Sportsmanship and Running up the Score

Convention and Morality

• Last time we talked about rules and conventions in sport that go beyond the written rules of the sport – the unwritten rules, or the conventions of fair play.
• Today we are looking at another example of ‘unwritten rules’ and the connection of such rules to the idea of ‘sportsmanship’.
• Dixon focus on teams `running up the score’.

The Anti-Blowout thesis

• Anti-Blowout Thesis: it is intrinsically unsporting for players or teams to maximize the margin of victory after they have secured victory in a one-sided contest.
• There is a lot to clarify about this thesis. Especially the idea that some thing are ‘intrinsic’. And what exactly does ‘unsporting’ mean?
• We will see what Dixon means by this thesis as we go along instead of defining the terms now.
• But his aim is to argue against this thesis.

​

​

Running up the score in high-school

• This video has a lot of considerations relevant to whether running up the score is acceptable.
• There’s an idea that the point of the rule against running up the score is ’participation and sportsmanship’.
• There’s the thought that you should put second-string players in if you are winning big.
• There’s the idea that failing to run up the score is risky because a comeback is always possible.
• There’s the thought that the point of the sport is to ‘be competitive’ and ‘play to win’.

​

​

​

The standard (?) view

• Dixon claims that most of the (American) sporting community and many philosophers subscribe to this anti-blowout thesis. (Consider examples from baseball, basketball etc..)
• ‘Apparently the sporting thing for victorious teams to do on such occasions would be to "go easy" on their opponents, They should insert second- and third- string players, and mercifully run out the clock with time-consuming running plays, gracefully coasting to victory without compounding the losers' suffering’
• The video suggests that the thesis isn’t completely accepted. But still, it’s clearly reasonably popular.

​

​

Competitive vs recreational

• Dixon agrees that it’s bad to run up the score in a ‘friendly’, `recreational’ game:
• ‘What was meant to be fun would be turned into an exhausting, frustrating ordeal for the other player. In contrast, holding off would help her to improve her game and would lead to longer rallies, making the game more enjoyable for both players. In the same way, an experienced adult chess player should not repeatedly overwhelm a young child whom she is teaching how to play.’
• Why is it bad in recreational games? ‘”going for the jugular’’ would destroy the purpose of the game: recreation and nurturing, respectively.’
• ‘In contrast, my main thesis in this paper is that there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with pressing for a lopsided victory in a competitive game’

​

Competitive vs recreational

What exactly is the difference between competitive and recreational games?

Perhaps it’s related to Suits’ notion of play.

Is the distinction between competitive and recreational clear? Are there games that are both? Like high school sports maybe?

If the distinction is not clear then it’s not clear exactly what Dixon’s view is.

​

​

Is Running up the Score unwise?

Dixon accepts that running up the score might be unwise, perhaps it is better for a coach ’to give second-string players some playing time and perhaps try out novel plays and strategies in a low-risk setting.’

But we need to distinguish between a strategy that’s merely a bad idea for you, and one that is morally wrong.

Some actions are pragmatically bad – they lead to bad outcomes for you. But this is very different from something being morally wrong.

The anti-blowout thesis is a claim about what is ‘sporting’ -- which seems to be a moral notion.

​

​

​

​

​

The aim of sport

One argument for the anti-blowout thesis – winning is all that matters, so it’s gratuitous to keep trying hard and scoring points after the win is secured.

However, Dixon claims ‘Winning is not the only thing that matters. Players who win blowouts can be justly proud of their display of athletic excellence, the personal and team records they have set, and the excitement provided for fans.’

So even in ‘competitive’ sports. Dixon thinks that there are a variety of important values, not just the value of winning.

Does that mean that it’s reasonable to celebrate certain achievements even if you/your team loses? What are examples of this?

​

Humiliation

A different argument in favor of the anti-blowout thesis is that the losers are humiliated.

Dixon says that “there is absolutely no disgrace in suffering a heavy defeat by a far stronger team. While they do indicate athletic ability, neither victory nor defeat affects one's worth as a human being. What does reflect players' character is how hard and fairly they play, and how they conduct themselves in defeat and victory.”

The idea is, roughly, that the losers should not be humiliated or ashamed by losing. Those are not fitting reactions to the situation. (If you have acted morally badly, then it is fitting to be ashamed.) This gets at the idea of `fitting emotions’.

(But people do, in fact, feel shame/embarrassment when they lose. What are the implications of this?)

Condescension and intent

Dixon claims that it is `condescending’ to ease up. It treats the opponent as beneath them.

(Is this bad? Presumably the opponent is typically inferior.)

​

He notes that intent matters. An intent to humiliate is bad (e.g. mocking, taunting). So if you run up the score with that intent then it is bad. But typical cases are not bad.

​

Sportsmanship

• There are different conceptions of what ‘sportsmanship’ is, and they fit differently with Dixon’s view.
• For example, ‘Competitive sport (athletics), according to Keating (7: p. 33), has the different purpose of ”the objective and accurate determination of superior performance and, ultimately, of excellence.” The corresponding concept of sportsmanship is hard but fair play.’
• ‘Feezell’s model of sportsmanship is an Aristotelian mean ”between excessive seriousness, which mis-understands the importance of the play-spirit, and an excessive sense of playfulness, which might be called frivolity and which misunderstands the importance of victory and achievement when play is competitive.”’ (2: p. 10)
• Dixon thinks that it is not in this spirit of playfulness, to execute boring, time-consuming strategies in order to not run up the score.

​

​

​