On whose side are the refs? That's arguable...

A few weeks back I was talking with someone and the topic of the recent Super Bowl came up. And how, in his opinion, the referees gave the game to the Saints.

Obviously, this person was not rooting for the team from New Orleans.

Further, he felt the officiating in the NFC Championship game had been skewed toward the Saints, so he argued they shouldn't have even been in the big game (which, technically, is true regardless of one's take on the job the refs did, as the Vikings still were in a position to kick the winning field goal at the end of regulation; I doubt the officials forced Favre to throw that last interception.)

Now, I watched both games and, although I can see as how there were calls that went the Saints' way, I didn't find myself thinking that the refs were giving them the game. However, the point is not whether they were or not. The point is that I wasn't particularly invested in rooting for the Vikings or Colts.

As such, the calls didn't elicit that reaction in me. I can see as how Vikings and Colts fans could feel cheated, but none of what happened this year seemed anywhere near as egregious as a few years ago when the officiating almost literally gave the game to the Steelers. Yes, I was rooting for the Seahawks then, but the overwhelming consensus amongst the sports pundits was that the refs made bad calls that cost Seattle.

~

In sports one tends to be rooting for one side over another, and thus one is inherently not impartial. In any game or match or competition that's judged in some way there will be penalties that don't get called by the officials that probably should have, and penalties that do get called that probably weren't worthy. However, when your team is on the winning side you don't remember the ones that benefited them, and when your team is on the losing side all you remember are the ones that (in your opinion) prevented their victory.

The funny thing: If technology were developed to the point where human officiating were no longer necessary, where perfectly objective machines could determine precisely when penalties/fouls/outs, etc., should be assessed, with no errors and no omissions, then sports would be less worthwhile.

As much as we strive for sports to be fair, we actually prefer that they aren't. As much as we need the joy of seeing our team victorious, so we can laud that glory forever, we also need the justification for believing our side was wronged when they lose, so we can lament that frustration forever.

The role of sports: To allow for there to be varying perceptions of the same objective event, and provide the basis for debate on that event without end. We don't want officiating that's perfect, much as ostensibly that's what we claim.

~

Objective reality in general is dull.

~

Believe it or not, this is leading up to some posts about... the Oscars (sort of).