No definatly not. In cricket if its obvious you are going to win, sides are in a hurry to do so.
When I was in high school ages ago, the basketball team dominated our local league enough that typically with 5-8 minutes left in the game, they’d ease up on the opponent. Easing up entailed discontinuing the full-court press and subbing in the second team. This inevitably reduced the margin of victory, unless the opponent responded by putting in their second team.
I can’t remember anyone complaining about such end-game tactics.
Even in limited overs games? I didn’t know that.
But then, I know nothing about cricket; I’m mildly amazed that I know about limited overs games.
Random observation about sportsmanship in runaway games… In the games I have officiated I would summarize the mentality of letting someone lose ‘with grace’ as: “It’s OK let up on Offense, but never on Defense.”
That does seem very unsportsman-like to me. Records that are simply given away are meaningless, i am sure whoever held the record before that lady did it without the other team handing it to her. That just seems dirty and cheap.
Well, the idea was that without the broken leg, she would have easily beat the record on her own. Letting her have the basket was a way of undoing some of the damage of the broken leg. I agree that it’d be entirely inappropriate if her chance of getting the record were spoiled by, say, graduating and leaving the team (since that something that every college player has to deal with).
Don’t you think there have been other records that have stood due to injuries to other players?
Just because the injury happens 1 game from the record shouldn’t be any different than if that player missed a game early in the season with a sprained ankle.
This story is about kids soccer teams required to narrow the margin of victory
Although it’s certainly not an act of sportsmanship, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 1984 actually intentionally let an opponent score to get the ball back–to help their running back set a record! Read toward the end of this article.
This never happens in football (soccer), where keeping a clean sheet is an achievement.
Omagh Town (part-time players) played against some Premier League teams for charity (following the Omagh bomb).
The score against Liverpool was Omagh Town 1 - 7 Liverpool:
Chelsea (Omagh Town 0-8 Chelsea) and Man U (Omagh Town 0-9 Man U) weren’t so charitable:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-60433455.html
Maybe not all the money went to charity however…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/733168.stm
From that link:
So if you’re behind by 5 (or possibly fewer), “own goal” becomes the correct strategy.
Here’sone of my favorite stories from sports. It is not exactly the same thing, but close.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t forget that the risk of injury in American Football is INCREDIBLY high. Also, there is the matter of a turnover leading to a defensive score. So at the end of a game, why would a team that is leading risk either an injury or give the trailing team an opportunity for a defensive score? Kneeling down is a matter of preserving victory and health more than a matter of sportsmanship.
As for letting down when leading be a large margin - yes, teams will often switch from an aggressive, pass-oriented attack to a run attack when leading. And, yes, there is an unwritten sportsmanship rule in football that you shouldn’t be throwing the ball when leading by a large margin. But again, there is a strategic reason for doing this. Since the clock stops after an incomplete pass, pass plays frequently will run only a few seconds off the clock. Conversely, running plays tend to keep the clock going. It is in the leading team’s best interest to run out the clock as quickly as possible, so they switch to running plays.
This strikes me as being highly unfair to the woman who held the record, as presumably all her points were scored in competition. I’m willing to bet that she had some injury related downtime as well.
Why would the one with the broken leg even want to participate in this charade? Injuries are part of the game. Deal with them and move on.
OK, I don’t get this. Cale, the league chair, says on the one hand that this rule has been in place for years, but then says that it’s necessary because last year teams were winning 14-0 or 16-0. Which is it?
Hell, with that rule in place one might as well get rid of the goalkeeper altogether.
Maybe a little. But if I remember right, the main objection to it at the time was sportswriters throwing out idiotic ideas like “What if the defense had held her scoreless?” To that I say, bullshit.
I finally thought I had a case with this one. Exactly what I was looking for: Premiership team vs a no name group of part-time players in a non-competition match with a score that could only mean that after Liverpool scored seven goals they let the plucky young upstarts get one back as a sign of respect and sportsmanship…
Unfortunately the only report I can find on the match says that the Omagh Town goal was the first one scored in the ninth minute*. So instead we have a story of a premiership team underestimating their opponents, conceding an early goal, and then soundly thrashing them over the remaining eighty minutes. Not exactly the feel-good fairytale I was hoping for. That, plus the scores from the other two matches, puts the final nails into the coffin of my theory.
There was a case in high school football in Kansas where one team let a player on the other team with Downs syndrome to score.
http://www.kansascity.com/2009/09/17/1452971/rivals-cooperate-on-touchdown.html
That’s a little off topic, but it’s in the spirit of what’s being asked, I think.