I have recently written several columns about principles and how to apply them to various situations. Consistency is essential; otherwise, it is hard to say you’re principled.
This past week, I was involved in a tough situation. Here is some background.
There is a nationwide softball league named IPS, which has affiliated city leagues across America and Canada. A “World Series” is held annually in a different host city. Each affiliated city league gets to send one to two teams to the World Series, depending on the league's size.
This year, our team's hard work paid off as we placed first, earning a spot in the World Series. Thirteen dedicated players took time off work to spend a week at this event, which attracts hundreds of teams from across North America. Our division had 68 teams.
To have fairness in the divisions, the IPS has a rating system. Each player is rated on their running, hitting and throwing skills. Each division has a rating cap. A player must move up to a higher division if he is over the cap.
During sanctioned tournaments, teams can protest a player's ratings if it appears the player is underrated. Assuming the protest is upheld, the sanctions could include a player being ruled ineligible for all play at that tournament, the team being eliminated from that tournament, and the city’s affiliated league being fined for improper ratings. Even if the team is not eliminated, any games already played could be turned into forfeits.
Another rule that affected our team was that any team that placed in the previous year's World Series may only bring three players back to the following World Series. My team placed last year.
Now, let’s discuss the situation. We had three people on the team from the previous year and a player from last season willing to come along as a coach.
During one of our games, the opposing team launched four protests on various issues. There was tension as we awaited the decisions that could potentially alter the course of our journey in the World Series.
Both teams presented evidence and information, and the IPS official decided on the protest. If sustained, severe sanctions could be imposed on our team and league.
Three of the four protests were overruled. We hadn’t misrated our players, and those protests upheld that we were playing fair and square. The final protest was that our team had four players playing who had been on last year’s team.
We argued that we had three players playing. The coach was not playing and never intended to play. He didn’t travel with any equipment. He wasn’t in uniform. He never appeared on the lineup as a player or a sub. Our city affiliate league’s commissioner explained it was a clerical error. He had mistakenly checked the box that said our coach was a player instead of a non-player/manager.
He was not a player, and it was clear from how the coach had traveled to the tournament, how he was dressed, and that he never was listed as a player at any point. As a team, we didn’t even know this error had happened.
Despite all this evidence, the IPS official ruled that he was a player and, therefore, eliminated our team from the tournament. Each player took a week off work and paid for airfare, car rentals, housing and food. All of this was wasted because of a clerical error.
In most companies, a manager is trusted to make the right decision to solve a problem when it arises. In this situation, should a manager hide behind the strict interpretation of the rule or include the intent of the rule in his determination? Should a manager look at the evidence or simply a black-and-white interpretation?
I think this can be filed under law and order. We expect people to follow the rules (laws), and if not, they are subject to penalties. As you can guess, I am fully on board with law and order.
What about a situation where you drive your friend’s vehicle and get stopped for expired tabs? Should you receive the ticket or your friend? After all, it’s his car, and he should be responsible for renewing his tabs. But as the driver, you are currently responsible for the vehicle.
Law and order doesn’t mean being blind to the facts and circumstances. I wouldn’t want someone to receive a ticket for their friend’s oversight. I don’t think the softball team should have been eliminated.
Do you think I am consistent with the principles I have expressed in my columns over the past 15 years? Why or why not? Please E-mail me or write a letter to the editor to let me know!
Scotty Anderson is voting for Donald Trump and invites you to do the same. Let’s Make America Great Again! Scotty loves feedback at crier@cityofpullman.com.
