World Cup, cry baby athletes, and poor sportsmanship
 

Stan4dSteph asked I make another thread rather than continue a derail so here I go.

First of all, I watched maybe 90 minutes of the world cup in total. 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there, and highlights, or lowlights as they might be called.

I despise a lot pro athletics because of the egos and attitudes of an ugly minority. The world cup seemed to take the cake though.

During the live action I watched, I saw dives and fakery that should embarrass anyone attempting to use such tactics and still call themselves an athlete.

I saw what could be the biggest cheap shot I've ever seen, by France's Zidane, not live, but I think well within context.

I've seen whining by grown men about calls and officiating and whatever.

In coaching HS atheletics, I don't let players fake. I don't let players cry or whine. If they do, they take the bench. If one did something like Zidane, he'd be off the team, and most likely suspended by the governing HS athletic body anyway (taking a swing in AZ is a one game suspension. Aggravating factors may be cause for a season ending suspension.)

There is no excuse for taking cheap shots. Period. I don't care what Italy was doing to Zidane. He's a hot head and an embarrassment to France. He has a track record (or so I've heard) of such things.

S4S said in another thread that she didn't blame him. I don't see how anyone can not blame him. Grown men are responsible for their own actions.

I've always been tired of US professional athletes being treated like a special class. Apparently it is more world wide than I had thought.

Not that I particularly condone it, but the diving and whining plays a larger role than just diving and whining. Certainly there is some of that (just as there is in any 30 seconds of an NBA game) but they serve a more strategic purpose.

First of all, soccer is a sport that relies on just one on field referee (the assistant judges on the lines don't get to call on-field fouls; just off sides and possession). This means that frequently he is out of position and could be 50 feet or more away from the action when play is moving fast. So when illegal contact happens you want to make sure that guy way over there sees it. I don't know about other people but I was trained to overreact to contact once possession was lost anyway.

And in a sport that doesn't stop being "hurt" for 30 seconds is frequently much appreciated by everybody.

I forgot to watch the game and turned it on in time to see the medal distribution so I can't comment on the specific plays but in general the things you complain about are just part of soccer. It is like complaining about intentional delays of game at the end of a basketball game. You can, and technically you have a point but that's just the way it is.

Perhaps that's why I just don't like soccer, then. I don't dispute your NBA comment either - I don't lie pro athletics at all, particularly the NBA.

I suppose I see intentionally trying to deceive an official who is all by himself as kind of, well, cheating and unsportsmanlike. But if that's part of soccer, then it's part of soccer.

However, what Zidane did shouldn't be part of anything. Except cage fighting.

Well, he did say he's retiring from soccer, so maybe you've spotted his next move?

"Introducing the fighter to my left, straight from the World Cup, the Frenchman Insane Zidane!"

There is a lot of diving in soccer, but there are some teams that are much worse than others. Argentina and Italy seem to be particularly bad.

There are 2 line judges that assist the referee, but there is stuff that is missed.

I'll take soccer over the NBA, NFL or baseball though.

At least when I was playing it wasn't so much deceiving the official as much as making sure they could see what was going on. That is, an illegal tackle is an illegal tackle whether you fall down or not but the ref is much more likely to call if if you fall down.

Of course, the incentive to not start falling to the ground every time another player was near is that eventually they'd start giving you reason to hit the ground.

That headbutt looked like it hurt! Ouch!
What an asshole...

More details about the incident are emerging. Here's a story with details.

Apparently the Italian player was calling Zizou the "son of a terrorist whore" and making other vulgar and racist remarks.

"Son of a terrorist whore?"
Wow. Harsh.
:D

I'm not sure what you find so amusing about that.

While certainly not flattering, I'm a sticks and stones kind of guy myself. If you let a guy get in your head by talking trash, you aren't a very mentally tough athlete. Get inside his head.

On a far lesser scale, I had a player who was a master at that. During one game, we were playing this team where the guy who was guarding him kept calling him unflattering names referring to sexual orientation trying to get inside his head.

After a while of this, they were lined up next to each other during a free throw attempt. My player reached over and touched his butt and said in an overly effeminate voice "You're right, I am. You're cute. What are you doing later tonight?"

The other guy was clearly rattled. It was too funny.

Generally I agree scaeagles. However, remember the players had been on the field for 108 minutes at that point. That's a lot of running. I know how worked up I can get during my games -- mine are much shorter and not the World Cup. Adrenaline gets going.

The things this guy was saying clearly go beyond your usual. Did your player "get into the other guy's head" by calling his mother a whore and calling him a terrorist scumbag? I don't think playing up the whole homophobe thing is very kosher either.

If what they report was said is accurate then then the response was understandable, in my opinion. Not appropriate, but understandable. The issue of Algerian terrorism is much more front-page in that region then here so it is is easier to dismiss them as an emotional trifle.

Also there is the insult to someone else involved. I have no problem shrugging off the worst insult you could think of it is directed at me, but insult Lani and I'll have a harder time of it. Similarly, it is easy for you to make light of jokes about you and instruments of anal delight but you'd probably get a lot more aggressive if they were directed at your children.

So, still don't condone what he did, but I can understand it (assuming reports are true).

Thanks for summing that up Alex. That's where I'm coming from as well.

Certainly the object of the insult makes a difference. However, in this circumstance, Zindane knew exactly why the Italian player was saying that stuff. To get in his head. And it could be the very thing that gave Italy the game, because Zidane is the best French penalty kicker.

Fatigue....I will admit that had to play a factor. But for an athlete at his level o do i is very disappointing.

Okay, this I don't buy (ephasis mine)

Riiiiight.

Umm, everything.
:D

Calling someone the son of a terrorist whore is funny? How about if he had called him a n***er? Would that be even more hilarious?

Neither behaved in a sportsmanlike manner and neither is worth anyone here getting in a snit over. Trash talking is always harsh, and they both probably should have been thrown out.

When I saw that insult, the first thing I thought of was...

You son of a motherless goat!! :D

I didn't think I needed your approval first before I decided on whether something is funny or not. I find this issue to be ridiculous and the athletes involved to be spoiled brat children.
The word 'terrorist' is being overused. It's losing its meaning.
And if that guy called the other one a 'n***er', it would be funny. It would just prove me right that some grown adults can be so silly and childish.

CM ~ Totally. Son of a motherless goat! :D

Glad to know that racism is so hilarious then.

Yes, I find racism hilarious. Yes, that's exactly how I am. :rolleyes: I think you're taking this whole story way too seriously.

A blow to the chest like the one Zizou or Zidane or WTF the crazy idiot is calling himself today (just don't call him a terrorist, cuz that's racist somehow) inflicted can KILL somebody - all because he can't handle some trash talk. But of course, that's why he's loved in France, I guess. :rolleyes:

Steph, I realize I am taking this perhaps to an extreme, but freeway driving during rush hour can be stressful. If someone honks his horn at me one too many times, can I get out and assault him?

Someone who can't handle words like a man shouldn't be in a situation where he has to. If this was a one time thing, and "oh my lord I can't believe what I did and I snapped" kind of thing, I think it would be excusable. But the guy has a reputation as a hot head.

I don't get the kerfluffle. So Europeans enjoy their "sports entertainment" as much as Americans apparently do. The performers give the audience what the audience wants and good performances are compensated.

If I head butted someone at work when I got mad, I'd get fired.

"Huh? You want what Mail Merged?" Headbutt to my boss's chest. *Wham!* "Here's your Mail Merge, dinglecheese!"

Then again, my boss is like 5'1" so I'd have to crouch down and then headbutt her. It would kinda lose it's effect...
:D

And if, instead of asking for a mailmerge she said "do the mail merge you faggot, you probably get your rocks off sticking your **** up the asses of four-year-olds until they bleed to death" there would be plenty of people who, while not thinking your violence was the correct course of action, could understand it.

The whole idea behind the progressive advancement of "speech codes" and "fighting words" is the idea that some words are so dispicable that violence is essentially an inevitable response.

"I suppose..." (And I say that in an Eartha Kitt voice as she looks doubtfully at Kronk.) That's grasping at straws there, Alex. But if one must point out the one thing that sets you apart from everyone else just to prove a point about something idiotic, then so be it.

And if my boss said that to me, I'd find that funny, too. She has this crazy Boston accent that makes me laugh. And she would do it with hand motions, because she uses hand motions for everything.
:D

What's grasping at straws, I'm just searching for something that you would find offensive in our context. Perhaps you wouldn't react violently and I'd like to think so. But if you did a lot of people would defend you for it, is my point.

If what is reported is true then what was said is horribly offensive. Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't make it less so. To us being upset at "Algerian terrorist" is as meaningless as why Paki is so offensive in most parts of the world. We lack the context that makes it offensive.

I'm not defending a violent response to any words. But I'm on the losing side of that debate. The basis on which hate speech legislation has been passed all around the world is to prevent violence. Apparently most of the world, particularly the European part of it, accepts the idea that a person can say something so repugnant that they are responsible for any resulting violence.

I'm not offended by it at all. And I'm not someone who acts violently ever. It's beneath me and so are Zindane's and the other guy's actions.

The fact that I didn't find what he said to be offensive does make it less so. To me. It's a non-issue. And why the heck are people so up in arms about it anyway? It wasn't directed at them. He didn't call Steph a terrorist. It's between the two men, the two teams and the refs.

Somehow the fact that I found it funny, and still do, has garnered me the heartless racist crown. Whatever. I'm reacting in the way Zindane should have... by laughing it all off.

:D

As I said before- two idiots with bad reputations trash talking and head-butting each other is hardly worth anyone here getting up in arms over. They are now considering taking away Zindane's MVP award, so it would appear the Europeans don't consider it a valid reason to physically attack someone.

Of course he should have laughed it off. But I also find it understandable that he didn't. I don't feel you're a heartless racist. However, you have frequently argued positions on this board not from points of fact but from points of emotion. That something is right simply because it feels that way to you. So I will say it is suprising to see you reject that the words were offensive simply because they weren't offensive to you.

And if the award is stripped it is just for PR reasons. It isn't like somehow over the last three days the head butt has somehow become less appropriate that the decision needs to be reconsidered.

That's me, I lead with my emotions. But I also know when something is funny and this is one of those times.

And how does a person come to the conclusion that something's not right? By how it feels to them. Everyone does it. It's not exclusive to me. Steph is offended because she thinks it's offensive, I'm not offended because I think it's not offensive. Plain and simple. People don't come to conclusions about things by analyzing it to death.

That word is ineffective period. I liken the word 'terrorist' to 'Communist' in the McCarthy era and 'witch' in Salem's heydays... It alludes to someone that people want us to be afraid of and shouldn't be.

I often have a hard time not sympathizing/empathizing with people. But in this instance, it's not deserving of either from me...

Well, there's where we are fundamentally different. How I feel about things is about the least important aspect in how I reach a conclusion.

That word may be ineffective to you, but you still got upset when you felt someone had implied that gays are more likely to commit arson. For you, terrorist is a word that is used in the context of 9/11 and the ensuing political battles. For Zidane it has a different context of the decades long strong between France and Alergia and an awful lot of violence.

The question isn't whether I would be offended or if you would be offended but whether there was reason for Zidane to be offended. You don't think so, so you find what happened to be unwarranted and bizarre. I do think he had reason so I find what happened to be unwarranted if understandable.

Nobody (here) is saying he was justified but I find it somewhat bizarre to say he was unjustified in being upset. And equally bizarre to equate what (reportedly) was said to a punchline from a bad Steve Martin movie.

I'm sure it is just that I lack a sense of humor that allows me to see the humor in a racial epithet and retaliatory violence.

Again, that's where we're fundamentally different. I think humor can be found in everything.

As for the arson thing, Matthews said that gays should be investigated for the church burnings. Saying that he felt, without any knowledge or research that you tout, that gays were responsible. That's like saying there was a robbery, it must be black people responsible. It makes no sense. Not only that, but Matthews is a reporter who is supposed to be doing this kind of research and then informing the viewer. His reaction was from the gut and should be discounted by you, Alex, who think that feelings should not come into it.

To me, there's a difference between a news reporter and a sports figure.

I find nothing wrong with what CoasterMatt said either. It was a funny joke. It may not register with a Vulcan, but it's funny to most. (And I meant the last part as a joke, Alex.)

I didn't comment that Zidane's actions were unwarranted. I said that both men were idiots in the way they acted. I don't think that in this country you can be let of the hook legally if you hit someone because they taunted you. I don't know about law, but it doesn't seem justified to hit someone because they call you a terrorist faggot. I don't know where the World Cup was played so I can't comment about how that country would rule the man's actions.

So with your logic, Alex, everything is basically offensive as long as someone, anyone could find it offensive or does find it offensive. Doesn't this hinder discussion if everyone should be walking on eggshells about what they can or can not say without offending someone? I mean, you're a discussion board guru, doesn't this hinder discussing things?

I can't believe that my :D caused so much grief.

Yes, everything is offensive so long as someone is offended. But offending another is not necessarily a bad thing to be avoided at all costs. The question I'm raising was whether it was reasonable to be offended.

I don't see why "but it's funny to most" is a joke.

Yes, Matthews supposition should be discounted without proof. But then your offense should rather have been to just laugh it off.

Sports figures beat at each other all the time in the United States without legal charges being files. In fact, it is so uncommon for criminal charges to result that it is major national news whenever it happens in any level of sport in the United States. So, in that regard, this is nothing anomalous.

Finally, because smileys are obnoxious.

WOULD YOU 2 JUST GET A ROOM! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

In hindsight, yes, I should have laughed it off.
I know, but we're rooting for ya, Mr. Spock. :laughy smilie:

Yes, I know you think smilies are obnoxious, you say that a lot. It sounds like you protesteth too much methinks. I also remember you saying that any post with two smilies in it isn't read by you ever. That's good to know. Ha ha.

I understand various peoples from various cultures would find various things from various others offensive that I may not.

To me it isn't whether words spoken are/were offensive to anyone. It is an issue of responding to words with violence, specifically looking at this context, no in terms of responding to specific verbal threats. If someone threatens my kid and is in position to do it, I'll take action, no doubt. Someone calls me....whatever it may be....a toaster whore, perhaps....I'm not going to respond violently.

I wonder if there are people who would find it understandable that Zidane took violent action in response to ebing offended that have a hard time with military responses to miliary action. For example, with the newest kidnappings in Israel, this time of two soldiers by Hizbollah (sp?), how many would urge restraint to this violent action? Violence for violence to some is not understandable. Violence words is understandable, though?

It is not my intention to say that anyone here finds what happened acceptable. I am just thinking aloud.

I find both understandable. I don't find both appropriate.

This topic reminds me of the discussions I had with friends (both on-line and off) after Columbine. Specifically, that we could empathise to a certain degree with Eric and Dylan's reactions to years of taunting. Many of my friends are considered geeks (a badge I now wear proudly) and most of us were taunted in high school. Some of us, relentlessly. In reacting to the actions of Eric and Dylan, the universal response among us was "I don't condone what they did, but I sure can understand it."

I'm not a fan of fütbol, but everything I've ever seen on TV about it suggests that it's more than just a pastime for most countries. To say passions run high is an understatement. (English Hooligans, anyone?) So when I see an incident like this, it seems pretty mundane when compared to the crap I've heard about before.

Isn't trash-talking pretty much part of every team sport? Why is this particular dust-up getting so much attention? Is it because it may have been a deciding factor in the outcome of the final game? Is it because he used the word "terrorist"?

Make It Like Zidane :)

You beat me to it! :D 1.1 million views. Wow, that's a lot.


Re: Columbine
Source

Here is what CNN claims Materazzi said which caused Zidane to headbutt him


I can't see where that rates tanking a World Cup game.

One would have to consider his cultural background to understand that, I think. In certain cultures, an "I'll f**k your sister" comment goes a very, very long way. Born and raised in the U.S., not so much?