Sportsmanship: a comparative case study

[Christian]

It's off season right? Might as well open a can of worms ....

Many of you I am sure have seen the recent goal by a player named Luiz Adriano of Shachtar Donezk. He did not respect the "unwritten rules" of football, but these rules must be respected and if you don't it is bad sportsmanship. One player of the opposite team had been injured, and you don't attack your opponent when he is down. Just like in cycling.

Except ...

The player in question had injured himself assumedly while trying to get the ball from the opposite team (I didn't see the game, however for this hypothetical case study let's assume the player injured himself while trying to get the ball, or preventing someone from getting the ball, or doing anything else in order to help his team). When you drop your sword and fall on it, it is your own fault, and you should have to live with the consequences (except of course when you literally fall on a sword, chances are you will not do a lot of living after that). This guy could have chosen not to attack the player of Donezk, not to get the ball, not do whatever he did to help his team by which he injured himself. Yet he put himself out there and thus created an oppotrunity for his opponent. Luiz Adriano had every right in the world to score when he did, and all this "unwritten rule" stuff is just bollok$, excuses that losers make to justify their loss. Just like in cycling.

Who is right, who is wrong?

 

[Netserk]

In cycling mechanicals and crashes happen all the time. In P-R nobody waits if you lose your chain. In football every team follow the rules of fair-play in every match 99%.

IOW in cycling 'wait-for-your-opponent-because-of-his-bad-luck' is a pseudo rule. In football it isn't (and most likely Adriano will receive a penalty)

Adriano: Wrong
Contador: Right

 

[Eshnar]

It's off season right? Might as well open a can of worms ....

Many of you I am sure have seen the recent goal by a player named Luiz Adriano of Shachtar Donezk. He did not respect the "unwritten rules" of football, but these rules must be respected and if you don't it is bad sportsmanship. One player of the opposite team had been injured, and you don't attack your opponent when he is down. Just like in cycling.

Except ...

The player in question had injured himself assumedly while trying to get the ball from the opposite team (I didn't see the game, however for this hypothetical case study let's assume the player injured himself while trying to get the ball, or preventing someone from getting the ball, or doing anything else in order to help his team). When you drop your sword and fall on it, it is your own fault, and you should have to live with the consequences (except of course when you literally fall on a sword, chances are you will not do a lot of living after that). This guy could have chosen not to attack the player of Donezk, not to get the ball, not do whatever he did to help his team by which he injured himself. Yet he put himself out there and thus created an oppotrunity for his opponent. Luiz Adriano had every right in the world to score when he did, and all this "unwritten rule" stuff is just bollok$, excuses that losers make to justify their loss. Just like in cycling.

Who is right, who is wrong?

you probably didn't watch that goal.
The Shaktar guy didn't just attacked with an opponent down... the action had already stopped. The referee then dropped the ball, as usual, to a Shaktar player (the side that was defending during the last action), in order to let him kick the ball to the other team and restart the game. So did the player, but Luiz Adriano just took the ball, while all the opposite defense was standing like "wtf?" and scored without resistance.

 

[El Pistolero]

Both Contador and Luiz Adriano were right. People should learn when they're outclassed and stop whining about it.

 

[Netserk]

Both Contador and Luiz Adriano were right. People should learn when they're outclassed and stop whining about it.

See Eshnar's post..

 

[El Pistolero]

See Eshnar's post..

Lol, I don't care. Shakhtar Donetsk won with 5-2. They(Danish team) get paid millions and they're still to lazy to run after a ball.

 

[Arnout]

I think it is incomparable. In football, there is a referee judging for what sort of things a game should be stopped. In cycling, there is no such thing. For me, it means in both cases all action can continue in case there is no interference.

Of course, the agents in the game or sport can choose to not continue. In cycling, that would be waiting for your opponent, which has happened in the past. However, as there is no-one forcing this rule, it is only voluntary and should only happen at the discretion of the actors involved (I sound like a lawyer, I know). In cycling, often there is a part of the peloton waiting and some guys not waiting. Nothing wrong with both of these actions. However, often the waiters then call out the non-waiters for being unsportive or immoral or what have you. Annoying, because there is no such thing in cycling, thus an action like this cannot be called right or wrong. Stick to your choice and live with it. It's the same in football as long as a referee is not involved: just play your game and don't expect presents.

As soon as these so-called sportive actions are demanded by the opponent, they have lost all meaning anyway.

 

[The Hitch]

Schleckfan_94 totally ignores the fact that Andy Schleck got his advantage in the first place by doing the exact same thing on stage 3. Chavannel caught beind a crash. Contador caught behind a crash.?

"pff grow up losers its all in the game."

13 days later

"wah wah no fair no fair"


That is far more important than this stupid debate about whether Contador should have waited or not. If there had been no stage 3 and Schleck had actually earned his advantage on some other stage then we could talk about whether Contador was a bit of a **** to take back that time that way

But as it happens since schleck did exactly the same thing, Contador wsas well within his rights.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Luiz Adriano wrong, Alberto right (duh)

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

I don't really care about football, but at least I know Contador was right.

 

[The Hitch]

It's off season right? Might as well open a can of worms ....

Many of you I am sure have seen the recent goal by a player named Luiz Adriano of Shachtar Donezk. He did not respect the "unwritten rules" of football, but these rules must be respected and if you don't it is bad sportsmanship. One player of the opposite team had been injured, and you don't attack your opponent when he is down. Just like in cycling.

Except ...

The player in question had injured himself assumedly while trying to get the ball from the opposite team (I didn't see the game, however for this hypothetical case study let's assume the player injured himself while trying to get the ball, or preventing someone from getting the ball, or doing anything else in order to help his team). When you drop your sword and fall on it, it is your own fault, and you should have to live with the consequences (except of course when you literally fall on a sword, chances are you will not do a lot of living after that). This guy could have chosen not to attack the player of Donezk, not to get the ball, not do whatever he did to help his team by which he injured himself. Yet he put himself out there and thus created an oppotrunity for his opponent. Luiz Adriano had every right in the world to score when he did, and all this "unwritten rule" stuff is just bollok$, excuses that losers make to justify their loss. Just like in cycling.

Who is right, who is wrong?

As Eshnar said your account is incorrect. Its not so much unwritten rules as a specific agreement the teams went into 2 seconds before the goal.

The equivalent in cycling I guess would be if there was some proccession (though not death related like with WW as that is too serious) say some 100th anniversary celebration or some such, where every team agreed that they pull for 10 minutes.

Then the last team which is to pull for the last 10 minutes instead decides with 5km to go to to send its leader and 2 domestiques ahead as the rest of the team stops working, and his rivals, sitting near the back are in a poor position to give chase and spend the last crucial km too shocked at what just happened to be able to organize anything until its way too late.

Lol, I don't care. Shakhtar Donetsk won with 5-2. They(Danish team) get paid millions and they're still to lazy to run after a ball.

they werent lazy, they were assured by their opponents in the spirit of fair play that they didnt have to run as nothing would happen.

No doubt you will reply with some totally unrelated quip of some roman general who said never to trust your enemy or some **** like that.

 

[El Pistolero]

Not my problem they're fools.

Everyone with a little ounce of vision saw that he was going for the goal to score. They didn't even try to do anything, probably because they thought the referee would back them up, I call that being lazy. I've even read interviews that a player of the Danish team thought the Ukrainian team would give them a goal for free after this. Lmao. No wonder they lost.

Anyway, I really don't care about football because of all the faking that goes on to try and get the referee to hand out penalties, yellow cards or red cards. Just play ball and take a hit once in a while.

 

[The Hitch]

Not my problem they're fools.

Everyone with a little ounce of vision saw that he was going for the goal to score. They didn't even try to do anything, probably because they thought the referee would back them up, I call that being lazy. I've even read interviews that a player of the Danish team thought the Ukrainian team would give them a goal for free. Lmao. No wonder they lost.

Yeah they did think they would get a goal for free?

You know why? Because a that is what usually happens in such a situation, and B half of the Ukranian teams players were actively signalling " we should let them get the goal back for free".

But as usual you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

[El Pistolero]

Yeah they did think they would get a goal for free?

You know why? Because a that is what usually happens in such a situation, and B half of the Ukranian teams players were actively signalling " we should let them get the goal back for free".

But as usual you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

So that means the other half didn't give a **** about your supposed fair play.

They also usually wait for a cyclist when he takes a pee break, but sometimes that just isn't the case. Ask Cancellara and EBH.

Paris-Roubaix would be lot's of fun if they were being so fair.

Football players fake so much to try and get a penalty or any other advantage. It's sad to see. And then they talk about fair play... I thought the aim was to win the match, not the Nobel Prize of Peace.

 

[The Hitch]

So that means the other half didn't give a **** about your supposed fair play.

They also usually wait for a cyclist when he takes a pee break, but sometimes that just isn't the case. Ask Cancellara and EBH.

Heres where your whole macho bull**** logic fails. You keep giving examples of teams or people who merely choose to overlook what happened to someone else.

Taking a ****, falling off a bike, dropping a chain, falling ill, getting struck by thunder, etc etc all these are things that affect ONE party.

It is ENTIRELY the perrogative of the 2nd party if they choose to be nice or to ignore the other persons problems.

But in the example we are talking about the incident effected BOTH parties.

So none of your examples about how some guy somewhere refused to give help someone else mean jack ****.

BOTH (as in not just one) parties were affected by the incident and BOTH parties made an agreement as to what would happen.

This wasnt some unwritten rule that was last discussed 10 years ago but an actual agreement and understanding between both teams as to what is supposed to happen.

so keep digging a hole for youself with stupid examples that dont have any relevance if you want. Its clear you have no idea what you are talking about and are arguing for the sake of argument and nothing else.

 

[El Pistolero]

There was also an agreement between teams to neutralize stage 2 at the Tour. Yet a lot of people were against it for good reasons. Perhaps some players on the team didn't agree with that decision? Or simply did not understand what deal was struck.

Are we going to look at all sport agreements that were broken now? The list is long. Vino still needs to pay his money because he tested positive. Guess what, the deal wasn't legally binding! Yet you have no problem sucking up to Vino on this forum that's for sure.

That's where your whole "I'm a Saint" logic fails.

And how can a deal have been struck between 2 parties if you say your self half the team didn't mind that they just scored a goal. How contradictory.

 

[Eshnar]

The deal wasn't just between the teams. It was with the referee too. In such cases it's him who arrange that... if a team doesn't agree he has to drop the ball between two opposite players. He didn't, so it was clear to everyone the deal was in place.

There was also an agreement between teams to neutralize stage 2 at the Tour. Yet a lot of people were against it for good reasons. Perhaps some players on the team didn't agree with that decision? Or simply did not understand what deal was struck.

Are we going to look at all sport agreements that were broken now? The list is long. Vino still needs to pay his money because he tested positive. Guess what, the deal wasn't legally binding!

That's where your whole "I'm a Saint" logic fails.

And how can a deal have been struck between 2 parties if you say your self half the team didn't mind that they just scored a goal. How contradictory.

 

[El Pistolero]

The deal wasn't just between the teams. It was with the referee too. In such cases it's him who arrange that... if a team doesn't agree he has to drop the ball between two opposite players. He didn't, so it was clear to everyone the deal was in place.

With Cancellara a deal with the officials was also struck. What's the difference? Same goes for the Vino case.

Or do you guys really think there aren't any "referees" during a cycling race?

If there was a deal the referee should've handled it better .

If what Luis did was against the rules then the referee should've taken action. He didn't, so what's the problem exactly? It's not like he didn't see it.

 

[The Hitch]

And how can a deal have been struck between 2 parties if you say your self half the team didn't mind that they just scored a goal. How contradictory.

OMG, you really have no clue

 

[Eshnar]

With Cancellara a deal with the officials was also struck. What's the difference? Same goes for the Vino case.

Or do you guys really think there aren't any "referees" during a cycling race?

If there was a deal the referee should've handled it better .

He couldn't, because rules don't include this situation.

 

[El Pistolero]

He couldn't, because rules don't include this situation.

I know, so he didn't do anything wrong. Either re-write the rules(and you still won't be able to punish him then) or drop the fair play act.

 

[The Hitch]

With Cancellara a deal with the officials was also struck. What's the difference? Same goes for the Vino case.

Or do you guys really think there aren't any "referees" during a cycling race?

If there was a deal the referee should've handled it better .

this is hillarious, you know nothing about football (and i dont blame you, i dont really like it much either) but you cant resist pretending to be omniscient so you change every single thing mentioned in this thread into a cycling analogy.

Cycling is a chaotic sport where 25 teams and 180 riders are facing eachother at any 1 point that takes place over many km and can have many geographical locations where things can be happening at the same time.

Football is beteen 2 teams with 1 focus point the ball and 1 central authority figure.

Can you understand the difference and the reason why you wont be able to win the argument by twisting everything into a totally unrelated sport with its own rules and systems and customs.

Cycling and football are about as distantly related as any 2 sports can be so your lectures on what happened to Cancellara or EBH or whoever the **** have 0 to do with Luis Adrianos behaviour in a the football game.

 

[Eshnar]

I know, so he didn't do anything wrong. Either re-write the rules(and you still won't be able to punish him then) or drop the fair play act.

He won't be punished, indeed, as he didn't break any rule.

But we're talking of sportsmanship, not bad ruling.

 

[El Pistolero]

this is hillarious, you know nothing about football (and i dont blame you, i dont really like it much either) but you cant resist pretending to be omniscient so you change every single thing mentioned in this thread into a cycling analogy.

Cycling is a chaotic sport where 25 teams and 180 riders are facing eachother at any 1 point and many points where things can be happening at once.

Football is beteen 2 teams with 1 focus point the ball and 1 central authority figure.

Can you understand the difference and the reason why you wont be able to win the argument by twisting everything into a totally unrelated sport with its own rules and systems and customs.

Cycling and football are about as distantly related as any 2 sports can be so your lectures on what happened to Cancellara or EBH or whoever the **** have 0 to do with Luis Adrianos behaviour in a the football game.

Uhm, read the topic: it's all about comparing the 2 sports. Whether or not you think that is possible I don't care. If you don't feel like comparing the 2 sports then get out of this thread and don't post?

What's the situation:

-Someone broke an oral agreement between teams and officials with no legal binding.

Yeah, that can never happen in cycling.

*cough* Vino *cough*

 

[The Hitch]

With Cancellara a deal with the officials was also struck. What's the difference? Same goes for the Vino case.

Or do you guys really think there aren't any "referees" during a cycling race?

If there was a deal the referee should've handled it better .

If what Luis did was against the rules then the referee should've taken action. He didn't, so what's the problem exactly? It's not like he didn't see it.

Was Maradona right to handball against England in mexico in 86?

Yes because in 2010 Belgium Vino paid Kolobnev to win LBL.

Welcome to Pistrollero's world.