Any team that intentionally throws at opposing players should be kicked out of the league, regardless of the reason.
Also I dispute the “owe” part.
If the Brewers want to be nice and help the Cardinals by playing their starters, OK. But there is zero *obligation * - moral, legal or professional - to do so.
Wanting to keep your starters rested by not playing them in a meaningless game is perfectly legitimate self-interest.
Commies have a “mercy rule”?
Who’d a thunk it?
There’s an unwritten rule that you play to win in that circumstance, but you wouldn’t take pitchers out of rotation to get that win, and the team wouldn’t be criticized for letting any player who could benefit from some rest sit on the bench either. This case is more like sending in all your subs, but this is not about MLB. Griping about this is expected, demanding a do over isn’t.
Yup, I see that now. This gig is run by LLI and brands its overall championship event a “World Series,” but it’s not what anybody in the States calls “the Little League World Series.” (I know the OP wasn’t the one who used that phrasing here.)
I notice that official results page does not include the spurious extra game.
Also, I am compelled to note that this is the kind of thing that happens when you have bad tournament design. A three-team round-robin isn’t a great starting point, but they could have done better and avoided this problem. At a minimum, the start times for Games 5 and 6 should have been dependent on standings after Game 4. There could even have been dynamic scheduling for all games after the first, to push the highest-leverage games later.
I wouldn’t have sympathy for the Chinese, except for some history: the Olympic Badminton scandal. Teams (all from Asia) deliberately played poorly to screw with the tournament. So there’s some precedent for intentionally losing in international sports in Asia, and not entirely impossible that that sort of shenanigan is being done again.
Great example of even worse tournament design! The last game of a round-robin in this case included two teams both already in position to advance, with a perceived seeding advantage to be gained by losing.
Being someone who hates both football and baseball, can you instead use soccer and or Formula 1 analogies?
Thanks!
Can you avoid quoting an entire novel-length post just to ad a little joke at the end?
Thanks!
Oo oo! Do it for me using cricket and jai alai! I know fuck all about either game but this should be great!
Losing to weaker players so that weaker players will advance to face you in the playoffs or finals is common in some sports, isn’t it?
It’s certainly not common in the big US sports. How many sports have non-elimination tournaments that would make that a viable strategy?
Given how China treats Taiwan, if I were Taiwan, I’d laugh in China’s face and call them losers and that yeah, we didn’t try our best with the Philippines so that they’d lose
Sorry, was on mobile, didn’t realize. :smack: 
Perhaps I phrased incorrectly. You would owe the integrity of the game that much. Yes, give the injured guy rest if he needs it. But don’t make a travesty of the pennant race by letting someone clinch against a bunch of AAA players.
I don’t know. To whatever extent it occurs, it reflects bad design. It may be impossible to avoid structures where competitors care less, or not at all, about the result of a match at hand relative to a subsequent one, and so conserve resources for the latter. But it should never be to a competitor’s advantage to lose.
It’s not exactly a “travesty” for an also-ran team to play prospects in September, over the 25-man-roster guys who have failed to be competitive on the year. There is no bright line of quality between “AAA players” and major-league players. In fact the best of the former are certainly better than the worst of the latter, so benching some of the overpaid guys that put the team into also-ran status isn’t at all conceding the remainder of the schedule. Besides, on average the chase teams in a pennant race will play just as many games against such lineups as the leader.
We see this often in American Football. A team has nothing to play for, being locked into their play-off position, but they still end up in a meaningful game regardless. What are their ethical obligations? If it’s to their team and fans, they should rest key players to maximize their effectiveness in the playoffs. If it’s to the integrity of the game, then they should play all of their starters until such a point that the game is effectively decided.
Yes, as a fan of the game myself, I like to see teams play their best, even in meaningless games, because I think a proper spirit of competition means not deliberately taking it easy on opponents, at least not to the degree that might affect the outcome, but also for the sake of the fans who may have paid good money to see the game or just want to enjoy a good game at home or at a bar. Similarly, for the fans of the team that might get screwed by that, it kind of sucks to not know whether or not they would have gotten in if that team had put forward their best game.
However, I don’t really see this as an issue of integrity. The point of competition is to achieve the best possible outcome. If you already have the chance to progress in a tournament, your obligation is to maximize your outcome, which means making sure you can then do the best you can at that stage. What happens if you play your start players and they get injured? What happens if you exhaust them and they under-perform in the situation in the next game where it actually matters? I’d be FAR FAR more upset if a team I was cheering for didn’t rest their players and someone got injured and that negatively impacted a game that really mattered.
And besides, luck (good or bad) is a part of sports. They try to make fair schedules at the beginning of the season, but maybe a team that was bad last year is now one of the best, or vice versa, and someone ends up with a much harder, or easier, schedule as a result? What happens if you’re coming up to a tough game between two really good opponents and it has major post-season implications, but one of those teams has several key injuries? This is all just part of the game, and I don’t really see it as all that bad.
Besides, if a team is on the cusp of making the playoffs and this really matters that much, it’s still MOSTLY their fault. They could have performed better in other games to not get stuck in that situation, and if they are a bottom rung playoff team, it probably doesn’t matter toward the post-season results much. And if they’re a good team, unless it has major seeding implications–which, admittedly, it can in the NFL, could mean the difference between a bye week and a guaranteed home game and playing an extra game and all on the road, but not so much in other sports–they should still be good enough to overcome the disadvantage.
And it’s not like this behavior isn’t bless in similar situations. If a team is in the middle of a blow-out, star players often get rested, no one complains about the spirit of competition in that situation when the resulting score doesn’t accurately represent the difference in skill. Hell, in many situations, people will berate the coaches (and in some situations even fire them) for running up the score. In 2007, when the Patriots went 16-0, other than their fans, most people weren’t proud of them for playing hard, they were getting constant criticism for leaving star players in running up the score. Sure, they still lost the Super Bowl that year, that aside, how might their fans have felt if in one of those games they easily had in the bag, up by three or four scores late in the game, had one of their star players gotten hurt?
Yeah, there’s an issue if it’s done with the intent to manipulate the standings, like the aforementioned badminton situation, but it’s clear both were doing exactly what was best for their teams, so I see no issue there at all. If they could prove collusion, fine, play another game, otherwise it does look like they’re just being sore losers to me.
Aye, that badminton thing seemed to be caused by the idiotic way the tournament was designed, not by malice or disdain on the part of the participants.
I don’t know anything about Formula 1, so I can’t use that, but a fictional soccer analogy would be:
It is the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia, and one of the groups consists of Russia, Ukraine, Poland and Mexico.
Ukraine defeats Russia and Mexico, and by virtue of its six points already has secured passage to the knockout stage by being at the top of its group. This makes its last match, against Poland, meaningless, and so Ukraine rests its starters for the last group-stage match against Poland, wanting to save them for the subsequent knockout stage.
Ukraine loses to Poland, but still remains at the top of the group with 6 points.
Poland’s victory eliminates Russia, who now drops to 3rd place in the group.
Russia loses its mind and furiously accuses Ukraine of deliberately losing to Poland for the sake of eliminating Russia, claiming an anti-Russia conspiracy. Russia complains to FIFA.
FIFA sides with Russia - by the way, this 2018 World Cup is being held in Russia - Russia is the host country - and orders Ukraine to play a ***4th ***group-stage game, this one against Russia - and states that the winner will make it to the Round of 16 and the loser will be eliminated.
Bear in mind that if Russia had simply won more matches, it wouldn’t have been on the brink of elimination to begin with.
Bear in mind that even if Ukraine had played its starters, Poland could have won anyway.
Bear in mind that Russia (like China) is notorious for not being able to take defeat gracefully.
Bear in mind that if the situation were reversed, Russia certainly wouldn’t do Ukraine any favors.