NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481854,00.html

DALLAS — A Texas high school girls basketball team on the winning end of a 100-0 game has a case of blowout remorse.

Now officials from the winning school say they are trying to do the right thing by seeking a forfeit and apologizing for the margin of victory.

A few questions:

1. Is winning everything in sport?
2. If your team sucks so badly that you're completely winless for four years, and get blown out 100-0, should you pick another sport where at least you look like you're actually playing?
3. If you're winning by a fantastic margin at the half, should you meet with the coach of the other team and call it done?
4. Do you believe in "mercy" rules - where the game is automatically called if the score margin exceeds a certain amount?
5. Shouldn't a private Christian academy know something about mercy?
6. If we permit a completely winless, scoreless team to continue to "compete", are we encouraging mediocrity?

In amateur competition? Sure, I believe in mercy rules and such. In professional competition? No; you're getting paid to not get blown out like that.

All the opponent has to do is stop them from scoring. If they can't, they lose.

While I'm not sure on the policy of requiring it (I could go either way), I think that it would certainly be a decent thing to offer the other team the chance to just call it quits, if they want to.

Weren't the other team 'special' students or someshit? If so, it's a bit off, but then the game probably shouldn't have been scheduled in the first place. Or scheduled as a friendly match or something.

Depends, my rugby team caused a few blowouts, we didn't want to but because we were close at the top of the leage and the tie-breaker was tries/points scored we had to keep running up the score or risk getting to the end of the season and lose the league for being too nice.

2. If your team sucks so badly that you're completely winless for four years, and get blown out 100-0, should you pick another sport where at least you look like you're actually playing?

I doubt most Detroit Lions players would be any better at basketball or baseball or such.

Yes, I'm joking, but I'm sure someone will take issue and post the Lions' stats anyway

Weren't the other team 'special' students or someshit? If so, it's a bit off, but then the game probably shouldn't have been scheduled in the first place. Or scheduled as a friendly match or something.

'Special', yes, but not incapable of playing basketball. (well, apparently they *are* incapable of playing basketball, but not necessarily so.) I agree that more scrimmages or 'friendly matches' would probably be a good way to go for a school with 20 girls enrolled.

From the article:


"Even if you are losing, you might as well keep playing," said Shelby Hyatt, a freshman on the team. "Keep trying, and it's going to be OK."

Peloza said the coach and other parents praised the Dallas Academy girls afterward for limiting Covenant to 12 points in the fourth quarter. She added that neither her daughter nor her teammates seemed to dwell on the loss.

"Somewhere during that game they got caught up in the moment," Peloza said of the Covenant players, fans and coaches. "Our girls just moved on. That's the happy part of the story."

The kids seem to be fine with it. I think the adults are the ones with the remorse here. I just don't get it.

I doubt most Detroit Lions players would be any better at basketball or baseball or such.

I heard Matt Millen just moved to Texas to turn that team around.

CALVIN JOHNSON IS A BEAST! 12 TD IN 2008!

All the opponent has to do is stop them from scoring. If they can't, they lose.

At the professional level, I agree with you completely. The game is played with the idea of scoring points. If you can't stop the opposition, you'll get blown out. However, 100-0 in basketball at the school level? Ridiculous. You get to 50-0 and you say, "we've proven you'll never score against us, let's call it".

It isn't as simple as "stop them from scoring". To be THAT lopsided, there had to be a colossal size/speed/skill mismatch. I'm pretty sure that with a score that uneven, you could have predicted it upon merely seeing the two teams.

Deliberately playing bad is both unethical and insulting to the opposing team. If it offends the officials so much, they should have arranged things so the teams are in different leagues.

For school level sports, yeah...have a point where you just call the game. While there is something to be said for finishing the game no matter how bad you are doing, it's still pretty...depressing.

For college, semi-pro and pro levels, no. Take your beating and figure out how to stop it from happening again. It's what you are there for.

Sorry, but: what? [And I've read and re-read the article: The losing team was not "special ed" in a "retarded" sense of the word, but dyslexics/ADS, which oughtn't diminish their basketball skills in any way.. right?]

I've been playing competitive (school) sports for the major part of my life, and I am completely at loss as to where the outrage is supposed to be.

People play ball. One side wins, one side loses. If the powers are exceptionally mismatched, one loses by a huge margin. If they keep up the bad performance, they'll drop down a league soon and will eventually get to play more well-matched teams. If you're already in the bottom league, you keep playing (and losing) at your own (emotional) risk and leisure.

I'm a strong supporter of sportsmanship. I've once brought a crucial loss upon myself when I corrected a referee's decision that went to my favor unwarrantedly and would have given me the game instead. I have absolutely no respect for gloating, booing, and any other form of disrespect for your opponent.

I don't feel that playing your best until the very end violates any sort of sportsmanship, and I'd never have thought that such things as "mercy rules" were even in existence. I've been socialized as to congratulate the winner on their good performance and win (if I'm the loser), and to thank the loser for a nice match and their sports/fighting spirit (if I'm the winner), but I cannot fathom apologizing for winning unless I've won by mere chance/luck in an otherwise balanced game.

A few questions:

1. Is winning everything in sport?

Yes. The bare bones of it all is a competition, to be the best.

2. If your team sucks so badly that you're completely winless for four years, and get blown out 100-0, should you pick another sport where at least you look like you're actually playing?

No, but perhaps playing in another league where your team would be more competitive is something to consider.

3. If you're winning by a fantastic margin at the half, should you meet with the coach of the other team and call it done?

No. It really should be up to the losing team to throw in the towel. Even then, should they? Yes it may hurt to lose by such a large margin, but that kind of shock shows the losing team the standard of play that is expected in order to be viable.

4. Do you believe in "mercy" rules - where the game is automatically called if the score margin exceeds a certain amount?

In lower levels of sport I don't really see a problem if both sides agree to calling the game, like high school sports and the like. But in professional level sports, the majors, minors and international sport don't really need a cap/mercy rule. When playing that level, it's playing against the best of the best and one may as well lose with the best.

5. Shouldn't a private Christian academy know something about mercy?

I've got no idea, don't know a damn thing about private Christian academy's and their take on sports and winning/losing.

6. If we permit a completely winless, scoreless team to continue to "compete", are we encouraging mediocrity?

No. In a tournament situation for example, the poor performing teams get canned early on and that's really the end of it. In fact allowing them to compete goes back to my previous point and shows the team what it really takes to be competitive at that level.

Thanks to the leagues, the mercy rule usually doesn't pop up. but I remember reading that in an old NES game (Baseball Stars, IIRC) the player could make lots of money by controlling two teams and having one throw balls until the walks make it 10-0. Similarly, in Wii sports, a lead of 5 points ends the baseball game.

If anyone cares. I've only deliberately played bad once, as I was playing a dice words game with an 8-year old one chanukah (his mother was watching). I claimed I couldn't see any words, as the only words I could see were SLUT and SLUTS... which, ironically, (1) he saw and (2) also allows LUST and LUSTS (which I would also deny knowledge of if I saw them).

I've been an umpire for Babe Ruth-level baseball games.

I think any "mercy rules" depend on the governing agency in the state. If Texas has a mercy rule, it should have been enforced.

I know that when I umpired games, I frequently called off games when it reached mercy rule levels.

I think if you're the winning team, you do everything in your power to win the game, but you don't go and try to show up the losing team if you're up by 59-0. According to one news account I read, the winning team was firing 3-pointers in the fourth quarter. That was long after the game had already been in doubt.

Playing sports at any level below major college athletics should be about much more than wins and losses. It should be about learning life lessons such as cooperation, teamwork and fairness. At least the losing team got that part of the lesson right.

I'm against the mercy rule in general, when applied to anything high school or above. For younger children, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, nobody likes to have their ass kicked, and prolonging it by keeping the game going is agonizing, but on the other hand, failure, even colossal failure, is a good way of determining who is quitting and who is trying to improve. if you lose 100-0 one game, then the next game you lose 100-2, take a look at who got that one basket. Encourage, and see where it leads. If they're truly sick of it, they'll stop playing.

Also, shame on the people trying to forfeit the winning team's victory. They were out there playing for an hour, they made those baskets, it's up to THEM to make an apology, if they truly feel they should be sorry for being the better team.

Ideally the winning team tries to create challenges for itself. My rugby team used to surreptitiously remove players from the game (much easier to do with a team of 15 than of 5 admittedly). But then play out of position or try really complicated and hard ways of scoring. Kept us interested and challenged. and kept the score down.

For younger children, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, nobody likes to have their ass kicked, and prolonging it by keeping the game going is agonizing, but on the other hand, failure, even colossal failure, is a good way of determining who is quitting and who is trying to improve. if you lose 100-0 one game, then the next game you lose 100-2, take a look at who got that one basket. Encourage, and see where it leads. If they're truly sick of it, they'll stop playing.
Kids are competing, but there's also a fun element to it. A team gets blown out regularly and the kids stop playing fairly soon, either quit altogether (if they're not enjoying it why stay?) or move teams. Kids Leagues have a duty to try and keep as many kids in them enjoying and playing the game.

I blame the coaches. Running the full court press into the 4th quarter? Yeah, oops, I guess things "got out of hand." Asshole.

I doubt most Detroit Lions players would be any better at basketball or baseball or such.
Ouch!