An Ottawa soccer league has ruled that if a team wins by more than five goals, the team loses the game.
You read that correctly. They lose the game.
Why the rule change? So that the losing teams not feel bad about the fact that they got shellacked. Heaven forbid they actually learn how to deal with failure, to lose with dignity and class, and how to overcome adversity. In the minds of the league’s incredibly foolish leaders, the children’s self-esteem must come first.
But how dumb do they think the kids on the losing team are? Will they not notice that the leading team has stopped playing hard? Will this not be insulting to them? Of course they will notice, and of course it will be insulting. Children are not dumb. When I lived in San Antonio, I served as a referee in a youth basketball league in which the scoreboard would never show a deficit of more than twenty points, for fear of dispiriting the losing team. Do you think they did not realize they were getting slaughtered? In this league, too, every participant received a trophy (and the exact same trophy), whether they finished in first or last place. (It goes without saying that there were no playoffs.) They basically got the trophy for breathing. In all my years of playing sports, I have won two trophies. Just two. One for a 1986 relay race, and one for a 1993 high school softball championship. Those trophies mean so much to me, because I earned them. There were no handouts back then.
Is there anyone reading this who cannot figure out if this league’s organizers have liberal or conservative leanings? (Even if they are actually conservatives, which I doubt, the action taken is certainly a liberal action.) In the liberal mind, feelings rule. They must do everything in their power to ensure that children do not feel bad about anything. Never mind the fact that one grows much more from one’s setbacks than from one’s successes. Never mind the fact that a baseball player can fail 70% of the time at the plate and still earn a spot in the Hall of Fame. To the liberal, short-term feelings trump long-term development. I do not think for a moment that the average liberal consciously realizes that he is favoring short-term feelings over long-term development, but in the final analysis, this is what happens. Intentions do not matter, results do.
As an example of the short-term thinking which went into this decision, did the league consider any of the following real possibilities? I strongly doubt it:
- The Tigers are winning 6-1 over the Bears. In the last minutes of the game, the Tigers lazily kick the ball towards the Bears’ goal. The Bears’ goalkeeper moves aside, letting the ball in, and thereby “wins” the game for his team. This is fair? This makes sense?
- Late in the game, the Tigers are winning 11-1; they refused to lower their intensity. Their coach, however, wants to legally win the game. He tells them to let up a bit, and they do. Will the Bears not realize that the Tigers’ goalkeeper is not making an effort to stop their shots? Will this a) help the Bears’ self-esteem, and b) make them better soccer players, since they are scoring garbage goals? Why not save time and have the Tigers kick the ball into their own net?
- At halftime, the Tigers are winning 5-0. Knowing that another goal might “lose” them the game, they dramatically lower their intensity. They have plenty of opportunities to score, but choose to pass the ball around, instead of shooting. Late in the game, the Bears finally wake up, take advantage of the Tigers’ low intensity, and score six goals, winning the game. This is a legitimate win? The Tigers could have easily scored five more goals, and won 10-6. But due to the league’s tunnel vision, they lost.
Jewish tradition teaches, “A wise person foresees the consequences of his actions.” As a general rule, liberals do not follow this advice. They are much more concerned with perceived (not actual, but perceived) short-term gains than with near-certain long-term losses. (Who cares if mandating [mandating!] diversity in hiring puts all those from the minority group under suspicion of not being worthy of their position? Liberals feel good because more blacks, Latinos, women et al are now being hired!) While they may bristle at this notion, it is certainly better than the alternatives – either that they are incredibly naïve about the results of their actions, or that they do understand what the long-term losses will be, yet do not care. Some intellectual honesty would be refreshing.
Once again, to the liberal, feelings trump standards. Who cares if the new rules turn the league into a joke? What matters is that their children feel good about themselves.
But as I have demonstrated, even that is not going to happen anyway.
The National Post article could easily have been mistaken for The Onion.
ReplyDeleteIt may well be that the people responsible for this rule are liberals. However, that is not the reason they instituted the rule.
They instituted the rule because they are idiots.
BTW the CAPTCHA test word for this comment was 'pally' - does this mean you are a Palestinian sympathizer?
(that was a joke)
BTW I just saw an article (New York? New Yorker?) which tried to claim that raising kids with constant praise actually turned out OK for them b/c they seem to be turning down jobs and waiting it out for their 'dream job'. Thanks to their parents' indulgence of course! What nonsense!
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I agree with either of you (Aryeh/Dad). I think that part of the idea behind these rules is to emphasize that a person's self worth has nothing to do with being good at soccer or winning games. Giving everyone a trophy sends the message to each child that they have intrinsic value just by the very nature of being a tzelem elokim. An example: when I was roughly 8 years old, my father (see above) gave each of me and my siblings a trophy for reading the Ma-Nishtana. That was roughly 13 years ago. I still have it on my dresser as do my siblings. And I still try to live by the message of that trophy, (as much as society as a whole would prefer have it otherwise) that I am a worthwhile human being even if I haven't won an honorary doctorate or a nobel prize.
ReplyDeleteObviously there is what to be said for competition, but at the same time what are you telling kids when you say that success is winning a soccer game, or making a million bucks, or running a fortune 500 company? It seems to me that you are saying that a person's worth is based on something material and fleeting that they have accomplished. And when it turns out that they can't win any more games, then what happens? Do they still have worth or value? And if so, do they know it?
Aryeh - I think the challenge here is in finding a way to make sure that everyone involved knows that it's just a game and that you will be loved and respected as a human being no matter what happens on the field at the same time as promoting a healthy spirit of competition. It is important to realize that any solution to this challenge would be incomplete (since the two parameters are opposites). The solution suggested by this leagues, to limit a lead to 5 goals, has its holes, but it is admirable that those in charge attempted to try and forge a compromise position. Messing up scoreboard displays is also an attempt at such a compromise and as such also has its flaws, but once again at least they are trying.
So, do you have an alternative compromise solution? Or do you dare to remain on the fringe?
Elan, thanks for a very thoughtful response.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I agree with you that childrens' self-worth should not be determined by athletic prowess. It should be determined by many factors, but especially by how good a person he or she is. I wish parents would make it clear that they prefer their children to be honest, respectful citizens with adequate grades than excellent student with horrible values.
That being said, I think you are fooling yourself if you think the Ottawa- and San Antonio rules were implemented in order to promote the notion that children are much more than a silly game. These are two more examples of people trying to coddle youth, and trying to never let them feel like they lost at anything. In real life, you lose much more often than you win (with the exception of Jeter, Rivera, Posada, and Pettitte). The sooner kids learn this uncomfortable fact, the sooner they will be happier people.
You asked for an alternative compromise solution; here's mine: Let's train kids to act respectfully of their opponents, so that *on their own*, without regulating it, they learn that it is improper to purposely run up a score against a weaker opponent. When leading by 10 runs, don't steal bases. When up by 30 points, don't drive the lane each time, or don't launch bombs to the end zone. When up by 7 goals, ease up on the forechecking.
If we would focus more in schools on developing character, and a bit less on developing brains, we would find that many problems such as this one would take care of themselves.
Cyberdov, I disagree that liberalness did not play a role in this decision. I would be astounded if those who implemented this policy did not lean left politically. This is a classic modern liberal move, to regulate people's actions. Liberals feel they know best how you should act, and we will force you to do so. But remember, it's for a good cause - children. We would not want them to feel bad about losing badly, so we'll lie to them; and make no mistake, this is lying. The deficit is technically five goals, but all the kids know is an artificial score. What about the feelings of the kid who needs one more goal to set the school scoring record; do his feelings not count? This is why we should just let them play the game.
ReplyDeleteThe best way for kids to learn to deal with failure in life is to let them fail. It's OK, they'll survive. And they will become better people for it. But to the modern liberal, who tries to avoid as much pain as possible through regulations (see the banning of tag and dodgeball at schools, the presentation of trophies to those who did not earn them, the banning of smoking in nearly all non completely private areas et al), it is better for kids to be fooled that that they are not losing than to just let them deal with the loss. But the liberal certainly *feels* like he is doing a good thing.
Aryeh - Just because some liberals are idiots does not mean the all are, or that liberalism is wrong.
ReplyDeleteElan - my solution would be, lighten up on the organized league play, and encourage (and give opportunities to) kids to go out and play on their own.
Cyberdov, where did I write anything which implied that "all liberals" are idiots? I did not write it, nor do I believe it.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I believe that, in general, liberalism is wrong because it is so consistently proven wrong in its theories, and in its implemented policies. To cite 3 quick examples:
1) Men and women are not basically the same.
2) Poverty does not cause crime, poor values do.
3) Forcing companies to diversify their hiring practices does not increase the quality of its work force. Hiring the highest quality candidates does.