Entertainment desk
< June 28	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 29

In high school football, why would a coach be penalized if his team accumulated too many points?

I read an article about high school football. It stated: Under the old rule, a head coach would receive a one-game suspension if his team won a game by more than 50 points. What would be the purpose of such a rule? Why would the organization punish a coach if his team wins by a large margin? If it's important, here is the article: [1]. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno but Blowout (sports) and running up the score has info on why such winning margins are controversial and alternatives to avoid them. Although outside the North America it's only especially common at the amateur or school (particularly primary) level and often dealt with by rules stopping play rather than so much an expectation for the team doing well to stop. (But I don't think trying to get the highest score possible would necessarily be received well either unless there's a good reason for it.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd. That second article that you cited (running up the score) states as follows: Since 2006, the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference has considered any victory margin of 50 points or more in a football game to be unsportsmanlike. If this occurs, the winning team's coach will be suspended for the team's next game. This was in response to one coach, Jack Cochran of New London, whose teams won that way four times during 2005. During the 2005 season, Jack Cochran's New London High School football team, the highest scoring offense in CT, was shut out 16–0 by the Windham High School Whippets. In response to being shut out for the first time in his career, the following week Cochran had his team run up the score 90–0 against a much weaker opponent. The victory provoked a brawl and led to disorderly conduct charges against the losing coach. Coach Cochran defended himself by saying that in one 90–0 blowout, he had tried to get both teams and the timekeeper to run the clock continuously, as is done in Iowa when one team has a 35-point lead. The CIAC considered a similar proposal but rejected as several members felt it would cut into backups' playing time. This is the exact rule that my original question above was referring to. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High school sports are supposed to teach sportsmanship, among other things. By deliberately humiliating another team, the coach in question has lost perspective of what his job is. Even at the professional level, once the margin is high enough to be out of reach, the winner will tend to ease up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue (and I assume has done so) that "playing your best" is very different than "humiliating the other team". And "easing up" (i.e., giving a half-hearted effort) hardly seems like sportsmanship. To me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A coach can have his players play their best and still avoid humiliating the other team simply by putting in his worst players to give them some playing time. Loraof (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if for example the other team has a poor pass defense, the sportsmanlike thing to do is to avoid throwing long bombs for quick additional touchdowns, and instead give the running backs a chance to do their best at running plays. No one expects an individual player to give anything other than his best.

It should be noted that each state has its own governing body for high school sports and each of those sets the rules for that state. While, in general, the rules are much the same there will be differences. Especially in a situation like the OPs question. MarnetteD|Talk 15:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced compassion, I call it. This reminds me of the way that a father playing a game with his 5-year-old son encourages the son by letting him win more often than would otherwise be the case. That's fine in a grossly mismatched context like that; but to apply that compassionate principle to opposing school teams that are supposed to be similar in age and experience is very inappropriate, imo. Match fixing, throwing the game, and tanking are all very dimly regarded in all sports I know of. While the OP's question is not about deliberately losing games per se, it's about deliberately stopping scoring points once a certain margin has been reached, allowing the other team to catch up. That might be considered a way of instilling sportsmanlike behaviour in school-age players, but it resembles nothing I've ever seen in amateur or professional sporting contexts outside school. There, the greater the margin over the opposing side, the better. If the other side cannot be competitive on the day, the scores reflect that reality and it gives them something to think about for the future.

@ User:Baseball Bugs: It's not a question of humiliating the other team; they humiliate themselves by their sad performance. This rule we're discussing seems to me to be a way of avoiding teams having to face the truth about themselves; and a very poor example of how things are done in the real world. To know that the other side was forced to stop scoring points to avoid exceeding some artificial 50-point margin, would be a worse humiliation than to let them score unlimited points and let the chips fall where they may. Better to have experiences of being trounced at school, than to have your first experience of such a demoralising outcome only when playing for an adult team. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JackofOz. I don't know how far back such rules go. But they seem "ready made" for the millennials and the "snowflake generation". That is, we institute "politically correct" rules so that no one can possibly get "offended". Or humiliated. Ridiculous, yes. But, oh so very PC! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsmanship is a lot older than "political correctness". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The losing team already knows they suck. Rubbing their nose in the dirt serves no valid purpose. Also, I wonder if you're aware of the "mercy rule" in softball - ahead by 10 runs or more after 5 innings, and the game is over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a practical matter, too, even if sportsmanship doesn't matter: Football is a dangerous sport. Why risk injury trying to run up the score? Take the regulars out and put the subs in, to protect your regulars and to give the subs experience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the subs do equally as well as the regulars? And the score-point differential continues to increase? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By then no one will much care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the rule is still being "broken". What's the coach supposed to do? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally running up the score is unsportsmanlike. If there's a real chance of unintentionally breaking the rule, they could take 4 knees and let the other team take over on downs. You'll see this in the NFL sometimes when a lopsided game is close to being over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another good reason not to run up the score is that it might come back to haunt you. In the 1940 NFL Championship Game, the Bears hammered the Redskins 73-0. That's still the largest shutout in the history of the NFL. Two years later, they faced each other again. The Bears were favored, having gone undefeated in the regular season. Legend has it that the Redskins' owner, George Preston Marshall, gave a pre-game "pep talk" consisting of simply writing "73-0" on the clubhouse chalkboard. Washington went out and won the game 14-6, ruining the Bears' perfect season. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The worst case of running up the score at the college level came in the 1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech football game, in which Tech won 222-0. At least part of the motivation to stick it to Cumberland was that their baseball team had run up the score in a baseball game against Tech that past spring. Revenge was sweet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Intentionally running up the score is unsportsmanlike". I don't get that at all. Not at all. The whole point of the game is for one team to beat the other, as reflected in the difference between the scores. There are many ways of being unsportsmanlike, and I agree that sanctions are appropriate. But simply doing what the rules of the game require - how can that possibly be unsportsmanlike? Deliberately not scoring points when given heaven-sent opportunities - how crazy is that? If a team is prevented from scoring for some time until the other team catches up to a margin less than 50, what is their role during that period? Just pretend to be trying; sit and play marbles while the other team scores without any resistance; what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The whole point of the game is for one team to beat the other". Isn't the whole point of the game to have an exciting contest between appropriately-matched opponents? Hence why we have different leagues (or in some sports, like golf, weight the scores to ensure a more even contest). Presumably these rules are designed to ensure that a match is a worthwhile competition (both for the players and the audience), even when everyone knows that one team is clearly outclassed. Iapetus (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The objective is to win. Once you've got an insurmountable lead, you've effectively won. Also, keep in mind this is only high school the OP is talking about. Humiliating another team is not a good lesson to teach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High school is a great place to start learning a taste of what real life out of school can be like. Once one team has an insurmountable lead, why not call the match off at that point? Just like in many other sports, e.g. tennis. When one player has won 2 sets in a 3-set match, or 3 sets in a 5-set match, the game ends immediately. They don't just play the whole 3 or 5 sets out for the hell of it, or for match practice or whatever; but even if they did, there's no way the person who's already won would suddenly start letting the other guy start winning points, games or sets. No, they'd aim for a 5-0 victory. Same with Test cricket. If Australia won the first 3 Tests against England (or vice-versa) in a 5-Test Ashes series, they are declared the winner, but the series continues and the winner tries to make it a whitewash 5-0. Nobody would ever suggest that the winners were somehow being "unsportsmanlike", just by winning fairly and squarely. If the other team is not up to the challenge, so be it. Thus endeth the Gospel according to St Jack. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why they would bother playing the two other matches unless it's because there's more money to be made from it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons; 1) if you'd bought a ticket for the fifth test, you'd be mightily displeased if the series was abandoned and 2) in the British and Commonwealth view of the world, there is honour to be gained by fighting to the bitter end even if the result is a foregone conclusion. Foreign visitors to Wimbledon sometimes comment on the crowd's habit of cheering on the losing player, even if a it's a British player that they are losing to, the so-called "cult of the plucky loser". This is a concept not entirely unknown to Americans, see The winner may take all, but sportsmanship and the plucky loser are still to be celebrated. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In America, if you buy tickets for a series (for example, Games 1, 2, 6 and 7 of World Series) and the series goes less than seven, you'll be refunded for the ones not played. Today at Wimbledon, Querrey beat Djokovic 3 sets to 1. They did not play a 5th set. However, if the public's attitude toward the Ashes is that they want to see five matches regardless of outcome, I could see that. Though it's not really fair to the players. What if a player gets injured in a match that is effectively meaningless? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively meaningless? Tevildo (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk page

can you please help me what to write in talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.97.56 (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean your own talk page or an article's talk page? If the former, you don't write anything in it. It's a place for other users to contact you. If the latter, you use it to ask questions or raise issues regarding the content of the related article. --Viennese Waltz 10:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out 196's contributions log and it'll be clear what was meant. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Less clear now that (I guess) the article in question is gone. —Tamfang (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

its the article's talk page. it is showing speedly deletion, please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.97.56 (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is almost incomprehensible - the English is very poor. You have also failed to provide any reliable external references for the things you have said - which is essential as this is an encyclopedia, and everything must be supported. If you want to write an article, get the English checked by someone who speaks it better than you, and find the references needed. Wymspen (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article talk page is for editors to discuss editing of the article in order to improve it; for example: whether or not certain content belongs in the article, or when there might be conflicting sources, etc. It is not for talking about the subject. Please see Help: Using talk pages. --Also, for help using or editing Wikipedia, please use Wikipedia: Help desk, or new users may prefer to ask for help at WP:Teahouse. --Cheers, 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:6D88:8CAA:4690:9602 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]