Olympic Disqualifications.

All four couples not trying in the badminton have been disqualified. A great decision.

Good

Ban them for life and fine them the equivalent cost of giving every fan there a refund, each. That sort of attitude is disgusting and should be made an example of.

There's also argument for the Japan women's football team to also suffer the same fate is there not? They seemed questionably laid back in their match, and weigh in that a loss (would of) meant they dodged Brazil...

Cyncoedslumdog wrote:All four couples not trying in the badminton have been disqualified. A great decision.

But they did nothing wrong by the rules of the game. A shocking descision. What next? disqualification for letting slip a fart?

I suppose all football teams just passing the ball around to kill time should also be disqualified and the game awarded to the other side.

Judge dRed wrote:

Cyncoedslumdog wrote:All four couples not trying in the badminton have been disqualified. A great decision.

But they did nothing wrong by the rules of the game. A shocking descision. What next? disqualification for letting slip a fart?

Really? You'd be happy to pay hundreds of pounds to watch a team smack every shot deliberately out of play? Or you wouldn't feel insulted if you were the other competitor?

Red614 wrote:

Judge dRed wrote:

Cyncoedslumdog wrote:All four couples not trying in the badminton have been disqualified. A great decision.

But they did nothing wrong by the rules of the game. A shocking descision. What next? disqualification for letting slip a fart?

Really? You'd be happy to pay hundreds of pounds to watch a team smack every shot deliberately out of play? Or you wouldn't feel insulted if you were the other competitor?

Ah! so it's the cost of the ticket that determines what game play is allowed. At what level of ticket price do teams get disqualified if they're time wasting/match fixing? What happens if there are various ticket values?

Premier seats cost a fair bit. Is it fair for the opposition to waste time when people have paid a lot of money to see a game of football? How many times have one team or another just not played to their ability. Should there be sanctions against them?

The cost of the ticket is irrelevant, no matter whether you are in the cheap or expensive seats, you have still paid to see a competition, not someone lose on purpose.

Frankly, it's ridiculous anyone can argue deliberately losing isn't a ridiculous lack of sportsmanship. I do think football teams should also be penalised if they are deliberately time wasting, I think it should be the same in every sport. In judo for example it's called 'lack of aggressive intent', and is a penalty. In every sport, it's lack of sportsmanship. It's abuse of the system, disrespectful to your opponents, and disrespectful to the fans. I would fully back every sport to enforce a demand for attacking play regardless of the individual score lines or outcomes. You should ALWAYS be trying to score, no matter whether you are drawing or winning by ten goals. It's harder to instigate in a sport like football, and I don't think Spain's tactics are cheating, because the do look to score. Constant passing between defenders when you take the lead, a la Swansea, is cheating.

I believe that's part of the reason the back pass and the 6 second keeper rules were introduced in football. Small differences really but they do seem to have had an effect. I do remember a period in late 80s when teams constantly played it back to their keeper (I seem to remember this was a favourite tactic of Liverpool once they got their 1-0 lead).

And I definitely think there is a difference between playing defensively (or keeping a lead) and trying to lose. Neither Spain nor Swansea have ever played to lose, they just try to bore their opposition into submission.

The Olympics should represent the peak of human sporting endeavour... the Olympic motto is 'Citius, Altius, Fortius' not 'Crapius, Cheatinus, Boringnus'

Arkay v2.0 wrote:I believe that's part of the reason the back pass and the 6 second keeper rules were introduced in football. Small differences really but they do seem to have had an effect. I do remember a period in late 80s when teams constantly played it back to their keeper (I seem to remember this was a favourite tactic of Liverpool once they got their 1-0 lead).

And I definitely think there is a difference between playing defensively (or keeping a lead) and trying to lose. Neither Spain nor Swansea have ever played to lose, they just try to bore their opposition into submission.

I guess it's the flaw of the Olympics as it only pops up here. Having three prizes is different to for example the football world cup where in reality there Is only one, so letting a better opponent have an easy run is pointless. Even in group stages, the only way to guarantee an easier opponent in the next round is to win, losing gives you a more difficult one.

I probably went a bit far eluding Swansea cheat, but they do push it in my opinion. All teams time waste, we do it too but in no circumstance is it right.

Basically, sportsmanship should cover two aspects in my opinion -
1. You shouldn't abuse the rules or match format for your own advantage, be it by going yourself easier opponents or any other way
2. You should not prevent your opponent from having a fair chance at getting back into a match. Again in football terms, I don't mean give them the ball, I mean don't deliberately keep the ball permenantly out of reach with no attacking intent.

If you are going to get disqualified form The Olympics, and get a life ban to boot, what better way than to tw@t the referee on the World's biggest stage... Special

Out of curiosity, what happens now?

One of the Chinese players has quit her "beloved badminton" altogether, but still complaining that it was the fault of the competition rules (as if the rules forced them to play the way they did) - "what you've cancelled is not just a game, but my dream". The dream, of course, being to win a gold medal at whatever cost to sporting integrity. Good riddance.