http://www.tampabay.com/sports/basketba ... 977537.ece

The jist for you tl;dr crowd:

Basketball player's mom died after a 5 year fight with cancer. The team was going to cancel the game, but the player didn't want them to. He showed up midgame, and the team hugs him. Coach asks if he wants to join the team on the bench.

He said no, he came to play.

Except since he wasn't on the starting roster, it's a technical foul. It was argued for about 10 mins. but the refs were adamant.

So the other team intentionally missed the two shots, even though that might have made the difference between winning and losing.

_________________

That part kinda irks me =/ It's hard for me to be too harsh on the refs for trying to do their job, but that does seem like a bit of a lame rule.

It's in extenuating circumstances like this that you just have to give some props to the other team for doing that out of respect for that player and his ordeal.

I'm sure I know what you're referring to when you say they "Get it" but it's really an entirely different set of circumstances.

I'll do it anyway.

What the hell? I can't believe that coach didn't push his players to be the best they could be. Deliberately missing foul shots? Fuck that noise. They should be ashamed.

They're probably race-traitors too!

Fair points, Frib!

Under what set of circumstances are they playing their best?

They were playing their best. They just didn't take advantage of the other teams situation by attempting to get free points out of it.

Bullshit. Making those shots would not be "free." They would break no rules by doing it. In fact, by asking that student to miss on purpose, they are teaching those students that it is ok to do less than the best they can. This is unacceptable.

I think that coach should be fired for instructing his student to be easy on the other team. It even cost them the game.

So you would rather some kid learns that it's best to win at a high school basketball game than to be a good person?

It's high school, who gives a shit who wins the game. I honestly can't believe those words came out of your keyboard Fribur.

I do believe Fribur is being a bit sarcastic.

_________________

Austriana wins.

Go read the other thread, about another high school basketball team, that decided win at all costs was more important than being a good person. Notice what I wrote over there.

Then you shall understand.

There's a significant difference between facing an inferior team and playing poorly the entire game to just not hurt their feelings and expressing your feelings about a particular rule/call by missing the foul shots.

But we didn't agree at all on the other thread, and we won't here.

What's the difference?

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

There isn't really, only minor. The overall theme remains true. Apply the ridiculous arguments in that other thread to this situation, and you'll find yourself arguing that they should have tried to make the free throws. The coach not doing so is cheating the players out of their full potential, blah fucking blah.

But in both threads, the obvious is that there are much more important things than whether or not you won.

Sucking is not an extenuating circumstance, death typically is.

That said, if the other team had taken the throws I wouldn't have objected. It's the team's choice as to whether or not to allow circumstances to alter how they play. I don't think it matters whether a team is nice or not as long as they display good sportsmanship.

No, I wouldn't.

Maybe my line lies somewhere between the two situations. I dunno.

Reminds me again of when I played M:TG really seriously. I'd never "go easy" on someone in a competitive environment, but there were a few times when I cut people some slack on rulings and such when I didn't feel they were entirely fair.

Why are they different? Both situations boil down to one word, Sportsmanship.

That's it. That one word explains both situations. One team showed good sportsmanship, and one team didn't. Figure out which was which.

_________________
There is no such thing as right or wrong; only pleasure and pain.

If you don't see a difference, then discussion is pointless. We'll never agree with one another.

You're exaggerating. No one said the team in the first thread should have played poorly the entire time. They just said they shouldn't have blown the other team out of the water in such a spectacular fashion.

But if hyperbole is the only way you can "win" your argument, then go ahead. The rest of us will sit back and watch you spin things.

_________________

Yeah, that was SO MUCH hyperbole and spin. Right.

I think it's funny that the guys arguing for "sportsmanship" are the first ones to get all pissy about this issue. I said I'll just agree to disagree because discussion will be useless here. I think your opinion on it is every bit as valid as mine. Isn't that good enough?

No, because your opinion is dumb.

_________________

Allow me to reply to your assertion.

...ahem

no u r

Exactly. It's pretty hard to apply the same arguments of "play your best" when it's readily apparent that extenuating circumstances pre-empt it. That's like saying "Well it's important to go to work every day. It's the morning and you're about to get in your car, and your wife just died 5 minutes ago. /sarcastic statement: You better go to work." It doesn't quite work out.

Death is not only an extenuating circumstance, it's also something tragic that happened outside the game itself yet still had an impact on it. A situation of two teams of equal standing(same league, etc, obviously not same skill level) where one is simply not playing well is all within the expected boundaries of the game.

Yah...to use an example, when I was playing in competitive tournaments, anyone who sat down on the other side of the table was the enemy. Pure and simple, I was not going easy on that person, they willingly stepped into that arena with me, it's go time.

But there were more than a few situations where - for example - someone arrived late for a match. The judges would often give me the choice of taking a free win or playing the match out and I'd always choose to play the match out.

To me they're entirely different circumstances.

Here is where both of your arguments are flawed. These are High School Sports. These are not full grown adults who willingly entered into a Masters Chess Tournament, or tried out for the PGA Tour only to get heartbroken that they didn't make it when they had never played Golf seriously before.

The other game was a team of girls who hadn't won a game in four years, and didn't belong in the division they were playing in, yet were STUCK in that division for whatever stupid reason. They were kids who liked to play ball playing against people like you not because they said "Hey, let's go there and play those guys," but because the state said "Sorry, you're lumped in with these schools for your division."

That is not their choice. They can't go "Oh hey, we're not in the same league as the rest of this division, so let's switch" where as in the situations you are talking about someone stepped up to that level of competition knowing what was going to happen.

Also, if you'll recall, the girls from the other thread were developmentally challenged. Now, that's not to say they couldn't play basketball because of this (We had some LD kids in my school who could flat shoot. Two of them could nail 3's from just about anywhere), but it is to say that when the game was easily considered won by everyone the other coach could have shown sportsmanship and not run the score up.

Now I know "Oh that's different" except you look at the scoring per quarter to prove they didn't stop at 100 and you get: 35 1st Quarter, 24 2nd Quarter, 29 3rd Quarter, and 12 4th Quarter. Why only score 12 in that last quarter if you weren't intentionally being a dick? Why hold your players back then? Why score half the points of your 2nd lowest quarter? That says the 100 number was a statement, and was intentional. regardless of how subjective you feel it is, those numbers don't lie.

So, the losing team in that other game was forced with a bad situation. Play in a division they are badly outmatched in, or don't play. Then top that off with the other team using you to make a statement. But, yeah, I guess that is a totally different set of circumstances.

If you seriously don't understand what is wrong with a private school known for its basketball program (Which means that there are some girls on that team that went there solely for the chance to make it to college on a basketball scholarship and then go pro) running the score up to 100 exactly against a team of LD students is a bad thing then I don't know what to tell you.

_________________
There is no such thing as right or wrong; only pleasure and pain.

Oh, and since there's no edit, to prove my point about them being LD, this is taken from Dallas Academy's website.

---------------------------------------------
Our Mission: Dallas Academy restores the promise of full academic enrichment to students with learning differences. Our staff establishes a meaningful connection with each student to overcome barriers to success.

Dallas Academy offers a structured multisensory program for students with diagnosed learning differences in grades 3-12.
---------------------------------------------
Now, we don't know how bad these disabilities are, and I concede that, but from what I've read it seems that while they aren't severely handicapped, they do have issues that could range from minor to major. So, congratulations, you just more than likely used at least one girl with a decently major disability to make your point. That a different enough circumstance for you?

_________________
There is no such thing as right or wrong; only pleasure and pain.

We already covered the disabilities bit: Firstly my understanding is that not everyone in that academy is disabled, and that they deal with mostly minor disabilities.

Secondly, and more importantly, if they were disabled(and especially if it was obvious disability) it was even more important for them to play their best and not hold back. It's often considered an insult, especially to the disabled person in question, to "go easy" on them. Most disabled people that enter into a competitive sporting event want to be treated as an equal, and when you go easy on them because they have a disability, that's a serious insult.

And on the bit about it being High School, they still made the decision to join the team. It's well within their options to leave it if they want to. They should be able to expect that they've entered a competitive sport. And no doubt they were placed in the wrong division, but you play the cards you are dealt and the last thing you should expect is the other team to go easy on you because you had some shitty luck with division placement. Other teams have re-organized and re-doubled their efforts to become competitive against superior odds and succeeded, and this is their chance to do so.

View it as an opportunity to play against tough teams and improve, not a death sentence. And with that expectation in mind, losing 100-0 should not be demoralizing, but a chance to watch what the other team is doing and bolster your resolve to practice harder. Why would a team go easy in a situation where it's a 100-0 loss? Because someone might view it as an insult. Why is it an insult? Because it is within someone's perception that it's mockery. Eliminate that arbitrary perception and realize that the other team may take no offense whatsoever at the 100-0 loss and not view it as a mockery.

Course, that's part of why this argument is bound to go in circles - because we're relying on perception of what is and isn't mockery. Personally, I require a little more reasoning as to why it is a mockery than "just cuz". I think you at least have to have some intent there on the team's part, and unless you have a quote from one of their teammates saying "HAHA SUCKERS OWNED 100-ZIP" I don't think that's very provable, nor is it demonstratable via any evidence.

I don't care if they were disabled or not. It still just blows my mind that you guys could even see that score as just good playing. It's fucked up. Go watch high school basketball. See what happens when the score gets lopsided. See how teams put in their B-teams, stop pressing, and take their time going up the court. There is no way that team took their time going up the court and still scored 100 points, especially in girls basketball. No way. They shoved it down the other students' throats, over and over again. It's amazing to me that any of you could defend this.

Or, go watch what happens when it gets really really lopsided. If seen some really lopsided games. Know what happens? Things get really quiet. People on both sides start cheering when the losing team does something good. It's awkward, and just doesn't feel right, because despite all of you claiming otherwise, you get a gut feeling from everyone there that it isn't quite right-- that being a good human being is more important than fucking a team in the ass with a basketball.

There is no difference between this one and the other. Both are situations where students get the chance to show some class. In one instance, they did. In the other, they didn't.

God, not this back and forth again. ><

you brought it up.

I didn't post the thread!

I'd just like to say that these statements fall under my "just cuz" clause.

Also, I'm not sure if we should be judging whether something is right or wrong on the basis of whether a crowd is cheering or not.

It's still highly subjective. "Showing class" to me is both teams playing their best regardless of each opponent's skill level, barring unprecedented and things UNRELATED to the game, such as a teammate's loved one dying. Showing class to you is going easy on an inferior opponent at a certain point(100 points sounds like it's a sticking point for some, for others it appears to be 50 points). It's all about as arbitrary(for both sides, really) as it being considered rude to put one's elbows on the table during a meal.

That's why I'd agree with Bov in that it's probably worthwhile to agree to disagree on this one =D And I wouldn't say that often about many subjects, I tend to think it's possible to change someone's mind about something most of the time - though not always *likely*. This is one of those situations that we're verging on impossible =p

Have you ever been in a high school gym when there is a serious blowout going on? Or is your entire position based on theory?

What you call "just cuz" only appears that way because for the most part, can't really even conceive in my mind where you are coming from. It seems obvious on its face to me, like the distastefulness of cannibalism, or the clear superiority of ninjas over pirates.

As I said in the other thread I've played non-official-team skirmishes, none with any serious stand-filled crowds. I was in a few blowouts, one with me on the receiving end of said blowout.

If it's so obvious, then perhaps you can provide some logical reasoning as to why your version of "class" or "sportsmanship" is better than mine beyond "It's fucked up" - I know I can't say with certainty that mine is better, though I do feel that the idea of playing your best regardless of the current situation within the game(barring outside interference) carries more weight because it bypasses those arbitrary norms to an extent. As opposed to "it's awkward".

In that sense, I'd say I'm less arguing the case that my version provides more sportsmanship so much as I'm arguing there isn't a question of sportsmanship to begin with.

My only question is, "Why is X considered classy?". There's usually some kind of reason when we have norms like that. I said "sorry, excuse me" when I bumped into someone in the store *because* my action resulted in interfering with someone else's normal day. I said "please" when I asked a family member to pass the salt *because* I am trying to make a clear indication that it is a humble request, not a demand.

Those are obvious things, yet they also have obvious explanations as to why we do them. They also go beyond "just doesn't feel right". Where are yours for this question of "sportsmanship"?

I showed you why it is a mockery. They scored, per quarter: 35 1st Quarter, 24 2nd Quarter, 29 3rd Quarter, 12 4th Quarter. They STOPPED scoring when they hit EXACTLY 100. They didn't "play their best" the entire 4th Quarter as you claim. They QUIT when it was EXACTLY 100 to 0. It wasn't some random number, it wasn't some point during the early stages of the game where they said "Shit, we have this locked. Maybe we should give our bench team some time to play and practice and let the first string sit," and it wasn't like they did anythig other than press to exactly 100. They put the 1st string in, kept them there, and made them control the game and stop when the score hit precisely triple digits. The fact you can sit there and claim that it wasn't a mockery is beyond me, and the fact you can condone not giving your bench a shot at improving themselves is a good thing either.

If you guys are so strung up about improving these girls as a team, why didn't they? Why didn't they put their bench in to improve those girls? You can't answer that question because there is no answer other than they wanted to use that team to make a statement, and did.

_________________
There is no such thing as right or wrong; only pleasure and pain.

I responded to the "EXACTLY 100" argument in the other thread Uluth, to which you did not respond. Here it is for easy reference, and because it responds to the main points at hand:



And I'd still concede that they did not play their best. Nevertheless, that doesn't make it a mockery by itself. Flying up a banner at the end that says "I OWNED YOU" shows specific intent to mock(barring some type of joke). An arbitrary, yet somewhat significant number played to, does not.

I think the point about "their version of a 50 point-lead" is a relatively important one here. People seem to be a bit mixed on exactly what the number is by which it is acceptable to have a lead on a bad team. 20? 50? 100? What if they had just happened to stop EXACTLY at 50? Even 20? Would that have not been a mockery because the number didn't have 3 digits?

Intent needs to be determined, or at least be demonstrable.

And I again tell you that it isn't completely subjective when you break down the scoring by quarter. It was like saying "I'm going to beat you by (insert amount here)" and then doing it. That's the very definition of mocking your opponent.

Had they scored closer to what they did in every other quarter I could see your point. They didn't. They scored half of their already worst scoring quarter. That is intentional. Dallas Academy didn't suddenly learn to play defense in the 4th quarter. It doesn't work that way when the other team is obviously that much better than you.

_________________
There is no such thing as right or wrong; only pleasure and pain.

Bolding added by me. <3

Certainly it seems intentional, though we can't say for 100 percent we'll make the assumption here. How exactly do you determine that it's like saying "I'm going to beat you by X amount"? You're telling me it's impossible for a team to beat another team by 100 points just for the hell of it, with no ill desire but merely a desire to score more points for the sake of scoring?

That on top of the concept I spoke of with defining how many points is too many. If they decided that going beyond 100 was as rude, inconsiderate and unsportsman-like as you seem to think going beyond 20 or 50 is, who is to say that they did not do a noble thing by your own definition?

But again, you haven't really pointed to where the actual intention of mockery is.

That's just it...we went through this 100 times on the other thread, going back and forth while people just assumed that one team was mocking the other.

Nothing in any report of the event suggests this, and no one on either team has said or hinted at any mockery, taunting, insulting, intentional embarrassment, etc. The coach of the winning team did not feel there was anything of that sort, and the head of the school of the losing team (in my quote above) thinks it's no big deal either.

Yet it was just assumed that the winning team was somehow evil. 100% complete and total assumption. It was also assumed that the losing team was somehow horribly shamed and crushed or something, when again we really have nothing to point to that fact. It was a team that hadn't won a game in (at least) 4 years...I doubt they somehow had their hopes and dreams shattered by this loss.

There's just so much assuming, "I feel", "It seems like", "I think", stuff going on with this topic.

Most of your post is hyperbole, Bovinity.



But it's not it. The way they played the game was the mockery. It's been pointed out over and over again.



The game itself is the mockery. They didn't have to say a word.

You also make it sound like no one would care. If no one cared, the school would not have issued an apology. The fact that they did tells me as a school employee that there were certainly parents who called the school complaining, showing that people did indeed care. And finally, the fact that it was in the news shows that people cared about it. It wouldn't be news if no one cared.



Here's that hyperbole I was talking about. No one said anyone was "evil." No one said that the other team's "hopes and dreams were shattered."

I have to go teach now, so perhaps I'll continue later.

More assumptions.

You're assuming that just because the school said something that people complained.

You're assuming that just because something made the news (lol) that people complained.

So much assuming everywhere.

More than assume; I'm nearly positive of it. There was nothing to be gained by the apology unless people were complaining, period. If no one complained, there would be no reason to apologize. It's politics 101, sir. Assumption? Maybe. Right? Absolutely.



No-- that's not what I said. If it was no big deal and no one cared, then it would not have made the news. That's what I said. There is a difference, and it's an important one.

Um, no, that's not politics 101. It's just as likely to assume that this was a preemptive apology that really just blew up in their face by only bringing more attention to the matter.



That's another false assumption. Things make the news all the time that no one really cares about. News is as much about filling time with bullshit as it is about saying things people care about.

Example: The girl who made 35,000 texts in a month being all over the newspapers and TV. Does anyone give a shit? No. Why is it on the news? Just something new to fill the time with.

And honestly, what really made the news in the first place was the firing of the coach, not the score of the game.

All in all it's like the head of the school of the losing team said...people making a big deal over nothing. This is exactly the sort of issue that, frankly, would have been forgotten by the world the day after it happened. The only reason it's a "big deal" is that people are choosing to make a big deal about it.

A comment on the actual original post in this thread-

Good story. Doesn't happen every day, but when it does it really warms the heart- especially for those of us who are/were athletes and played team sports. Shows that sportsmanship is still alive and well.

One story that comes to my mind was that women's college softball game last year where the girl hits a home run to win the game for her team, but in doing so breaks her leg (or something to that effect). She had to cross home plate for the run to score, but was physically unable to. So two of the other team's players helped carry her around the field and helped her touch all the bases.

That is what sports is all about. That and the story in the original post. I would go find the espn.com link but I am too lazy to do so...

_________________

well thanks for that

_________________

I know I'll just get another, "It all falls under sportsmanship!" reply, but again....someone breaking a leg is an entirely different circumstance than someone just being bad at the game. If someone broke a leg while running for the end zone, I'd probably just say they had the touchdown, too.

You know, every time I see this topic, this is what I picture in my head:

_________________

"Embedding disabled by request."

FUCKING LAME.

_________________

God, you're *ALWAYS* failing at YouTube.

....oh, crap.

He's just an unfrozen caveman lawyer. Youtube frightens and confuses him.

I must thank you, Jox, for helping to entertain me during these last two hours at work.

What the fuck is that?? LOL

_________________

You don't know unfrozen caveman lawyer?!?!

Obviously not.

_________________

/pity

Ahh. That explains it. I'm not a big fan of SNL.

_________________