Should They Have Backed Off?

[Totenkindly]

Maybe this is more a philosophical, relational, or ethical question, but it's sports-related so....

A blowout women's basketball game between competing Christian high schools has people in a tizzy.

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 Covenant School say they are trying to do the right thing by seeking a forfeit and apologizing for the margin of victory.

"It is shameful and an embarrassment that this happened," Kyle Queal, the head of the school, said in a statement, adding the forfeit was requested because "a victory without honor is a great loss."

The private Christian school defeated Dallas Academy last week. Covenant was up 59-0 at halftime.

A parent who attended the game told The Associated Press that Covenant continued to make 3-pointers -- even in the fourth quarter. She praised the Covenant players but said spectators and an assistant coach were cheering wildly as their team edged closer to 100 points.

"I think the bad judgment was in the full-court press and the 3-point shots," said Renee Peloza, whose daughter plays for Dallas Academy. "At some point, they should have backed off." ..

What do you think?

Was it dishonorable for the leading team to press its advantage and not let up (as an ethical standard of excellence), or do you think that it would have been better to ease up and play on a lesser level out of a sense of compassion?

(Or are these two things not actually exclusive at all?)

 

[Anja]

Is this PC at it's most foolish? Or is it an attempt to introduce Christian principles into the pagan practice of sports?

*Wanders off in thought.*

 

[Totenkindly]

Definitely some of the latter (that's what routinely happens, real life is always subjected to the larger "Christian ethics" framework, whether or not that assimilation is an organic one)... I'm not sure how much of the former is involved but was curious to see what people thought.

 

[Jeffster]

I don't understand why you would even put a team on the court if they can't score a single basket in a game. I mean, full court press or not, ZERO points?

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't understand why you would even put a team on the court if they can't score a single basket in a game. I mean, full court press or not, ZERO points?

If you read the article, you'll see more info about the losing team that might explain some of this.

 

[Night]

It's just poor sportsmanship that misses the point of the exercise.

Typically, most kids who play in high school sports won't go on to play in college. As such, high school sports primarily function not as a means to better oneself athletically, but as a methodology to enhance effective group behavior towards the achievement of a goal. Things like resource management and territorial defense are instrumental skills to crystallize, for the service of things later in life vastly more important than intramural competition.

Is it wrong to be overzealous in victory? Maybe. As an ideal, this is not succinctly the issue at stake here -- merely a byproduct of broken focus. It's ultimately detrimental to the notion of group harmony if one's desire for victory overcomes their respect for their opponent's dignity in failure.

This shift in emphasis sets a misguided example for what team victory truly constitutes -- synergism of talent to accomplish a goal not possible on an individual level. Effective cooperation with diverse ability is an indelible part of being an adult.

The purpose of school is to provide instruction on how to succeed as an adult. Winning without thought for what it means to "win" pollutes this goal.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I think sportsmanship is about things like not cheating, not trying to injure an opponent, not grandstanding, and respecting the game. Not about tempering excellence.

Would it have been a kind thing to do to let off the throttle? Surely. But I don't think it makes them bad sports that they didn't. I didn't see any report that they taunted or showboated. It does bother me that they kept shooting threes a little, but there's another way to look at it. What if the winning school was involved in a tiebreaker based on total points? What if the winning school was close to a record for most points scored in a game?

In the end, competition is about trying your best. That's what we're always told. So I guess I'd say that the winning team wasn't very nice, but that sports do not require us to be nice, they require us to give our maximum effort and see how it measures up to that of our opponent.

 

[Jeffster]

If you read the article, you'll see more info about the losing team that might explain some of this.

Since when can I be bothered to read an entire article?

Makes me want to see a tape of the game, though. It sounds pretty entertaining.

 

[nottaprettygal]

I don't think compassion and hard work have to be mutually exclusive. While I think 100-0 is really running up the score, there is no reason why a team cannot play hard but still display good sportsmanship. I think there is honor in that victory.

The coaches cheering wildly from the sidelines is in poor taste though. They should be trying to teach a bit of humility to the players.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

This is like when I play basketball against my 3 and 4 year old female cousins. Do I take it easy on them? Hell no. I block nearly 99% of their shots, steal the ball from them constantly (when they're not getting called for traveling), foul or goal tend when I think it'll prevent them from scoring, and dribble over their heads. I think that's all part of trying to give them an opportunity to improve their game and give them a standard of excellence to strive for. It also exposes them to dirty tactics they'll experience on the court later, like charging and offensive fouls. I can't help it if I'm a natural teacher, y'know?

 

[Totenkindly]

I have mixed feelings.

When my eldest son was five, we would play checkers, and I would beat him each time. At that point, I wanted him to feel good about himself if he won, and I wanted to challenge him rather than creating a false sense of competence.

But sometimes the response for a child faced with such terrible odds is resignation and indifference, and I saw that happening. He responded a lot better when I played just above his skill level; it would leave him feeling as if he were improving (which he was) and encouraged him to try again and again, and feel good about how he was doing.

Eventually we reached days where I had to work hard to not lose.

And then came the day when I tried and still lost anyway.

So, speaking from a coach perspective, I think it's valuable to set goals appropriately, and it's not always the best approach long-term to just plow over the unskilled; most people seem to become demoralized rather than inspired to try harder.

However, this situation is a little different. The winning team is not comprised of coaches, they're compromised of those who are still being taught; so it's not their responsibility to make these decisions for the other team.

 

[Snoopy22]

They could not help that the team they were playing against was no good, to allow your players to play at a lesser level only helps to condition them to play at a lesser level in their next game.

 

[pippi]

From the description in the article it wasn't a game at all, more of a drill for the winning team, so I don't understand why anyone would complain about the score. I assume the losing team had the option of shaking hands and defaulting the game by walking off the court at any time, they stayed, the other team made baskets.

Would it have been less humiliating if the strong team had just spent the whole second half passing the ball around like a game of keep away? Should they have scored on their own basket and toyed with the other team? That would have been pretty silly and even more insulting I would think. The strong team was put in an impossible situation. The coach decided that practicing layups was better than goofing off, and now the coach is the bad guy. You can't please everyone.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Would it have been less humiliating if the strong team had just spent the whole second half passing the ball around like a game of keep away? Should they have scored on their own basket and toyed with the other team? That would have been pretty silly and even more insulting I would think.

Agreed. If getting beat 100-0 is more insulting to you than being pitied, then why are you playing sports? I think a lot of the blame here goes to the losing school for scheduling a game with the winning school. Put the kids in situations where they can compete.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Put the kids in situations where they can compete.

 

[iwakar]

Dallas Academy has eight girls on its varsity team and about 20 girls in its high school. It is winless over the last four seasons. The academy boasts of its small class sizes and specializes in teaching students struggling with "learning differences," such as short attention spans or dyslexia.

Anyone know the extent of the "learning differences" for the students from the losing team? This seems highly relevant to the discussion if their developmental(?) problems impair their ability to meet the challenges of their peers athletically and strategically.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Anyone know the extent of the "learning differences" for the students from the losing team? This seems highly relevant to the discussion if their developmental(?) problems impair their ability to meet the challenges of their peers athletically and strategically.

Another reason why the most compelling question here is not "Should they have run up the score?" but "Why was this game scheduled in the first place?"

 

[Totenkindly]

I'll guess the game was scheduled because the league isn't very big -- it sounds like it's all private Christian schools, maybe they're in a little Christian league with other Christian schools? And there just aren't many teams to begin with?

I dunno. You know how exclusive those sort of things can get, in terms of who plays with who.

 

[Nihilen]

I can see where they're coming from, since Christianity itself is based on pity, weakness, yielding, passivity and submissiveness.

So the losing team was simply "turning the other cheek" over and over again while unconditionally loving their opponent - which failed to notice these subtleties and kept mercilessly hitting them over and over again like only a sinful heathen would.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]