Fuzzy boundaries are bad boundaries
In baseball, what is the definition of a strike?
In [American] football, what is the definition of a field goal?
By definition, public-private partnerships have rules channeling the private sector’s basic rapacity toward positive social outcomes. Since private sector participants always move faster than legislators or regulators, regulators depend on ex post facto adjudication of results; since these players always optimize their outcomes within any given set of rules, there must be boundaries.
I think I see what you’re getting at.
A strike in baseball? Here’s the rulebook definition of the strike zone:
Totally clear, right?
“The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the bottom of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.”
Notice the two key phrases: “shall be determined” and “batter’s stance.” Because that’s not the definition of a strike. A strike is:
A STRIKE is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire, which —
(a) Is struck at by the batter and is missed;
(b) Is not struck at, if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone;
(c) Is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes;
(d) Is bunted foul;
(e) Touches the batter as he strikes at it;
(f) Touches the batter in flight in the strike zone; or
(g) Becomes a foul tip.
In other words, a strike is whatever the plate umpire says it is.
I say “Strike three!”
As for football’s field goal, here’s the definition:
For a field goal to be “good”, the placekicker (or field goal kicker) must kick the ball through the goal-post uprights and over the crossbar.
Through the uprights and over the crossbar. And these are, as we all know, physical barriers. Thus field goals are either:
Good!
No good.
Interpretation plays no role: gravity assures that either it goes through or it doesn’t.
Have you ever seen baseball players argue balls and strikes?
I think the word begins with a F
Or possibly a long word starting with M
Or perhaps another long word involving C
In fact, the only call that gets a baseball manager automatically ejected is arguing balls and strikes.
Proof positive that the fuzzy boundary is a bad boundary.
Have you ever seen football players argue whether a field goal was good? Not in forty years.
On
Don Chandler, 1965: was it good?
The game would be remembered for Don Chandler’s controversial field goal in which the ball apparently went wide right, but the official raised his arms to grant the three points. That disputed win earned the Packers a trip to the NFL Championship game.
To this day, there are bitter Baltimore Colts fans who swear the tying field goal was wide right, including the Colts’ quarterback of the day, Tom Matte:
Tom Matte, pressed into service as quarterback
Matte went on to excel on the banquet circuit. Later that winter, when he accepted an award at a banquet in
The left upright was bent outward to accommodate
“When Lombardi got up to speak, he said, ‘Tom, I really don’t know whether he made that field goal or not,’” Matte said. “‘All I know is that when I went to the bank Monday morning, my check said we were the world champions.’”
But that wasn’t the end of the controversy. Matte tells of later studies of
The most famous home movie of all time … and still fuzzy.
“They had films, they drew lines and they looked at all kinds of sequential shots. It was almost like the Zapruder Film,’’ Matte said, referring to the film that captured the assassination of President Kennedy. “It was definitely outside. When it’s right over the bars, you can see it’s about two feet outside the post.’’
What did the NFL subsequently do?
The following year, the NFL raised the uprights 10 feet to the 20-feet height they’re now to help officials better judge the accuracy of field goals.
“If it was good, why would the league, one year later, raise the uprights from 10 feet to 20 feet?’’ Matte asked.
Extending the uprights — improving the rule’s self-adjudicability — eliminated the ambiguity, leading to the funniest moment in professional football: the Chris Berman doink.
In my youth, I thought the goal was a perfectly precise boundary. Now I care much less about the boundary’s accuracy and much more about its clarity. Crisp boundaries end arguments; and curiously enough, that also leads to greater stakeholder satisfaction. Fuzzy boundaries lead to arguments:
“I saw chalk! Chalk flew up!“
- John McEnroe, appealing to the umpire when a line call didn’t go his way.
Further, perceived unfairness in adjudication only makes program participants even more irate!
“You can not be serious! This is outrageous! I’ve never seen anything like this in my life! These are the pits of the world!“
- John McEnroe, still not getting the overrule and now in full tantrum mode.
These days, I would much rather have an imperfect but quickly adjudicable boundary.
At this year’s tennis U. S. Open, tennis has added a computerized instant replay.
To eliminate potential bias, and to puncture arguments before they start, everyone sees the result simultaneously, shown on the big screen.
That’s program evolution.
