The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Sportsmanlike (?) dumping (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Maybe it would have been better for them to have forfeited the match on a pretext.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 16:43, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 15:55, acesover wrote:
I found this comment on th enet and am not sure how the matchups takes place. Does anyone know for sure?

Here is what I found:

Group stage leading into elimination rounds is an incredibly common format. People keep questioning the format saying it leads to scenarios where it’s better to lose, but that’s simply not the case. What happened is there was a huge upset in another group leading to a top team (who others wanted to avoid) ending up as a lower draw so top teams in other groups could run into them earlier in the next stages. The problem isn’t the format (in fact the format is great because it guarantees athletes more games and gives viewers more stuff to watch). The problem here is in the execution of the format.

One solution is simple, soccer/football figured it out a long time ago. Play all of the final group games simultaneously. That way competitors won’t be sure who they might face in the next stages, so they have to assume they’ll face an easier opponent by winning (since better teams should finish higher up the group standings)

The above post was al inrefrence to the Olympic dumping in the Olympic gaes that just occurred..


The statement that it's "simply not the case" is absurd. It's EXACTLY the case. After the pool play was the knockout stage. Obviously, running into the top team "at an earlier stage" if you win means that it's better to lose (assuming you've already qualified for the knockout stage, as the teams in the scandal had). It's advantageous to play the best team as late as possible, once you get to the knockouts. The easiest fix in the world would let the teams with the best records in pool play select their opponents in the elimination round; then, even if you've qualified, you'd be strongly incentivized to try to win the "meaningless" remaining match(es).

Picture playing the last game in the regular reason in college basketball, having clinched a spot in the March Madness tournament. If you win your final game, you play the #1 seed in the first round, and if you lose, you play a lower seed. That's how stupid the format was. Here's a pretty good article on it:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics--e......hes.html


If that is how it works I agree that the agangement is kind of weird.


I am curious has it always been that way in this sport?

Part of the problem with this discussion is we seem to be discussing two entirely different matters. One being a flawed set of rules for elimination and the other being the ethics of a team purposely throwin a game in Olympic event. I see this as two entirely different matters.

I do not know if all badminton tournaments are run this way or just the Olympic event. I do not know if it is a double elimination or triple how it works. Which ever way it works it seems not to work. But as some put the blame on the rules committee and many seem to do just that. HoweverI blame the coaches and atheletes as it seems to cheapen their participation and where they finish in what is deemed to be an event to see who is the "BEST" and the two runner ups. This is not necessarily how it will sork out by the rules set, or the way the atheletes scheme in order to beat a flawed system. The old six on one and half dozen of the other. I wonder how the Greeks decided who had the best badminton team. Smile OK just kidding I know the Olympics has gone commerical and does not resemble much of what it originally was in Greece.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
spatlind
View Profile
Special user
still moving
863 Posts

Profile of spatlind
Before I comment, let me repeat that I said earlier that I thought the rule was short sighted.

Having said that, as aces noted, and as best I understand it, the situation arose when the Chinese favourites suffered an upset defeat. In order to avoid meeting their countrymen (as second favourites), the other Chinese team threw their match. Having seen that, 2 other teams followed suit. This, to me, seems to be an inordinate level of manipulation of results. Had the original game gone to form, none of this would have happened, and there would have been no reason to question the format. But it didn't.

So are we saying that if an underdog wins against form, all others should be allowed to throw games in order to manipulate further fixtures? "YES" is what I am hearing many of you say. But how far should this be taken? It is against the rules and the spirit of the sport. "But the ends justify the means", I hear you say. Does this mean that it is acceptable to deliberately injure an opponent in order to gain an advantage? To make a nick on the cricket ball (I hate cricket) etc etc? "But that's different", I hear you say. Why? It's against the rules.

So where do you draw the line? "The organisers have to draw the line, and they made a mess of it." Perhaps they did, but they drew a line, indicated that deliberately throwing a match was against the rules and then disqualified 3 teams for breaking the rules.

The rules are the rules.
Actions lie louder than words - Carolyn Wells

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature - Frank Lloyd Wright.
spatlind
View Profile
Special user
still moving
863 Posts

Profile of spatlind
Just to add - as someone else noted, and which would be a better way to implement the rule, all final matches could be played at the same time.
Actions lie louder than words - Carolyn Wells

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature - Frank Lloyd Wright.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Lobo,

I read the link you posted and while I agree with most of what was said the article does blame both the people who set the rules and the players. However the phrase, and this is not exact, "they did not cheat" may be somewhat true, and I say somewhat, I feel they cheated themselves, their fans, the sport and the Spirit of the Olympics. They stooped below cheating by throwing a match in which they should have won. They cheapened what they have trained for, for so many years and if they feel that this is worth it then I feel sorry for them and sorry for those who feel they are correct in their decision to dump a match and lose on purpose as being acceptable. I am sure there is nothing in their training regiment that includes throwing a match.

As I said in a previous post I find fault with the people who set the rules as being somewhat shortsided to create such a possibility but even more astounded that an athelte of this level would consider dumping a match after all the sacrafices they have made for so many years. As a trite saying goes...Your milage may differ, and I am sure many here disaagree with me. No surprise there.

I said all I have to say about this and how I feel. Not upset with anyone.

Good luck to all the participants in this Olympics and strive for perfection in what you have worked so long and hard for.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2012-08-05 21:06, spatlind wrote:
So where do you draw the line? "The organisers have to draw the line, and they made a mess of it." Perhaps they did, but they drew a line, indicated that deliberately throwing a match was against the rules and then disqualified 3 teams for breaking the rules.

The rules are the rules.

Is there a rule that says that a team is not allowed to throw a match deliberately? If not (and I suspect not), then drawing the line where they did was wrong. Undebatably.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
But they should be penalized, I think, for their lousy match throwing technique. They could have at least made it LOOK like they were trying to win. Smile

But, given that they made no attempt whatsoever to disguise what they were doing, it seems obvious that they didn't think they were doing anything wrong.
spatlind
View Profile
Special user
still moving
863 Posts

Profile of spatlind
There is, though, a rule stating that acting in a way detrimental to the game is not allowed. And to my knowledge, they were repeatedly warned against doing what they were.
Actions lie louder than words - Carolyn Wells

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature - Frank Lloyd Wright.
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3079 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
What they should have done--if they were clever--is declared a forfeit due to *personal issues* or "illness".

Since probably very few of you know about international softball rules, here is an interesting tidbit: the pitcher is not required to actually throw the pitches, like in baseball. She just declares to the umpire that she would like the batter to walk.

In baseball, one still gets the feeling that the pitcher might mess up and throw a hitable ball. There is an appearance of risk (if only an appearance). Seems slightly different to me.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Suppose that in the round of 16 they had a rule that if you win, you're out, but if you lose, you're in the quarterfinals. Would it be unethical to lose intentionally under those circumstances?

(I've often thought that it would be interesting in Formula One to have a random number chosen after qualifying: if it's less than, say, 0.2, then the starting order would be reversed, so the fast drivers/cars would have to get through the pack to win. It could be fun.)
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-08-06 16:44, S2000magician wrote:
Suppose that in the round of 16 they had a rule that if you win, you're out, but if you lose, you're in the quarterfinals. Would it be unethical to lose intentionally under those circumstances?

(I've often thought that it would be interesting in Formula One to have a random number chosen after qualifying: if it's less than, say, 0.2, then the starting order would be reversed, so the fast drivers/cars would have to get through the pack to win. It could be fun.)


Well I said I ws done posting to this thread but I do have to ask S2000magicica. Have you been drinking? Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2012-08-06 23:12, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-08-06 16:44, S2000magician wrote:
Suppose that in the round of 16 they had a rule that if you win, you're out, but if you lose, you're in the quarterfinals. Would it be unethical to lose intentionally under those circumstances?

(I've often thought that it would be interesting in Formula One to have a random number chosen after qualifying: if it's less than, say, 0.2, then the starting order would be reversed, so the fast drivers/cars would have to get through the pack to win. It could be fun.)


Well I said I ws done posting to this thread but I do have to ask S2000magicica. Have you been drinking? Smile

Not too much.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-08-06 23:13, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-08-06 23:12, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-08-06 16:44, S2000magician wrote:
Suppose that in the round of 16 they had a rule that if you win, you're out, but if you lose, you're in the quarterfinals. Would it be unethical to lose intentionally under those circumstances?

(I've often thought that it would be interesting in Formula One to have a random number chosen after qualifying: if it's less than, say, 0.2, then the starting order would be reversed, so the fast drivers/cars would have to get through the pack to win. It could be fun.)


Well I said I ws done posting to this thread but I do have to ask S2000magicica. Have you been drinking? Smile

Not too much.


Well then. Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-08-06 08:51, stoneunhinged wrote:
What they should have done--if they were clever--is declared a forfeit due to *personal issues* or "illness".

Since probably very few of you know about international softball rules, here is an interesting tidbit: the pitcher is not required to actually throw the pitches, like in baseball. She just declares to the umpire that she would like the batter to walk.

In baseball, one still gets the feeling that the pitcher might mess up and throw a hitable ball. There is an appearance of risk (if only an appearance). Seems slightly different to me.


I agree. There is more than an appearance of risk. A pitcher throwing a ball for an intentional walk sometimes throws a wild pitch that gets away from the catcher, allowing base runners to advance and score.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Sportsmanlike (?) dumping (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.3 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL