Milton Bradley was miffed. Not the company that makes the games. The athlete who plays games. That Milton Bradley.

Baseball players have some of the strangest names. What other sport can claim someone who is a toy‑maker (Milton Bradley) and a breakfast cereal (Coco Crisp)?

Anyway, Milton was miffed. “Strike three!” the umpire called. Milton didn’t think so. He remained in the batter’s box, staring down the umpire. Moments passed. Finally the umpire had enough. “You’re outta here!” (I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone thrown out of a game without them first saying a word.)

Bradley headed to the showers. The game continued without him.

Milton Bradley is a temperamental ballplayer.

Those of us who follow baseball can name several famous incidents involving his out‑of‑control antics. In comparison, this episode was minor.

All of which leads to an interesting question: why did Milton Bradley, despite his objections, acquiesce to the umpire’s edict? Why did he accept a call he disagreed with and obey a command he felt was unfair?

Two reasons: in the first place, he knows that resistance is futile. The umpire’s word is law.

He may object, but it will not change the outcome: He gets an early shower.

But there is a deeper reason, even more fundamental. Bradley knows that the integrity of the game he loves (and is paid obscenely well to play) depends upon rules and their enforcement. Simply put, without rules there is no game.

Witness the recent furor over the revelation that an NBA referee gambled on games he officiated. We instinctively know that the integrity of the game is dependent upon fair rules and honest officiating.

We feel violated by his unscrupulous behavior.

Last spring Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw were suspended when a vicious foul on Steve Nash incited them to break the rules by leaving the bench during the playoffs. Despite

the apparent inequity, the integrity of the game and its rules were at stake. “Next year I’ll wear seatbelts,” Stoudemire recently quipped.

When it comes to sports, we stubbornly cling to rules even when we find them unfair.

Why is it, then, that we are so opposed to standards when it comes to life itself?

Abolish referees at sporting events, and chaos will result. Ignore the laws of engineering, and buildings will collapse. Likewise, without boundaries in life, chaos and collapse are inevitable.

Think about it: What if each subcontractor who built your home used a different standard of measurement? Would you want to live there? Of course not. Why is it, then, that while we insist on standards in most areas of life, we resist standards when it comes to life itself?

One can’t help but surmise that the current chaos of our culture stems, at least in part, from the willful suspension of all rules of accepted behavior. Baseball has its rule book. Contractors have the Uniform Building Code. Life has, well, what does life have?

Call me old‑fashioned, but I subscribe to the notion that the Good Book is still the best guide to life. Many opt for the flavor of the day, but long after those tomes are on the clearance rack at Barnes & Noble, the timeless, elemental wisdom of the Bible will continue to speak the truth about life.

Like Milton Bradley, sometimes it makes me angry.

I stare it down, looking for loopholes. But in the end I know it is futile. I can follow its wisdom and enjoy the blessings of playing by the rules, or balk against it and find myself heading for an early shower.

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12).

Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path (Psalm 119:105).