San Antonio Spurs had one shot to tie the game or go ahead on an upcourt inbounds. The ball ended up in Brent Barry's hands, he attempted a pass, pulled up and--after getting L.A. Lakers' guard Derek Fisher into the air, drew contact and heaved up a three point prayer that went nowhere near the basket.

Was it a foul? Fish clearly bumped Barry on the shooting arm while he was in the process of trying to dribble out of coverage to either make the pass or put up a three. But not only was there no whistle, but not even the Spurs afterwards said a foul should have been called. If Brent Barry--who initially threw up his hands in frustration--says there was no foul, why should we think there was one? Perhaps because the league office has now reviewed the play and said there should have been a foul called.

There are four major arguments at play in the ongoing debate on whether the Lakers escaped fate on Tuesday. Interestingly, these arguments parallel problems faced by judges when tricky issues come before them. Briefly, here are the arguments:


1) It WAS a foul. A defensive player who has left his feet is out of position, Fisher had done so, collided with Barry, and it would be a foul at any time during the game. The game should be refereed the same from minute one to minute forty-eight.

2) NO foul. In a last possession play at the end of a game (especially one so momentous) shooters shoot and defenders defend and the players, not the referees, will decide the game.

3) FOUL, but it would be FOUL TO CALL IT. The Lakers had just lost possession on the other end because of a miss-call by the referees. This occurred when a shot by Fisher glanced off the rim, but the shot clock was not reset. Thus, advantage Spurs. Now, at the other end, a non-call on the foul makes it even (rather than giving the advantage to the Lakers).

4) It's BARRY'S FAULT. Brent Barry didn't sell the foul. If he sold the foul, he would have got the call. But he didn't. Barry's problem.

We can find in these arguments major schools of adjudication, believe it or not. Position 1 is akin to FORMALISM. A foul is a foul, no matter where it occurs. The rulebook tells you what a foul is. It's akin to stepping out of bounds. If a player steps out of bounds, then he turns the ball over. Doesn't matter when it happens.

Position 2 is the REALIST response to formalists. Of course rules are rules, say the realists, but the truth of the matter is that they are applied subjectively and within other, informal rules. For instance, everyone knows that superstars get calls that role players don't. And everyone knows that in the final seconds of the game, you don't try to draw offensive or defensive fouls because the referees will let you play. Few Bulls fans (or Jazz fans, for that matter) will forget Michael Jordan's famous shot in game six of the 1998 Finals (Bulls led the series 3-2 at that point). Down 85-86, Jordan cleared Byron Russell out of his way before taking the shot that put the Bulls ahead. Should a foul have been called? No, say the realists. Do we want our memory of NBA great games to be people standing on the line shooting free throws to end a game, or letting people put up shots and live or die in the moment? Let's be real.

Positions 3 and 4 are both outliers to the formalist/realist debate suggesting ways in which real circumstances mitigate the absolute rules. Position 3 takes an EQUITABLE approach. Make up calls are, after all, a part of any sport, and moreso for basketball where fouls are acknowledged as the most subjective part of refereeing. Position 4 is something akin to blame the victim. The real point, though, is not that Barry should be criticized for not "selling" the foul, but rather that if Barry had gone tumbling head over toe and lost the ball out of bounds after Fish bumped him, the referees would have had no choice but to call the foul (or, at least, it would be harder for them to ignore it).

Being more a realist than a formalist, I think the refs got it right. And I don't think the Spurs are served well by the league patting them on the shoulder and saying "sorry, guys, Barry should have been on the line to send the game into overtime." The Spurs evidently don't either, but they may just be keeping a good face. No one wants to be seen as a whiner. And, regardless of what OUGHT to have happened, what IS happening is that the Spurs have to win three in a row, with or without the benefit of good calls, informal rules, and all that jazz.