Olympic Badminton Controversy: 8 Women's Doubles Players Disqualified For Throwing Matches
Source: Huffington Post
LONDON -- Eight female badminton doubles players were disqualified Wednesday from the London Olympics after trying to lose matches to receive a more favorable place in the tournament.
The Badminton World Federation announced its ruling after investigating two teams from South Korea and one each from China and Indonesia. It punished them for "not using one's best efforts to win a match" and "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport" in matches Tuesday night.
"We applaud the federation for having taken swift and decisive action," IOC spokesman Mark Adams told The Associated Press. "Such behavior is incompatible with the Olympic values."
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/badminton-olympics-disqualified-lose-matches_n_1727640.html
This sounds like the right decision with the description of how they played, but if it's possible to do this to your benefit then they need to seriously look at how the badminton tournament is set up as there's a serious flaw.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)(to the boss) without making it so obvious.
The next round should be randomly selected to avoid rewarding this type of gamesmanship.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,270 posts)This was 4 teams in 2 matches - all wanted to lose. It's easy to lose to someone who's trying; when they're trying to lose too, it becomes an art-form demanding its own special skill.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)"Well, isnt that the whole point of badminton?
Cripes, I played badminton once and I could not lose fast enough."
olddad56
(5,732 posts)rocktivity
(44,572 posts)rocktivity
Igel
(35,274 posts)It's my kids' attitudes: Screw the law, if you can get away with it it's ethical; in fact, abiding by the law when there's no punishment is just stupid.
With the corollary that if the law's written in such a way as to make being caught possible, it's probably a badly written law.
Inference: There is no morality or ethics apart from what's imposed on you. Character is conformity enforced at law-point. Values are dictated by carefully considering immediate penalties and immediate rewards.
When somebody steals something from one of my students in class, few students say "that's wrong" or condemns the thief for an immoral act. Just, "bad for you" or "he shouldn't have done tht to you" or "why'd you leave it where they could steal it?" and justification for the thief.
Don't know if the parents screwed up or if the media re-educated them. Explains a lot, though.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)...well, maybe they WERE on drugs! OH, maybe they needed to be on drugs!!
aggiesal
(8,907 posts)The organizers decided to implement Pool play instead of knockout rounds.
The favorite to win the gold took 2nd place in their pool, They now have to
play the 1st place team from a different pool in the knock out round.
Because no team wants to meet the favorite, why finish 1st in your pool?
So they decided, that the best way to win a medal is to avoid playing the
favorite. Which means losing.
This strategy happens all the time in Pool Play. Soccer, Basketball, ... all
play in pool play rounds, and when they don't want to meet a favorite
in the knock out round, they play weaker players. It's just more subtle
and harder to verify. While in Badminton, there are no reserve players,
so the it becomes really obvious.
This is the organizers fault. This is what they wanted, this is what they got.
rocktivity
(44,572 posts)Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 11:18 PM - Edit history (5)
This is the organizers fault...(They) decided to implement Pool play instead of knockout rounds...
Because no team wants to meet the favorite...the best way to win a medal is to avoid playing the favorite...
If there's no incentive to either win OR finish first, and the problem is this widespread, you're absolutely right -- the way the tournament is set up is at fault.
When World Cup Soccer had a similar problem, they solved it by having all the finals games played simultaneously.
rocktivity
aggiesal
(8,907 posts)What do I win?
Anything cool?
rocktivity
(44,572 posts)[center][/center]
Unless you'd rather have something that's actually useful:
[center][/center]
rocktivity
aggiesal
(8,907 posts)I'll take the spork. (SPoon + fORK)
That's cool.
Although turning down any album by David Hasselhof was a tough decision.
NOT!
Enjoy the day.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)football teams in the lead who run losing running plays just to burn out the clock and making it impossible for the opponents to come back?
If the strategy is available, it will be used and it is not the players' fault.
aggiesal
(8,907 posts)rocktivity
(44,572 posts)versus a tournament.
But didn't we just have a Super Bowl in which the runner was ordered NOT to score in favor of kicking a field goal with no time left? He turned his back to the goal line and fell over it instead!
rocktivity
onenote
(42,585 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,321 posts)otherwise you might be accused of fixing the outcome of bets.
onenote
(42,585 posts)and they are virtually never, ever accused of fixing the outcome.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,321 posts)not the WINNERS trying to run out the clock.
obamanut2012
(26,046 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,321 posts)strategic losing to try to influence who you play next, the players seem to indicate that this is normal. Suddenly, the Badminton Federation decides to try to appear to run a clean tourney, blindsiding some players.
I don't see a big difference between this practice and our own basketball games, where it is considered "strategic" to force fouls during the final few minutes. It turns a sport into an exercise in "gamesmanship".
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)rocktivity
(44,572 posts)rocktivity
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)may3rd
(593 posts)by any other name