[helene_t]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...etball/30862474

Now I don't know much about basketball but it sounds strange to me. If a winning strategy is legal but "unsporting", shouldn't one blame the rules of the game, rather than those who exploit it? Sounds a little similar to the discussion we have had in the bridge forums about sportsmanlike dumping.

[Trinidad]

I consider this story fairly absurd.

Obviously I don't know the rules of this league. But just suppose that there are two teams that are crushing the entire opposition. At the end of a double round robin competition, all teams have played each other twice. The two top teams have easily won all their games, except for the games against each other, where they both won one (and lost one). Now, to figure out who can call themselves champions, they will need to break the tie: They might well look at the amount of points scored in the games.

One team went all out during all games and outscored the opponents by 100 points each game. The other team quit playing after 5 minutes and outscored their opponents by 20 points. For me it is easy to decide who will win and who will lose.

My take is: If you play a game, you play to win. That doesn't mean that you can't be friendly to your opponents (see my signature). You can applaud them for both points they scored, and compliment them on any shot that came anywhere near the ring. You can help them up when they are on the ground. You can help them stretch when they get a cramp... and still beat them 161-2. You can share the drinks and the cookies afterwards and have fun together...

But when the ball is in play, you play ball. Doing anything less is disrespectfull to the game, and obnoxious towards your opponents ("we beat you easily, even if we don't play seriously").

There is no shame in losing a game against a better opponent, not even with 161-2. There is also no shame in winning 161-2.

Rik

[GreenMan]

Amateur youth sports have objectives, usually explicitly stated in some sort of CoC and nearly always implicitly understood, besides determining which competitor is superior. Once the official outcome is not in doubt, the competitors are expected to essentially treat it as practice; fully exploiting an imbalance in ability for its own sake in such a situation is strongly frowned upon.

[kenberg]

It sounds to me as if the winning coach did roughly what would be expected. He says that in the second half he did not play any of his starting team. That seems about right, what else is he to do? I suppose he could have pulled his first string out earlier, but the bottom line is that, as far as I know, there is no provision for the weak team to concede so they have to be on the floor for the entire game. It is presumably not a pleasant experience for anyone winners or losers, but I don't think he should be expected to tell his second team that they are not to shoot baskets.

When I was a grad student the math dept. had a baseball team, the Wronskians. There was this game where we were hopelessly outclassed. I was playing left field and if I played somewhat close in, the ball sailed over my head. If I played farther back, they would hit is just hard enough to clear the shortstop and then bounce. I would charge up to grab it and try to hold him to a single. Mercifully, the game finally ended, I have no idea what the score was, and we all went out for a beer or three.

But I was in my twenties, in the case at hand they are high school kids (girls, but I am not going to say that this matters and in fact it doesn't). You can imagine them taking it a little harder. Still, I am not really sure what the coach was supposed to do other than send in his second team. I don't think he should tell them to play badly.

[mike777]

It should be noted that the school suspended him. The score was 141-1 at half time.
It should also be noted that these were children involved not adults.

[eagles123]

Basketball what a boring game

[Bbradley62]

Rik: I doubt that there is any basketball league in the country (at any level) that uses scoring margin as part of its tie-breaking procedures. Yes, you play to win, but you don't play to win by 161-2.

Ken: The winning coach did not do what was expected. It is not expected that any team should maintain a full-court press through an entire first half and establish a 104-1 lead.

According to the athletic association's website, the winning team here is currently ranked 11th of the 42 teams in its division, and 220th in California. This was a non-league game. The losing team plays several conference levels below the winning team, and the losing team is now 0-15 (losing those games by a total of 840 points). The coaches both certainly should have known what to expect with regard to the level of competitiveness of this game.

I'm a little curious as to whether this league employs a shot clock. If not, it should have been relatively simple to pass the ball around a lot without taking any shots once the game was well in-hand.

[helene_t]

I don't understand. If the objective is to practice then of course they should try to make as many shots as possible.

But if it is a problem that the weaker team gets humiliated, maybe they should have given a handicap, or made hybrid teams of more equal strength for the purpose of the match.

If the objective is to burn some calories then why don't they give each player her own ball and let them dribble around for an hour?

[mike777]

1) The school itself suspended the coach for 2 games.
2) Clearly the school believes the coach violated some rule or policy that justified the suspension.
3) The article does not quote the school's answer to the basic question, what rule or policy?

[kenberg]

Bbradley62, on 2015-January-17, 15:40, said:

Rik: I doubt that there is any basketball league in the country (at any level) that uses scoring margin as part of its tie-breaking procedures. Yes, you play to win, but you don't play to win by 161-2.

Ken: The winning coach did not do what was expected. It is not expected that any team should maintain a full-court press through an entire first half and establish a 104-1 lead.

According to the athletic association's website, the winning team here is currently ranked 11th of the 42 teams in its division, and 220th in California. This was a non-league game. The losing team plays several conference levels below the winning team, and the losing team is now 0-15 (losing those games by a total of 840 points). The coaches both certainly should have known what to expect with regard to the level of competitiveness of this game.

I'm a little curious as to whether this league employs a shot clock. If not, it should have been relatively simple to pass the ball around a lot without taking any shots once the game was well in-hand.

It crossed my mind that they could back off of the full court press and maybe they should have. But really, it would not much help. Nor would just passing the ball around without taking a shot. The fundamental problem was that the teams were about as mismatched as one could imagine, and that will be evident to everyone, coaches, parents, fans, everyone. Losing 100-2 is not that much different from losing 160-2 or whatever it was. I can imagine in the second half decding that they woould just pass the ball around. Would this actually please anyone? I, if I were on the weak team, would probably find it insulting.

I think most people would hope that neither the winniing team nor the losing team would have to encounter such a problem. Getting soundly beaten is one thing but not like this.

When I first started playing duplicate I avoided the strong games, Not because I minded being trounced but because I knew that I didn't know what I was doing and I thought it polite not to insert myself into games where others did. But as I got better, I very much liked encountering strong players. But it is not exactly easy to find the right balance.

Anyway, I dunno. I think the coach had a tough problem figuring what to do.Everyone can see that the two teams do not belong on the same court but they are on the same court.

[mike777]

There is a shot clock, note the second half score of 21-1, not 141-1.
They played the second half with a self-imposed handicap.
The coach now says scheduling the game was a mistake.
Rule changes are being discussed such as to stop keeping score at some point.
However I can still not find anywhere what school rule or policy he broke. IN the past winning by 70pts was not a rule breaker.

[PhilKing]

Sometimes you have to ease off. It's a bit like when East Dillon battered West Dillon 37-7 in season 5 of Friday Night Lights (American football of course. For anyone who hasn't seen it, IMDB does it a massive injustice by rating it 8.7 out of 10).

Apparently they should have gone soft late in the game. But personally I wouldn't, since the Panthers had it coming.

[Bbradley62]

mike777, on 2015-January-17, 14:38, said:

The score was 141-1 at half time.

mike777, on 2015-January-17, 18:12, said:

There is a shot clock, note the second half score of 21-1, not 141-1.
They played the second half with a self-imposed handicap.
The coach now says scheduling the game was a mistake.
Rule changes are being discussed such as to stop keeping score at some point.
However I can still not find anywhere what school rule or policy he broke. IN the past winning by 70pts was not a rule breaker.

You consistently mis-state the halftime score. According to the article, it was 104-1, not 141-1. This means the winning team still scored 57 points in the second half. I see no evidence one way or the other as to whether there was a shot clock used in the game.

If the two teams have a long history of having significantly different level teams, then it probably was a mistake to schedule the game in the first place. It was not a league game (per the league's website), so it was not "required". Even in big-time college football, with "lots and lots" of money on the line, it's considered improper to run up the score in a lopsided game. Certainly, this principle can be applied to high school basketball as well.

The Constitution of California Interscholastic Federation said:

Cardinal Athletic Principles
TO BE OF MAXIMUM EFFECTIVENESS, THE ATHLETIC PROGRAM WILL:
1. Be a well‐coordinated part of the secondary school curriculum.
2. Justify the use of the tax funds and school facilities because of the educational aims achieved.
3. Be based on the spirit of amateurism.
4. Be conducted by secondary school authorities.
5. Provide opportunities for many students to participate in a wide variety of sports in every sport season.
6. Eliminate professionalism and commercialism.
7. Prevent “All‐Star” contests or other promotional events.
8. Foster training in conduct, game ethics, and sportsmanship for participants and spectators.
9. Include a well‐balanced program of intramural sports.
10. Engender respect for local, state, and national rules and policies under which the school program is conducted.

Code of Ethics
IT IS THE DUTY OF ALL CONCERNED WITH HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS:
1. To emphasize the proper ideals of sportsmanship, ethical conduct, and fair play.
2. To eliminate all possibilities which tend to destroy the best values of the game.
3. To stress the values derived from playing the game fairly.
4. To show cordial courtesy to visiting teams and officials.
5. To establish a happy relationship between visitors and hosts.
6. To respect the integrity and judgment of sports officials.
7. To achieve a thorough understanding and acceptance of the rules of the game and the standards of eligibility.
8. To encourage leadership, use of initiative, and good judgment by the players on a team.
9. To recognize that the purpose of athletics is to promote the physical, mental, moral, social, and emotional well being of the individual players.
10. To remember that an athletic contest is only a game‐not a matter of life and death for player, coach, school, officials, fan, community, state, or nation.

Surely, we can all find something in there to determine what was wrong with what happened during the game in question.

[mike777]

Anderson said he did approach the referees with about six minutes remaining in the third quarter to begin a running clock, but, in accordance with high school rules, officials did not use the running clock until the fourth quarter. He said he benched his starters at the half and instructed his players not to shoot the ball until the shot clock got inside of 7 seconds in the third and fourth quarters
http://www.foxsports...a2a6daac636c3d9
-----

thanks for the half-time score correction. Clearly there is a greater problem if you still win by 50+ in just one half after self-imposed handicaps.
It would be nice if the school came out or if the reporters at least ask what rule or policy he broke and get an on the record response from the school.
btw I assume the AD is in charge of game schedules, not the coach.


If the rule is basically 70+ pts ok and 160 not ok... and you get suspended, fair enough.

btw I am going to guess this guy did not have a union.

[Bbradley62]

When I was in high school (in the Dark Ages), there was neither a shot clock nor a rule for a running clock. Okay, so there was also not a three-point line. Our basketball team (all boys Catholic school) won the New York State top-level championship my junior year, while being among the lowest-scoring teams in the state. In one game, against another state-ranked team, we won 12-10 in double overtime! With no shot clock, you just work the weave and look for a back-door layup and count on your 6'10" center to win all jump balls.

[Mbodell]

I don't think what this coach did was wrong. I think in some ways it is more disrespectful to self handicap than to treat your opponents as potentially capable and play your best against them. Given the second string squad without any full court press and with intentionally holding the ball until late in the possession still won the second half 57-1, clearly the schools were really unevenly matched. I mean maybe the coach is supposed to just put 4 backups on the court instead of 5? But moves like that show up the team more than just playing normally IMO.

[GreenMan]

Mbodell, on 2015-January-18, 02:07, said:

I don't think what this coach did was wrong. I think in some ways it is more disrespectful to self handicap than to treat your opponents as potentially capable and play your best against them.

This is the sort of thing you say after you run up the score for your own enjoyment. "It would have been more disrespectful if I hadn't kept beating you after you were on the ground unconscious. You could have woken up!"

The idea that humiliating your opponent is the moral choice is bizarre.

[blackshoe]

I wonder what the school would have done if he'd told his team to just sit down on the court and let the opposition rack up points.

He told them to play basketball. They played basketball. The suspension is politically correct BS.

[kenberg]

Perhaps it was in Alan Sontag's The Bridge Bum. Or somewhere.

Anyway, there was to be a money game and the clearly superior team was discussing tactics, with the aim of keeping the suckers in the game as long as possible. The plan: There will be no squeezes and damn few finesses.

In a two session event at tournament bridge, a team that is down by 100 imps at the break will usually concede. Imagine that, as with the basketball game, that option is not available. What is the dominating team to do? Refuse to bid their slams? Trump their partner's aces? If someone is humiliated by playing against a grossly superior team then I think that there is no way out. We all, winners, losers, specs, just want it to be over. If the rules forbid withdrawal, it has to be suffered through.

Here would be an option, if it would not offend the makers of rules. At the half, the coaches, perhaps in consultation with the team captains, could agree to an informal concession. They would agree that for all practical purposes the game is over, and neither team would shoot any baskets at all. They could have ten players on the court passing the ball back and forth and chatting. It could be done with mutual respect. The captains would shake hands, the losers would congratulate the winners, and then they would jointly run out the clock. To me this seems at least as good as sending in a team with the instructions that they are to simulate playing a game but they are not to actually accomplish anything.

And then maybe the league could take a look at just how this came about. My granddaughter, in her teen-age years, played a lot of soccer. There were many leagues with many levels of play. She played seriously, but not at the level where the team travels to other states to play. I don't think blow-outs like this ever happened. Her team might win handily or it might be beaten by a clearly superior team. But nothing like what we are talking about here.

I think some thought is needed about structure of the leagues.

[Bbradley62]

Best I can tell from their website, the California Interscholastic Federation Southern Section conducts 11 tiers of leagues for girls basketball. The winners in this game were among the better teams in the top tier; the losers were among the weakest teams in the ninth tier. Teams play their league games within their own tier, but non-league games are played before that. Maybe they need a suggestion (not even necessarily a rule) stipulating that non-league games should be restricted to teams within three or four tiers of each other.