Judge As A Judge

Following China's development in the area of basketball, the problem of raising the quality of officiation is in serious need of a solution. One thing preventing this goal is the officials' inability to make accurate and reasonable calls. Scholars have used psychology, kinematics, and sociology to try to find a way to increase the accuracy of officiation. We know that basketball officiation is based on the idea of rules along with what actually happens on the court. Through a process of analysis, we will comprehensively reach an accurate judgment, then deal with the process of logical thinking that happens during various specific situations on the court. Currently, there has still not been an attempt to study sports officiation logically in China. If officials are able to exercise logic in their judgments, and at last learn to consciously put a logical thought process to use in their calls, call games fairly, and coordinate the players and coaches well, then it will be possible to give the crowd a better game to watch. This paper uses an analysis of the theory of logic applied to law to examine the similarity between basketball officiation and the application of the law, and finally proposes ways in which to increase the accuracy of officiation.This paper is arranged with an introduction, body, and conclusion. In analyzing the similarities between the officiation of basketball and the logic of legal decisions, the discussion will center on how to use the principles of logical legal inference as a guide in basketball officiation.The introduction points out that the current state of China's basketball development demands a higher quality of officiation. The efforts of many scholars to raise the quality of basketball offication has ignored the fact that basketball officiation is a matter for careful consideration, and that officials' calls are based on specific logical judgments. Therefore, in order to raise the accuracy of officiation, it is necessary to strengthen the logical reasoning of officials. We can use the logical methodology of the application of the law to guide basketball officials.This body of this paper is divided into four sections, each will be discussed separately below.The first section sets forth basketball rules and the definition of the role of officials, compares the similarities and differences between basketball officiation and a court of law, and articulates the possibility and need to use logical legal reasoning to guide basketball officials.The second and third section is the core of this paper. This section concretely analyzes the thought model of basketball officiation decision making, using deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and analogical reasoning as tools of decision making. Deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and analogical reasoning are each discussed separately. The first paragraph suggests the inevitability of deductive reasoning going from universal to specific, and from abstract to concrete. Therefore, to rely on deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion, one must do two things. The first is to adequately understand the rules and guarantee the accuracy of the major premise. The second is to have a mobile perspective and guarantee the reliability of the minor premise. The second paragraph argues that inductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that progresses from specific to general and is not a type of reasoning that is inevitable, but that it can help people understand the misunderstood. Officiation must acknowledge that this type of reasoning is based on probability, and is adept at reaching general conclusions. The third paragraph puts forth the features and structure of analogical reasoning. Analogical reasoning is the type of reasoning most core to legal analysis, and is also the type of reasoning most important in making decisions in basketball officiation. Basketball officiation must use an understanding of the competition and strategy in order to separate the facts and draw logical inferences. The fourth paragraph introduces the much disputed intuitional reasoning, which encourages basketball officials to make judgments in the spirit of the rules as they see fit. The important point put forth in this paper is the question of how to incorporate these various types of reasoning in the practice of basketball officiation, and how to make officials familiar with the characteristics of these types of reasoning so that they can be put into practice on the court.The forth section introduces commonly encountered logical errors, in hopes that it can help the problem of mistakes made during officiation.The conclusion reaffirms the importance of using legal logic to direct basketball officials, points out that the characteristics of logical reasoning inevitably cannot guarantee that all reasoning will be accurate, and that the excitement and antagonism felt during basketball competition has shown that there is not enough all around reasoning used in basketball officiation. Therefore, aside from improving basketball officials'ability to make logical decisions in order to increase the accuracy of calls, we must also improve the rules and correct the mistakes caused by officials' lapses in reasoning in order to realize and guarantee the ultimate goal, which is fairness of competition.