Justifications of Aggressive Behavior in Contact and Semicontact Sports by 1 School of Health, Physical Education, and Leisure Services University of Northern Iowa

The present study examines the extent to which athletes in selected contact and semicontact sports report agreement or disagreement with the use of intentional acts of aggression during competition. Eighty-five male athletes responded to the Bredemeier Athietic Aggression Inventory-Short Form and the Mintah Huddleston Aggression Justification Inventory. Overall results revealed no significant differences between subjects' use of hostile and instrumental aggression in sport and between the hostile and instrumental justifications provided for such behavior. Results indicated that contact- sport participants disagree more with the use of instrumental aggression than semicontact-sport participants. Other aspects There are a number of differing views one can take on the inherent value of sports. Of course, there is the common argument that sports are a vital part of society – an important step in the process of socialization. After all, sports can teach participants some useful lessons. Playing sports allows an athlete to discover the importance of teamwork, the spirit of competition, and the factor of self-esteem.

Yet, there are other arguments that point out the more negative aspects of sports. These tend to focus on how sports can induce aggressive or violent behavior, by both the players and the spectators. An example of such brutality would include riots and/or conflicts that have ensued following a sporting event. Thus, to better understand these and other societal perceptions of sports, a clear definition of aggression is in order.

Essentially, there are two popular philosophies of aggression in sports: the instinct (or catharsis) theory and the frustration-aggression hypothesis. The two theories primarily differ in their definition of aggression. Aside from these theories, and for our purposes, aggression can be defined as “angry violent behavior with intent to hurt a person or cause damage to property” (Frankl 1).

Some important considerations follow from this basic definition. First, it assumes that aggression is an act, rather than a state of being. It also supposes that aggression is intentional, where the intent is to injure. The explanation includes both physical and emotional harm (for a person). Finally, in this definition, deliberate harm to property is also considered to be an aggressive act. Clearly, an alternative interpretation of aggression will presume some assumptions other than these.

The first popular theory, termed instinct or catharsis, differs from the previous definition in its treatment of aggression. The instinct theory is based on the infamous works of Sigmund Freud, who argued that aggression is “an inborn drive similar to sex or hunger” (Frankl 2). Thus, according to Freud, aggression comprises an important part of what makes us human.

The word catharsis is actually Greek, and essentially means “to cleanse” (Frankl 2). Thus, the instinct and/or cathartic theory maintains that aggression, as a natural instinct, should be expressed. Its proponents, therefore, support the release of such inborn aggression in a controlled environment, i.e. a football game. Konrad Lorenz, who later extended Freud’s original hypothesis, even posited that discharging instinctual aggression in positive societal contexts (such as sporting events) satisfies a basic human need.

The frustration-aggression (FA) hypothesis, developed by five theorists in 1939, also disagrees with the more conventional definition of aggression. The FA hypothesis argues that aggression is simply a generic response to frustration (hence the theory’s name). The theory’s premise focuses on the cyclic nature of frustration and aggression. In this respect, frustration leads to some expression of aggression, while acts of aggression are the direct result of frustration. In instinct theory, aggression is viewed as the consequence of biological instincts; in the frustration- aggression hypothesis, on the other hand, aggression is believed to result from instigation. A current interpretation of the FA model asserts that once an individual acts out his/her aggression, he/she is more likely to act out aggression in the future. So, if an athlete’s aggressive behavior is ignored (or, more dangerously, rewarded), that athlete is more inclined to repeat the conduct in a like situation.

In the end, it is undeniable that aggression is somehow related to sports. The definitive nature of this relationship, however, has yet to be determined. Whether aggression is an innate emotion or a simple reaction to provocation, its mere existence will continue to affect our perceptions of sports and their apparent value to society.

Introduction

The use of the word "aggression" is somewhat confusing. The term aggression is employed to describe angry violent behavior with intent to hurt a person or cause damage to property. "Aggressive" behavior is also used to depict a strong and somewhat adventurous effort. Thus an aggressive sales person or athlete, for example, may be perceived as obnoxious or violent by some and as motivated and hard working by others.

Baron (1977, p. 12, cited in Cox, 1990, p. 266) offers the following definition for aggression: "Aggression is any form of behavior directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment." Thus:

• Aggression is an act not a cognitive state • Aggression is not accidental, it is an intentional act to harm • Aggressive acts involve both bodily and psychological harm • Aggressive acts involve only living beings; harm to objects does not count as aggression • The receiver of aggression does not want to get hurt

Bredemeier (1983) defined aggressive behavior in sport as:

"The intentional initiation of violent and or injurious behavior. 'Violent' means any physical, verbal or nonverbal offense, while 'injurious behaviors' stand for any harmful intentions or actions."

Thus: • An accidental foul or injury inflicted on another athlete resulting from inferior skills, will not be considered as aggression. • An intentional foul, although not resulting in any harm or injury, is considered as sport aggression. • Bredemeier's (1983) definition isn't clear about (a) whether harm to objects counts as aggression or (b) whether acts performed in a sadistic--masochistic relationship may be viewed as aggressive...

The Frustration-Aggression (F-A) Hypothesis

A drive-based model of aggression was originally proposed by Dollard, Dobb, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears (1939). The F-A model posits that aggression is a universal reaction to frustration. Initially the F-A hypothesis predicted that:

• incidents of frustration lead to some expression of aggression, and • acts of aggression result from some form of frustration

The F-A model differs from Instinct theory in that aggression may be the result of instigators other than biological instincts. A more recent view of the F-A hypothesis suggests that the magnitude of the expressed aggression is dependent on: • the amplitude of the frustration • the individual's threshold for frustration • the amount of frustrating incidents, and • the magnitude of the anticipated retaliation to one's expressed aggression (For example, consider a "yellow" or "red" card for rough play or an altercation between two or more players during a soccer match. The "yellow" card acts as a warning and the "red" card signals the ejection of the offender from the current, and in some cases future games. Now, compare foul behavior in sport to foul conduct in every day life situations where the penalty may be decided in a court of law based on criminal assault charges. In which of the above described environments would you expect to observe more restraint? The soccer field, or the side-walk behind the soccer field's stands? A crucial question in the F- A hypothesis researcher's mind is whether it is a biologically driven expression or is it a learned one?

Based on the view that all behavior is a by-product of various degrees of natural and environmental influences on the living organism, Berkowiz reformulated the initial F-A hypothesis. Thus, frustration does not automatically invoke aggression. Neither does exposure to aggressive models always lead to expressed aggression. Instead, Berkowitz postulated that frustration acts as a "readying mechanism" for an aggressive reaction. Frustration, and more frustration, gradually augment one's likelihood to display an aggressive response.

Berkowiz does not entirely dismiss the acute cathartic effect of expressed aggression. An aggressive reaction to a real or perceived provocation does, according to Berkowiz, result in a temporary feeling of relief. To describe the urge for a feeling of satisfaction following vented aggression, Berkowiz coined the term "completion tendency." Continuous reinforcement of one's completion tendency will lead to a learned expectation to "complete" each F-A cycle. This, however, is a vicious cycle; each completion cycle leads to a future expectation of the ability to vent one's frustrations. Thus, acute displays of aggression and a following relative calm lead to long term recurring incidents of gradually escalating "completion" needs.

Berkowitz's conclusion that biological instincts and learning are closely intertwined is crucial to the derivation of solutions to the problematic infiltration of aggressive behaviors into all levels of sport participation and competition. Young athletes promptly learn that they can get away with certain foul behaviors that they would otherwise find quite difficult to justify in an every day, off-the-field situation. In some cases small, and in other cases significant modifications to the existing rules would gradually inculcate newly learned, more restrained reactions to incidents of on-field (erroneous calls by contest officials, fouls, etc...) frustration provoked aggression.

Berkowitz's distinction between "legitimate" (no fault) and "illegitimate (at fault) aggression is an important dichotomy to a better understanding of aggression in the sport context. Hitting in football, choking in judo, and/or punching in boxing are all examples of legitimate, within the rules acts of aggression in sports. Yet, despite the physical and aggressive nature of sports, such as boxing and football, neither sport's rules would tolerate choking. On the other hand, the rules of judo or wrestling allow a variety of aggressive acts, such as, pinning down, throwing, choking etc... but do not permit hitting or punching. Soccer players legally engage in rough shoulder to shoulder contact but risk a warning or ejection for pulling on another player's shirt or pants.

The "threshold of tolerance" toward aggressive acts that fall within the twilight zone of the continuum between "legitimate" (no fault) and "illegitimate (at fault) aggression is an area that requires close and careful inspection. When, or under what circumstances, for example, may a hit in football be regarded as "legitimate" force and at what point, if any, it may be construed as "too much" and thus represent "illegitimate" force. I find the constant apparent abuse of the thin, and invariably clear line between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" aggression by athletes very frustrating. Most competitors are serious students of their game or sport. They are trained to push the limit, reach new heights-- further raising the bar on the "legitimate" to "illegitimate" force continuum not excluded.

Two concrete examples of soccer rules that create fertile grounds for stretching the "threshold of tolerance" are the shoulder check and the slide tackle. Redefining the slide tackle in soccer as an illegal game strategy may not eliminate it from occurring in the game, but it may definitely help reduce excessively aggressive defensive play. A positive side effect resulting from such a change in game rules may be an added advantage to the offensive players. A less vulnerable attacker may be able to score more often--a sorely needed feature in the present game. • GUILT AS THE "HINDER MECHANISM" FOR HOSTILE AGGRESSION

Genuine feelings of guilt may inhibit the recurrence of violent behavior. However, within the context of the "game frame" athletes often do not experience genuine feelings of guilt. Feelings of alienation between rival teams contribute to a dehumanization of the opponent. The degree to which opponents are treated as objects or obstacles to be overcome, rather than a human being who's role is to help elevate the level of the game, appears to be related to the degree of contact in the particular sport. For example, professional football players, boxers, basketball players, ice hockey players, soccer players, etc... expect various levels of physical contact in their game. Injuries that result from the use of excessive force in any of these sports are so prevalent that athletes expect to get hurt and hold the position that their opponents expect the same. The general attitude displayed by athletes in heavy contact sports is captured in the following cliche: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." If you're not ready to get hurt, go look for another game. Since violent injurious conduct is so "natural" to the game process, it is perceived as an unavoidable part of the game, and as such is regarded by many as a legitimate game strategy (intimidation--roughing up the quarterback is as a game strategy in football or shaking up the forward as a game strategy in soccer).

The use of excessive force and intimidation tactics are especially disturbing when rationalized and legitimized in youth sports. All involved in a typical youth soccer league in North America are still fairly fresh students of this game. Thus, errors in judgement by players, coaches, referees and parents are quite common. This reality creates fertile grounds for the brewing of F-A generated responses. Brushing aside inappropriate outbursts by players, coaches or parent toward the referee as incidents of the "heat of the moment," for example, may lead to later more frequent and serious incidents. Dealing with instances of verbal or physical aggression in a constructive manner will pave the way for a safer and more pleasant league experience to all involved. Sreesanth fined Agence France-Presse . Dubai India seam bowler Shanthakumaran Sreesanth has been fined 30 per cent of his match fee after being found guilty of two ICC code of conduct breaches during his side’s first Test match against South Africa. Sreesanth was found guilty of the offences after a hearing conducted by following the completion of India’s 123-run win at Johannesburg’s Wanderers stadium which finished on Monday. He was found to have acted contrary to the spirit of the game and also violated the rules on shirt logos. Sreesanth was ruled to have shown unsporting behaviour when, after dismissing Hashim Amla in South Africa’s second innings, he ran towards the batsman. The charge was brought by on-field umpires Mark Benson and Daryl Harper and third Karl Hurter and Sreesanth pleaded guilty. The other charge was a breach of ICC logo policy. That policy states that all garments worn under the playing shirt in a Test match must themselves be plain white and this was something that was also referred to in the match referee’s pre-series meeting. Sreesanth however wore a black garment under his shirt while and then later in the day, after this had been pointed out, although he took to the field in a white garment under his playing shirt, it displayed a commercial logo. Both hearings were attended by the three umpires mentioned above as well as Sreesanth, India Rahul Dravid and India team manager Chetan Desai. England can pretend but hard men don’t boast Simon Barnes This week, I spoke to John Woodcock, Correspondent of this parish 1954-88, and received the first words of sense I have heard on the subject of jellybeans: “They should be forced to play their next game in short trousers.” Absolutely. The whole business is childish beyond description. The taunting of an opponent by leaving sweets on the pitch is pathetic. It destroys a spectator’s pleasure in the game. It certainly made me switch my allegiance to India. I thought England deserved what they got. And I don’t think I was alone in that.

And yet the England cricket team defend such idiocy. More, they take pride in it. The whole business of taunting, putting off, insulting – all the things that go under the name of sledging – has become a battleground in which ugliness and inanity struggle for supremacy.

The stump microphone picked up a classic piece of sledging wit during that second Test between England and India. “I’m driving a Porsche Carrera; what’s your car?” Thus the exquisite Wildean wit of the modern England cricketer is laid bare.

It is, of course, the sort of remark you would expect from a Porsche driver, a Porsche being the naffest car ever manufactured. But is it a suitable remark to make to a man from a Third World nation who is a guest in your country? The combination of vulgarity and insensitivity is mind- numbing.

But the thing that really gets to me is that England cricketers seriously believe that sledging makes them better players. They prink and preen because they say bad things to people when they cannot fight back. Hard men, eh?

“It comes with the territory,” Matt Prior, the England wicketkeeper, said. “It’s international cricket, it’s a hard game. We all want to win, we’re all playing to win, so you’re going to have banter.” Prior is simply telling the world: “I’m well ’ard.”

As a point of information, people who need to tell the world that they are well ’ard are not, in fact, ’ard at all. They are just mouthy gits. Real hard man don’t need to tell you.

The England cricket team are suffering from confusion. The players believe to a man that behaving like an arsehole makes you a better cricketer. The fact is that it doesn’t. It only makes you an arsehole.

Peter Moores, the England head coach and team director, has talked up his belief that his team should be more aggressive. That is interpreted by all – perhaps even intended by him – as charter to drop all reasonable standards of behaviour, as if serious sport can only ever take place in an atmosphere of festering playground antipathy.

This is not only untrue, it is not what we spectators want. One of the many great things about series of 2005 was the respect between the players. The ultimate image of the series was Andrew Flintoff’s moment of commiseration with Brett Lee after England’s narrow win at Edgbaston in the second Test. We liked that – that’s how we want cricket played.

So what is Moores’s response to the present outbreak of nonsense? “There is an issue about whether the stump mike should be so loud.” No there is not, there is an issue about whether the England players should make such prats of themselves. It’s not as if it did them any good. Zaheer Khan, the man insulted by means of jellybeans, responded by taking five second-innings as England slithered to defeat, leaving , the home team’s captain, feebly trying to explain that, although Zaheer had played awfully well, it wasn’t the jellybeans that had inspired him. Zaheer took the opposite view.

England didn’t look well ’ard, they looked well pathetic. These people are supposed to be playing for England, they are supposed to be representing me.

How has it come about, then, this belief that bad manners and good cricket are inseparable? Australia, obviously. For years, England have believed that everything good in cricket is Australian and that the more Australian the England team can be, the more cricket matches they will win.

So England have copied the boasting and the taunting while failing to produce a Shane Warne or a Glenn McGrath. And it’s contentious, I know, but I think Warne and McGrath did more to win cricket matches for Australia than any amount of mental disintegration inspired by Steve Waugh’s sledging. England may lack the talent of Warne and McGrath, but they can certainly behave in an infantile and boorish fashion, and that’s almost as good, isn’t it?

Cricket is a game in which people talk. There’s plenty of opportunity for it, after all. And I’ve played it. As a lapsed wicketkeeper, I’d say the strongest part of my game was the ability to suck my teeth loudly enough for the batsman to hear it 15 yards away after the ball had passed the bat.

Banter, seldom terribly edifying, is a part of cricket, on the village green and elsewhere. No one expects cricket to take place in a reverential hush and, amid the general din, no one is sure whether he is trying to encourage the bowler or disturb the batsman.

So there is a line to be drawn. I’d be inclined to draw it on purely aesthetic grounds: if it’s ugly, childish and pathetic, it’s time for the umpires to step in, as they are empowered to do. As Christopher Martin-Jenkins has pointed out on these pages before, a five-run penalty for an illegal attempt to put the batsman off is within the laws of the game.

The ICC should encourage umpires to take this on. It would be the direct opposite of what happened in tennis, when John McEnroe was making an idiot of himself. Then, tennis umpires let him throw his tantrums because they feared that defaulting him would make too much trouble. The ICC needs to grasp the nettle on this one because the players – and coaches such as Moores – don’t even think they are behaving badly. No, they think they are being cool, they think they are being Real Men.

Me. I’d like to watch an England team who played good, aggressive cricket, rather than merely pretending to do so. Cricket is supposed to be aggressive: the increased aggression in the bowling of and this season has been good, not bad.

But these improvements are not dependent on throwing sweeties at batsmen or boasting about what kind of penis substitute you happen to drive. All the cult of sledging does is spoil the game for the spectators, who want to see a good match contested in a forthright, full-on, flat-out, aggressive, honourable, decent, grown-up way. If we don’t get that, perhaps we will start to look elsewhere for our sporting pleasures.

I shall leave the last word to King Lune of Archenland, from The Chronicles of Narnia. His impetuous son insults an enemy who is brought before the court in chains. “Shame, Corin. Never taunt a man, save when he is stronger than you: then as you please.” Australia have often engaged in a war of words before tough series. Ponting has said that the pressure is right back on India and the return of , and Rahul Dravid might work in Australia's favour as they've played against the three many times. Andrew Symonds too felt that there was too much celebration after India's triumphant return from South Africa. Was this a deliberate plan? "No, it's far from a plan to get verbal," said Gilchrist. "There's been a lot of focus on the fiery nature of the Indian players in that semi-final and I think they're going to continue playing that like. And that's fine; we expect that. If you don't have a bit of fire in the belly as a fast bowler I think you're already sort of half-knocked as a team. It doesn't matter what you say, you've got to back it up with good cricket.

Sreesanth has to rein in his histrionics

Kerala and India pacer S Sreesanth has given aggression by an Indian cricketer a whole new meaning. He certainly is the most in-your-face fast bowler that this country has produced so far. However, this is not a positive in his case because he tends to focus more on his antics rather than his job – that is restricting the flow of runs and picking up wickets.

His rather juvenile antics in the second one-dayer against Australia in Kochi is just another addition to his list of bringing the game into disrepute over the last couple of months. In Tuesday’s match on his home ground, Sreesanth displayed poor sportsmanship on at least three occasions – when he gave Brad Haddin an earful after a LBW appeal had been turned down, then the very next instant throwing down the stumps at the non-striker’s end and appealing for a run-out against Andrew Symonds when the ball was dead and not in play, and finally by gesticulating and jeering wildly after he had Symonds of his own bowling.

In fact, such was the intensity and duration of Sreesanth’s appeal for the ‘run-out’ against Symonds that umpire Suresh Shastri was in a spot of bother until India’s captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni ordered Sreesanth to get on with the game. In the post-match conference, Dhoni admitted he initially thought the bowler was joking when he appealed for the run-out before realising that it was a serious appeal.

If this was not enough, Sreesanth went ahead and ‘celebrated’ wildly and gave Symonds an earful after dismissing the batsman. This was not only a show of utter disrespect to the opponent batsman, but it also made a mockery of the code of conduct in place for players.

Sreesanth had given a similar sort of ‘farewell’ to Matthew Hayden in two previous matches between India and Australia – in the first ODI in Bangalore and in the Twenty20 World Cup semifinals. The Kerala bowler was in fact, charged for excessive appealing and fined 25 percent of his match fees by the ICC Match Referee Chris Broad after the T20 World Cup semifinals match.