Sportsmanship and its dark twin unsportsmanship are like so many things that "you know when you see." Consider each of the following examples, and you will easily recognize sportsmanship.

1. In 1969 in Spain and again in 1971 in France, a forward attacker in soccer saw the goalkeeper and defenseman rendered unconscious by a collision. Rather than continuing on for the score, the attacking players kicked the ball out of bounds to give the opponents a chance to recover. Play was resumed with all members of both teams able to participate in the winning or losing of the contest.

2. In the 1964 Innsbruck Winter Olympics, Eugenio Monti of Italy led in the two-man bobsled after his final run. Only a sled driven by Tony Nash of Great Britain was thought to have a chance at beating Monti, but a bolt in the steering assembly of the British sled failed just before Nash's run. When Monti heard of this, he took the corresponding bolt from his own Italian sled to Nash who used it, set a course record and won the gold medal.

3. In the 1989 world marathon kayak championships in Copenhagen, the British team was in second place when the rudder of the Danish paddlers who had been in the lead was damaged in a portage. The British team stopped and helped in the repair, and then went on to finish one second behind the Danes in a race that lasted almost three hours.

4. In single scull rowing in the 1928 Olympics, Australian Henry Pearce was leading when he entered into a colision course with a mother duck swimming across his path with her string of baby ducklings. To avoid injuring the ducks, Pearce pulled in his oars and waited for the ducks to pass. He then resumed his race and finished as the gold medallist.

Unsportsmanship has been just as recognizable. Thugs were hired in the late 1800's to play on a per game basis in college football games, and were responsible for injuries and deaths. In the 1990's, a man was hired by Tonya Harding to attack her Olympic competitor.

Sports capitalize on situation ethics in several important ways:

First, sports define situations in ways so exact and precise that large annually updated rule books are created and continuing education courses become necessary for umpires and referees.

Second, sports permit responses allowed for situations (i.e the ethics) in different sports to vary enormously. For example, in contact sports like boxing, hockey and football, the allowed use of body force is more extreme than in soccer or basketball, while being much more limited in baseball.

Third, sports apply different allowances to responses by different participants in the same sports competition. The keeper in soccer can use his hands, while field players cannot. Holding by the defense in football can be part of a legal tackle, but is not allowed by the offense. In basketball, the defense is allowed unlimited access to all parts of the floor, while the offense can only stay in the painted zone for three seconds before being required to exit.

Fourth, sports interpret infractions with penalties that differ quantitatively. In basketball there are one, two and three point foul shots. Penalties focus on the individual in sports like basketball, but are applied to the team in others like football. In some sports ejections can be temporary (hockey), while in others, they are permanent (basketball) and can extend to a subsequent game (soccer).

Situation ethics in sports have an important culmination. They introduce processes which convert interpretation of

"I can do whatever I want in different situations"

to

"I must conform to different standards in different situations".

It is fascinating to me that when individual perspectives on situation ethics are allowed to mature through sports competition, the capacity for quite recognizable individuality and creative expression result. Rather than turning out individuals with robot-like compliance, sports develop people who question and argue the call. More substantially, sports also develop individuals who question the rules. It is distressing to think of the people in the world who fail to question the rules, who believe that laws are acceptably perfect and that we should refrain from allowing changes to the Constitution. Sports rules show that precise and intricate governances can be changed without disastrous effects on the game. Introduction of the shot clock and three point goal in basketball, the relief pitcher and designated hitter in baseball and elimination of the drop kick and low blocks in football were preceded by fierce arguments of merit, but have not ruined their respective sports. Are these points only rhetorical or are they real? Americans watched the first World Cup in the United States and questioned how a time clock can be used that does not officially end the game. They witnessed numerous contact incidents, some quite violent, and questioned why no foul was called? Of course, the current rules have time being kept on the field at the discretion of the referee and decide many contact fouls on the basis of "intent to gain advantage" (i.e. if no advantage is gained, the referee may not call a foul). Because of evident differences between soccer and the major American sports, the American World Cup was a virtual sports laboratory for rule questioning. Americans are used to balls that must touch out of bounds rather than those in soccer that cross a plane and are called "out" while still in the air. In the major American sports, you really have to be paying attention to be able to identify who actually committed a foul so that the idea of stopping play to demonstrate the foul by giving a player a card documenting an infraction is foreign to Americans and might be questioned by some. Similarly, it is possible to question why a tripping penalty, guarding the man making the throw-in and going out of bounds to return and play the ball all can result in a card being issued in soccer. It is obviously explained by the rules being stated the way they are. Do similar opportunities exist for questioning the rules in the major American sports? Certainly!!!

Consider basketball: The "blue" team outplays and considerably outscores the "green" team for the whole game. With one second left in the game, play is stopped with the "blue" team leading 82 to 30 over the "green" team. Surprisingly, the game ends with the "green" team the winner! How could this be? The answer is simply that the "blue" team fouled out their last player with one second left, and the rules maintain that when one team is unable to place a team on the floor, the opposing team will be named the winner. Of course fans of the "blue" team would argue that the "green" team should simply be given the ball and allowed to score at will in the final second, knowing that the "green" team could not possibly score 52 points in one second!
In the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, the United States women's softball team lost 2-1 to the Australians in extra innings instead of winning during regulation when Dani Tyler failed to touch homeplate after hitting her homerun for the Americans. Although American fans might argue that nothing was going to bring that homerun ball back into play after it was hit over the fence and therefore the run should count, the rules maintain that runs are scored by advancing to homeplate. Failing to touch homeplate constitutes a failure to advance and the run cannot count. In the same Summer Olympics Damon Baily, the 100 M Gold Medalist in the Olympics four years earlier, made his start in the 100 M after the gun sounds on two repeated starts and was disqualified on the basis of false starting two times. The explanation: a rules change recognizes that it is physiologically impossible to break from the blocks in less than 0.1 seconds after hearing the starting shot. Because Damon Baily left the blocks on both starts in less than 0.1 seconds after the gun was fired, he received a disqualification. Nevertheless, it is possible to argue that Damon Baily did not leave the blocks before the starter's shot was fired and therefore did not false-start.

Most often calls are argued when they are perceived to be "bad" (i.e. in error, wrong or unfair). Nebraska football fans will probably never forget losing to the 12 man Colorado offense on the last play of the game.

One of the questionable trends in athletics is to make use of planned rule breaking as part of competition per se. Basketball provides clear examples of executing fouls in order to force the other team into a situation where they are denied the opportunity to score on a 3 point goal or must shoot twice to get the same 2 points they might otherwise obtain by one shot from the field. The rules recognize this aspect of game strategy and maintain that the fouls must not be violent or dangerous. Curiously, the rules in basketball also focus on limiting intentionality, interpreted usually in terms of a push or hold. There is an important distinction about intentional rule breaking, namely that it is committed with the objective of being caught so that the rules can be utilized in some allowable competitive strategy. This is quite distinct from trying to break the rules without being caught in order to gain an advantage in competition. I refer to this as "playing against the rules" and this should not be recognized as an acceptable situation ethic under any circumstances. The most obvious negative aspect of rules breaking is blatant cheating. Cheating in sports is older than the the Olympics of ancient Greece. In Homer's Iliad, Odysseus defeats Ajax in a footrace by getting the goddess Athena to trip Ajax. In any sport, the rules must include forfeiture as the consequence of cheating. As a consequence, cheating is handled imminently, directly, and consequentially in sports competition so that cheating is appropriately rendered purposeless. Unfortunately, a cheater operates from a more primitive way of thinking that either does not consider the possibility of being caught, does not consciously realize that being caught will result in loss by forfeiture or does not think that he will be caught. A second aspect of rules breaking involves "playing the referee." There will always be moments in sports that are removed from the referee's attention. However, it is not a right choice to make use of these as competitive opportunities.

Rules are generally meant to be kept, and their discretionary use in game strategy has effects that can carryover to other sports or into society. The two most negative aspects of this carryover occur whenever the game strategy is allowed to focus on physically disabling an opponent or on playing an opponent rather than the game. For example, there is virtually no way to apply the strategic controlled fouling found in basketball to American football. It is hard not to receive the impression from NFL football that both playing and disabling an opponent are common practices of the game. It is interesting to note that body screens when not in possession of the ball are accepted in basketball, but not allowed in soccer, amounting to interference. Indeed, the rule is explicit in soccer that you must play the ball; however, while playing the ball, the rules do allow the body to be used to shield the ball in order to keep playing the ball. Are these situations arcane and can they be confusing? The answer is "yes" to both. They underscore that thought and consideration are necessary parts of sports participation, and that a participant might encounter undesirable carryover from other sports which could range from erroneously believing an action is allowed to thinking competition needs to be focused on an opponent rather than the game.

playing with toys --- to occupy in amusement,
to play cops and robbers --- to pretend,
they're not fighting just playing --- to have fun,
to play a joke --- to acting in jest;

however, there are also common serious usages:

to conduct yourself appropriately --- to play fair,
to perform --- to play the oboe,
to assume a role --- to play the peacemaker,
to cooperate --- to play along or to play ball,
to take advantage of --- to play on or play upon,
to minimize --- to play down,
to emphasize --- his biography played up his experience,
to use up --- we were emotionally played out,
to curry favor --- to play up to,
to do halfheartedly or non-seriously --- to play at,
to act according to accepted customs --- to play the game,
to be accepted --- it played well or will play in Peoria,
to delay --- to play for time,
to feign --- to play possum,
to manipulate --- to play both ends against the middle,
to be evasive --- playing games,
to date around --- to play the field,
to surrender an advantage--- to play into their hands,
to bet --- to play $2 on each race,
to behave recklessly --- to play fast and loose,
to take risks --- to play with fire,

and there are some odd usages of the this word and concept:

to cause recorded sound to be heard --- to play a record,
to wear down --- the fish was played for 2 hrs and finally brought in,
an attempt --- a play for sympathy,
a literary work performed on stage --- the play Romeo & Juliet,
freedom --- the CEO was given full play to run the company.

Certain of these usages for play owe some derivation to ‘pretend/amusement’ metaphors, to ‘game’ metaphors, or to a combination of the two. Against this range of usage for play and playing, there is considerable interpretative spillover to sports so that there is room for sports play to mean quite different things to different people. I have a limited or perhaps more fixed meaning for sports play.

Specifically with regard to sports, playing is activity engaged in for enjoyment or recreation. In this context, recreation is mind-body refreshment that is stimulating or leads to growth in a physical, mental or emotional sense. Sports are activities involving physical exertion and skills, are governed by rules and are often undertaken competitively. Games, then, are individual, particular or specific sports activities. To play has been accepted within sports to mean to engage in (i.e. to play soccer), to compete against (i.e. to play Notre Dame), to work at a position i.e. (to play sweeper or striker), to make a move in a particular game (i.e. to play the ball back) and probably more. It is perhaps the purposefulness of sports play for enjoyment that leads to the dysfunctions for which sports are the most criticized. Some of these dysfunctions occur when innocent expectations of enjoyment are coupled to restrictions governed by rules, outcome and attitude. Indeed for the individual who is flexible enough to accept the inflexibilities of individual sports, enjoyment will be the easiest. Conversely, for those who cannot accept being called for infractions, who must have every appeal rendered in their favor, who feel there must be more time allowed for their efforts or who cannot endure the ending of competition in a loss, there will be little enjoyment. These dysfunctions are much more serious when they involve a neediness for identity based on domination, intimidation, subjugation, retaliation, harassment or discrimination. Moreover, very fine lines separate worthwhile elements in sports play from undesirable behavioral pathologies. For example, at what point does the intensity of highly focused competition become intimidating? When does the parent-child sharing during practice and training become overborne by a parent's need for vicarious fulfillment? It is a slippery slope down which this enjoyment leads, and while it is quite easy to see when things have sped out of control (usually in others), the precise velocity critical for developing this enjoyment is very hard to gauge.

Even in the absence of human dysfunction, it is not unusual that the enjoyment aspect of playing a sport will be challenged. Play can be hard! Continuing to play can be tough!! I make this point with apologies and credit to Robert Service from whose original verse I have adapted the following:

Keepin’ On Playing

"When the play gets wild, and you're scared as a child,
And the defense hooks you bang in the head,
And you're sore as a blister, and wanting to whisper,
To lower your chin and gasp: "We're dead!"
But the Spirit of Man says: "Fight all you can,"
And giving up easy is barred.
In victory and goal, oh it's easy to glow.
It's the hell-served-for-breakfast that's hard.
"You're sick of the game?!" Well, that's quite a shame!
You're young and you're brave and you're bright.
"You're getting a raw deal!" I know--but don't squeal,
Buck up, do your damnedest, and fight.
It's the plugging away that will win you the day,
So don't be cheap, old pard!
Just draw on your grit; it's so easy to quit:
It's the keeping-your-chin-up that's hard.
It's easy to cry that you're beaten--and die;
It's easy to slither and crawl;
But to fight and to fight, when hope's out of sight---
Why, that's when the game's best of all!!
And though you'll get sore, keep trying the more,
You'll never be broken or marred,
Just have one more try--it's dead easy to die,
It's the keeping-on-playing that's hard".

The truth is that hard, tough play yields incredible enjoyment. I believe that this enjoyment carries through the outcome of any play, and that it defines the aspect of resiliency in competition or play. This resiliency is as simple as "sticking to it", and because it can be haunted by the disappointment of some outcomes, it involves "coming back to it". In many ways playing a sport can be a "bounce" test. Just like cranberries that are selected for freshness by their ability to bounce over a small processing barrier, playing selects for those who can bounce back for more play.

If you are going to play or coach for that matter, and you alone can decide if you will, you will find dealing with outcomes inescapable. In these dealings, it pays to remember one simple reality: No matter what the outcome --- after the game, tournament, play-offs, series, Cup, finals, or Olympics --- everyone goes back to all the same things that mattered before play began: to the same family, same parents, same wife, same brothers & sisters, same friends, same house, same schools, and same job. In addition, from sports competition you will have the feelings and memories of your own sharing in hard, tough play to add to the other treasures of your life.