Is it ever ethical to purposely lose in competitive sports? (1 Viewer)

[captain_amazing]

Listened to the recent Radiolab episode about this topic and thought it was pretty interesting.  I personally think there are times when it is ethical to lose in competitive sports, but I think they are all attributable to some poorly structured rule that creates an environment where losing is reasonably better than winning.

EDIT: Probably should summarize the story: 2012 Olympics, badminton, women's doubles, China vs Korea, the only significance this match had was whoever one would face and extremely tough opponent in the next round and the other would get a walk over, otherwise the match didn't matter at all.  So both teams played to lose and it was completely obvious, resulting in their eventual disqualification.

 

[captain_amazing]

Here's the episode.

Here's a 2min YouTube video on coverage of the badminton match that is talked about in the episode (starts at 48 in).

 

[RokNRole]

You mean like tanking for a higher pick?

 

[captain_amazing]

You mean like tanking for a higher pick?

Exactly - although that's only one scenario in what I think are many across all sports.

 

[RokNRole]

Exactly - although that's only one scenario in what I think are many across all sports.

If we are talking about something like how sumo tournaments are set up to be rigged then that is unethical.

If a coach chooses to play his less experienced players more once a season is a bust I consider that a grey area because those players are getting valuable playing time.

i can't immediately think of any other scenarios where people would choose to lose in sports. 

I dont have time to listen listen to the podcast right now.

Can you give a synopsis?

 

[El Floppo]

1982 world cup soccer match pitted w Germany vs Austria in a game where both teams knew ahead of time that a Germany win by 1 or 2-0 would allow them both to advance at the expense of Algeria, who had previously beaten the krauts. After W Germany scored in the 10th min, they played 80 more embarrassing minutes obviously not trying at all, and both advanced at the expense of Algeria. 

WC rules changed as a result of this game, making both last games of group play occur simultaneously.

 

[RokNRole]

As for the badminton thing

yes it's unethical and embarrassing 

 

[El Floppo]

Oh... IMO, no.

 

[RokNRole]

1982 world cup soccer match pitted w Germany vs Austria in a game where both teams knew ahead of time that a Germany win by 1 or 2-0 would allow them both to advance at the expense of Algeria, who had previously beaten the krauts. After W Germany scored in the 10th min, they played 80 more embarrassing minutes obviously not trying at all, and both advanced at the expense of Algeria. 

WC rules changed as a result of this game, making both last games of group play occur simultaneously.

Unethical and also stupid that total goals should matter

if you win you win

if you lose you lose

if tied go to penalty kicks until a winner is declared

 

[DaVinci]

It's only ethical if you're letting the ######ed kid win. 

 

[NutterButter]

draft position

 

[El Floppo]

Unethical and also stupid that total goals should matter

if you win you win

if you lose you lose

if tied go to penalty kicks until a winner is declared

There are 4 teams in each group. Total goals serves two purposes. Obvious tie break when teams have shared results (which often happens) and benefit of rewarding teams that try to attack, thus trying to limit low scoring games.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

My kids have always been on teams that play to win even against better or lesser competition.  With that said I have seen first hand a team in baseball lose on purpose a pool game to play a lower seed team.  The thought was that Team A was so good that they were going to win the whole tournament, and this team didn't want to face Team A in the first round of tournament play so they lost to face Team B which was not very good.  It worked out for the team in that they played for the Championship against Team A.  The team lost but at least they got to play for a championship according to several of their parents. 

Bad Sportmanship or Good Strategy? 

 

[RokNRole]

There are 4 teams in each group. Total goals serves two purposes. Obvious tie break when teams have shared results (which often happens) and benefit of rewarding teams that try to attack, thus trying to limit low scoring games.

Then I say just do away with soccer altogether

 

[captain_amazing]

As for the badminton thing

yes it's unethical and embarrassing 

I disagree and think it was ethical, although I agree it was embarrassing.  I think it's also embarrassing that the rules are structured in such a way that would permit a scenario where not just one, but both teams had incentives to lose.  The incentive in every game, match, what have you, should be to win.

 

[RokNRole]

I disagree and think it was ethical, although I agree it was embarrassing.  I think it's also embarrassing that the rules are structured in such a way that would permit a scenario where not just one, but both teams had incentives to lose.  The incentive in every game, match, what have you, should be to win.

Why do you feel it isn't unethical to rig a flawed progression system?

 

[captain_amazing]

Bad Sportmanship or Good Strategy? 

I'd say it's both.

 

[belljr]

We never try to lose our pool games but we don't always start our best lineup either

 

[captain_amazing]

Why do you feel it isn't unethical to rig a flawed progression system?

The goal is to try and win it all, yes?  If there are loopholes to doing so, why not take advantage of them?  Although, what they did was against the rules, hence their disqualification (so perhaps in this instance I would tend to agree that it was unethical), but if they could have done the same thing (try to lose) but within the confines of the game as a way to put them into a better position to win it all, then I thinks that's ok, because their intention is to win it all.  

 

[hagmania]

Ethical. Play however you want, just don't cheat.

 

[RokNRole]

The goal is to try and win it all, yes?  If there are loopholes to doing so, why not take advantage of them?  Although, what they did was against the rules, hence their disqualification (so perhaps in this instance I would tend to agree that it was unethical), but if they could have done the same thing (try to lose) but within the confines of the game as a way to put them into a better position to win it all, then I thinks that's ok, because their intention is to win it all.  

Belichick?

 

[captain_amazing]

Belichick?

I may be a NE fan....

 

[RokNRole]

I may be a NE fan....

Well that explains everything

 

[CletiusMaximus]

1982 world cup soccer match pitted w Germany vs Austria in a game where both teams knew ahead of time that a Germany win by 1 or 2-0 would allow them both to advance at the expense of Algeria, who had previously beaten the krauts. After W Germany scored in the 10th min, they played 80 more embarrassing minutes obviously not trying at all, and both advanced at the expense of Algeria. 

WC rules changed as a result of this game, making both last games of group play occur simultaneously.

Funny - I just referenced this game in the Sharkpool Packers thread a couple days ago. The Disgrace of Gijon

The context of the post is this Sunday's Packers game, which is the late Sunday game.  If the Redskins win their game earlier Sunday, the winner of the Packers-Lions goes to the playoffs and the loser is done. However, if the Packers and Lions tie, they both go through even if the Redskins win. If the game were to go to overtime, both teams would have a pretty strong incentive to form a non-aggression pact. Of course it will never happen.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Only if you're a female grappler of some kind, because every loss enhances your ability to market your comeback "journey".

 

[kface]

I think the argument maybe more whether ethics and a game are even in the same conversation.  If you don't feel like winning in the olympics who the heck cares.  It has no impact on humanity.

 

[matuski]

It seems the rules of tournaments have made it an advantage to lose in certain situations.  If your goal is to win the tournament and losing a match helps you do that... seems like the rules are the issue.

 

[matuski]

Also - I have called badminton badmitton my whole life.

 

[belljr]

It seems the rules of tournaments have made it an advantage to lose in certain situations.  If your goal is to win the tournament and losing a match helps you do that... seems like the rules are the issue.

Yep and there are teams that trophy hunt. For us we figure you have to beat the best team eventually so we don't care when it is

 

[Steve Tasker]

IIRC, there was a South American soccer tournament in which one team needed to beat the other by 2 goals to advance. There was a rule in play in which overtime goals counted as two in the standings, therefore, if they couldn't win in regulation by 2, they needed to go to OT and win it there. 

They ended up being ahead by 1 with 15 minutes left. This lead to a desperate effort to score once more against the other team. Unable to get it done, they tried to let the other team score and instructed the goalie to let one by. However, the other team was aware of the situation, too, and declined to take any shots. So, they realized, they desperately needed an own goal to force a tie and OT, where they could try for the 2-goal win. 

So the final few minutes of the match, the team was wildly shooting at both goals. The team they were playing was the team that would have advanced otherwise, so, the opponent was desperately defending both goals. 

Eventually, they scored against themselves to force the tie with a few minutes left. Which, of course, forced the opposite scenario, the team which had been defending both goals now needed to score in either--to win or lose by just 1 to advance. But they couldn't get it done in time, and ended up losing in OT. 

Qualification tournament for the 1994 Shell Caribbean Cup

Tournament organizers had instituted a rule that all games had to end with a winner - no draws allowed - and any extra time "golden goal" counts as 2.  Barbados needed to beat Grenada by 2 to advance to the Cup, and went up 2-0 before Grenada scored in the 83rd minute.  After trying to score legitimately for ~5 minutes, Barbados then scored on themselves intentionally to tie the game at 2.  Grenada figured out what was happening and for the last ~2 minutes of regular time and all of stoppage time, Barbados successfully defended both goals as Grenada tried to score at both ends of the field.  The game went to extra time and Barbados scored the winner, getting the 2-goal margin they needed.

 

[JoeSteeler]

Also - I have called badminton badmitton my whole life.

holy #### me too! 

 

[Steve Tasker]

I remember a Sabres/Flyers game (I looked it up - April 8, 2011).  The Sabres were on the fringe of going to the playoffs but still in a battle with the Rangers and Canes, and the Flyers were battling for the division against the Penguins.  It was each team's 81st game of the season.  The Sabres scored a goal with 9:57 left in the third to tie it at 3, and the two teams appeared to institute a gentleman's agreement that it was going to overtime.  Both teams pretty much just passed the puck around in their own ends before dumping down the ice and changing, rinse repeat.  Both teams got their free point and the Sabres ended up winning in overtime. 

Totally meaningless in retrospect but I'll always remember how terrible it was to watch.  It was so blatant that they were both happy to get to overtime, guarantee themselves a point, and then play it out.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Never

 

[need2know]

Only if you make a little extra scratch

 

[FUBAR]

Qualification tournament for the 1994 Shell Caribbean Cup

Tournament organizers had instituted a rule that all games had to end with a winner - no draws allowed - and any extra time "golden goal" counts as 2.  Barbados needed to beat Grenada by 2 to advance to the Cup, and went up 2-0 before Grenada scored in the 83rd minute.  After trying to score legitimately for ~5 minutes, Barbados then scored on themselves intentionally to tie the game at 2.  Grenada figured out what was happening and for the last ~2 minutes of regular time and all of stoppage time, Barbados successfully defended both goals as Grenada tried to score at both ends of the field.  The game went to extra time and Barbados scored the winner, getting the 2-goal margin they needed.

That's one screwed up system. 

 

[FUBAR]

Funny - I just referenced this game in the Sharkpool Packers thread a couple days ago. The Disgrace of Gijon

The context of the post is this Sunday's Packers game, which is the late Sunday game.  If the Redskins win their game earlier Sunday, the winner of the Packers-Lions goes to the playoffs and the loser is done. However, if the Packers and Lions tie, they both go through even if the Redskins win. If the game were to go to overtime, both teams would have a pretty strong incentive to form a non-aggression pact. Of course it will never happen.

Wouldn't the Lions then travel to Seattle?  Seems they have huge incentive to win, same for the packers to not lose.