Obscure rules, limiting rules, and the Super Bowl

Two items following on my post on the rules discussions following the Super Bowl:

First, here is a nice discussion of the fair-catch kick rule that the Niners might have tried to execute to tie the game had the Ravens punter shanked the kick. The author describes the rule as vestigial, a throwback to rugby's "try from mark" rule, which rugby subsequently eliminated, as did college football. But arguably the rule remains necessary to maintain a more even balance of costs and benefits on an intentional safety, by giving the trailing team another weapon with which it can counter the benefits the leading team gets from the intentional safety.

Second, a commenter to my prior post raises the situation that may have occurred in last year's Super Bowl: The offense needs a touchdown to win or tie while the the defense wants to stop the touchdown and run time off the clock, so the defense puts extra players on the field. The extra players obviously give the defense a better chance of stopping the offense on the play. And while the defense will surrender five yards and the down will be replayed on the penalty, time has run off the clock on the live play, meaning the offense will get fewer plays to run.

This seems to meet the three features that necessitate a limiting rule: The defense has an incentive to do something we ordinarily don't expect; the defense is in control and the offense cannot counter (because trying to score against 12 or 14 is going to be exceedingly difficult); and the cost-benefit disparity has increased dramatically, because the offense is going to run out of clock on wasted plays.

And recognizing this, the NFL enacted a limiting rule: If the defense has 12 men on the field and the extra players are not attempting to get off the field, the play is whistled dead on the snap and the clock stops (if the defender is trying to get off the field, the play is live, since the extra defender does not hinder the offense). This eliminates the advantage to the defense--it cannot use extra defenders to stop a play and cause the offense to waste time because the clock stops--in turn eliminating the negative incentive for the defense.

Sports Lawyers Association -- Networking Event in Boston

 The Sports Lawyers Association and Ropes & Gray cordially invite you to attend the following Boston outreach event:

O’Bannon & The Future of the NCAA
Monday, February 11, 2013
6:00 pm: CLE Program
7:00 pm: Networking Reception

In July 2009, attorneys for former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon filed O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The lawsuit raised important questions about the commercialization of college athletics and student-athletes’ rights to publicity and compensation. Meanwhile, in October 2012, the NCAA unveiled a new enforcement structure featuring harsher penalties and increased accountability for rules violations. The changes reflected the NCAA’s renewed commitment to preserving amateurism in college athletics. The conflicting viewpoints underlying the two actions will soon come to a head as O’Bannon winds through the courts. Recent rulings suggest potentially radical changes in college athletics that could redefine amateurism and the role of the NCAA itself.

This program will discuss the evolution of the current environment and what recent developments in O’Bannon might mean for the future of the NCAA. Discussion will touch upon numerous topics, including the mechanics of the new NCAA enforcement structure, the landmark cases that led to O’Bannon, recent rulings in that case and what NCAA enforcement may look like in the near and distant future.

Featured Presenters:

Dennis M. Coleman, Partner, Ropes & Gray; Chair, Ropes & Gray Sports Law Practice Group

Warren K. Zola, Assistant Dean for Graduate Programs & Adjunct Assoc, Professor, Boston College Carroll School of Management; Chair, Boston College Professional Sports Counseling Panel

David W. Mindell, Associate, Ropes & Gray

Ropes & Gray LLP
800 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02199

Please RSVP to RGEvents@ropesgray.com by Thursday, February 7

Intention Safety = Infield Fly?

One of the non-baseball plays often suggested to me in discussions of the Infield Fly Rule (and why the Rule is not necessary) is the intentional safety late in the game. Like the infield fly, the argument goes, a team is intentionally not doing what we ordinarily expect it to do--here, running sideways or backwards and intentionally surrendering points. So should this play, which helped clinch Super Bowl XLVII for the Ravens, be banned, just like the dropped infield fly?

Under my model (introduced here and being refined in a current work-in-progress), three features define a sports situation as so out-of-balance as to warrant a special limiting rule: 1) Negative incentives for a team to intentionally not do what we expect under ordinary rules and strategies; 2) total control over the play resting with one team and leaves the other helpless to counter the play; and 3) overwhelming cost-benefit disparity, with substantial benefits in favor of the controlling team and substantial costs imposed on (and absolutely no benefits received by) the opponent. Applying that standard, the intentional safety is not like the infield fly and should not be banned or limited.

One thing to keep in mind about football (distinct from baseball) is that there are several moving parts--teams not only worry about scoring and gaining maximum yardage on a play, but also about field position, sets of downs, and time. So football teams regularly make small cost-benefit trade-offs, intentionally failing to seek maximum yardage on a play in exchange for time off the clock. On the play in question, the Ravens incurred a cost--two points, meaning a field goal could tie the game, and they still have to kick the ball away--in exchange for the benefits of eight seconds off the clock and a more advantageous punting position (twenty yards upfield and no rush). The Niners, in turn, experienced both of those in reverse. The Niners also were not helpless or out of control on the play--although they could not stop the safety, they could have anticipated the play better, brought more pressure, and not allowed as much time to run off the clock (although there was a pretty blatant offensive hold on the play*). The Niners also benefited by getting the ball back (with more than four seconds if they had played it better) and an opportunity to make a counter-play--a run back on the kick, Hail Mary pass, or (as Jim Nantz discussed) the fair-catch kick, had the Ravens punter shanked the free kick. So the second and third features are clearly absent on this play. This looks like just one more example of teams exchanging small costs for small (but, it hopes, slightly greater) benefits.

This calculus would change  if the safety occurred on the final play of the game (say, where the play starts with :01 on the clock). The play now contains all three features--there is a far greater cost-benefit imbalance, and the trailing team has no control and will not get the ball back or have the chance to take advantage of the safety. But that does not undermine the intentional safety or require a limiting rule. Any problem there can be remedied by still requiring the team to free kick after the safety, even with no time on the clock, giving the trailing team an opportunity to do something on that play (including the fair-catch-and-free-kick). In other words, treat a safety at the end of the game the same as any other safety. We already some precedent on this. A game cannot end on a defensive penalty. And a team that scores a game-winning touchdown on the final play still must play the point-after, even with no time on the clock.

So another fun example of sports rules in action. Just as last fall's National League Wild Card had everyone talking about the IFR, I am glad this Super Bowl has people talking about the intentional safety. But it further illustrates how just unique the Infield Fly Rule is. and another illustration of what makes the Infield Fly Rule so unique.

   * John Hollinger pointed out how smart that hold actually was. If the hold had been called, the result would have been a safety (the typical result of a holding penalty in the end zone), precisely what the Ravens wanted there. Since it wasn't called, it just let the Ravens run more time off the clock.

Roger Goodell and reality

Full disclosure: I am going to watch the game today and I'll enjoy it. But this just defies reality. Yes, there is a "risk" of injury, including concussions and other head injuries, in any sport. But only in football is the very purpose of the game for very large people to run into one another at full speed, resulting in regular and repeated concussive- or sub-concussive-force collisions.

We can debate what should or should not be done about football. But let's not pretend it is not different in degree and in kind from any other sport.

Weight Clauses and Pro Athletes

We've addressed weight clauses before in player's contracts - including for Glen "Big Baby" Davis and Derek Caracter.  Jon Schuppe of NBC News now writes on the Phillies negotiating one with Delmon Young.

There's some reason to believe weight clauses are not especially effective -- the Bulls apparently tried weight clauses with Michael Sweetney, the now 30-year-old talented power forward who hasn't played in the NBA since 2007 due to obesity (the Celtics would later bring him to training camp but his weight had gotten too much).  Weight clauses might also prove counter-productive, given that some players play well heavy (David Wells, Charles Barkley etc.).

Then again, Davis slimmed down this season for the Orlando Magic and is having his best season in the NBA.  But hard it's to know if weight is the reason or if its because he's starting and is in the prime of his career at age 27.

Justice races at the old ballgame

The Washington Nationals hold the Presidents Race in the middle of the fourth inning, between giant heads of the four presidents on Mount Rushmore. One running story had been Teddy Roosevelt's losing streak, which finally ended last season.

The Nats today introduced a fifth president for the races--William Howard Taft. As explained here, Taft's size (i.e., girth) and facial hair could make him a fan favorite (although the photos show he is not that much larger than the other president heads. There also is the potential for a fun rivalry, given the political rift between Roosevelt and Taft.

More importantly, every race now can be part of an off-shoot event--Justice Races. No matter how Taft does against the other presidents, he always will be the fastest justice.

Allen Houston wins defamation lawsuit with help from Sports Law Blog's Alan Milstein

Kudos to Cynthia Arato and our own Alan Milstein, who has authored some of the best posts on our blog. Cynthia and Alan successfully represented the New York Knicks and the team's assistant general manager and former NBA all-star Allen Houston in a $7.5 million slander and interference case.

The lawsuit was brought by Arthur Rondeau, a basketball coach who previously worked with noted motivational speaker Anthony Robbins.  Rondeau claimed he was instrumental in helping Houston become a better NBA player and that Houston promised him help landing a coaching job with the Knicks or another NBA team. In a recent bench-decision, New York state judge Charles Ramos rejected as too vague Rondeau's assertion that Houston interfered with Rondeau's coaching aspirations or reneged on an actionable contract. The judge also did not find support for Rondeau's contention that Houston slandered him by allegedly telling others in the NBA that Rondeau was black mailing him. Additional details of the decision can be found in this Law360 article (subscription only).