First of all, I am English. Now, hang on. Bear with me a moment. Before you cast derision on my right to an opinion on American football, let me assure you I love this game and have followed it religiously (and played it poorly) for many years.
Now that I have established my impeccable credentials, I can come to my point.
I am constantly amazed by America's attitude to what they term as "running up the score". It is a phrase unfamiliar to Brits. The reason seems to be that whilst your average American laments the practice, even to the point of righteous indignation, Brits have no problem at all with the black art of metaphorically kicking a team whilst they are down.
This is a rather surprising state of affairs as, last time I looked, America was a nation that adores winners and has little time for losers. Conversely, my own nation (bless its little heart) is full of very plucky athletes that are not exactly synonymous with the act of winning.
I cannot think of a single sport that is played in Britain where the act of extending a lead is perceived to be ungentlemanly. Even cricket, the very embodiment of fair play, allows a team to mercilessly pile on the misery without sportswriters and the fans of the opposition frothing at the mouth.
Today's Must Reads
Cricket does frequently see the captain of such a side cutting short the batting by declaring the innings, but this is done to enhance his team's chances of victory due to time constraints, not to spare the blushes of the vanquished.
Please don't get me wrong here.
We Brits are not totally heartless, and we are well versed in the practice of withdrawing the best players in schoolboy teams, when leading handily, to limit the humiliation of the opposition.
When it comes to highly-paid professional athletes, however, the gloves come off. It is ludicrous to imagine that Manchester United, for example, would deliberately ease off when leading 7-0 against Hull City. They may make substitutions in order to rest players for tougher tasks ahead, but the concept of easing off the throttle is totally alien in Britain.
Surely such an action deprives the paying audience of seeing 90 minutes of pulsating action. (Yes, I know most Americans do not consider "Soccer" to be pulsating but you need to take a leap of imagination here.)
It has never been explained to me why it is unethical for the New England Patriots to keep trying to score for 60 minutes against the Washington Redskins, a collection of elite athletes paid handsomely (some would say exorbitantly) for their efforts.
As a Miami Dolphins fan, I have little time for Belichick or his team, but surely the American audience would rather see them bring their stuff until the final gun? Would it not be more edifying to see Randy Moss make a spectacular grab and streak down the sideline than a two-yard line-plunge and another 30 seconds off the game clock?
In any case, if I were a Washington Redskins player, I would be insulted by the very notion that Belichick and his boys had decided to withdraw their effort, as though I was a seven-year old in short trousers.
Perhaps I am missing something here.
Maybe your average American is more chivalrous than us ruthless Brits? It could be that the famous American predilection for statistics causes them to bridle at, what is perceived to be, stat padding. Whatever the reasons, it won't stop me from enjoying a good Pats-'Skins matchup. Just don’t expect me to join in the hand wringing when Brady notches one more score.
comments (15) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
You forget many Americans are idiots. It was explained to them when they were seven and in Pop Warner (football's little league) so it must hold true for guys making more in a year than I'll see in my life.
Yes, if I was making millions to tackle a second string QB who never played in college maybe I'd try to tackle him not jog as he runs by me.
about 1 month ago
Damn right. If I'm winning by 45 at the half, I'm disappointing if I'm not winning by 90 when the game ends. If you can't stop me, sucks to be you...what am I supposed to stop myself?
about 1 month ago
I am a JETS fan and Patriots hater, especially Bellicheat, however I do not believe that trying to win with the most points is running up the score.
about 1 month ago
Well said. All NFL teams have the same salary cap to work with, so why is it unethical for one team to win by a large margin if they can?
My guess is though, that the issue is not with running up the score, but rather with WHO is running up the score. If the scores had been reversed in the Pats-Skins matchup, I don't think there would have been anyone suggesting that Washington was running up the score (not even Pats fans).
If only the media operated on a level playing field...
from about 1 month ago
Totally agreed, Warren. I'll take it a step further, too. When they were kicking the crap out of people, the media were all over them for it. Later, when the winning margins were beginning to shrink, the story was WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE PATRIOTS??? MAYBE THEY AREN'T SO GREAT AFTER ALL.
And maybe they weren't. They lost the SB, after all, much to my dismay. But they got there, didn't they? A WHOLE BUNCH of other teams didn't.
I'm sick of the media. I just want to watch the games in peace.
about 1 month ago
My view on it has always been this-
If it's okay for the losing team to try and continue to score and not kneel then it's okay for the winning team to as well. Why would it be right for the team down by 35 to keep playing to score and not for the team that's been doing the same, only doing it much better?
I think if you're going to be against playing 60 minutes when you're getting your butt handed to you then you should just forfeit.
about 1 month ago
Cheers Guys. You have restored my faith in the good sense of the public. Perhaps this is a media-driven myth not shared by the American public after all.
Run it up I say!
about 1 month ago
Great points. I'm with you all the way. In professional sports where your salary is directly related to your performance and stats, it is unfeasable to not "run up the score". Such an overly sensitive subject, I have no idea how it came about in professional sports, it belongs in the little leagues where feelings are actually hurt or something.
from about 1 month ago
From a coaching perspective, then wouldn't the salary be an incentive NOT to run up the score? Why over-value your players and make it that much harder to stay under salary cap next season?
about 1 month ago
Runing up the score is the american way. Its in are blood to go crush the living hell out of our enemys.
about 1 month ago
I have absolutely no problem with piling on points, and embarrasing a team. The difference, however, between doing it in soccer and doing it in football is than in soccer there is no other way to embarass a team except by scoring goals. In football your defense can continue to humiliate an offense by sacking the quarterback, forcing turnovers, and pummeling the opposing offense in every sense of the word. The only issue I have with Belichick is the way in which he runs goes about embarrasing the other team. In your Manchester United example you admitted that you take the stars (Rooney, Ronaldo) out of the game, so why is it still just Brady to Moss 50 yard touchdown bombs. Mix it up a bit, let Mat Cassel see some PT, poor guys been a back up to Carson Palmer, Matt Leinart, and now Tom Brady. But overall I agree that the media blows the issue way out of proportion.
about 1 month ago
I think that the issue is less about embarassing one's opponent as it is the fact that you're going out of your way and creating a dangerous situation for your team to do so. Football is a collision sport and if your million-dollar-salary starters can play a quarter less of it by running the clock out or giving your backups some game time, it's the smart play. By keeping your starters on the field when there is NO chance of a comeback (like the Pats-Skins game), you're sending the message: "Keeping my team healthy to win a superbowl comes secondary to my desire to embarass you" which comes off as showboating and taunting. At that point, you're no longer playing a game of football for the win to get into the playoffs - you're playing to show off at the risk of your players' health.
There may be, but I can't think of any other sport where this criticism exists. I'd be interested - do rugby teams ever get into this situation and how do they handle it? All I know about rugby is that it's extremely physical.
Let's see Moss get injured in garbage time and see if this sort of thing continues.
about 1 month ago
Also, besides exposing your starters to more risk, you're taking risks on another front - not giving your backups any experience. So if one of your starters DOES go down (which you've now unnecessarily increased the likelihood of), who's going to come in when it DOES matter? It's a boneheaded coaching decision in any case.
That being said, the Eagles/Cowboys fake kneeldown from years ago was EPIC and I'm not even an Eagles fan.
about 1 month ago
Thanks P. Youve hit upon one major difference there in the number of substitutions permitted in American Football compared to Soccer or Rugby. In soccer, only three substitutions are permitted. There are more in Rugby but you certainly cannot make the wholesale changes permitted in the american game.
You and tron have certainly brought up a couple of points which may at least shed some light on the disparity between the games.
about 1 month ago
I agree with everything you've said. I say run the score as high as it will go because i get tired of seeing the highest score be 31 points. Its real nice to see the 50's from time to time. And, I also agree with keeping starters in through-out the whole game. By doing so, sure you take a chance of injury, but you also condition your starters for the run in the play-offs to not run out of gas. Even as a Pats hater, i still like to see them (or any team) score as much as possible. Good article though, it should be published in every newspaper in the country. Way to go Brit!!!!
write a new comment