Thanks to Monroe for calling attention to Jeter's "performance" last night. I thought of a recent article I read in our local paper about a Christian college volleyball team that has begun confessing to the official when the ball has hit a player before going out, even though the official misses it. The team's conduct has been widely hailed as virtuous, and has even proven contagious in some instances. This morning on sports talk radio, listeners were calling to complain about Jeter's conduct, saying it contradicts every thing we try to teach our children about good sportsmanship and honesty. The host dismissed these complaints, explaining that honesty and candor are important attributes in a sport in which participants are self-policing (e.g., golf) but not when there is an official charged with adjudicating infractions. In the latter instance, the participant must do whatever they can to persuade the official to rule in their favor -- in Jeter's case, to award him first base.
Obviously, this nicely tracks the distinction often made between the ethical obligations faced by lawyers in their litigating versus counseling roles. If there's a judge who can ultimately make the call, the lawyer can push the envelope to a degree beyond what would be appropriate in a more private setting. I don't really buy this justification for distinguishing between baseball and golf, and I don't really buy it as applied to litigation and counseling. Umpires, like judges, are flawed human beings who sometimes get it wrong. Baseball players, like lawyers, should exercise restraint in their efforts to convince the decision-maker of a fact that they know to be false. Granted, whether they "know" it to be false is in itself slippery. The pitch might have brushed my sleeve. My witness is not particularly credible, but I don't know that he's lying. Etc.