|
I will concede that the score was a bit reidiculous.
but....
"...they're doing it to have some fun and maybe learn"
Learn what? How to be lousy at a sport and still win because your lack of skill has shamed the winning team into giving up?
And for having fun, if that was all, why the heck even join a team?
They could go out and play for fun with no pressure.
What are "team" sports designed for? It's to learn to better yourself and your team, with the potential to be the best at what you chose.
You learn teamwork and sportsmanship.
Would it be "true" sportsmanship to instill a false sense of accomplishment, "feel sorry" for the other team, giving them "charity points" just so you felt better about winning?
I believe this began with kids playing T-ball and youth soccer.
There weren't any winners or losers. They basically just ran around and had fun. In the end, every kid got a trophy for essentially "just showing up". Sure, they're just little kids, but at what age do you allow the kids to fail, to learn from adversity?
For the record, I was never on the "winning team" as a kid, but I appreciated the lesson learned from losing. It taught me to strive to be better next time and learn from my peers.
I also believe that the winning coach had played his entire bench.
Short of stopping the play (and REALLY embarassing the losing team) they probably could've played 4 or even 3 players to give them a chance, but then there's the REALLY embarassing thing again.
All I can say is now high school teams are going to have to consider whether their winning a game by a large margin is going to embarass their school, and taint their record, just for being a better team for that game. Or maybe they will have their game called on account of a slaughter rule.
Maybe they should have called the game after the first quarter, and prevented this in the first place.
|
Threaded Mode