ABSTRACT It is common to hear the claim that referees in sporting events are doing their jobs well so long as they are, quite simply, being fair to both sides in a competitive event. It will be the purpose of this article to analyze this claim. I will argue that being fair to both sides is, in fact, a necessary condition for good sport officiating, but it is not sufficient. My interlocutors in the article will be J.S. Russell and Mitchell Berman, whose magisterial articles on the philosophy of sport officiating and on the relationship between sport and law rightly emphasize that rules are not all that a referee has to work with while officiating a sporting event. The point to my article is to highlight a feature of rules that is compatible with Russell’s and Berman’s view that rules are not sufficient: that rules are nonetheless necessary. My thesis is novel because counterintuitive: a referee who is fair to both sides can nonetheless advantage one side over another in a sporting event if the rules (whether de jure or de facto) are not followed. Compelling examples from basketball and baseball and North American football will be used to support my stance.

中文翻译：

---

“对双方都公平”：罗素（JS Russell）和米切尔·伯曼（Mitchell Berman）的司法理念的附录

摘要通常，只要体育比赛中的裁判对双方都公平，就可以说体育比赛中的裁判表现良好。本文的目的是分析此声明。我将争辩说，事实上，公平对待双方都是良好的体育裁判的必要条件，但这还不够。我在这篇文章中的对话者将是JS拉塞尔（J. Russell）和米切尔·伯曼（Mitchell Berman），他们关于体育裁判哲学以及体​​育与法律之间关系的权威文章正确地强调了规则并非裁判在主持体育赛事时必须遵循的全部原则。我的文章的重点是强调规则的一个特征，该特征与罗素和伯曼的观点是不相称的：规则仍然是不够的：尽管如此，规则仍然是必要的。我的论文之所以新颖，是因为违反直觉：如果不遵守规则（无论是在法律上还是在事实上），在体育比赛中对双方都公平的裁判仍然可以使一方优于另一方。篮球，棒球和北美足球方面的引人注目的例子将用来支持我的立场。