A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
1. If your tanking pushes another team out, oh well; you should not have left your destiny to that circumstance. As Al Davis said, just win (by a lot, in case there's 'goal differential'), baby. You didn't take care of business when you should have. 2. The ticket-paying public. Yeah, I sympathize, but not enough to block the ATHLETES (for whom the contest is held!) from doing what they need to do to win overall. 3. Obstruction is NOT good sportsmanship; you've conflated the two situations. Throwing a match does not hinder your opponent; it helps him.
Sometimes it's necessary to "send a message" to let athletes know your're serious about their on and off-field/court conduct during these MASSIVE international events. If you send a racist tweet...adios. Throw badminton matches...see ya'. If any Arab/Muslim athletes in contact sports refuse to compete against Israeli athletes due to fake injuries (as they have in the past)...have them (that judo/wrestling TEAM) pack their bags.
TN1965 wrote:Making the tournament a single elimination format solves this problem. It's pretty simple.
that's actually the reason they went for this new format. they did not want a team to simply play one match and lose and go home (as it happens with boxing, judo etc.). the problem is that this new "system" is flawed in that the players can game the system as it happened. what i don't understand is why is it advantageous to lose rather than to win. i'd think a good systems would reward you for wining, so that you next face a weaker opponent, and if you lose, you face a stronger one.
for the indoor vb tournament, the volleyball federation has divided the men's and women's team in 2 pools. there are six teams in each pool, after pool play, the top four advance to the quarters. #1 faces #4 in the other pool, #2 faces #3. but even this system ended up with teams gaming the system. so teams at the last match would manipulate the result (i.e. lose on purpose) with eyes on the next opponent. so now FIVB has instituted that while #1 still faces #4, there's a draw held to decide the opponents for #2 and #3. so now #2 might face #2 and #3 faces #3. this is so that teams can no longer game the system.
this is not a perfect system. i think in one past olympics, the cuban women finished fourth or third in their pool and eventually ended up upsetting the "stronger" team on the other side in the quarters (the US, i think), so the semis ended up with 3 teams from one pool, and the US which had played really well in pool play (might have even been the undefeated #1 seed, can't recall) ended up out. can't recall if the cubans were just slow to warm up in the tournament or they were gaming the system, but in the end, it was not a satisfactory semis phase.
i think the badminton fed. are idiots -- they are blaming the players for a stupid system they created. although i did see some of the footage of the players deliberately serving into the net over and over again. that was pathetic. they need to come up with a better system.
TrakFan wrote:Yup! It's easy to have a one-sided view of this topic when you're at home commenting on a T&F bulletin board. However, those who've paid and (some) travelled across continents should have an opportunity to watch a competitive match.
Totally depends on whom you're rooting for. If I traveled far to see the USA win, and they tanked in order to get an advantage, I'd be all for it!
Anybody see PBS' docudrama about the 1948 Olympics pairs rowing competition? In it the two deliberately threw a race in order to get into a race with easier competitors. Sounds familiar.
It was a bit like scoring own goals to deliberately lose, the analogies with resting star players or easing up in rounds don't work. Plus, both Korean pairs have been banned for two years from competition and their coaches virtually permanently by the Korean badminton federation.
Master Po wrote: Which extends the analogies out to the badminton case, in which the players were actually trying to lose, and were really making a mockery of their sport, on its largest stage.
Exactly. That's what they should have been charged with, "bringing the sport into disrepute". The same as gambling on matches, threatening officials or mooning the crowd. The "not giving an honest effort" just muddied the waters.
it's a scandal they did not DQ makhloufi and take his gold medal in the 1500. he cheated by producing a fake medical note, or faking an injury that didn't exist.
Sportsmanship is when you refuse to pursue an unearned advantage.
Like when a soccer player kicks the ball out of bounds after seeing an opponent injured on the pitch, or when you self-report a rules violation that otherwise would not have come to light. Throwing a game to gain a better path through the tourney seedings does not fit my definition of sportsmanship (although European and South American teams in several sports have been doing such things for decades.)
Likewise, full-court pressing to run up scores and personal and team stats does not fit with my idea of sportsmanship, either.
Controversy in the NFL at the end of the game between NY giants and Tampa Bay. What coach showed sportsmanship, and what coach showed a lack thereof?
I'm completely with Tampa Bay coach Schiano, perfectly fine to play the game until the end. If NY coach Coughlin doesn't prepare his players to play and protect themselves until the game is over, then that's on him. His reactions after the game showed a complete lack of sportsmanship.
j-a-m wrote:Controversy in the NFL at the end of the game between NY giants and Tampa Bay. What coach showed sportsmanship, and what coach showed a lack thereof?
Coughlon's a weany. Tampa Bay had no moral obligation to only play for 55:55. I've seen stranger things happen in football games. Back in the day, the Giants actually lost a game to the Eagles in a similar situation when Herm Edwards scooped up a fumble and returned it for a touchdown on the last play of the game.
It reminds me of the 2003 Tour de France when Lance Armstrong got mad at Jan Ullrich for trying to gain time on him on a flat stage at the end of the Tour, and forced him to have to race when he wanted to just sit back in the peleton. Normally, GC contenders call an informal truce on those stages, but Ullrich had no obligation to abide by this.
j-a-m wrote:Controversy in the NFL at the end of the game between NY giants and Tampa Bay. What coach showed sportsmanship, and what coach showed a lack thereof?
Coughlon's a weany. Tampa Bay had no moral obligation to only play for 55:55. I've seen stranger things happen in football games. Back in the day, the Giants actually lost a game to the Eagles in a similar situation when Herm Edwards scooped up a fumble and returned it for a touchdown on the last play of the game.
That Edwards play is not the same. The Giants were actually running a play.
Edwards made a stunning play in the closing seconds of the Eagles-Giants game on Nov. 19, 1978. Giants quarterback Joe Pisarcik, instead of taking a knee, botched a handoff to fullback Larry Csonka. Edwards scooped up the loose ball and raced 26 yards to give Philadelphia an improbable 19-17 victory.
Edwards viewed this situation differently because it was so clear that the Giants had no intention of running a play as offensive linemen backpedaled to form a semicircle around Manning. When the Buccaneers’ defensive front came in low and hard, he said it put Manning at much greater risk than the Giants’ lead.
Conor Dary wrote:That Edwards play is not the same. The Giants were actually running a play.
Edwards made a stunning play in the closing seconds of the Eagles-Giants game on Nov. 19, 1978. Giants quarterback Joe Pisarcik, instead of taking a knee, botched a handoff to fullback Larry Csonka. Edwards scooped up the loose ball and raced 26 yards to give Philadelphia an improbable 19-17 victory.
Edwards viewed this situation differently because it was so clear that the Giants had no intention of running a play as offensive linemen backpedaled to form a semicircle around Manning. When the Buccaneers’ defensive front came in low and hard, he said it put Manning at much greater risk than the Giants’ lead.
I agree you with on the difference in the two situations. But while the Giants may have signaled that they had no intention of running a play, the Buccaneers showed all the signals that they had no intention of taking the down off. All they were trying to do is disrupt the snap and cause Manning to fumble before he could take a knee, which they had every right to do.
When Pete Carrol was at USC, he was in a similar situation against a conference opponent (UCLA?). USC was up by a couple of touchdowns and Carrol had the offense go to the victory formation to run out the clock, but not only did the defense contest the play, they also called timeout. So what did Carrol do? He called for a play-action pass on the very next play and the quarterback hit one of the recievers for a 60+ yard touchdown pass. That's the way you deal with situations like that, you don't whine about it. The NFL is already becoming a wussy game, but if guys like Coughlin had their way, they would start handing out participation certificates to all the players on both the winning and losing teams.
Anthony Treacher wrote:Sportsmanship is proferring your hand to your opponent to settle a dispute once and for all.
Heartwarming personal experience of sportsmanship last Sunday:
Charlie Lonewolf's U12 soccer team defeated Tulsa's top team 1-0. Charlie scored the only goal in the 58th minute in a 60 minute game. On the subsequent "kick off", or whatever you call it, he took a hit to his knee with his leg extended and foot planted, hyper-extending the knee. He gets knocked down a lot and takes pride in popping back up but this time he was seriously hurt and had to be helped to the sideline where he sat out the rest of the game with ice on his knee.
After the game, teams did the traditional midfield walk-by hand slap. After the team slap, the kid who hit Charlie came over and wordlessly slapped hands with Charlie. The entire losing Tulsa team followed and emulated his gesture.
First time I ever saw that happen...
Charlie is still on crutches..dunno for how long but as team captain, he went to practice Monday.
jazzcyclist wrote:while the Giants may have signaled that they had no intention of running a play, the Buccaneers showed all the signals that they had no intention of taking the down off. All they were trying to do is disrupt the snap and cause Manning to fumble before he could take a knee, which they had every right to do.
A cheap shot would be a defender driving himself into Eli as he's taken the knee. Knocking Eli's own men back into him is their own fault for not blocking better.
Back in 2006 the Chairman of the World Masters Athletics Law and Legislation Committee informed me, that by proffering my hand to my opponent, I had forfeited my right to file a complaint against him.
Anthony Treacher wrote:Back in 2006 the Chairman of the World Masters Athletics Law and Legislation Committee informed me, that by proffering my hand to my opponent, I had forfeited my right to file a complaint against him.
I'd love to see the law or legislation he cited to support that statement.
i did not follow the men's 2010 world championships in volleyball as there's so little coverage in the US but just found out that several teams were gaming the system to get into easier pools.
it says here that at one point brazil, the eventual champion, played a match against bulgaria with an opposite hitter playing as the setter. that's a scandal. did they not have a backup setter? every team has 2 setters. imagine a soccer team without a backup goalie. if you don't know VB, that's like a center playing guard or a tight end playing QB...
actually, i bitched and moaned before, i think FIVB, the world VB fed. is really corrupt. how else to explain their ridiculous groups in the women's VB tourney in london, where 3 of the weakest teams were all in the same pool? pathetic.
uakari wrote:brazil, the eventual champion, played a match against bulgaria with an opposite hitter playing as the setter.that's a scandal.
??!! Wow - if that's a scandal, volleyball is the cleanest sport in the world. Big-time soccer teams have indeed played a field player in goal. Baseball outfielders have pitched. Defensive linemen have kicked field goals. If you're an volleyball elite player, you can set too.
uakari wrote:no, you can't. not at that level. i'm sure they had a backup setter. they just threw the match.
Is it against the rules or some ethical thing?
Absolutely not. And absolutely yes, almost everyone on the team can and DOES set for each other quite often. The first pass is not always to the designated setter, and they do just fine with their sets.
uakari wrote:you're talking picnic VB, i'm talking Olympic VB. you don't use another player to set an entire match.
I am also talking Oly VB, where all the players are the best in the world and as such are versatile and well-rounded. The libero is not the only one digging. The outside hitters are not the only ones hitting.
uakari wrote:my point was, brazil threw a game, within the rules, to get an easier matchup later.
Indeed, and I think that's a legitimate part of gamesmanship.
dude, what part of what i'm saying you don't understand?
of course the libero will set his/her teammates when needed. the hitters will set their teammates when a play is broken. they also block and dig. so what? doesn't mean they can play setter for a whole match. a setter is a very specialized position. middle blockers and outside hitters can't play setter, just as a wide receiver can't play quarterback.
uakari wrote:dude, what part of what i'm saying you don't understand? . . . just as a wide receiver can't play quarterback.
The part where you give a fallacious analogy. ALL the players on the court MUST be able to play the other positions well; there's just too many times in EVERY game where they will be called on to do it all well: bump, set, hit. The wide receiver may be called on once a season to throw a pass.
dude, you don't know shit about volleyball. yes, when there's a broken play, an outside hitter or a middle blocker will set a high ball to a teammate. but they can't play as a setter: they can't set a back slide, a step out, or a quick set. setter is a very specialized position. the other positions certainly can't play as a setter for a whole match. that was my point.
don't tell me, any player can bump, set and attack the ball. that's your picnic volleyball game, not an olympic level one.
uakari wrote:dude, you don't know shit about volleyball. don't tell me, any player can bump, set and attack the ball. that's your picnic volleyball game, not an olympic level one.
Dismount! (Doesn't sitting on a horse that high give you a nose-bleed?!)
Played for 6 years on a US Navy team that played in the Southeast US Regional Championships, then coached for another 10 years, but yeah, other than that (and watching all the M&W USA Olympic matches every 4 years) I don't know the game. When I watch the 'real players' play, I see a whole lot of versatility in all the players. Karch Kiraly could set perfectly. So can Logan Tom.
'Meghan Vogel rounded the last corner of the last lap on a steamy day last spring and saw another runner struggling to stay upright.
Instead of running past her, Vogel grabbed Arden McMath and slung McMath's arm over her shoulder. Vogel dragged McMath those last 20 meters to the finish line, and once they got there, Vogel twisted McMath's body ahead of hers to make sure McMath crossed the line in front of her.'
Back on the topic of sportsmanship and the Olympics badminton disqualifications. Like many people I have vacilated back and forth on that one. That is, until I recalled what was drummed into us at my English Grammar School back in the 1950s:
"The important thing is not winning but playing the game."
Anthony Treacher wrote:Back on the topic of sportsmanship and the Olympics badminton disqualifications. Like many people I have vacilated back and forth on that one. That is, until I recalled what was drummed into us at my English Grammar School back in the 1950s:
"The important thing is not winning but playing the game."
Unless of course it was the Ashes...And the captain was an old Public School boy.
