Though they won by a big margin, the fact that they played the best game they could and then did what they did when the game was over shows ya' what that sportsmanship stuff is all about.
This made me smile, thanks
Linky.
Though they won by a big margin, the fact that they played the best game they could and then did what they did when the game was over shows ya' what that sportsmanship stuff is all about.
So while the match itself may have seemed like piling on, it should be pointed out that the U.S. team didn't pander to their Haitian counterparts, instead showing them the respect of playing hard the whole game before sharing their true feelings and consolations after the final whistle. And these young Haitian girls will hopefully go back knowing that they're not alone.
-the article.
Good job girls. Really good job. This is what sportsmanship is about folks.
(This is also why I believe in playing to Win and for the love of the game. You don't insult your opponent by pandering to them and making the game seem closer than it was)
PS guys if you still want to feel warm and fuzzy after reading this do NOT read the comments.
Isn't that always the case?
I mean come on, how do you talk smack after shutting out a team whose homeland was devastated by a natural disaster that will likely take them at least a decade to recover from? Not that it can't be done, but even if the U.S. team were hypercompetitive a$$holes I don't think they be shouting stuff like "your skills are flimsier than your houses".
Out-of-Character:
Good on those girls; such sportsmanship is uncommonly seen these days it seems. Those anonymous buggers should pike off since they seem to think poking fun of a "women's" team is humorous (especially that one that was borderline racist)...
Ok, it is a good example of sportsmanship; but some of that was a pity hug and we all know it.
I mean come on, how do you talk smack after shutting out a team whose homeland was devastated by a natural disaster that will likely take them at least a decade to recover from? Not that it can't be done, but even if the U.S. team were hypercompetitive a$$holes I don't think they be shouting stuff like "your skills are flimsier than your houses".
Right, cause we wouldn't want to give these young women any credit for treating their opponents with both respect and compassion. That would be Un-American.
Ok, it is a good example of sportsmanship; but some of that was a pity hug and we all know it.
I mean come on, how do you talk smack after shutting out a team whose homeland was devastated by a natural disaster that will likely take them at least a decade to recover from? Not that it can't be done, but even if the U.S. team were hypercompetitive a$$holes I don't think they be shouting stuff like "your skills are flimsier than your houses".
Right, cause we wouldn't want to give these young women any credit for treating their opponents with both respect and compassion. That would be Un-American.
Back off the sarcasm pedal, and don't put words in my mouth. I never said respect and compassion were un-American. I also didn't say the U.S. team weren't good sports, or that they weren't motivated by a sense of cameraderie and sportsmanship. Cameraderie and sportsmanship however don't preclude them from feeling empathy for their opponents' significant trouble at home.
Empathy =/= pity.
That's very correct, empathy is not pity. Empathy is the cause of pity. Pity is defined as: "a feeling of sorrow for the troubles and sufferings of others; compassion." according to the Chamber's 21 Century Dictionary, page 1057.
The world needs more respect, compassion, and sportsmanship. And lot less of the assumption that such behavior only comes about as a result of the lack of opportunity to be a douche. Of course, we always tend to subscribe our own motivations to others, so maybe that's the source of our disagreement.
At the end of a series of universally positive posts congratulating the American under 17 girls soccer team for a display of both skill and compassion, you felt the need to interject that, no, it wasn't those things, it was just as likely to be pity and the awareness that even 'hypercompetitive a$$holes" wouldn't be able to talk smack in that situation.
The world needs more respect, compassion, and sportsmanship. And lot less of the assumption that such behavior only comes about as a result of the lack of opportunity to be a douche. Of course, we always tend to subscribe our own motivations to others, so maybe that's the source of our disagreement.
Or it's most likely the fact that you missed the part where I said that some of their motivation was likely based in pity. People are simultaneously very simple and pretty complex from a psychological standpoint; and more than capable of having multiple motivations to do a thing.
Also note that while I said hypercompetitive persons wouldn't likely talk smack to a team whose homeland has been devastated; it in no way states that such persons would hug the other team. If someone is so competitive that they can't let it go after the match is over, which seems to me to be the root of smack talking, they are not likely to hug the other team even if they would feel socially awkward when being mean to them.
Furthermore, name calling (however thinly-veiled it is) is not an effective arguing strategy. Not only doesn't it get your point across, it actually tends to harden the resolve of the person you targeted; and it can sway the opinion of others against you and your argument. Just a suggestion for any further debate you engage in.
...Not only doesn't it get your point across....
Apparently I got my point across just fine.... But thanks for the advice and concern.
To return the favor, the next time you see people being congratulated for behaving in an exemplary manner, maybe you won't be quite so quick to attribute their behavior to a lack of opportunity to behave otherwise. Otherwise, people might reach the conclusion that your disregard for the goodness in others is a reflection of the lack of goodness in yourself.
...Not only doesn't it get your point across....
Apparently I got my point across just fine.... But thanks for the advice and concern.
To return the favor, the next time you see people being congratulated for behaving in an exemplary manner, maybe you won't be quite so quick to attribute their behavior to a lack of opportunity to behave otherwise. Otherwise, people might reach the conclusion that your disregard for the goodness in others is a reflection of the lack of goodness in yourself.
Judging others is bad manners and reflects badly on those who raised you. That you have done it twice now is surely a discredit to your elders. Please take care not to further shame them with comments that claim to know the true nature of others whom you haven't even met face to face.
Classy.
Of course, I guess that's what I deserve for trying to be polite and give you the last word. I'll know better next time. I guess I ought to go back and see what other changes you've made to your posts to try and make yourself look like less of a better.
Nah. Not really worth it.
On a final note: Getting back to the OP, I love underage girls who play soccer! Ooops, wait, no...that doesn't sound right...uh...I love underage girls who hug other underage girls! Ummm, no, that's not right either...umm...Good job young ladies! Keep it up! ... Damnit! Stop looking at me that way! You know what I mean!
Okay, how about, "What we need is more sportsmanship, good behavior both on and off the field, and more girls comforting each other in public!"
*thoughtful pause*
Crap!
Okay, how about, "What we need is more sportsmanship, good behavior both on and off the field...
That much, I believe we can all agree on.
"your skills are flimsier than your houses".
Nice.
Traditional shirt exchange.
;)
At the end of a series of universally positive posts congratulating the American under 17 girls soccer team for a display of both skill and compassion, you felt the need to interject that, no, it wasn't those things, it was just as likely to be pity and the awareness that even 'hypercompetitive a$$holes" wouldn't be able to talk smack in that situation.
The world needs more respect, compassion, and sportsmanship. And lot less of the assumption that such behavior only comes about as a result of the lack of opportunity to be a douche. Of course, we always tend to subscribe our own motivations to others, so maybe that's the source of our disagreement.
What the **** are you talking about? This was probably the most prime, epic opportunity for doucheness they have/will ever come upon in their lives. They could have droped the douche mountain on them.
Where is that other thread.... you know the one. 'bout sportsman ship and how it's wrong to keep scoring when you know you already know you are going to win?
Found em!
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
The winning team also was using full-court defense into the 4th quarter with a huge lead (they had 59 at the half) against a goose-egg. They would steal the ball before it made it to half-court and then score, rinse, repeat. In the fourth quarter with an 80+ point lead. They also continued to shoot 3s in the fourth. With an 80+ point lead. While they were doing this, the coaches and assistants cheered loudly the nearer the team got to 100. With an 80+ point lead. Look, I'm all for having losers at T-ball games and only giving the pizza or ice cream to the winning team, but this is waaaaay too much. They could have stopped playing after the 3rd and still won. Instead, they rack up a c-note and force a shut-out
If everybody can see you are going to hit the win condition, and you know it, and your opponent knows it, but you still have to play for an hour... it might just mean there's a rule missing for an alternative win condition.
(What I'm saying is; maybe the game needs to be won then and there when someone hits an unbeatable advantage; like in the post above; instead of dragging on for really no good reason)
Where is that other thread.... you know the one. 'bout sportsman ship and how it's wrong to keep scoring when you know you already know you are going to win?
Found em!
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...The winning team also was using full-court defense into the 4th quarter with a huge lead (they had 59 at the half) against a goose-egg. They would steal the ball before it made it to half-court and then score, rinse, repeat. In the fourth quarter with an 80+ point lead. They also continued to shoot 3s in the fourth. With an 80+ point lead. While they were doing this, the coaches and assistants cheered loudly the nearer the team got to 100. With an 80+ point lead. Look, I'm all for having losers at T-ball games and only giving the pizza or ice cream to the winning team, but this is waaaaay too much. They could have stopped playing after the 3rd and still won. Instead, they rack up a c-note and force a shut-out
I knew one of you tools would go and look for this when I posted the new thread.
The girls soccer team simply played the game. They didn't pull punches but they also didn't work their opponents as hard as they could. If you outclass an opponent, you can play your best and win without resorting to doing your damndest to murder them. The basketball team used tactics that they never would have used in a competitive game (constant full court defense) against an obviously inferior foe. It wasn't that they won or what the score was, it was how they won. They could have easily played the game in a normal fashion and annihilated that team. They chose to go the extra mile and embarrass them.
Here's another thing to look at: How often do you see a shutout in soccer? How about basketball? Two very, very different things.
In other words, I have different opinions about these matters because they're two different situations. It's not the same winning 9-0 in soccer and 100-0 in basketball. The girls soccer team was trying to win their game. It's obvious from the articles about the basketball team, however, that they weren't concerned with winning. They were concerned with hitting triple digits and pitching a shut out. In one case, the people doing the winning were being tools. On purpose, too. In the other, they simply didn't play down out of pity. One is good sportsmanship and the other is not. See? Two different scenarios!
While mercy rules are fine if you are playing at a low level (especially if you are still teaching the game), they should never be used for real competition. This is a primarily reason the World Baseball Classic is a sham.
I disagree with "mercy rules" where you call the game after a point where it has been determined the losing team cannot come back. Someone would need to set what that point would be and that would be up to great debate.
While mercy rules are fine if you are playing at a low level (especially if you are still teaching the game), they should never be used for real competition. This is a primarily reason the World Baseball Classic is a sham.
They also do a major disservice to the loser. I mean, it sucks to lose like that, but it's still practice.
These games aren't (well... shouldn't be) high score runs. Their goal is to determine, between two teams, which is the stronger. Once you know which one is stronger; why bother to continue playing for another hour? Your goal is met, isn't it?
Aren't teams allowed to forfeit the game if they feel they've already lost?
Also, there's always a possibility for comebacks and as Zombie_Babies said, practice. Teams come back from normally considered insurmountable disadvantages.
Although Klirshon's point about forfeiting the game might work better for some of those games; once the players know they've lost, they should just end the game. There's no real point in continuing at that point.
There's a point where you should compete to win, gain experience, have some pride in yourself, have respect for your opponent, etc.
And then there's a point where you simply stand no chance.
I don't compete to quit. But when I'm getting my ass handed to me and have no hope of winning, I'm not competing either. Competing requires both sides to have at least some chance of winning.
Say what you want, but giant "26:0" is going to look impressive in the news ;)
The girls soccer team simply played the game. They didn't pull punches but they also didn't work their opponents as hard as they could. If you outclass an opponent, you can play your best and win without resorting to doing your damndest to murder them. The basketball team used tactics that they never would have used in a competitive game (constant full court defense) against an obviously inferior foe.
And competition is competition so long as you're doing your best.
In soviet russia, foot shoots you!
If you are not doing your best, your not doing your best. If your not doing your best, your not competing. Your own words make it clear that, if your 'not doing your damndest to murder them' then you quit, and are disrespecting the competition.
In soviet russia, foot shoots you!
If you are not doing your best, your not doing your best. If your not doing your best, your not competing. Your own words make it clear that, if your 'not doing your damndest to murder them' then you quit, and are disrespecting the competition.
*sigh*
I'll try once more, ok? There is a difference you're either missing or refusing to see. That difference, specifically, is between playing your best and playing in a way you would not play an opponent of equal skill. The soccer gals played their best and that was that. The basketball team played their best and then went out of their way to use the lesser team to achieve irrelevant goals. They played them in a way they would not have played a better team. See the difference? You can play your best and that's it or you can play your best and be a d-bag. See?
In soviet russia, foot shoots you!
If you are not doing your best, your not doing your best. If your not doing your best, your not competing. Your own words make it clear that, if your 'not doing your damndest to murder them' then you quit, and are disrespecting the competition.
*sigh*
I'll try once more, ok? There is a difference you're either missing or refusing to see. That difference, specifically, is between playing your best and playing in a way you would not play an opponent of equal skill. The soccer gals played their best and that was that. The basketball team played their best and then went out of their way to use the lesser team to achieve irrelevant goals. They played them in a way they would not have played a better team. See the difference? You can play your best and that's it or you can play your best and be a d-bag. See?
Is the goal not to score as many points as you can while preventing your opponent from doing the same? If your opponent has no offense, what is better: A)to decrease your defense and put that effort into offense, B)increase your defense for no reason and ignore your offense (basically just trapping them in the corner and taunting), or C)give up (stop trying and put in your third string players because, hey, it dosn't matter anyways)?
I'd say the second option is being a d-bag, the third option is disrepectfull but sensible. The first option is simply playing the game.
Is the goal not to score as many points as you can while preventing your opponent from doing the same? If your opponent has no offense, what is better: A)to decrease your defense and put that effort into offense, B)increase your defense for no reason and ignore your offense (basically just trapping them in the corner and taunting), or C)give up (stop trying and put in your third string players because, hey, it dosn't matter anyways)?
I'd say the second option is being a d-bag, the third option is disrepectfull but sensible. The first option is simply playing the game.
The answer is to play the game the same way you'd play against a more difficult opponent. The soccer gals did, the basketball boys did not. They began playing in a way that they'd never play against a tougher opponent. That's where the disrespect comes into play and where it becomes an entirely different situation.
Theoretically, especially in high competition, there should be nothing wrong with beating teams into oblivion, but I think I do get annoyed when teams (like the Patriots) run up scores. At that level, hard feelings shouldn't come into consideration, but I guess it just seems classless to me.
I guess I'm just of the school where you either take out your starters (and if the backups slaughter the other team, then that's okay) or control the game to prevent scoring chances (for either side). So if the soccer girls had their backups score the points, then I think its fine. Otherwise, 9-0 seems a little bit excessive.
Zombie_Babies, I think I agree with you, but there's something. Isn't part of the game strategy. If you know certain tactics work against certain opponents, then shouldn't you employ them? Not employing them could be the same as not playing hard.
Theoretically, especially in high competition, there should be nothing wrong with beating teams into oblivion, but I think I do get annoyed when teams (like the Patriots) run up scores. At that level, hard feelings shouldn't come into consideration, but I guess it just seems classless to me.
I guess I'm just of the school where you either take out your starters (and if the backups slaughter the other team, then that's okay) or control the game to prevent scoring chances (for either side). So if the soccer girls had their backups score the points, then I think its fine. Otherwise, 9-0 seems a little bit excessive.
I believe in Face Trouncing someone. If I'm playing my hardest through and through and my opponent isn't it's insulting to me. If I'm owning someone's face off, I'm not going to let up to let it seem "equal" or even "comparable".
I want to give the other team or other player incentive to try harder next time. I want to know how hard I have to practice in order to be on that level, or I want them to know that they need alot more practice. Because the next time and my opponent meet, if he went easy on me and I only practiced up to the level he was playing down at, he's just going to ratchet the game up another level and Handedly beat me again.
And vice versa.
Let alone the whole I find it insulting thing. The same applies to racing. I don't want someone to hold back.
That basketball team incident was a group of Special Ed kids against a State champs level team. That was wrong for entirely other reasons that had nothing to do with the game being played. (And really if that team, had any moral fiber they would have refused playing that team) That'd be tantamount to sticking me in an F1 car and into a race and expecting me to win or even do well.
Also, sportsmanship comes in, with how you conduct yourself before, during and after the game. Be generous in Victory, treat your opponent with Respect and lose with grace. That's sportsmanship.
If I'm playing my hardest through and through and my opponent isn't it's insulting to me.
Agreed. This happened to me Thursday night at fencing class. The guy I was fencing literally let me have a touch because the match was 3-0 at the time. All I could think was "I don't want pity points. I want to earn them." There was also a string of curses attached that have been edited out for the sake of decency.
I want to give the other team or other player incentive to try harder next time.
Ahh, encouragment through humiliation. How very...enlightened of you.
That basketball team incident was a group of Special Ed kids against a State champs level team. That was wrong for entirely other reasons that had nothing to do with the game being played. (And really if that team, had any moral fiber they would have refused playing that team) That'd be tantamount to sticking me in an F1 car and into a race and expecting me to win or even do well.
They were not "Special Ed kids." Dyslexia and ADHD are a far cry from Down's syndrome and wheelchairs.
Also, sportsmanship comes in, with how you conduct yourself before, during and after the game. Be generous in Victory, treat your opponent with Respect and lose with grace. That's sportsmanship.
And one of the ways that sportsmanship manifests itself is in not seeking to humiliate your opponent. When you have someone at your mercy is when character and sportsmanship come into play. How you behave when there is nothing stopping you from behaving anyway you want is a true measure of the quality of one's character.
At least I'm not being humiliated by my opponent who is obviously pulling punches, and not captialzing what so ever on opportunities. I would much rather walk away knowing that they put their best effort into it than "well it was a close game" when it Obviously, was not. If I get against someone that could either 7-0 me in a BO7, or they lap me twice in a race I wouldn't want them either letting me get 3 out of 7, or only winning by a handful of seconds.
Because that sort of play is going to be Pretty Damn Obvious, and it's humiliating. For both me and my opponent.
Just because you got beat soundly doesn't mean you are being humiliated. If your ego is that sensitive you probably shouldn't be in Competive Anything. Because the asswhupping is going to happen. Everyone goes through a Blowout. But frankly you learn the most from Blowouts. You don't learn much from "close games", either about yourself and your abilities or your opponents.
I would much prefer my opponent Respect me enough to play or race at his or her Best.
@Mecha, there is a big difference between 3-0 and 100-0.
That comment is a bit specious. 5 points is the maximum score in a fencing bout. The bout is over when one person gets 5 touches. As far as I'm aware, there is no maximum score in soccer; with the game being called after the specified time is elapsed. Had I been fencing for a pre-specified amount of time, instead of points, your comment would be an appropriate comparison.