The rule of law governs our nation as opposed to the rule of man. That is a founding principle that should permeate our society. The goal was to treat everyone equally when in similar situations. The rule of a monarch or a tyrant, the rule of man, leaves treatment of subjects open to the whims and emotions of the person in charge.

During the College Football Playoff game between Texas and Arizona State, there was a situation late in the game in which a penalty should have been called but was not. Had it been called, Arizona State likely would have won the game by at the very least, being able to kick a field goal. But because officials decided not to call an infraction, the game went into double overtime where Arizona State lost to Texas.

The majority of fans and experts, including officials, agree that the situation was technically a violation of the rules, and a penalty should have been called and enforced. Most of us agree that the situation was one that did not rise to the level of violating the spirit of the rule. The rule has to do with unnecessary roughness and that probably needs to be changed to exclude this type of hit that occurred in the game.

But if we are a nation to be governed by the rule of law, then we specifically take out the emotions of man. You might say that this is just a game and has no correlation with “real life.” But you are wrong because principles apply to all facets of our life and society.

Several years ago, I came into contact professionally with a gentleman who had recently been released from prison. He had served several years after being convicted of manslaughter. He had been put into a situation where he needed to defend the life of a relative. That person, his brother, was being attacked by three men. As this gentleman intervened, he hit one of the attackers in the throat collapsing his windpipe and the man died. In the jurisdiction where he lived at the time there was no exception to the manslaughter statute, and he was convicted and sent to prison. I think most of us would have done exactly what he did in that situation and most of us probably agree that he should not have spent time in prison. But the rule of law was applied and he had to do his time.

Because of his situation and others, as I understand it, politicians responded to the public outcry and made a change to the statute that would give prosecutors and judges the leeway that I think most of us agree was needed in his case. That's the way the system works, or should work.

Even in our example of the football game, the rule needs to be changed to clarify what is and is not a violation of the rule. That way it can be equally applied to all similar situations in the future and not left to the whim of a human being in the heat of the moment. But the officials took it upon themselves to say this was not the intent of the rule and apply it differently from similar situations in other games.

In real life, there have been many situations where adjudicators or enforcers of the law or rules have rightfully used leniency and common sense. But then we leave it up to fate to put us in front of or under the control of decent human beings rather than flawed human beings. It leaves us hoping that we have a benevolent dictator rather than the legal protection provided by documents such as our Constitution.