Once upon a time, there were three soccer referees discussing how they did their jobs. They started to argue about what is meant by a “foul” in soccer…
Referee A: “I call fouls as I see them.” “Nonsense,” says Referee B: “I call fouls as they are.” “You’re both wrong,” says Referee C, “until I call them fouls, they’re nothing.”
Each referee is making a different claim about language, perception and reality. Can you relate them to what we have talked about in TOK? What do you think about it?
Hmm...
ReplyDeleteWell, first of all, looking at the first referee's statement, "a foul" in that case is rather relative (because he bases it on only what he sees) and as such some calls that this referee makes may not seem fair to all.
ReplyDeleteSomething that comes to mind when thinking about this is the possibility that what one sees may not actually be reality, due to our varying perceptions of our world. However, in actual fact we cannot define that 'reality' because of these differences. (Though, if we all saw things the same way, there is no doubt that it would be highly dull.)
Referee B's statement implies that he shows more objectivity when it comes to calling fouls than if he based his judgment solely on opinion, or at least from what I interpret.
Another interesting thing I realized is that according to Referee C, all it takes is for him to verbally/openly declare something as a foul before it can be said to exist. His standpoint actually shows the impact language can have. His decision that something is a foul can cause it to become a fact, of for observers to be influenced to agree with him. One question, though : Does the fact that it has been said or not been said affect whether it truly is a foul?
If you do think about his statement on the other hand it actually seems quite justified. I think that as far as most observers are concerned, at least those who do not happen to see a foul themselves, there IS no foul if it hasn't been acknowledged. However, then there comes the question of whether this is true...
Football is an interesting example to use because first of all there is very little objectivity in football,as in in as much us one would get a lot of people agreeing in terms of what they saw, there would always be a contradictory subjective perception somewhere.For the first referee, what he sees is what it is. But then again our senses especially sight have been proven not to be flawless hence what he claims too see may not be what it actually is. I believe that there is definitely a reality that makes itself open to our different subjective perceptions (as Nana Kwame (NA'AME) has said in class before). For the second referee, i believe he is not really listening to himself (no hard feelings) but i have one question for him: How sure is he? Because what he claims to see is still at the mercy of his fallible eyesight. I am not saying his eyesight is bad or anything but in as much he has chosen an objective position, his judgments may still be wrong especially using football and fouls as an example.
ReplyDeleteAs for the last referee erm...lets just say he sounds really conceited. But seriously, i think he didn't finish off his statement, it would be better if he said “until I call them fouls, they’re nothing...to me" because indeed there is the reality and the fact that he does not acknowledge it does not rule out it's existence. However he still has a point since he is the referee and his subjective decisions are what decide the game, the foul is indeed nothing at that point in time if he does not 'see' it. Erm it would be very interesting if we could get Didier Drogba to comment on this post....Hi everybody!
I'm just moving this message to the relevant thread.
ReplyDeleteJHK
This argument brings to mind the idea of realists and constructivists.
Referee A is more of a constructivists because he decides to see a goal his way which might not even be a goal per se but because such people are in a sort of a world of their own he chooses when to call a foul a foul. He is as a result very subjective.
Referee B is more of a realist as he sees things and situations the way they are.He is more objective and sees things as they are but then again how are we really sure that his own preference does not influence him to be bias in calling a foul a foul? For example if a Man U fan and a Chelsea fan are both watching a match and a Man U player commits a foul it is more likely that the fan will deny the foul.
Referee C represents more of an authority. It is just like how we believe authorities in our quest for knowledge. For example in trying to prove that the pineapple juice was actually pineapple, one of our evidence was that the FOODS AND DRUGS BOARD of Ghana had approved of it. this like when the referee says its no foul until i call them fouls.
Also I agree with an.hayford that language may play a role in determinig their understanding of a foul.
Thanks to those of you who have responded so far. The last message that I copied into this thread above was from "the beautifulmind" - sorry for not including the source!
ReplyDeleteI like the dicussion so far. I especially like how some links have been made to what we've been talking about in class. Can we go further...?
Let's take an example. When Eduardo (playing for Arsenal) was controversially awarded a penalty against Celtic in the Champions' League qualifying round, he was accused of being a cheat by diving to the ground. UEFA gave him a ban (subsequently overruled on appeal). So the question is: was he fouled by Celtic's Artur Boruc or not? What is the truth of the matter? If we say there is no truth here, what would be the implications of this for a football match? Would any of the referees agree with this position?
Alternatively, we could say that there is an objective truth about this matter, and it is a referee's job to find it and act on it. Which referee(s) would support this position?
Or perhaps this objective truth is so hard to find that we must fall back on what we subjectively believe. Which referee(s) would agree with this?
Which of these referees could be described as taking an absolutist or a relativist stance? Is there more than one kind of relativism?
And can anyone see a connection between this scenario and what we have called "performative language"?
Finally for now, what kind of referee are you???
Let's keep the conversation going. Remember, your participation in this blog will be taken into account when we decide on your semester grades...
well to start selfishly, im probably more like referee A, because obviously if you dont see it as a foul well you wouldnt call it as one. stealing mr. kitching's idea a little, referee A is a constructivist, which is in my opinion the only real way a referee can call fouls, as he sees them.
ReplyDeleteReferee C is also constructivist but to a far larger extent than referee A because to him, the way in which he perceived the world determines what does and what doesn't exist, which is also true, say if an individual didnt believe in ghosts, or even in love, to that person such a thing wouldn't exist.
Referee B, the realist, believes that fouls are fouls, and it is his job to identify them, not to determine what is and what isnt. Referee B believes from this standpoint at least, that how he views the world has no effect on what "is" which i believe is a highly flawed notion due to sense perception and various other factors (including the laguage that we speak) which ensure that we see the world differently, think differently, have different ranges of consciousness and ultimately different realities, because the world in which we live has more than 6 billion takes to it. Thus though i find referee C a tad pompous, his and referee A's statements make more sense to me
oh yes. i forgot, my user name is aboutime, but the real name is Akua Banful
ReplyDeleteI get so fired up when I see anything that is linked with Sports. I love the discussion going on so far. There are times referees are attacked for calling some fouls, especially the decision for a penalty in soccer. What does Referee B mean by “as they are”? I guess he is trying to be a realist. But the question that comes out of that is who determines what a foul should be. I believe a group of people sit somewhere (governing bodies - authority e.g. FIFA, FIBA etc.) to decide what should be called a foul (some form of consensus?). Referees are then schooled as to what they should call a foul. It is after that schooling that the trouble starts. I have been trying to get some definitions of “foul.” There is one that I got that made me pause a little. It defines foul as an unfair act by a player as deemed by the referee. The trouble starts when referees are met with the situations and would have to interpret the rules (language) using their sense perception on the field of play.
ReplyDeleteI guess we cannot do anything about the subjectivity of a referee. What do you think? I was also wondering when I read a text on Kobe Bryant that some referees protect some “top” players. Check out the link below http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/10/disgraced-ref-says-kobe-bryant-gets-star-treament-on-foul-calls.html
May be objective truth is not the prime or the main concern of referees. They handle the matches as they come depending on the prevailing conditions surrounding the matches. What do you think?
each referee is talkin about the different ways of knowing and considering each context the referees project the flaws and merits of the different ways of knowing. referee c makes me think that language is a very manipulative tool in acheiving goals and can be used either negatively or positively.
ReplyDeleteIt's very interesting, Referee C's point of view, it makes as question real life situations, such as school rules and general "accepted" behaviour in soceity. What makes wearing pyjamas to a dinner party a wrong doing? It is evident that we all have to agree as to what is wrong and what is right but regardless of what everyone agrees on, we could see thinks diffferently like referee A. In other words even if we all agree on what a foul is, it could be subjective. For those of us who have been watching soccer for quite a while now, we have seen more situations being added to what a foul should be, this is related Referee C's view. Before, these things were nothing until FIFA decided to qualify them as fouls after this, Referee B's point of view comes to play. But sometimes during a match we see some players being sanctioned by the referee for something we don't see as being wrong, this can be related to Referee A. Well then, i guess all of them have a point but i seem to be leaning towards Referee C.
ReplyDeleteMoving on to a more general discussion, Khadi_jah has reminded us of an important issue that we touched on in class.
ReplyDeleteAn objective truth may sometimes be hard to identify, but this is not always because "we all perceive things differently", as is so often claimed. As members of Homo sapiens, we all share a common biological heritage, and this may mean that at times we all share the same habits of mind. Think about the illusions we introduced - some of them produced beliefs that we all shared, even though equally logical alternative beliefs were available (the brick wall, the bumps and saucers, etc.).
Our ways of knowing have been shaped by evolutionary forces under the pressure of natural selection, and thus they are honed for survival rather than the discovery of objective truth. Now, since we have become such an intellectual species (!), we have a more pressing need to examine these ways of knowing so that we recognize their nature and can employ them judiciously, aware of their limitations, so that our knowledge rests on firm foundations. That's why we are studying all these things in TOK...
I think the third referee(C) is being practically realistic but the fact that he doesn't call them fouls certainly doesn't mean that they are not actually fouls. He seems to be talking from his own point of view and that is why i totally agree with Lloyd about what he says about referee C. Truely, referee C's way of reasoning is what we encounter frequently in soccer, unless the referee calls the foul, the game has to keep in session.
ReplyDeleteActually, I really don't see the reason as to why their decisions should differ in such a situation if they all understand what a foul is.
Although i might agree with referee C as a more realist approach i also to some extent reason with referee A because what a lot of the decisions the referees make these days is about what they see and perceive by that time but then that's not always the case because unless a foul is called then its not a foul and so when we put referee A and referee C together we get a more realistic view because for a foul to be called, the referee has to see it.
ReplyDelete'foul' is just an English word like book. a book is not a book until it is called a book.therefore a foul is not a foul until it is called a foul.language gives meaning to actions and thoughts or let me say gives them flesh, just as i am expressing my thoughts right here. the action of 'fouling' could be perceived in many ways and be given many names e.g. rough game. therefore each coach will name different actions as fouls according to their perception. referee c is right in that the action is nothing and nameless till it is called a foul. this is my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSheila.
I am also kind of leaning a bit more towards referee c, which is him making a foul a foul by saying it IS a foul. What if in the future jostling was made a foul? I think it just depends on peoples perceptions of how things go. If the people who decided what the rules were became quite soft, I am sure that such things as pushing each other for the ball would seize.
ReplyDeletewell, i think referee A is trying to be more of an objective person by saying he sees fouls just as they are. then what is the difference between a hand-ball and ball-to-hand??
Refree A is judging based on only perception- that is on what he sees,and so i agree with andrea it is basically relative, it may seems quite valid however if he does not know the basics that is what a foul really is- can he really judge a foul? i guess not. in this case all three refrees have to call what they see and what they believe a foul is, therefore refree B seems to have given the best answer B has made a knowledge claim of what a foul is and if he is right he has given the best answer. i find the statement Refree C made quite funny he seems very selfish and he has only one point of view but because of that he may actually be correct because it is either a foul or it is not, if he doesnt say it is a foul, if he doesnt see it, it is not a foul. this is a very intriguing arguement.-Temitope J
ReplyDeleteRefree A is judging based on only perception- that is on what he sees,and so i agree with andrea it is basically relative, it may seems quite valid however if he does not know the basics that is what a foul really is- can he really judge a foul? i guess not. in this case all three refrees have to call what they see and what they believe a foul is, therefore refree B seems to have given the best answer B has made a knowledge claim of what a foul is and if he is right he has given the best answer. i find the statement Refree C made quite funny he seems very selfish and he has only one point of view but because of that he may actually be correct because it is either a foul or it is not, if he doesnt say it is a foul, if he doesnt see it, it is not a foul. this is a very intriguing arguement.-Temitope J
ReplyDeleteSince ref A calls it based on what he sees there can be a mistake depending on the angle from which the ref is viewing the ball.
ReplyDeleteEmotion can also affect the way ref C determines the foul this is because he might empathize with a player who has been treated unfairly for example receiving a yellow card instead of just a free kick. If that happens it is more likely that the next foul committed by the same player could be ignored just to compensate for the unfair treatment.
Good day first of all.
ReplyDeleteIn this issue I will first like to comment on the referees as humans. Humans, so far as I am concerned, have different perceptions and this is perhaps caused by personal experiences. Though there are other factors such as cultural background, emotions etc, I think personal experience is the base of all factors which make up the perspectives of humans. Therefore, all this referees will have different personal experiences and thus will cause the way they feel at certain moments. Also, the way they will express ideas in language will also depend on the experiences he had in terms of learning knowledge.
And through this, I will like to bring up the issue of language. In this case, though it is obvious that the comments made by the referees imply their emotions as well as character, in the end, they will blow a whistle if a foul occurs (from the omniscient point of view, if the foul is indeed true. Or in fact, if what they saw, according to them is true). This also opens the issue about public knowledge. As referees they all know the rules hence they must act in the same way if a foul occurs. However, language has caused confusion (or should i say diversity?) since it triggers our mind to predict the kind of idea they are trying to convey or predict their characters. But in my opinion, basically, they all have to blow the whistle if a foul occurs.
Now, to bring ideas compact, i think reality in this case is the same. Language, as a way of predicting an individual's idea, cannot always be depended since we all know that one may not mean to say something but it may be said due to personal experiences whilst learning the language or other factors. And finally, perception, which i also think that personal experience is the most crucial factor, is clearly shown from this comments from the referees that they have different perspectives especially emotions (some authoritative as Mr. Kitching said for referee C and all the others)
I find Mr Oduro’s comments very true. We are taught what something looks like e.g. How to solve problems in so many ways in math and like these referees it is up to us to apply or interpret them in our own ways. This shows the way we as humans take decisions based on what our senses, emotions and other factors deem right. I agree with referee C because just as we make individual decisions in solving math problems with our past knowledge and sense perceptions, so it is in naming an action “foul”. All the referees seem to be referring to the same fact of foul, but interpret them in their own ways. Referee B also seem to be making reference to inferred knowledge while A uses sense perception. Until we think or perceive something to be a particular way ,it is just in its raw state. This confirms how we view the world the way we due to the influence of collective reasoning and individual sense perception.
ReplyDeletewell for me when i read the statements made by the three referees what come in to my mind was sense perception. Ref c statement to start with is bieng objective because he calls fouls based on his own defination of a foul and also the way he percieves a foul.this means that not all the fouls he calls will be accepted by the plyers in the field and also the audience meaning his dicisions are not hundren percent certain.
ReplyDeleteI will like to support referee B in his actions since i believe i am also a realist, in that i perceive things that are in the world i do not construct my own world.
ReplyDeleteI stand for his action because with the other referees the way they acquire knowledge is not very concrete in my opinion. That is;
Referee A - Sense perception
Referee C - Construction
In sense perception we are not 100% certain of what we see, hear, taste, smell and feel. Depending on the angle with which referee A was standing to see the foul it could be a foul or not, thus there is a great uncertainty. Whereas for referee C depending on what he constructs in his mind or depending on what knowledge he already has of what a foul he makes a judgment of whether it is a foul or NOT.
Even though i respect referee B's view being a referee is all about making value judgments and previous knowledge on what constitutes a foul. This is open to different perceptions thus any of the referees could have a flaw in their judment
To me the referees job is one of the hardest in the football industry. the referee has to be attentive and vigilate through out the match. in my opinion what a referee sees as a foul he has every right to call and once he calls it is final. as a result i completely agree with referee A. we all percieve things differently because we usually look at situations from different angles. a referee is up front and personal with the action that is going on in the stadium. if he sees a tackle and he percieves it to be a foul then he should call it. if you do not see the takle then in my opinion you shouldnt call it because you did not witness it
ReplyDeleteLooking at the first referee's declaration, a foul can be somewhat relative because he calls fouls when he sees them not as they are or when someone calls it a foul. Conversely, his decisions will never be fair as far as I am concerned. What one sees may not truly be reality and this is due to our unreliable perceptions of our world. However, in actual fact we cannot define that 'reality' because of these differences.
ReplyDeleteReferee B’s statement implies that he is very objective as he calls fouls as they are and his conclusion is based exclusively on his opinion. I think his decision is nonarbitrary (not arbitrary) which means it is not subject to individual determination.
According to referee C, until he calls them fouls, they cannot be considered as fouls. This means that even if it is not a foul and he says it is a foul, his decision is final. Since there is little objectivity in football as I have witnessed mostly in the school’s ISL competition as exhibited by the “Great Buddha”, referee C can therefore choose to be bias and call fouls when he feels like calling them and this will mean that the other or opponent team will be at a disadvantage. I think his decision is an arbitrary decision as his decision is based or subject to individual discretion or preference or caprice. He seems to be talking from his own point of view and that is why I totally agree with Lloyd about what he says about referee C. Truly, referee C's way of reasoning is what we chance upon recurrently in soccer, unless the referee calls the foul it is not a foul and the game has to continue.
Blazer Productions
considering the way the refrees call fouls the
ReplyDeletethe first bases fouls on what he sees otherwise thet are not fouls , basically there is the use of sense perception he does a normative judgement based on what he sees which is the object to his decisions . however are these fouls all right ? because he sees it as a fouls does not make it a foul.
refree b has a quite realistic judgement because he calls fouls the way the are but refree c seems to be the exact opposite of refree b because he bases his conclusion of wether it is a foul or not on until he calls them fouls which is rather subjective
Well all that is to be said by me has already been put into typing by most of you guys!
ReplyDeleteBut all I can say to add on to your points is that Referee A bases his action on sense perception while referee C is more of a constructivist. Referee C bases his action on previous knowledge.
I think referee A and C are likely act with emotions and this might interfere with their actions while referee B is not likely to discover new fouls in the game of football as he only perceives things he is prepared for!
On the whole, what these knowledge claims are really trying to teach us is that referee A and C are more likely to extend their knowledge in various ways as they are able to explore more new types of fouls, while on the other hand, referee B's knowledge has been impeded in some way as he will base his actions based on what has learnt and therefore his knowledge is limited to only what he knows.
Thank you.
It is ironic how each referee is referring to the same word howvever they all have different perceptions of it.Although language is set stone the definition is not.This is very conflicting as referee A,B and C will never agree on what a foul is.They all have different sense perceptions.If all three referees were refereeing the same match neither would agree on a foul
ReplyDeleteRitah Nantongo said..........
ReplyDeleteI think that, the statements said by ref A, B and C effectively reveal the ambiguous nature of language. The same word “foul” being interpreted differently by each of the three Referees. This becomes a big limitation to knowledge since what one tells another person is not understood or interpreted in the same way.
To put everything in a nutshell, i believe the three referees percieve the same incident but what may cause varying viewpoints as to whether it is a foul depends largely on their past experiences(previous knowledge) and to some extent, emotion. Based on these criteria th referees reason differently and come to varying conclusons. I would quite agree with referee A because from what he said, he is implying that he is subject to misinterpretation.
ReplyDeleteaMPEEZy pRODUCTIONs