Trainer punished for his team's stellar success

[Skybird]

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/...pponent-161-2/

Queer. How could one punish a trainer if his team is so superior that it wins by a stellar lead?

The German women's national football team has defeated some of the opposing teams of past years by two digits to nill or one, because there simply are not enough competitive national teams out there. Should they be punished for the lacking competitiveness of others out there?

I accept an argument that when you have clearly decided a match, you must not push things to the limits by unleashing even more pressure than before. It is reasonable to save your prime players instead (but only when the victory is indeed clear and safe). But after the German football team mauled the Brazilians at the world chmapionshiop, there too were thos eocmplaining thta the Germans should have stopped shooting goals after the 4:0 or so. What...? Is it the strong team's obligation to help strengthening its opponent? Has socialism's robber mentality now even hijacked sports competition?

Instead, the trainer of the defeated team should be "punished": for having done a lousy job in preparation. Or the official organising the tournament or league - for having done a lousy job in creating adequate league classes.

But you cannot complain about the trainer of the victorious team, not as long as he has not used immoral means to achieve that victory. If he just does a good job and has good players - then hell, let them shoot the stars off the sky.

The educational ideals behind this sanctionising of success, imo are highly questionable.

And this: who who does sports and plays in a team and competes, wants to be given a feeling that the other side is giving him some scores as a gift of mercy only? Now that really makes you feel bad, I tell you. I played volleyball in my school team 30 years ago. We once had that situation, a team from another school so superior that they slaughtered us. At the end they completely withdrew their first line, and had only reserve players in the match who played a lazy ball and just chuckled when we scored, which happened rarely enough. And that hurt us much more than the first part of the match when we got slaughtered by a superior opponent. It was that bad that three players after that disaster left the school team.

[fireftr18]

I read the article and have a feeling there's more to the story. From a sports medicine point of view, the coach could have done one thing different.
Don't play the starting players, instead, play the ones who don't get much time. That way, you don't risk the starters getting injured and they get some rest. The other players get some much needed game time and experience.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by fireftr18

I read the article and have a feeling there's more to the story. From a sports medicine point of view, the coach could have done one thing different.
Don't play the starting players, instead, play the ones who don't get much time. That way, you don't risk the starters getting injured and they get some rest. The other players get some much needed game time and experience.

That seems more like a "point-for-improvement" at best rather than a cause for a suspension. However, a brief check over the Net actually reveals a substantial percentage that feels the coach was unsportsmanlike, and that he should in essence do everything to handicap his own team (I've seen suggestions to use their left hands...)

I must admit I'm surprised too at this latest zeitgeist...

[Jimbuna]

On first viewing the decision looks questionable but after further consideration it would appear the punishment was handed down for the coaches actions being deemed unsportsmanlike or OTT in respect to the lesson the youngsters would learn from such a result.

A hard one really, depending on ones viewpoint.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by fireftr18

I read the article and have a feeling there's more to the story. From a sports medicine point of view, the coach could have done one thing different.
Don't play the starting players, instead, play the ones who don't get much time. That way, you don't risk the starters getting injured and they get some rest. The other players get some much needed game time and experience.

He replaced the first lineup with the reserve players in the beginning of second half/third quarter. What else should he do? Bind his players' hands on their backs or sending three players less onto the playing field?

You worry about the loosing players and their psyche. I worry as well about what is being taught to the obviously superior players if they were not allowed to play (and you do not know before the match how it will go anyway): are you getting banned now when you are "too good"? Now that is a message being taught!

And if the difference between both teams was so obviously to be known in advance -. then why even having a organization of matches that allow for such harshly different teams to play in the same league/tournament level? There is a reason why usually such things get organised in hierarchical playing classes that consider rankings, and in the youth sports: age as well.

Obviously here meet two teams that are so much apart that they should/must not meet in the same playing class.

I do not like this common Zeitgeist today.

[fireftr18]

Skybird, I agree. Where I am, the only high school sponsored sport that is divided into school size classes is football (Specifically American football). All the others puts all the schools into the tournaments regardless of size. That puts a very small school against a very large school. The small schools realize they can't compete in the state tournaments, so they organize their own tournaments. The competition is very good and there are no schools that win year after year.