SPECTATOR SPORT
The rules of life
Simon Barnes
THE playground is supposed to be the hardest part of a child's progress towards adulthood. But even that fraught and unforgiving arena has its softer side. This appeared in such rules as 'Not Included'. Under the notion of Not Included, some of life's most tyrannous and capricious injus- tices could be held in check.
This rule often came into force in play- ground cricket, in which it could be agreed beforehand that the convention 'first ball not included' was in force. Under this benign and, it seemed, wholly appropriate legislation, the batsman who suffered the ignominy of being out first ball was not, after all, out. He could bat on because first ball was not included.
The absolute rotten unfairness of the golden duck was legislated out of the game as a matter of kindness. Such terrible things could be controlled. Misery could be rationed. Total humiliation, even of your enemies, was a thing to be avoided.
Even if this rule was not established before the game began, an unlucky batsman, on receiving that demonic straight ball as his first delivery, missing it and suffering the anguish of seeing it strike the three chalk stripes on the wall behind him, was consid- ered perfectly within his rights to shout, 'Not included! First ball not included!'
This would often give rise to lively debate as to whether or not such a rule should be applied retroactively. Sometimes the afflict- ed batsman would win the exchange, some- times not. The point is that his claim was always received with proper seriousness. Life should be fair, and a person has a right to try and bend life to a fairer pattern.
There was also a rule in chasing games French He, It, One-chase-all-chase — and the rule was called 'Vain Lights'. If, on being chased, the pursued person fell, he was entitled to cross the fingers of both hands and call, 'Vain lights! Vain lights!' You can't be made 'It' if you have your Vain Lights on.
The rule was to cover personal misfor- tune: a tumble, untied shoe-laces. Thus the hideous unfairness of being tagged when it was not your fault, only your misfortune, was avoidable. The point is not how 'Vain Lights' were applied, it is that they existed at all.
The notion of 'Not Included' and 'Vain Lights' is a poor preparation for real sport. Real sport is unforgiving. Rules and referees are there to make a pretend life in which competition is supposed to be scrupulously fair. The snag is that sport is transparently not fair, as a thousand poor decisions by ref- erees and umpires demonstrate. Sport does everything it can to make life fair, but it does so in the sure and certain knowledge that it can never succeed.
The palpable lbw that the umpire denies, the penalty awarded for the perfectly inad- vertent hand ball, these things provoke utter outrage. This is unfair; it simply can- not be happening. Even, or perhaps espe- cially, in professional games, genuine unfairness provokes blind rage. Sport is just not supposed to be like this.
Sport is always thought to be a training for real life, but it is a very poor one. Playground games and sport are based on the belief that life can be made fair, that the little injustices of each day can be ironed out by a fair-mind- ed referee. At this time, the shattering public events of the past week remind me of per- sonal losses in similar circumstances: one a very young man senselessly wiped out.
And it brings from deep within an atavis- tic playground emotion, the feeling that this is 'not fair', that such a matter should be `Not Included', that the rule of 'Vain Lights' should be imposed retroactively, that from a sense of simple, decent, com- mon fairness death itself should somehow be made to work backwards. The world which does not respect the rule of 'Vain Lights' is a very cruel one.
Previous page
