On the Nature of Punishment

Several weeks ago, before the UCLA / USC rivalry game, I learned that both teams would be wearing their home colors which was against the rules.

Now at this point the rule seems iron clad, perhaps just because I generally believe in following rules at least unless some compelling higher obligation prevents it.

What struck me as odd was when I learned what the penalty was. USC (the visiting team) would lose a time out. Some how I found this hillariously funny. Delineating a punishment seemed to lessen the impact and meaning of the rule. If the punishment were forfeiture of the game, then there is no way that USC would have even considered it. As long as the punishment was unstated it could be that severe, but once the punishment was stated the rule became almost pointless. This is especially true given that UCLA purposefully blew a timeout because they were in on the decision.

I guess somehow delineating the results always changes something from an iron clad rule to a choice where you weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a decision. As Garrison Keeler once said, there is no rule that you can't fight in hockey. There is just a rule that if you do you have to sit in a box for a little while.