Rules Are Not Made to Be Broken. They Are Made to Be Applied Correctly.
commentary · October 2, 2026
People love saying:
People love saying:
Rules are made to be broken.
I am not sure I agree.
Most rules are created for a reason.
Safety.
Fairness.
Predictability.
Order.
Consistency.
Accountability.
The bigger problem is often not that somebody broke the rule.
Sometimes the bigger problem is whether the rule was misapplied, selectively applied, or interpreted differently because of who was involved.
And if you work inside an organization or watch professional sports, you have probably seen exactly what I mean.
Breaking a Rule Is Easy to Understand
A rule says:
Do not do this.
Somebody does it anyway.
That is a violation.
Simple.
The harder situations are when everybody agrees a rule exists, but nobody agrees on how it should have been applied.
Was the conduct actually covered?
Was there an exception?
Was the same standard used previously?
Was context considered?
Did the person enforcing the rule understand its purpose?
Was discretion available?
Would the interpretation have been the same if somebody else had been involved?
That last question can destroy credibility.
The A'ja Wilson Incident Is Exactly Why This Conversation Matters
We received a very current example during the WNBA playoffs.
During Game 2 of the Las Vegas Aces-Indiana Fever playoff series on September 29, 2026, A'ja Wilson confronted a courtside fan after a play.
Wilson received a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct.
She was not ejected.
She also received no additional league discipline and remained available for the deciding Game 3.[1]
That became controversial because the WNBA rulebook contains specific language addressing players entering the spectator stands.
Rule 12A says a player, coach, or trainer must be ejected for deliberately entering the stands other than as a continuation of play.
Another section of the rulebook states that anyone who deliberately enters the spectator stands during a game will be automatically ejected and that the first row of seats is considered the beginning of the stands.[2]
That sounds pretty straightforward.
Then came the interpretation.
The Rule Was Not Actually a Suspension Rule for Wilson
This distinction matters.
A lot of conversation around the incident described Wilson as deserving an automatic suspension.
That is not precisely what the rule governing her conduct says.
For deliberately entering the spectator stands, the WNBA rule calls for automatic ejection and referral of the incident to the Commissioner.[2]
Separate WNBA rules can require suspensions when players leave the bench during certain altercations.
Those are different provisions.
That is exactly why rule conversations require precision.
You cannot argue that a rule was misapplied while misidentifying the rule yourself.
But once we identify the correct rule, the credibility question remains.
The League Said She Never Entered the Stands
According to reporting following the game, officials determined during their review that Wilson remained within a court area known as the player escape lane adjacent to the basket stanchion.
Based on that interpretation, officials concluded that she had not deliberately entered the spectator stands and therefore had not triggered the automatic-ejection provision.[3]
That is the league's explanation.
It belongs in the story.
So does the video.
Wilson clearly moved toward the spectator and the confrontation extended beyond what most people would consider ordinary basketball interaction.
Multiple reports noted that the fan was seated in the courtside area, and the rulebook specifically defines the first row of seating as the beginning of the stands.[2][3]
That leaves the public with a legitimate question:
Where exactly does the player escape lane end and the spectator stands begin?
That is not attacking Wilson.
That is examining application of the rule.
The Playoffs Make the Credibility Issue Bigger
Reporting from The Athletic said that the league considered the intensity of the playoffs when reviewing the matter and planned to emphasize player safety.[3]
That does not establish that the WNBA ignored its rule because Wilson is one of its biggest stars.
There is no verified evidence establishing that conclusion.
But perception matters.
Wilson is one of the WNBA's most prominent players.
The incident happened during an elimination playoff series.
The next game was winner-take-all.
When a highly visible athlete remains eligible after conduct that many viewers believe appears to fall within a clearly written rule, the league has an additional responsibility.
Explain the interpretation.
Clearly.
Because the danger is larger than one technical foul.
It is credibility.
Rules Become Dangerous When People Believe the Person Matters More Than the Rule
Imagine this happening at work.
Employee A violates a policy.
Management says:
The rule clearly applies.
Employee B appears to do essentially the same thing.
Management says:
Well, technically, this situation is different.
Maybe it is.
Differences sometimes matter.
But now leadership needs to explain the distinction.
Was the conduct actually different?
Was the employee's role different?
Did another section of the policy apply?
Was discretion authorized?
Would the same interpretation be available to everybody?
Or did the organization start searching for an interpretation because of who was standing in front of them?
That is where credibility gets damaged.
Selective Enforcement Is Sometimes Worse Than Having No Rule
People can function inside strict systems.
They can function inside flexible systems.
What becomes difficult is functioning inside a system where nobody knows when the written standard matters.
If the rule applies to the rookie but not the superstar, people notice.
If it applies to the frontline employee but not the executive, people notice.
If one manager grants exceptions while another says exceptions are impossible, employees notice.
If somebody with organizational value receives an interpretation unavailable to everybody else, people notice.
The issue becomes bigger than the original violation.
Now people distrust the system.
Professional Sports Makes the Problem Visible
Sports gives us these examples in public.
Millions of people can watch the same play.
The league has a written rulebook.
Television provides multiple angles.
Commentators debate the interpretation.
The league explains the ruling.
Fans compare it with previous cases.
Workplaces usually do not have that level of visibility.
There is no national broadcast.
No instant replay.
No officiating analyst.
No slow-motion camera.
That makes consistent application even more important.
Because employees are often expected to trust the organization's description of what happened.
"Technically" Can Become a Dangerous Word
Sometimes technical interpretation is necessary.
Rules need definitions.
Boundaries matter.
But organizations should become cautious when they repeatedly find themselves saying:
Technically, the rule did not apply.
Especially when the ordinary observer sees something very different.
That does not automatically mean the organization is wrong.
It means the organization should be able to explain why.
The WNBA's explanation is that Wilson remained in a designated court area rather than entering the stands.
Fine.
Then the league should be able to show where that boundary exists and how officials would apply the exact same interpretation to another player next week.
That is what consistency requires.
Consistency Does Not Mean Identical Outcomes
This distinction matters too.
Two situations can look similar and still have meaningful differences.
That happens in sports.
It happens in employment.
It happens in discipline.
It happens in law.
Consistency does not require blindly producing the same outcome every time.
It requires applying the same decision framework every time.
If circumstances justify a different result, explain them.
That is leadership.
What damages trust is unexplained inconsistency.
The Workplace Has the Same Problem
Attendance policies.
Telework rules.
Performance standards.
Leave policies.
Dress codes.
Discipline.
Promotions.
Reasonable accommodations.
Conduct policies.
Employee A violates something and receives counseling.
Employee B commits apparently similar conduct and gets suspended.
Employee C receives an exception.
Employee D is told:
There are no exceptions.
Now the issue is no longer just the policy.
It is organizational credibility.
The EEOC specifically advises employers to consider whether employees who violate similar rules are treated consistently and whether decisions match existing policies and prior practices.[4]
That is not complicated.
If you are going to make distinctions, be prepared to explain them.
The Rulebook Cannot Become a Shield
There is another danger.
Management can technically cite a rule and still misapply it.
Sports officials can correctly quote a rule and still face questions about how they interpreted the facts.
The written language is only part of the process.
You still need:
facts,
context,
precedent,
consistency,
judgment,
and accountability.
A rulebook cannot replace those things.
Five Questions Every Decision-Maker Should Ask
Before enforcing or declining to enforce a rule, ask:
What was this rule designed to prevent?
Does it actually apply to these facts?
How have we interpreted it before?
Would we interpret it the same way if a different person were involved?
Can we explain this decision publicly or internally without changing the rationale?
That fourth question may be the most important.
Would we make the same call if this were:
the newest employee?
the least popular player?
the person with no organizational influence?
the employee management already dislikes?
the superstar?
the executive?
If the answer changes because the person changes, you may not have a rule problem.
You may have a credibility problem.
Rules Are Not Made to Be Broken
They are made to establish expectations.
But rules only work when people believe the system enforcing them is legitimate.
The A'ja Wilson incident provides a useful modern example precisely because reasonable people can examine the same situation and disagree about whether the written rule was triggered.
The league says she remained in the player escape lane.
The rule says deliberately entering the spectator stands requires automatic ejection.
The first row of seats marks the stands.
Wilson received a technical foul but was neither ejected nor subsequently disciplined.[1][2][3]
Those facts can coexist.
And they should lead to a better question than:
Do I like A'ja Wilson?
The question is:
Was the rule applied in a manner that the league can consistently defend the next time this happens?
That is the same question leadership should ask in every workplace.
Because the danger is not simply breaking rules.
It is creating a system where people begin believing rules depend on who you are.
Once that happens, every future decision becomes harder to trust.
Breaking a rule can damage an individual case.
Misapplying one can damage the credibility of the entire institution.
Sources
[1] CBS Sports, "Aces star A'ja Wilson reportedly won't be disciplined by WNBA after heated interaction with Fever fan," October 1, 2026.
https://www.cbssports.com/wnba/news/aja-wilson-aces-fever-fan-interaction-technical-foul-wnba-playoffs/
[2] WNBA, 2026 Official WNBA Rule Book, Rule 12A and spectator-stands provisions.
https://www.wnba.com/wnba-rule-book
[3] The Athletic, "A'ja Wilson will not face repercussions from WNBA for interaction with fan," October 1, 2026.
[4] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Manager Responsibilities: Treating Employees Consistently."
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/manager-responsibilities-treating-employees-consistently
Key takeaways
- The September 29, 2026 A'ja Wilson incident is a useful example of the difference between a written rule and interpretation of the facts.
- WNBA rules provide for automatic ejection, not an automatic suspension, when a player deliberately enters the spectator stands other than through continuation of play.[2]
- The WNBA rulebook defines the first row of seats as the beginning of the stands.[2]
- Officials determined Wilson remained in a designated court-area player escape lane, so they concluded that the automatic-ejection rule had not been triggered.[3]
- Wilson received a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct and received no additional league discipline.[1][3]
- Reporting indicates playoff intensity was considered by the league, but there is no verified evidence establishing that Wilson's star status caused the league's decision.[3]
- The credibility issue is whether the interpretation can be clearly explained and consistently applied to the next player.
- Workplaces face the same risk when apparently similar conduct receives different treatment.
Related articles
All articles