How honest should sportsmen be?

[steve w]

Fans of British football (sotcher, to the US visitors), will be familiar with the rumpus currently occurring about Manchester United goalkeeper Roy Carroll. I wondered what Litsters think about the general principles involved?

Put simply, the match was 0-0 with a few seconds left. Carroll dropped a simple shot over his own goal line (well over it, in fact), but the officials failed to spot it and no goal was given.

Some say that Carroll should have admitted it was over the line and given the opposition the win as a result, sending heartwarming messages to impressionable youngsters the world over about the importance of fair play.

Others say that's a crock, it's a competitive environment and players should play to the referee's whistle, and not try to run the game themsleves.

Leaving aside the issue of technological help for officials, should sports players "own up" where an injustice is missed by an official, or just play on?

I know other sports where players often call their own fouls (snooker certainly, and in tennis I remember Mats Wilander doing it at matchpoint in the French Open), but should they?

 

[English Lady]

Welllllll to be perfectly honest Roy Carroll isn't the guy who's got to say if i's a goal or not.

It's fairly obvious he thought it was but it's the ref's place to say yay or nay and in this case they (wrongly) chose nay.

I don't think the player is meant to take this kind of thing into his own hands. Thats why we have referees in the first place.

Yes maybe he should have said "it was a goal." but well practically would anyone here him and would he say that when he'd be nigh on certain it would mean his team losing the match?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Tough one, but if I were him, I wouldn't have said anything either. That's really what the referees are there for.

I presume that none of the referees asked him for his opinion. They wouldn't ask the scoring player for his opinion on whether it was a goal or not, so why should they ask the defender?

Professionally, he did the right thing. Ethically, it's another matter. But who ever said that professional sports were ethical?

---dr.M.

 

[pop_54]

In the great design of things and with fair play at heart, he should have put his hand up to it.

He may have been tempted to out of moral decency, but had he done so I doubt he'd have got another game this season. Players might have honesty and fair play at heart, but you can bet your sweet arse the managers and and money men in modern sport don't.

Nice tits by the way EL love

 

[Belegon]

a game has rules . those rules define the ethics of the game in most cases. true, there are "unwritten" rules between players, but notice they define the way you treat each other for the most part.

I would never tell an umpire he called a ball a strike for my pitcher and I would never stop lobbying for balls to be called strikes...at bat, of course, the opposite applies.

I have had a man called out at home when I know i missed the tag. I rolled the ball to the mound and jogged to the dugout. inning over.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't think he should have said anything. When a player yells at the refs when a call goes against him, we all say poor sport. Yet the truth of thematter is, for all his yelling, he isn't going to change the call most often. Sports have refs to make calls. it would seem to me, telling them it was a goal is no differnt than saying it wasn't. You are basically one upping them and considering how much heat they take anyway, that's probably not fair or ethical.

-Colly

 

[Liar]

It happens now and then. Maybe not in football, but in a game like tennis, where each point isn't so damn important. Bitching when the ruling is in favor of the opponent is still more common, but that's life I guess. But every now and then, the player who won the point on a close "out" call from the refs objects, gets a polite round of applause, loses the ball and the game moves on.

There it's considered good sportsmanship. So what do I know?

#L

 

[R. Richard]

The referee will not listen to a player when the player points out an obvious error against his side. Expecting the player to point out an obvious error for his side is not very realistic. Also, as has been pointed out, such a gesture might well cost a player his job.

 

[Vincent E]

Some say that Carroll should have admitted it was over the line and given the opposition the win as a result, sending heartwarming messages to impressionable youngsters the world over about the importance of fair play.

Others say that's a crock, it's a competitive environment and players should play to the referee's whistle, and not try to run the game themsleves.

It is an excellent question. I don't know exactly what the rules of scoring are in British Football (soccer to us US Litterbugs), but in most professional sports over here even if the player admitted a goal it would not matter. Scoring is a decision left soley to the officials.

In hockey it is the Ref, not the goal judge, who determines a goal. In Baseball the umpires decide. In football and basketball the officials with the best view decide. Players and coaches cannot influence the goal/non-goal one way or the other regardless of how much whining they do to protest a goal or how much complaining they do the get one they think counts.

Perhaps it would have been "cricket" (am I using that word correctly) for the Carroll to say, "Yeah, yeah, it went in." However, the scoring is not left to players in anything but pickup games and street ball. Anything organized is left to the officials for the better or worse.

 

[TheEarl]

Re: Re: How honest should sportsmen be?

Perhaps it would have been "cricket" (am I using that word correctly) for the Carroll to say, "Yeah, yeah, it went in." However, the scoring is not left to players in anything but pickup games and street ball. Anything organized is left to the officials for the better or worse.

What an extraordinarily apposite use of the word cricket, since that was just the sport I was going to mention. In football or rugby, it's an action game and the referee is the man who makes the decisions. If he gets it wrong, then that's the rub of the green, maybe the next one will go your way.

Cricket on the other hand isn't a battle, it's a war. It's tactics and subtle moves that can swing a whole game your way. It's more sedate in terms of immediate action and in that game I think the players should help the umpire. In cricket, the aim of the bowling side is to get wickets (like the equivalent of 3 strikes in baseball, it takes the batsman out of the game) and one way of doing that is getting him to hit the ball so that one of your team catches it before it bounces. Sometimes the contact between bat and ball is so fine that it's well nigh impossible for all but the very best umpires to tell (the ball is travelling at 80-90mph at the time), but the batsman always knows if he's made contact. If he knows he's nicked the ball, it's tradition (even in international matches of great importance) for a player who knows that he's been got out to walk (to leave the pitch, signifying that the other team's got his wicket).

Cricket is one of the few sports where the umpires may rely on the player's honesty. The batsman's expected to walk if he's got out and if there's some doubt about whether a fielder has caught the ball, then the umpire will ask him whether he thought he caught it before it bounced. If anyone is dishonest, it may not be picked up by the umpire, but it'll be picked up by television and that player will be condemned for being a poor sport. I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase 'That's just not cricket' came from a batsman who knew he was out refusing to walk.

Now rugby on the other hand, action sport, action players and in some positions cheating is almost obligatory. It's an art form to get the ball back via 'interesting' bendings of the rules and keep that secret from the ref.

The Earl

 

[steve w]

Earl,

I thought batsmen were divided into "walkers" and "non-walkers". Some batsmen always wait for the umpire to give them out, even if they know they nicked it on the way through.

For example, in the famous Atherton/Alan Donald square-up in the 1990s, Donald was convinced Atherton had been caught. Athers refused to walk, and the umpire didn't raise the finger. I heard an interview with Donald the other day, when he said he totally understood and felt Athers had done the right thing.

However, the crucial thing for Donald was that Atherton had never been a walker. It seems in modern cricket that as long as you're consistent in that, it doesn't matter if you habitually walk or habitually stay.

In relation to my original question, I don't think Carroll should have to say anything, one way or the other. Officials run the match, not players. I do think that there should be "stump cameras" built into the goalposts, that the fourth official could see via videolink, to aid the referee.

Besides, if Roy had owned up and Man U had lost, Fergie (his manager) would have been using his nuts as furry dice in the Jag....

 

[TheEarl]

I don't like non-walkers. If you know you've touched it and you know you're out, then you should go. In football or rugby it's different - you can't interrupt the game so that a player can confess that he handled in the ruck. In cricket the opportunity to be honest is there and I think you should use it. The bowler has worked bloody hard and your dishonesty has robbed him of a wicket.

Same goes for fielders. If the ball bounces just before their hands and they know they didn't take it on the full, they have the opportunity to tell the umpire. It may be a crucial wicket, but it's cheating to claim it if you know otherwise. Especially if you know that the batsman is the type of player who wouldn't claim it if the positions were reversed.

It's like a lawyer getting someone who's patently guilty on a technicality. The lawyer's managed to fool the jury, but it shouldn't be counted amongst his achievements; it's something to be ashamed of rather than proud.

The Earl

 

[snooper]

What everybody seems to forget is that we are NOT discussing sport. All the cited cases above concern paid entertainers and they are ususally paid more for a "win" than a "loss". This leads to the unfortunate situation that cheating is encouraged by financial advantage.

I refereed rugby for more years than I care to remember, retiring in 1992, and the game was amateur. Players would, from time to time, 'call' infringements against themselves, or scores for their opponents. The two cases I clearly remember are a scrum half who fumbled a pick-up (which I saw) and then looked up at me and knocked on in plain view, and obviously as a signal to me; and the full back who signalled a drop goal as good when I had a bad angle, was some distance away, and was undecided as to whether it went just over or just under the cross bar.

 

[TheEarl]

What everybody seems to forget is that we are NOT discussing sport. All the cited cases above concern paid entertainers and they are ususally paid more for a "win" than a "loss". This leads to the unfortunate situation that cheating is encouraged by financial advantage.

I refereed rugby for more years than I care to remember, retiring in 1992, and the game was amateur. Players would, from time to time, 'call' infringements against themselves, or scores for their opponents. The two cases I clearly remember are a scrum half who fumbled a pick-up (which I saw) and then looked up at me and knocked on in plain view, and obviously as a signal to me; and the full back who signalled a drop goal as good when I had a bad angle, was some distance away, and was undecided as to whether it went just over or just under the cross bar.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's confined to professional sport. I play rugby and used to play flanker. For those who don't know rugby, a flanker is the arch-nemesis of the referee. It's a bloody hard job to be a ref in rugby and flankers are usually the players in the ideal positions to cheat. Nothing violent (at least not from me), but flexible use of the laws can often get the ball back for your team. As the old saying goes - if the ref doesn't see it, then it's legal and I do pride myself on my ball-stealing abilities, both legal and illegal. It's cheating, but I'm an asset to my team because of those abilities.

However, if I knew that I hadn't grounded a ball for a try, I wouldn't claim it. Getting the ball back through nefarious methods is one thing, but I couldn't be happy with myself if I claimed a try that I knew I hadn't scored. I think the distinction in my mind comes from the fact that it's an actual points scoring manoeuvre. My surreptitious handling in rucks affects the flow of play and gives an advantage to my team. Claiming a non-try would be a definite affect on the scoreboard and that's 'not cricket' to my mind.

Oh and Snooper - I have great deal of respect for anyone who referees. Without you, no game. Thank you.

The Earl

 

[hunting_tiger]

I think that you have to leave the decisions to the referee in team sports. I assume that there are at least 10 situations in a game where a mistake can affect the outcome of the game or who will become champion in the end.

Fair play still exists in many racket sports probably because the players are used to be their own referees since childhood. I think that at least 90 % of the table tennis players corrects the referee in a major championship.


A goal camera can be a good thing but it will still not remove all problems. Canada scored a sudden death goal in the ice hockey championships in Finland a year or two ago that couldn't be seen on the tape from the goal camera. The officals started to check the cameras that the finnish broadcasting company had in the arena (around 40 cameras). There was ONE camera that showed that it was a goal and Canada was given the gold.

If we talk ethics then you have Epo and steroids in many sports. I think it sucks to see all the cheaters getting away with it.

The worst case of bad sportmanship I have seen is probably the incident during Solheim Cup in golf a few years ago when Annica Sorenstam made the shot from outside the green and the american girls said ... "it wasn't your turn no play" when the ball dropped into the hole. Every golfer knows that the american girls where right since their ball was a couple of feet further away from the hole but Annica played the way any golfer does 365 days a year since it is the most practical thing to do when all other balls are on the green. Ethics says that you say "it is my turn " before the ball is played but stupid things happen when you listen to the little in your mind.

 

[Vincent E]

Re: Re: Re: How honest should sportsmen be?

In football or rugby, it's an action game and the referee is the man who makes the decisions. If he gets it wrong, then that's the rub of the green, maybe the next one will go your way.

The Earl

"The rub of the green." Is that like saying, "That's the way the cookie crumbles?"

I would think the cookie metaphor would be more appropriate metaphor for a talking toaster.

"...and defintely no smegging flapjacks."

It's long past time someone hijacks this thread.

 

[steve w]

Earl,

Having watched a lot of rugby I can't disagree with your comments on it (especially having seen Neil Back cheat so decisively against Munster), but it seems the gist of what you're saying is that it's okay to cheat, as long as it doesn't affect the result. Ball-stealing in a ruck/maul/scrum = okay, pretending you've touched down for a try = bad. Yes?

I think it also depends on who the cheater is. I'm supporting Roy Carroll above as he plays for my team. I still hate Maradona for the Hand of God, even though I gave him a personal standing ovation for his second goal in that game.

Non-partisan viewers would appear to still have a point that sportsmen have some kind of wider responsibility through their status as role-models. Or is that incompatible with expensive, corporate-dominated sport? I notice most of the examples of "excessive" (!) fair play comes from sports with lower levels of prize money and TV deals.

 

[TheEarl]

The rub of the green isn't exactly the same as 'that's the way the cookie crumbles.' If you have the rub of the green, then it means luck is on your side and everything 50:50 goes your way. As I understand it the cookie thing is a nice way of saying shit happens, get over it. Do you not have the expression 'rub of the green' in America?

Steve: Obviously all creative law application (as we flankers like to call being a cheating bastard) affects the result, but basically yeah. I'll bend the rules to gain an advantage and I'll cheat if I can get away with it. But I won't be dishonest. I think that's the difference actually. Claiming a try I haven't scored is dishonest. Picking up the ball in a ruck and hoping the ref doesn't see is playing the game. I'm not lying, I'm just not utilising the strict rules of the game. That's why I think cricketers should walk. If they know they're out, then they're being dishonest if they don't walk.

Here's an interesting thought for you: Who says Carroll knew that the ball went over the line? When you're in goal it can be slightly disorienting and I'd imagine he had his eyes on the ball, rather than the goalline. He may not have known exactly where he was. I've seen no replays of this so I can't comment, but interesting thought.

The Earl

 

[Whisky7up]

Can I just mention Robbie Fowler here?

I'm sure other Brits will remember his actions.

 

[TheEarl]

Can I just mention Robbie Fowler here?

I'm sure other Brits will remember his actions.

Whisky, I'm afraid to say I have no idea what Fowler did. Care to jog my memory?

The Earl

 

[steve w]

Robbie went for a 50/50 ball with Dave Seaman a few years ago, and fell over his arms, then got up and assured the ref it hadn't been a foul. It was an honest and magnanimous gesture.

Unfortunately, Robbie has dived before and since that incident (like most strikers, including Ruud), as well as imitating cocaine abuse during goal celebrations, and started a homophobia incident with Graeme Le Soux. So he's hardly a role model for the kiddies...

Isn't the primary problem here the benefits/losses associated with cheating or referee mistakes? As it happens, this took place in a league game and, over the other 37 matches each team will play, such luck could even out. What if it was the Champions' League and £20m was at stake, or an Olympic gold? Isn't the honesty related to the level of the stakes?

On the subject of taking drugs, I think we're fast approaching the stage where it will be impossible to tell - genetic alteration etc will take care of that. And what's the difference between taking something to aid training, and training at altitude all year? Aren't they both an artificial advantage?

 

[Evil Alpaca]

If the referee in whichever sport doesn't listen to the player when they claim they DIDN'T foul or DID score, then they shouldn't take into account the contrary . . . particularly at the professional level. Sometimes, calls get missed or flubbed. Otherwise, they'd have someone watch an in depth replay of the whole contest after it was over and assign the score and victory after the fact.

 

[TheEarl]

On the subject of taking drugs, I think we're fast approaching the stage where it will be impossible to tell - genetic alteration etc will take care of that. And what's the difference between taking something to aid training, and training at altitude all year? Aren't they both an artificial advantage?

No, it's not the same thing. Training at altitude is bloody hard work. Like running up hills instead of on the flat. I'd say it was more vigourous training rather than an unfair advantage.

The Earl

 

[Whisky7up]

Robbie went for a 50/50 ball with Dave Seaman a few years ago, and fell over his arms, then got up and assured the ref it hadn't been a foul. It was an honest and magnanimous gesture.

Unfortunately, Robbie has dived before and since that incident (like most strikers, including Ruud), as well as imitating cocaine abuse during goal celebrations, and started a homophobia incident with Graeme Le Soux. So he's hardly a role model for the kiddies...

Yes...agreed. Now we have Di Canio....famous for catching the ball instead of taking the opprtunity to score while the goalkeeper was lying injured....in trouble for making a Facist salute.

 

[steve w]

Whisky,

Plays for Lazio - 'nuff said. A team with an odious record for fascist beliefs and symbols, both on the pitch and in the stands. And yet, still able to play in Serie A. Funny that. Like the Italian, Spanish and Turkish sides that have had games abandoned due to crowd violence, but received only token punishment. Or the Spanish player who missed a drugs test, but has still not even been charged let alone banned, unlike Rio and his long stint of Saturdays off.

Earl,

I'm not sure I see the distinction. As I understand it, especially with newer drugs like EPO, the point of taking drugs is not to have a specific performance advantage on race day due to that drug. The drug allows longer and harder training, with a faster recovery time, than would otherwise be available. This extra training and improved recovery is what yields the advantage - the drug may have left the body by race day.

Doesn't altitude training do the same thing, just without the use of chemicals? Paula Radcliffe was an ordinary 10,000m runner (in world terms) until she started spending 90% of the year up in the Pyrenees or in Denver, mimicking the high-altitude background of her Kenyan and Ethiopian rivals. She was born and raised in the UK, so this was a positive choice and not an accident of birth. But her altitude training gives her an advantage over other competitors who haven't done that.

Granted, altitude work is tough. So is all athletic training at the Olympic level. But doing something that gives the body the ability to train harder and longer and therefore be better at sea level on race-day gives an advantage. The only difference between the two is surely legality?