[hide=]

[hide=]

to everyone saying this isnt a bad thing

 

 

 

there is a difference between ensuring a good margin of victory and being a total jerk about it. A 100 point margin in basketball is a ridiculous disgrace. It would be one thing if they had won this by say 50 points but to keep scoring after there is no way the other team can even come close to catching up is pathetic. Seriously, you dont see anything wrong in winning any sport by that kind of margin? edit--just to be clear, Im not saying they had to give the other team a chance of winning, but they should have shown the respect to stop shooting after a certain point.

 

 

 

on the actual story

 

 

 

I believe the same thing happened in my area, but the coach quickly apologized avoiding a firing etc.. I thought the coaches statement that his girls played honorably is hilarious, its pretty easy to just stop shooting in basketball

 

 

 

You are a pathetic disgrace if I may say so. To stop shooting the basketball, to stop playing to your full capacity, and to show mercy to another team is a sign of piss poor sportsmanship in my books. To play underneath their level is a slap in the losing team's face, and just basically mocking the fact that the suck. If I was on a losing end of a game, I would NEVER want my opponents to let up. Because at the point in which they start giving any mercy, then any scores my team puts up doesn't amount to squat.

 

 

 

Good sportsmanship is to play the game from tip off to the last buzzer with pride, dignity and giving it 100% all the way through. Piss poor sportsmanship is the other team or anyone else expecting the victors to lay off just because they are winning.

[/hide]

 

 

 

you wouldnt say that if you were losing a game 100-0.

 

 

 

I already had this argument earlier on this thread, its one thing to just stop shooting and mess with the team, the ethics of that is debateable. It is in the spirit of competition to put in your worst players and have them play their best game so the other team doesnt feel like they are being crushed for an hour.

 

 

 

Actually it would be pretty insulting for them to stop trying their best. They might aswell say "We're that much better than you, we're going to play piss poor in order to give you a chance at a comeback since you're that pathetic we don't even need to try."

[/hide]

 

 

 

I already said whether or not you believe in continuing scoring is an agree to disagree thing

 

 

 

what Im saying is they should have played their second or third string players. Would you rather spend the second half of a game getting dominated some more or play an even half against the opponents jv?

[hide=]

[hide=]

to everyone saying this isnt a bad thing

 

 

 

there is a difference between ensuring a good margin of victory and being a total jerk about it. A 100 point margin in basketball is a ridiculous disgrace. It would be one thing if they had won this by say 50 points but to keep scoring after there is no way the other team can even come close to catching up is pathetic. Seriously, you dont see anything wrong in winning any sport by that kind of margin? edit--just to be clear, Im not saying they had to give the other team a chance of winning, but they should have shown the respect to stop shooting after a certain point.

 

 

 

on the actual story

 

 

 

I believe the same thing happened in my area, but the coach quickly apologized avoiding a firing etc.. I thought the coaches statement that his girls played honorably is hilarious, its pretty easy to just stop shooting in basketball

 

 

 

You are a pathetic disgrace if I may say so. To stop shooting the basketball, to stop playing to your full capacity, and to show mercy to another team is a sign of piss poor sportsmanship in my books. To play underneath their level is a slap in the losing team's face, and just basically mocking the fact that the suck. If I was on a losing end of a game, I would NEVER want my opponents to let up. Because at the point in which they start giving any mercy, then any scores my team puts up doesn't amount to squat.

 

 

 

Good sportsmanship is to play the game from tip off to the last buzzer with pride, dignity and giving it 100% all the way through. Piss poor sportsmanship is the other team or anyone else expecting the victors to lay off just because they are winning.

[/hide]

 

 

 

you wouldnt say that if you were losing a game 100-0.

 

 

 

I already had this argument earlier on this thread, its one thing to just stop shooting and mess with the team, the ethics of that is debateable. It is in the spirit of competition to put in your worst players and have them play their best game so the other team doesnt feel like they are being crushed for an hour.

 

 

 

Actually it would be pretty insulting for them to stop trying their best. They might aswell say "We're that much better than you, we're going to play piss poor in order to give you a chance at a comeback since you're that pathetic we don't even need to try."

[/hide]

 

 

 

I already said whether or not you believe in continuing scoring is an agree to disagree thing

 

 

 

what Im saying is they should have played their second or third string players. Would you rather spend the second half of a game getting dominated some more or play an even half against the opponents jv?

 

 

 

 

 

Either way, it is a slap in the face. To put in your "lesser" players is still an insult in the same way as it is to stop playing the way you are taught to play, with 100% effort. The other team, in a losing effort, still decided to give it 100%. The winning team deciding to "take it easy" would be defeating the spirit of competition.

 

 

 

And if I was on the losing side, I would still want to play against their best. I would NEVER want to play against 2nd or 3rd string when their best players are still capable of playing.

Either way, it is a slap in the face. To put in your "lesser" players is still an insult in the same way as it is to stop playing the way you are taught to play, with 100% effort. The other team, in a losing effort, still decided to give it 100%. The winning team deciding to "take it easy" would be defeating the spirit of competition.

 

 

 

And if I was on the losing side, I would still want to play against their best. I would NEVER want to play against 2nd or 3rd string when their best players are still capable of playing.

 

 

 

Have you ever played a sport or watched professional competition? If you did you'd know that when a team is winning so comfortably the coach will most likely sub out the better players for less experienced players to give them more game time AND to rest key players so that they're less likely to get injured.

Either way, it is a slap in the face. To put in your "lesser" players is still an insult in the same way as it is to stop playing the way you are taught to play, with 100% effort. The other team, in a losing effort, still decided to give it 100%. The winning team deciding to "take it easy" would be defeating the spirit of competition.

 

 

 

And if I was on the losing side, I would still want to play against their best. I would NEVER want to play against 2nd or 3rd string when their best players are still capable of playing.

 

 

 

Have you ever played a sport or watched professional competition? If you did you'd know that when a team is winning so comfortably the coach will most likely sub out the better players for less experienced players to give them more game time AND to rest key players so that they're less likely to get injured.

 

 

 

Actually now that you bring it to light, I have been living under a rock and have no idea whatsoever about sports and athletics.

 

 

 

Let's talk about professional sports. Professional sports is a business. Once it becomes a business, sportsmanship is no longer anything of free will, but a policy enforced by penalties and fines, ie the the T.O. autograph football "scandal" excessive celebration penalties and oh no, the unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. Professional sports is also a business and any business protects their "investments". You site that coaches takes their star players out of games when they are cruising to a win. And now tell me this, when was the last time there was any real sportsmanlike conduct within professional sports? Athletes are taking enhancement drugs to get an unfair advantage. Players are using techniques that hasten the end of careers.

 

 

 

Back on topic.....

 

Anything short of playing and giving 100% is an insult to your opponent.

Either way, it is a slap in the face. To put in your "lesser" players is still an insult in the same way as it is to stop playing the way you are taught to play, with 100% effort. The other team, in a losing effort, still decided to give it 100%. The winning team deciding to "take it easy" would be defeating the spirit of competition.

 

 

 

And if I was on the losing side, I would still want to play against their best. I would NEVER want to play against 2nd or 3rd string when their best players are still capable of playing.

 

 

 

Have you ever played a sport or watched professional competition? If you did you'd know that when a team is winning so comfortably the coach will most likely sub out the better players for less experienced players to give them more game time AND to rest key players so that they're less likely to get injured.

 

 

 

Actually now that you bring it to light, I have been living under a rock and have no idea whatsoever about sports and athletics.

 

 

 

Let's talk about professional sports. Professional sports is a business. Once it becomes a business, sportsmanship is no longer anything of free will, but a policy enforced by penalties and fines, ie the the T.O. autograph football "scandal" excessive celebration penalties and oh no, the unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. Professional sports is also a business and any business protects their "investments". You site that coaches takes their star players out of games when they are cruising to a win. And now tell me this, when was the last time there was any real sportsmanlike conduct within professional sports? Athletes are taking enhancement drugs to get an unfair advantage. Players are using techniques that hasten the end of careers.

 

 

 

Back on topic.....

 

Anything short of playing and giving 100% is an insult to your opponent.

 

 

 

And again, these are high school kids. For one thing, it's unfair to the lower string players on the winning team who had a chance to play and contribute to their amazing victory but instead got to rot on the bench the whole game. In high school sports the kids are not taking drugs or cheating to get by. Sportsmanship is encourage and enforced at all levels. The entire idea of high school athletic competition is to teach sportsmanship first, then have competition. It's a shame (and a sham) that people treat these kids like the game matters more than the education.

THIS IS NOW A REQUIREMENT FOR EVERYONE POSTING ON THIS THREAD. YOU ARE TO SAY WHAT TEAM SPORTS YOU HAVE PLAYED IN YOUR LIFE, AND FOR HOW LONG YOU HAVE PLAYED THEM. IF YOU DO NOT, I, AND MOST LIKELY EVERYONE ELSE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUR POST IS MERELY GIBBERISH COMING FROM THE MOUTH OF AN UNQUALIFIED FOOL.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

Right, soccer, ten years. Track, two years. Basketball, two years. Tennis, five years. Gymnastics, three years. There. Not that hard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually now that you bring it to light, I have been living under a rock and have no idea whatsoever about sports and athletics.

 

 

 

Anything short of playing and giving 100% is an insult to your opponent.

 

And destroying them 100-0 isn't? What purpose does it serve to go all out when both teams know that it would require the winning team becoming cones for there to be any chance of a turn-around?

THIS IS NOW A REQUIREMENT FOR EVERYONE POSTING ON THIS THREAD. YOU ARE TO SAY WHAT TEAM SPORTS YOU HAVE PLAYED IN YOUR LIFE, AND FOR HOW LONG YOU HAVE PLAYED THEM. IF YOU DO NOT, I, AND MOST LIKELY EVERYONE ELSE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUR POST IS MERELY GIBBERISH COMING FROM THE MOUTH OF AN UNQUALIFIED FOOL.

 

 

 

Or how about this instead:

 

 

 

If you were nominated for being one of the most argumentative TIFer's then and only then can you argue on TIF, but if not, then you are not qualified. See how ridiculous it sounds? (And arrogant at the same time?)

 

 

 

I usually tend to stay away from bringing up logical fallacies, but there have been numerous times when students correct their own teachers. Your position doesn't automatically imply that you are going to be right. Take a look at Leonardo da Vinci. He became a better painter than his own master - even though he was in a lower position than him.

THIS IS NOW A REQUIREMENT FOR EVERYONE POSTING ON THIS THREAD. YOU ARE TO SAY WHAT TEAM SPORTS YOU HAVE PLAYED IN YOUR LIFE, AND FOR HOW LONG YOU HAVE PLAYED THEM. IF YOU DO NOT, I, AND MOST LIKELY EVERYONE ELSE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUR POST IS MERELY GIBBERISH COMING FROM THE MOUTH OF AN UNQUALIFIED FOOL.

 

 

 

Or how about this instead:

 

 

 

If you were nominated for being one of the most argumentative TIFer's then and only then can you argue on TIF, but if not, then you are not qualified. See how ridiculous it sounds? (And arrogant at the same time?)

 

 

 

I usually tend to stay away from bringing up logical fallacies, but there have been numerous times when students correct their own teachers. Your position doesn't automatically imply that you are going to be right. Take a look at Leonardo da Vinci. He became a better painter than his own master - even though he was in a lower position than him.

 

 

 

We are talking about sportsmanship, how is experience in sports an irrelevant trait? I agree you can understand sportsmanship seperate of that, but if you have played you will know there are codes of conduct for situations similair to this game

 

 

 

9 or so years of soccer 4 or 5 baseball just fyi. If you are winning by an insermountable margin, you should put your jv in and have them play their hardest. How can you have a problem with the uneven division and claim that they shouldnt play their jv because it is insulting?

We are talking about sportsmanship, how is experience in sports an irrelevant trait? I agree you can understand sportsmanship seperate of that, but if you have played you will know there are codes of conduct for situations similair to this game

 

 

 

And we are also in a debate, so I guess that means nomination for being argumentative is relevant as well. On a more serious note, I don't think I need to be neither a basketball player nor a Christian to say that it's bogus to fire someone off the basis that their actions were "aren't Christlike". Like I said, if they want to fire him then by all means that is fine but a legitimate reason is required. Sorry if my post seemed like it was insulting to Reb - I was focused on the whole appeal to authority thing.

I don't care if it sounds arrogant; I (and I hope many others) honestly need to know the information to really post on this thread.

 

 

 

You really do need to be "qualified" to talk about this topic. I mean, as a random example, what if there was a thread on debating military tactics? Sure, all the guys who spend they're lives playing Halo and Call of Duty might have a meager grasp of such concepts as flanking and diversions, but would a person who's in the military (like the marine on this forum) honestly give any kind of a damn about what they have to say? Probably not. Not because the military officer thinks said person is an idiot, but because they know that said person is not properly specialized in knowledge of the topic at hand.

 

 

 

Such is the same for those who play team sports when they read posts of members that compare basketball to war. How can one debate properly with someone who does not properly understand the unwritten codes of sportsmanship? It's a wasted effort, like explaining the color red to a blind person. It's not that they will not understand, it's that they can't.

Then by that logic, no one other than scientists may post on threads pertaining to science. No one other than parents may post on threads pertaining to child-raising. No one other than non-virgins may post on threads pertaining to sex. I always thought the beauty of TIF was that opinions will be coming from numerous types of people all over the world. You're free to make correlations if you want, but that should only be after the fact - not before it. Just because I am not a coach or a Christian doesn't mean I don't have the right to say on an internet forum that firing someone for committing an action that "is not Christlike" is just an extremely bad way of saying "I don't agree with what you did", but with an unnecessary attachment of divine morality on it. Is it 'Christlike' to fire someone for running up the score?

Wow...I am amazed both that they won 100-0 and that he was fired!

Then by that logic, no one other than scientists may post on threads pertaining to science. No one other than parents may post on threads pertaining to child-raising. No one other than non-virgins may post on threads pertaining to sex. I always thought the beauty of TIF was that opinions will be coming from numerous types of people all over the world. You're free to make correlations if you want, but that should only be after the fact - not before it. Just because I am not a coach or a Christian doesn't mean I don't have the right to say on an internet forum that firing someone for committing an action that "is not Christlike" is just an extremely bad way of saying "I don't agree with what you did", but with an unnecessary attachment of divine morality on it. Is it 'Christlike' to fire someone for running up the score?

 

It's not that they shouldn't be allowed, but that it creates an incredulous conversation. Honestly, as a scientist, a parent, or a non-virgin, one would like to know where someone is coming from before they listen to what they have to say. A scientist would rather here the words of another scientist when talking about science, a parent would rather hear the words of another parent when talking about parenting, and, quite frankly, someone who wants to talk about sex would probably not be consulting a virgin.

 

 

 

If one who is highly qualified in the topic at hand, and they read something that sounds ludicrous, would they not like to know they amount of weight they can give to such a ludicrous statement before they feel a need to confront it? If said statement comes from someone of experience, further delving into that person's reasoning grants a reasonable possibility of learning or gaining something. But if said statement comes from someone who is inexperienced, the conversation loses any kind of mutual learning or argumentation and devolves into a teacher-student relationship with a student who thinks they know more than the teacher. It's a waste of time; it's ineffecient to put it coldly.

 

 

 

But for the record, I never said you don't have a right to talk. I'd just like to know where your coming from so I can really understand the point of view of what you're saying.

 

 

 

And no, it ain't Christlike what he's doin'. Yes, it is Christlike for a school to get rid of someone who isn't instilling Christlike values in their students. For a Christian school one expects a higher appreciation for what is fair and just, and that coach did not meet those expectations. Both the parents and the faculty have every right to stop him from teaching the students poor values on their way towards becoming adults.

THIS IS NOW A REQUIREMENT FOR EVERYONE POSTING ON THIS THREAD. YOU ARE TO SAY WHAT TEAM SPORTS YOU HAVE PLAYED IN YOUR LIFE, AND FOR HOW LONG YOU HAVE PLAYED THEM. IF YOU DO NOT, I, AND MOST LIKELY EVERYONE ELSE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUR POST IS MERELY GIBBERISH COMING FROM THE MOUTH OF AN UNQUALIFIED FOOL.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

Right, soccer, ten years. Track, two years. Basketball, two years. Tennis, five years. Gymnastics, three years. There. Not that hard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually now that you bring it to light, I have been living under a rock and have no idea whatsoever about sports and athletics.

 

 

 

Anything short of playing and giving 100% is an insult to your opponent.

 

And destroying them 100-0 isn't? What purpose does it serve to go all out when both teams know that it would require the winning team becoming cones for there to be any chance of a turn-around?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sigh... Just to humor you......

 

14 years hockey

 

8 years of competitive paintball

 

And many years of other various team sports that really have no relevance to this conversation or topic..

 

 

 

The purpose of competition is to give it 100% at all times. Doing less would be letting your team down, letting your coach down, letting the organization down, letting the sport down, and most importantly letting yourself down. And that is also how I define sportsmanship. Playing at a lesser serious level of commitment in a game that is in the bag is an insult to the abilities of your opponents.

 

 

 

Play me a game of basketball.... If I am up large on you, don't ever expect me to let off on the scoring. But if you are destroying me, I wouldn't want you to let off either, because if you do, you are insulting my skill (or lack of).

competition isnt the only code mate. Maybe you don't learn that in hockey, seeing as how violent it is (no offense).

 

 

 

And cmon, let's be perfectly honest, is it really an insult to a persons skill if the skill gap is wide? Would you really feel insulted if an NBA player playing pickup with you went easy on you? I wouldn't, because i'd know there was no chance I'd win either way. I would either find someone at my level, or enjoy the company of an NBA player, cause that would be kickass.

competition isnt the only code mate. Maybe you don't learn that in hockey, seeing as how violent it is (no offense).

 

 

 

And cmon, let's be perfectly honest, is it really an insult to a persons skill if the skill gap is wide? Would you really feel insulted if an NBA player playing pickup with you went easy on you? I wouldn't, because i'd know there was no chance I'd win either way. I would either find someone at my level, or enjoy the company of an NBA player, cause that would be kickass.

 

 

 

That scenario would work fine if it was an exhibition style game. But the 100-0 game was a game between 2 teams in what is supposed to be a more competitive atmosphere than an NBA player beating up on me.

 

 

 

I will state that a 100-0 game is a bit one sided. But the question here is, was the coach not being sportsmanlike by running up the score. And my answer to that has always been and always will be that he had every right to do what he did without being scrutinized.

*sigh*...

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know why people do this. But this is why people think 99% of Religious people are crazy. Ummm... .GF Dallas Academy? Lol.