Part of Plato’s philosophy was to foster the practice of teaching and learning through dialogue.

 

The goals of National Sportsmanship Day encompass Plato’s philosophy as well as critical thinking, which requires and enables us to look at things from all sides, and to analyze competing ideas.

- In a recent national survey, 100% of the surveyed college faculty responded that the most important goal of the college experience was to develop the ability to think critically.

 

The following discussion questions and right-versus-right conundrums should help to foster discussion and critical thinking among students, coaches, teachers, and parents alike.

 

The Institute for International Sport credits the Center for Global Ethics (www.globalethics.org/) in Camden, Maine for introducing the Right-vs-Right discussion approach. 

 

Discussing Sportsmanship Issues: The Right-vs-Right Method

 

The Institute for International Sport has found that a compelling way to approach sportsmanship is through a Right-vs-Right discussion.  Right-vs-Right discussions involve topics that carry some degree of “rightness” on both sides of the issue.  Here are nine age-based Right-vs-Right conundrums that will serve as the basis for fascinating discussion and analysis among students, teachers, coaches, and parents. 

 

RIGHT-VS-RIGHT CONUNDRUMS:

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEVEL

 

Scenario 1

Situation: Joey and Timmy are playing in a juniors tennis match when Joey hits a shot that Timmy can’t reach. Timmy knows that the ball is clearly inside the baseline and should be good for a point, which would win the game for Joey. However the referee, who is the parent of another player (not the opponent) and has been kind enough to volunteer to umpire, calls the shot out. This ruling ties the match at 40-40, giving Timmy a second chance to win the game. What should Timmy do?

 

Conundrum: As we know, players’ job is play, coaches’ to coach, and umpires to referee. Therefore, it is right for Timmy to not argue with the umpire, allowing his call - albeit an incorrect one - to stand. However, Timmy knows that the shot was in. So, in the spirit of fair and honorable play, it is also right for Timmy to inform the umpire - in a respectful manner - that his call was incorrect, and that Joey should win the game.

 

Scenario 2

Situation: During gym class at school, the kids usually play dodge ball. The two best athletes in the class, Beverly and Polly, always get to be the captains and pick the teams. One of Beverly’s friends, who she always eats lunch with, is Kathy. Yesterday at lunch, Kathy told Beverly how much she really loved dodge ball, but she knew she wasn’t very good at it. It hurt her feelings that she always got picked last or next to last. The next day, Beverly and Polly had to pick teams again. Beverly won the coin flip and was allowed to pick first. Among others, she could select Kathy, her friend, or Sarah, a much stronger player. Whom should Beverly pick?

 

Conundrum: Beverly understands quite well that picking Kathy would allow Polly would get better players and, most likely, win the game. So, it is right for Beverly to pick Sarah, trying to gain a competitive advantage in doing so. However, Beverly also knows that if she picks Kathy - especially early in the selection process - she would make her friend’s day. So, it is also right for Beverly to pick Kathy, understanding that friendships are more important than dodge ball victories.

 

RIGHT-VS-RIGHT CONUNDRUMS:

MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL

 

Scenario 1

Situation: Long Lots and Bedford have a longstanding basketball rivalry. The boys all come from the same town and every year, they play each other in the last game of the season for the middle school championship. Having played against one another for so many years, all of the boys know each other. They know who each team’s best shooters are, and who each team’s weaker shooters are. Bedford’s leading scorer is their center, a much bigger and taller boy who scores lots of points on lay-ups close to the basket. However, he is a very poor shooter from anywhere the outside, and is especially bad at free throws. So, the Long Lots coach instructs his players to foul Bedford’s big center anytime he gets the ball close to the basket and starts to shoot. This will force him to make two free throws rather than an easy lay-up. The strategy works and the Bedford center ends up taking 24 foul shots, missing 18 of them, and scoring only 10 total points. Long Lots wins the game easily, and wins the title. Is this a fair tactic?

 

Conundrum: There is no rule in basketball that prevents a team from fouling their opponent’s worst foul shooters whenever they touch the ball. So, it is right for Long Lots to continually foul the Bedford center, gaining a competitive advantage in doing so. However, Long Lots also fears that Bedford’s team may be more talented than they are, and that they are only resorting to this tactic to make up for a difference in skill. So, it is also right for Long Lots to not foul Bedford’s center, allowing him and his team to compete for the championship on a more even playing field.

 

Scenario 2

Situation: Gilman was playing St. Paul’s in lacrosse. At one point, a St. Paul’s midfielder crosschecked Gilman’s best attack man, flattening him and knocking the wind out of him. However the referee didn’t call a penalty on St. Paul’s. Gilman’s captain, a close defenseman, was obviously very mad and he ran up the field to complain to the referee about the foul not being called. The referee just told him to go back to his position. When play resumed, the same St. Paul’s midfielder brought the ball up field. When he reached Gilman’s defensive end, the same defenseman who had complained about the   “no call” slashed him as hard as he could across the arms, drawing a penalty flag from the referee. The St. Paul’s midfielder was injured on the play, and had to be removed from the game. Was the Gilman defenseman justified in his actions?

 

Conundrum: Teammates are taught to treat one another as family, protecting each other against unfair actions of outsiders. So, there may be some right in the Gilman defenseman stepping up in defense of his fallen teammate. However, two wrongs rarely make a right and the Gilman defenseman is definitely wrong for intentionally slashing his opponent. So, the real “right” would be for him to control his emotions better, gear up and play harder, rather than intentionally violating the rule and, perhaps, intentionally injuring an opponent. Furthermore, his actions drew a penalty from the referee, and therefore, diminished his team’s chances of winning the game.

 

RIGHT-VS-RIGHT CONUNDRUMS:

MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL (CONT.)

 

Scenario 3

Situation: In an important soccer match, Calvert Hall and Loyola were tied in the first half. One of Calvert Hall’s strikers chased a pass into the penalty area with a Loyola defender running right next to him. Just as they reached the ball, the striker jumped to his left, intentionally crossed his legs and tumbled to the ground, rolling over twice and holding his ankle – faking an injury. From the referee’s angle, it appeared that the defender committed an unnecessarily hard foul, intentionally pushing and tripping the striker. So, the ref not only called for a penalty kick, but also ejected the defender from the game. Calvert Hall scored on the PK, and went on to win the game easily as Loyola was forced to play with only 10 men for the rest of the match. Were Calvert Hall striker’s actions reasonable?

 

Conundrum: In competitive sporting events, players are taught to do whatever it takes within the rules to win matches. The Calvert Hall’s striker was not pushed, and his “acting job” resulted in Loyola being penalized unfairly. Was there any “right” in the Calvert Hall’s strikers actions? (It might be good to remind the students at this point that victory without honor is profoundly unsatisfying, as stated by ethicist, Michael Josephson).

 

RIGHT-VS-RIGHT CONUNDRUMS:

HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

 

Scenario 1

Situation: Wild Lake High School has a school-wide rule against any athletes drinking alcohol or using drugs. Any athletes caught drinking or drunk at any point during the school year are automatically removed from their teams. The boys’ baseball team has qualified for the playoffs and after winning its first two games, is set to play in the state final. Two days before the game, the team’s captain bumps into two of his close friends, both starters on the baseball team, in the parking lot outside of a school dance. Both players are drinking beer, and there are empty cans in the car, indicating they have already had a number of beers. What should the captain do?

 

Conundrum: Turning his friends in would not only jeopardize his friendships with them, but losing two starters would also destroy any hope Wild Lake’s baseball team had of winning the championship. So, out of loyalty to his friends as well as the rest of his team, there may be some “right” in turning “a blind eye,” and encouraging his friends to go home immediately. However, all Wild Lake student-athletes are made well aware of this rule and its consequences. So, the captain would also be right to turn his friends in, establishing himself as a true team, and school leader in the process.

 

 

Scenario 2

Situation: Growing up in a small town in Idaho, Lena was the best player on her softball team. She was outstanding pitcher and hitter who played leftfield when she was not on the mound. She was also a great all-around athlete, starring on the soccer team in the fall and the volleyball team in the winter. Her parents, both former high school athletes, attended every game she played. One weekend, when Lena was set to play left field for her team in an important game, neither she nor her parents showed up. The team ended up losing a very close contest. When other parents asked the coach where she was, he said, “Her parents told me that she had prior commitments.” Because of the stinging loss, this answer didn’t really satisfy the parents. They thought that had Lena been there, the outcome would have been different. So, at the next game, when Lena arrived as usual, some of the other parents asked her folks if everything was all right. They presumed that she had missed the game to attend a funeral or something serious. Instead, Lena’s parents smiled and said things were fine. Lena, it turns out, had been invited to go with her volleyball travel team to a jamboree tournament attended by college coaches. Being from such a remote area, this was her only real chance to be recruited for volleyball. In fact, a coach from a major university was sufficiently impressed by Lena’s skills that she offered her a scholarship to attend the school. Was this the right thing for Lena and her parents to do?

 

Conundrum: Being part of team is a privilege, not a right. As such, team members must always be willing to make sacrifices for the good of the team, putting the team before themselves. So, it would have been right for Lena to skip the volleyball tournament in order to attend her team’s softball game. However, Lena and her parents understood just how precious this recruiting opportunity would be. The opportunity to attain a college scholarship, after all, is one to which few are privy. So, Lena was also right in missing her softball game in order to attend the showcase.

RIGHT-VS-RIGHT CONUNDRUMS:

COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY LEVEL

 

Scenario 1

Situation: Thorpe College is battling for a playoff position in the NCAA soccer tournament, but has to finish at least second in their conference to do so. Their rivals for the second spot, Kelly College, are playing Westport University, which has already clinched the conference championship. Thorpe needs to win their final game to have even a chance of qualifying. But they also need a little help - if Kelly beats Westport, or even ties them, then Kelly earns the second playoff spot in their stead. Thorpe does its part, defeating its opponent, 1-0. Now it comes down to the Kelly-Westport match, played later that evening. The Thorpe team eagerly awaits the result that night, only to find that Kelly has beaten Westport, 2-1, thereby snatching second place and a trip to the NCAA’s. But the players are shocked to find out that Westport rested its starters for the entire second half, after leading 1-0 at the interval. Their coach wanted to make sure that his squad was fresh and injury-free heading into the postseason tournament. So, Kelly’s comeback came against Westport’s subs. Is this fair to Thorpe’s team?

 

Conundrum: Westport performed tremendously well throughout the regular season and, by securing the conference championship, earned the right to rest their players in preparation for the NCAA’s. So, it is right for Westport’s coach to have benched his starters against Kelly. However, fair play and honorable competition demand that both teams give their maximum effort at all times. So, it would also have been right for Westport to play their starters in the second half, thereby increasing Thorpe’s playoff hopes at the expense of Kelly’s.

 

Scenario 2

Situation: Johnny was a senior on the State College wrestling team. His brother, Daniel, was a sophomore at State University down the road. Though not on the wrestling team, Daniel was friendly with many of the team’s members. Three days before the heated intrastate match-up, Daniel informed Johnny that his would-be opponent had been nursing a sore left knee for the last week. The guy planned to wrestle in the meet, but his knee was definitely bothering him. Johnny and his opponent stepped onto the mat for their 185-pound match-up, and they were fairly even heading into the second period. Knowing that he needed to win his match to secure a team victory for SC, Johnny shot a single-leg takedown on his opponent’s weakened left knee. As his opponent shrieked in pain, Stan was able to pin him, ensuring his team’s victory. Was Johnny right to take advantage of the information that Daniel had provided him? Was Daniel right in providing this confidential information to Johnny?

 

Conundrum: As both coaches and participants know, wrestling is a dangerous sport. So, if Johnny’s opponent was unfit to wrestle due to his injury, he should have been removed from the meet. Therefore, since he was allowed to wrestle, Stan was right to attack him as he would any other opponent, assuming that he had been cleared by appropriate medical personnel. However, any athletes will tell you that they often compete despite nagging injuries. And, knowingly inflicting an injury on an opponent may not violate the sport’s rules, but it does threaten their spirit. So, Johnny would also have been right to work hard to beat his opponent, trying to outmaneuver him instead of intentionally hurting him, based on the confidential information provided to him by his brother.