Entertainment desk
< December 1	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

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

December 2[edit]

Ties in team sports[edit]

Are there any historical reasons as to why most North American sports either forbid ties in most cases (such as in basketball, baseball, ice hockey, and lacrosse) or implement rules to make them rare (American and Canadian football), but most sports that originate in Europe and elsewhere (such as association football, cricket, both codes of rugby, field hockey, netball, korfball, kabaddi, Australian rules football, etc.) usually allow ties except for knockout tournaments and other situations where placing is needed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once said, "A tie is like kissing your sister." In older times, baseball had ties fairly often, before lights allowed continuation of games, and then rules were changed to make ties suspended games. Ties also used to happen more often in American football and the National Hockey League, before overtimes for regular-season games were developed. As to why the need to try to have a victor? Don't rule out the influence of money, i.e. wagering. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an editorial by Frank Deford which makes a cogent argument as to why American sports don't have tie games; his thesis is basically that the reason why people watch sporting events is to determine which team is better, a tie denies the viewer that satisfaction. As Deford says in that article "A tie has no place in sports. It's like not finding out who is the "who" in whodunit." This article also explains some of the difference in attitudes towards ties and the historical evolution of their elimination. --Jayron 32 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that the difference in presentation of results between the US and Europe was indicative of a difference in attitude towards ties. In the US, cumulative results are usually given as W-L-D (wins, losses, draws). Most European sources I've seen use W-D-L. The American attitude towards ties/draws is basically "y'all both lost". While the European viewpoint seems like "well, nobody lost". --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but nobody won. To sit through several hours of something for no meaningful result strikes people as a waste of their time and energy. That is, at least, the argument made by the two articles I cited above. I'm not saying that is the correct opinion to have (indeed, there is no "correct" answer here), merely that it is a common opinion to have. --Jayron 32 13:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's interesting to ponder why Americans tend to have this kind of attitude but not Europeans or other people. Playing to a tie is frowned upon by American fans, but Europeans and others can even consider it a good thing. I'm aware that some European sports don't have ties (notably handball), but they tend to be the exception not the rule. On the other hand, East Asian baseball games can end in a tie, though that has more to do with traffic logistics than anything (since long games could make people miss their trains). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I cited the opinions of Frank Deford, undoubtedly one of the most important (if not the most important) sports writers in American history, who presents an explanation as to why. You don't have to agree with him (it is an opinion after all), but given Deford's reputation in the field, his opinion bears some weight. --Jayron 32 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A great article, and a great explanation, by a guy we miss every day since his passing. This is why soccer has never caught on "big time" in America. It's a niche sport at best. The fact non-Americans are fine with tied soccer games suggests they really don't care about the game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that archetypal English game - cricket - we even have two different types of drawn matches - ties, where the scores are equal and all the batters are out (very rare in the longer forms of cricket), and draws, where no winner has emerged when the contest has reached the end of its allowed time.--Phil Holmes (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why cricket is especially confounding as a sport for Americans to get into... At the highest level of test cricket, you can have a single sporting event that lasts during the daylight hours of 5 full days, and at the end of it all, you can still end up with no meaningful result... Two ways to end up with no meaningful result, in fact. The American psyche seems to expect more resolution if their going to invest their limited emotional energy into being a fan of a sport... --Jayron 32 15:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't a draw a meaningful result? It is clearly meaningful in that it shows that neither one side nor the other were vastly superior throughout the contest. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'm wrong. Sorry about that. --Jayron 32 15:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And sticking with the theme of cricket, it's probably worth noting that "back in the day" we had timeless Tests which were played until a result (including a tie!) was arrived at. But we don't do that any more. Versions of cricket like ODIs and T20s are symptomatic of a results-driven shift in society as opposed to the more historical nature of enjoying the tactical battle far more than a notch in a W/L column. Some of the best football matches I've seen have ended in draws. There's nowhere near the fixation over W/L outside the States, I recall recently a college game there needing to endure nine overtimes after an already tedious regulation time affair! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deeply puzzled by the fact some Americans seem to think a draw is in some way not a meaningful result. Why is that? It's just as valid a result as a win or a loss. 86.12.79.210 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that it is not meaningfully different than not having played the game at all. The goal of sports is to win. No athlete or team enters a contest saying "I hope we score the exact same number of points as the other team." If one doesn't win, what's the point? There are other sorts of entertainment that don't have winners and losers. The reason one watches sports is to see who wins. If you aren't entertained by winning, watch a movie, read a book, go to an art museum. If you're denied that opportunity, it feels like you're let down. As has been cited before on the topic, a tie is like "kissing your sister". Now, I must say, I am not saying this opinion of sports is better than the alternative. That's the nature of pure opinion, there is no means to determine who is right and who is wrong, it's just personal preferences. But in terms of why people have, in the past, justified that opinion to themselves and others, this is the argument they have used (see the links I provided above). You don't need to convince me personally of anything. I stopped having opinions a long time ago; I found them not very useful in accomplishing my goals in life. But people do have that opinion and do use the justification I just laid out (again, see above for links to such sources). --Jayron 32 16:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that it is not meaningfully different than not having played the game at all. no that's completely incorrect. I enjoy live sports enormously and I am more than content to watch a 3–3 draw, often more so than a 1–0 win. The principal reason sports are played is for the entertainment industry. If a game is not played at all, it can't be viewed by tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of millions of people. A drawn game is absolutely different from a game that has not been played at all. To claim otherwise offers a very misguided view of the motivation of ten of millions of European (for example) football fan who witness their sides drawing on a Saturday afternoon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right and I am wrong. Sorry about that. --Jayron 32 17:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know! These reference desks haven't gotten much better in the last few years have they? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should I mention that most Americans would find a 1-0 score pretty pathetic, too?--Khajidha (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the most dramatic World Series games have had 1-0 scores. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Sometimes a draw is absolutely the right result. We have the concept of "an honourable draw", where both teams, or players, played their best and in a sporting spirit, and yet neither could overcome the other. I suppose it needs a culture of honour and sportsmanship for that to mean anything though, he said, tongue only slightly in cheek DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed! As I said above, where I stated "I am not saying this opinion of sports is better than the alternative." The concept of the well-played tie game (or draw, depending on your dialect) is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold on the matter. To watch a sport for the competition, the camaraderie, or to appreciate the skill involved is a valid position to take on the matter. There are certainly people who support them, see here for instance. The purpose of the reference desk is not to convince people whose position is "more right". As noted above, "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Instead, it is to provide references. The OP asked for references as to why one might think that a tie game was a substandard result. As I cited above, Frank Deford has written such an explanation, as a foremost authority on American sports, his writing on the matter is salient to the question the OP asked. My opinion is not relevant at all Firstly, because I am not a recognized expert in the subject, and (actually more importantly), I don't really have an opinion on the matter. I don't need convincing because this isn't the venue to be convincing. It's a venue to provide references. --Jayron 32 19:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I guess you ought to refrain from making statements like "The reason is that it is not meaningfully different than not having played the game at all." which you appear to be stating as some kind of absolute fact when, indeed, it is absolutely false. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right and I am wrong. Sorry about that. --Jayron 32 00:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the NFL, at one time, tie games were listed in the standings but did not figure into the W-L percentage. In that sense, it was as if the game hadn't been played at all. In more recent years, a tie counts as half a win and half a loss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting attitude. Piers Morgan often exhorts people to "have an opinion", implying that they are doing something cowardly and morally wrong by opting out. Would you say that you are firmly opposed to this point of view, or flexible on it? Card Zero (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could cut out the middle man, and ask Rambler what he thinks of Piers Morgan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to have universally negative opinions of Piers Morgan, so I guess in that respect his mission has been a success. Which underlines the inevitability of opinions, even for those who'd rather avoid them. Card Zero (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Australian Football League games, draws have always been allowed. The only change came after the 2010 Grand Final between Collingwood and St Kilda, which was drawn. The fans were in an uproar, demanding extra time for an outcome. Even losing would have been better than this grey twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat (apologies to Teddy Roosevelt). It's like preferring to know your child has been murdered and knowing where the body was found and how they were done away with, than them just disappearing without trace forever. Trouble was, the rules in 2010 did not allow for extra time for a drawn grand final. They just had to play again the following week and hope for a result. Given the controversy, they quickly changed the rules so that in future as much extra time as necessary would be allowed until a result was obtained on the day. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Australian sports, an interesting thing is that the NRL introduced the golden point in 2003? for normal season games. This significantly reduces (given the nature of rugby league or really most forms of rugby) but doesn't eliminate the possibility of a draw, List of National Rugby League golden point games says 14 of 133 golden point games ended in draws. While not without controversy, proposals for replacement have generally been golden try instead of golden point rather than eliminating it for regular season matches [1] [2] [3].
Super Rugby Aotearoa and Super Rugby AU both tried some golden variation [4], not without controversy [5] [6] although this didn't make it into Super Rugby Trans-Tasman. I couldn't find any talk about them in the planned Super Rugby Pacific so no idea if they will continue.
Also in reference to a point above, while 40/50 over matches have basically eliminated draws, AFAIK ties are often still allowed in non championship matches albeit fairly rare. But many/most? 20 over matches do use the Super Over even in pool or series matches.
When it comes to non championship matches, I'm not convinced these development are so much about spectators needing a result or being disappointed in tied games. I mean I'm sure it's a factor but I suspect a far bigger factor is the related issue that results aside, these additions lead to what many spectators see as a thrilling spectacle at the end even if it's not be entirely fair to either side. That's why they don't always bother to guarantee some result. Our article on the golden point does mention a comment in relation to the NRL of a TV viewership spike during the golden point.
Nil Einne (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK we had the Football pools, where people could win large amounts of money by correctly predicting which matches would end in a draw. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]