Unspoken Social Norms (2) - Sports
Perhaps I should have named this series of posts, "Unspoken Conventions". We take many things for granted, and sometimes it's interesting to just pause for a bit and think about why things are the way they are. Last time I discussed Holidays and Restroom etiquette. Today, the topic is sports.
This topic is of particular interest to me because it is one in which there are clear rulebooks and "laws" governing player and referee behavior. Theoretically, you could expect to see basketball played in America and basketball played in Taiwan to look roughly the same, as the rulebooks are essentially the same. (minor things like the shape of the paint and distance of the 3-point line aside) However, the game is played very differently, and it can't simply be explained by average player physique. There are clear expectations and understandings about what is fair play, and what's not acceptable. Playing pick-up 3-on-3 basketball in the States can be incredibly physical and heated, and you can expect to leave a game somewhat bruised here and there. In my experience, people don't really bother calling fouls unless it's a hard foul, or if it's just too obvious. 3-on-3 in Taiwan *can* be like that as well, depending on who you're playing with, but in general, you see a lot more passing, accurate perimeter shooting, and a significantly lower threshold needed to call a shooting foul.
Norms can be incredibly different between sports as well. I'm not speaking of things like reactions to physical contact - for example, hockey players are notoriously rough and generally have a high tolerance for cheap shots taken against them, as retaliatory penalties can be called more often than not, and a recipient of a cheap shot often just picks his ass up off the ground and keeps skating, even if the hit or slash might have technically been a penalty. On the other hand, professional soccer is notorious for its diving players. I'd argue that this is largely due to the fact that technically, there isn't supposed to be *any* non-incidental physical contact between players, so it's easy to take advantage of even accidental contact in an attempt to draw a penalty.
Rather, I'm speaking of things that you're just "used to seeing" in a sport that might not really make sense once you stop and think about it.
For example, in American NFL football, taking a knee and running down the clock is typical behavior for the leading team in the final minutes of the game. That, in of itself, is not particularly odd. NBA Basketball teams have a strong incentive to do this as well if they're up with a few minutes left. However, there is a significant difference in terms of the expected response from the defending team.
In basketball, so long as the lead is not completely insurmountable (ex: 20 point lead with a minute left to play), the losing team almost always fouls to stop the clock. This rarely works, but they do it anyway, because the norm is that you play until it's over.
Here, Tracy McGrady of the Rockets puts up 13 points in 35 seconds, completing a ridiculous comeback and winning the game. It's rare, of course, but the possibility exists.
The team with the lead also *expects* the losing team to foul, and as such adapts by making sure its best free-throw shooters are fouled to limit the effectiveness of the strategy. Teams don't complain about this; it's just the way the game is played nowadays. On the other hand, strategies like "hack-a-Shaq" in which teams intentionally foul a bad free throw shooter are highly discouraged, but still technically legal.
In contrast, in the NFL you can see situations like that outlined here:
Keep in mind that Tampa Bay was 7 points - one potential scoring play - behind New York, but New York had the football. If Tampa successfully stole the football and completed a touchdown and conversion, it could tie or even win the game. Unlikely, but possible. I wouldn't be using this example if the spread was say, 9 points (two scoring plays needed, which would be impossible with the remaining time). When the play started, the Tampa players rushed forward, and the New York players and broadcasters were a bit pissed off at that. Why?
Tampa had broken an unspoken sportsmanship norm in NFL football - they attempted to stop the opposing quarterback from ending the play and running out the clock. Normally, when it's clear that the quarterback plans on doing so, the defending team is "supposed" to admit defeat and let the quarterback end the play. Tampa continued to play seriously, and in fact nearly managed to steal the ball. All this was entirely legal under the rules of the game. Teams don't rush a quarterback "taking a knee", but they actually aren't *required* to just stand around and let him do it.
Since 1978, taking a knee has become the accepted and expected move in such circumstances. But for it to work, the defending team has to play along and let the offensive team run out the clock. What's "sportsmanlike" play, and what's "cheap"? In most circumstances, we praise the idea of playing and fighting until the end, against all odds, and that it's never over until it's actually over. We denigrate those whom we view as giving up too early, but at the same time there's an unstated line that you're not supposed to cross. For example, when attacked, soldiers are supposed to hold territory unless given clear orders to retreat. We mythologize those fight to the bitter end - just think of how America holds onto "The Alamo" story, paying its respect to those who fought until death against overwhelming odds. Yet at the same time, Japanese troops in WWII were viewed as fanatics (by Americans, at least) because very few of them surrendered, choosing instead to commit suicidal attacks.
If someone doesn't follow football regularly, I could imagine them being quite surprised that "taking a knee" is standard. They could rightfully expect a team down one play to do their best to take the ball back, until the final whistle is blown. After all, in soccer, fans regularly boo goalkeepers who (legally) hold onto the ball for "too long", slowing down the play intentionally. It's because you're "supposed" to allow the other team a reasonable chance, and using the rulebook to your advantage is viewed as classless.
All this is to say that even with formal rules, there is still a lot of room for social negotiation regarding the conventions of play, and it's fascinating to think about how these come about. We have these in StarCraft as well - many "rules" have trickled down from the professional scene to the point where those playing casually know that you're supposed to say "gl hf" (good luck, have fun) at the beginning of the game, and say "gg" (good game) when you lose. You're also supposed to admit defeat and leave the game once you realize the game is over, rather than force your opponent to eliminate you by destroying all your buildings. SKT's Fantasy is, of course, the posterchild for violating the unspoken social norm for "gg timing".
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=195375
So, dear readers, what social norms/conventions have you observed in sports and games that aren't actually outlined in the rules? Stuff that "you're just supposed to do" (or *not* supposed to do)? Off the top of my head...
Running up the score - generally viewed as unacceptable in most sports, but highly encouraged in war - one of the stated American goals in WWII was to do so much damage to Germany's military and civilian populace that they wouldn't dare to start another war ever again.
Spawn camping - technically part of the game, but highly discouraged.
This topic is of particular interest to me because it is one in which there are clear rulebooks and "laws" governing player and referee behavior. Theoretically, you could expect to see basketball played in America and basketball played in Taiwan to look roughly the same, as the rulebooks are essentially the same. (minor things like the shape of the paint and distance of the 3-point line aside) However, the game is played very differently, and it can't simply be explained by average player physique. There are clear expectations and understandings about what is fair play, and what's not acceptable. Playing pick-up 3-on-3 basketball in the States can be incredibly physical and heated, and you can expect to leave a game somewhat bruised here and there. In my experience, people don't really bother calling fouls unless it's a hard foul, or if it's just too obvious. 3-on-3 in Taiwan *can* be like that as well, depending on who you're playing with, but in general, you see a lot more passing, accurate perimeter shooting, and a significantly lower threshold needed to call a shooting foul.
Norms can be incredibly different between sports as well. I'm not speaking of things like reactions to physical contact - for example, hockey players are notoriously rough and generally have a high tolerance for cheap shots taken against them, as retaliatory penalties can be called more often than not, and a recipient of a cheap shot often just picks his ass up off the ground and keeps skating, even if the hit or slash might have technically been a penalty. On the other hand, professional soccer is notorious for its diving players. I'd argue that this is largely due to the fact that technically, there isn't supposed to be *any* non-incidental physical contact between players, so it's easy to take advantage of even accidental contact in an attempt to draw a penalty.
Rather, I'm speaking of things that you're just "used to seeing" in a sport that might not really make sense once you stop and think about it.
For example, in American NFL football, taking a knee and running down the clock is typical behavior for the leading team in the final minutes of the game. That, in of itself, is not particularly odd. NBA Basketball teams have a strong incentive to do this as well if they're up with a few minutes left. However, there is a significant difference in terms of the expected response from the defending team.
In basketball, so long as the lead is not completely insurmountable (ex: 20 point lead with a minute left to play), the losing team almost always fouls to stop the clock. This rarely works, but they do it anyway, because the norm is that you play until it's over.
The team with the lead also *expects* the losing team to foul, and as such adapts by making sure its best free-throw shooters are fouled to limit the effectiveness of the strategy. Teams don't complain about this; it's just the way the game is played nowadays. On the other hand, strategies like "hack-a-Shaq" in which teams intentionally foul a bad free throw shooter are highly discouraged, but still technically legal.
In contrast, in the NFL you can see situations like that outlined here:
Keep in mind that Tampa Bay was 7 points - one potential scoring play - behind New York, but New York had the football. If Tampa successfully stole the football and completed a touchdown and conversion, it could tie or even win the game. Unlikely, but possible. I wouldn't be using this example if the spread was say, 9 points (two scoring plays needed, which would be impossible with the remaining time). When the play started, the Tampa players rushed forward, and the New York players and broadcasters were a bit pissed off at that. Why?
Tampa had broken an unspoken sportsmanship norm in NFL football - they attempted to stop the opposing quarterback from ending the play and running out the clock. Normally, when it's clear that the quarterback plans on doing so, the defending team is "supposed" to admit defeat and let the quarterback end the play. Tampa continued to play seriously, and in fact nearly managed to steal the ball. All this was entirely legal under the rules of the game. Teams don't rush a quarterback "taking a knee", but they actually aren't *required* to just stand around and let him do it.
Since 1978, taking a knee has become the accepted and expected move in such circumstances. But for it to work, the defending team has to play along and let the offensive team run out the clock. What's "sportsmanlike" play, and what's "cheap"? In most circumstances, we praise the idea of playing and fighting until the end, against all odds, and that it's never over until it's actually over. We denigrate those whom we view as giving up too early, but at the same time there's an unstated line that you're not supposed to cross. For example, when attacked, soldiers are supposed to hold territory unless given clear orders to retreat. We mythologize those fight to the bitter end - just think of how America holds onto "The Alamo" story, paying its respect to those who fought until death against overwhelming odds. Yet at the same time, Japanese troops in WWII were viewed as fanatics (by Americans, at least) because very few of them surrendered, choosing instead to commit suicidal attacks.
If someone doesn't follow football regularly, I could imagine them being quite surprised that "taking a knee" is standard. They could rightfully expect a team down one play to do their best to take the ball back, until the final whistle is blown. After all, in soccer, fans regularly boo goalkeepers who (legally) hold onto the ball for "too long", slowing down the play intentionally. It's because you're "supposed" to allow the other team a reasonable chance, and using the rulebook to your advantage is viewed as classless.
All this is to say that even with formal rules, there is still a lot of room for social negotiation regarding the conventions of play, and it's fascinating to think about how these come about. We have these in StarCraft as well - many "rules" have trickled down from the professional scene to the point where those playing casually know that you're supposed to say "gl hf" (good luck, have fun) at the beginning of the game, and say "gg" (good game) when you lose. You're also supposed to admit defeat and leave the game once you realize the game is over, rather than force your opponent to eliminate you by destroying all your buildings. SKT's Fantasy is, of course, the posterchild for violating the unspoken social norm for "gg timing".
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=195375
So, dear readers, what social norms/conventions have you observed in sports and games that aren't actually outlined in the rules? Stuff that "you're just supposed to do" (or *not* supposed to do)? Off the top of my head...
Running up the score - generally viewed as unacceptable in most sports, but highly encouraged in war - one of the stated American goals in WWII was to do so much damage to Germany's military and civilian populace that they wouldn't dare to start another war ever again.
Spawn camping - technically part of the game, but highly discouraged.
Comments
Post a Comment