Checking emotions at the door for athletes - your thoughts

halfcentman

Whether this has any validity or not is something I am really not concerned about. What I am concerned about is that it is not out of the realm of possibility, and I want some viewpoints on what you guys and gals might think about it:

1) Tied football game in 4th quarter with less than a minute left.
2) Pass play to sidelines results in lousy late hit call on defense, and defender is noticeably livid.
3) Receiver says something to defender that's not caught by ref putting defender on tilt. Receiver goes behind ref for "protection" and defender gets 2nd personal foul call and ejection.
4) Offensive team kicks game-winning FG and wins.

HERE'S THE QUESTION:

Let's say that the livid defender's mother was a drug addict who was found dead in the family apartment when he was six. If the receiver who got hit said something like "so, how's that dead, crack-addict mother of yours" in order to put the defender even more on tilt, is that sleazy or just part of the game?

To me, it's all fair. They are just words to illicit a response.

bking

<< <i>Whether this has any validity or not is something I am really not concerned about. What I am concerned about is that it is not out of the realm of possibility, and I want some viewpoints on what you guys and gals might think about it:

1) Tied football game in 4th quarter with less than a minute left.
2) Pass play to sidelines results in lousy late hit call on defense, and defender is noticeably livid.
3) Receiver says something to defender that's not caught by ref putting defender on tilt. Receiver goes behind ref for "protection" and defender gets 2nd personal foul call and ejection.
4) Offensive team kicks game-winning FG and wins.

HERE'S THE QUESTION:

Let's say that the livid defender's mother was a drug addict who was found dead in the family apartment when he was six. If the receiver who got hit said something like "so, how's that dead, crack-addict mother of yours" in order to put the defender even more on tilt, is that sleazy or just part of the game?

To me, it's all fair. They are just words to illicit a response. >>



It's sleazy AND all part of the game. Class left sports a long time ago. There have always been a fair number of jerks, but now class is almost totally non-existant. At the risk of being un-PC, I call it the "urbanization of sports"

digicat

Part of the game, but the receiver's being an idiot for putting a personal target on his back like that. He risks that target not coming off with the uniform.

PowderedH2O

It's sleazy AND all part of the game. Class left sports a long time ago. There have always been a fair number of jerks, but now class is almost totally non-existant. At the risk of being un-PC, I call it the "urbanization of sports"

I don't think this is anything new. Ask any African-American ballplayer in baseball in the 40's and 50's what was said to them by other players. Al Rosen and Hank Greenberg were frequently goaded by people making remarks about their Jewish heritage. And any athlete that had even a remote association with anything having to do with homosexuality was definitely the source of many slanders during games. Many years ago in the movie Long Gone, William Petersen's character draws a bases loaded walk to win the pennant by making a comment about the pitcher's sister to a pitcher with a known bad temperament. Although this movie was a fictional account of baseball in the 50's and 60's, I doubt that these types of activities were too far-fetched. I agree that these activities are sleazy, but to think that this is something that hasn't existed since the beginning of sports would be naive.

bking

<< <i>It's sleazy AND all part of the game. Class left sports a long time ago. There have always been a fair number of jerks, but now class is almost totally non-existant. At the risk of being un-PC, I call it the "urbanization of sports"

I don't think this is anything new. Ask any African-American ballplayer in baseball in the 40's and 50's what was said to them by other players. Al Rosen and Hank Greenberg were frequently goaded by people making remarks about their Jewish heritage. And any athlete that had even a remote association with anything having to do with homosexuality was definitely the source of many slanders during games. Many years ago in the movie Long Gone, William Petersen's character draws a bases loaded walk to win the pennant by making a comment about the pitcher's sister to a pitcher with a known bad temperament. Although this movie was a fictional account of baseball in the 50's and 60's, I doubt that these types of activities were too far-fetched. I agree that these activities are sleazy, but to think that this is something that hasn't existed since the beginning of sports would be naive. >>



Where did you get the idea I said it didn't exist? I clearly said "there have always been a fair number of jerks". I think now, however, it's more the norm than ever before.

PowderedH2O

I don't mean that you said it didn't exist. I just mean, that I don't think there is any difference in the quantity of jerks now than before. Larry Doby said that when he was signed by the Indians, almost half the team refused to shake his hand when he was introduced. Jackie Robinson got the same treatment. I think the percentage of jerks is probably the same as it ever has been.

bking

<< <i>I don't mean that you said it didn't exist. I just mean, that I don't think there is any difference in the quantity of jerks now than before. Larry Doby said that when he was signed by the Indians, almost half the team refused to shake his hand when he was introduced. Jackie Robinson got the same treatment. I think the percentage of jerks is probably the same as it ever has been. >>



I want to be careful about how I say this, but I think there is a HUGE difference between the racism that existed back then and the "Me" attitude that exists now.

PowderedH2O

Perhaps you are right. But the net of what the original poster said held true 70 years ago as much as it does today. Do you not think that Larry Doby didn't hear the N word when he went up to bat in a clutch situation from the catcher or infielders in an attempt to rattle him? Jackie Robinson was told to "go back to the cotton fields" by the Phillies manager during a game. Fortunately, neither of these fine men let this crap get to them.

bking

<< <i>Perhaps you are right. But the net of what the original poster said held true 70 years ago as much as it does today. Do you not think that Larry Doby didn't hear the N word when he went up to bat in a clutch situation from the catcher or infielders in an attempt to rattle him? Jackie Robinson was told to "go back to the cotton fields" by the Phillies manager during a game. Fortunately, neither of these fine men let this crap get to them. >>



yeah, staying on the original point, we're in total agreement. My beef, OT as it was, is that now it seems like hardly ANYONE controls their emotions.

digicat

I guess the big question is, what causes more of a reaction in someone: a racial slur or an insult against a dead family member who died in a shameful way?

bking

<< <i>I guess the big question is, what causes more of a reaction in someone: a racial slur or an insult against a dead family member who died in a shameful way? >>



That would, I suspect, depend entirely on what the recipient is more sensitive about.

SanctionII

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Bad behavior and a lack of morals and ethics has been a part of the human condition since Adam and Eve; or since our human ancestors first evolved from primates [depending on your beliefs].

What is different today is:

1. An ever advancing technology that allows instances of bad behavior to be captured and broadcast around the world with ease; and

2. A change in the attitude of the persons who collect and broadcast information about what is and what is not appropriate for broadcasting [there is a greater willingness to broadcast anything and everything today that there was in decades past].

halfcentman

All I can say is that if I were the defender, I have the personality (even under pressure) to offer a short, monotone diffusing comment or gesture.

grote15

I think Sanction II nailed it. The media back in the 40s-60s were much more limited and obeyed an honor code and just would not report certain things when it came to scandalous behavior.