Why do we draw the line between "Cheating" and "Competitive Play"

[albionmoonlight]

You are watching a game, and your favorite team is faced with third and long. QB drops back, is flushed out to his right, and manages to fling the ball downfield to star WR, who makes an amazing diving catch just beyond the sticks. Hold on, however. Star WR gets up and lets the Ref know that he trapped the ball and that the catch should not count.

I imagine that 99.9% of us here (myself included) would--for a brief Unchristian moment--hate that receiver to the core of our being. Sure the catch should not have counted. Sure it would be against the rules to give your team a first down, but every one of us expects the WR to get up screaming "I caught that bitch!" regardless of whether he did or not.

Then there are things that most of us consider cheating--using substances banned by the league. Although do you think that a player is cheating if he uses steroids (banned by the league and illegal), but possibly just being competitive if he manages to get away with a little stickum on his hands (banned by the league, but not illegal).

What about a QB using a headbob to draw the defense offsides? OK because the ref will throw a flag if it gets too bad?

What about substances that are not banned, but are illegal (greenies in baseball?)

Laser eye surgery that gives you vision better than 20/20? Fine. Right? Tommy John surgery that makes your arm stronger than before. Fine. Right?

What about "innocent" cheating? (I honestly thought that it was simply flaxseed oil). Any better or worse? Do we care about the mental state of the cheater, or about the unfair advantage that he got from cheating? Is it really cheating if it was a pure accident?

Nothing wrong with noticing that Roger Clemens never throws a fastball after subconciously scratching his left buttcheek. It's a little greyer if you are "stealing" signs. Probably crosses the line if you have a spy in the opposing clubhouse to relay information to you. Why? Where is the line drawn?

Falsifying injury reports to the league office? Against the rules? Sure. Cheating? Maybe.

Hiring some women of loose virtue to go to the opposing team's hotel the night before the game to wear them out? Just being competitive, right?

Working the refs to try to get them to make close calls in your favor that might not be technically correct? Realizing that the refs are calling a loose game and becoming more aggressive in your defense than the rules technically allow?

We all, in our heads, have a sense of what is "cheating" and what is just good old fashioned competition. I guess what I am trying to get at is to see if we can come up with any concise objective definition that would allow us to look at a specific event--across sports if possible--and say that This is Cheating or This is Not Cheating. Does cheating lend itself to such a definition, or does it fall into one of those "I know it when I see it" catagories?

I must say that in my brief attempt to think about these things, I cannot come up with a clean definition.

I am interested in your thoughts. What Is Cheating?

[QuikSand]

Interesting thread-starter.

Before I get deeply into your stuff, I'd add in one related point. When a sport makes a rule, and establishes a penalty for breaking the rule, isn't it reasonable for the affected actors (teams, players, whomever) to essntialy make a cost-benefit analysis of whether it's worth it to break the rule?

The WR is speeding toward the thrown ball, and the hopelessly trailing CB decides to just tackle him rather than let him catch the TD, effectively giving the team the bal at the 15 rather than the sure TD. Breaks the rule, of course, but most would agre it's a "smart" play. Same in basketball under all sorts of circumstances - deliberate (but not flagrant) fouls are an essential part of game strategy.

How far is it, then to consider something like steroid use or some other larger-picture rule as a simple risk/reward calculation? Break the rule, you might suffer the consequence, and you know what they are -- so it's just another decision along the way. Not necessarily something frought with morals, just a calculated decision.


Interesting topic.

[wade moore]

I am also not ready to fully answer this but I do want to throw something out there...

In coming up with a 'definition' we may have some success in dividing "on-the-field" actions and "off-the-field" actions. For instance, hacking a guy under the basket when you know he's going to dunk it is an "on-the-field" action. Injecting yourselves with steroids is an "off-the-field" action. Even the example of stick-um, that is an "off-the-field" action because you applied the stick-um outside of game action.

That being said, my gut feeling is any "on-the-field" actions should be considered "competitive play"...

[Blackadar]

Good topic but very broad.

To be brief, I think we all have different (but generally similar) conceptions of what is "fair play" and what isn't. It's like anything else - we form those conceptions from our social norms and environment with some genetics thrown in.

As for defining cheating, good luck. It would be like trying to define what is truly obscenity in pornography.

[QuikSand]

That being said, my gut feeling is any "on-the-field" actions should be considered "competitive play"...

What about making a malicious attempt to injure another player -- a particularly cruel chop block, or a vicious blindside hit on an unaware player in football? Or something along similar lines in hockey (as we have seen, regrettably)? Certainly on the field, not necessarily requiring any advance preparation, but nearly everyone would say that's more than just a penalty.

[wade moore]

What about making a malicious attempt to injure another player -- a particularly cruel chop block, or a vicious blindside hit on an unaware player in football? Or something along similar lines in hockey (as we have seen, regrettably)? Certainly on the field, not necessarily requiring any advance preparation, but nearly everyone would say that's more than just a penalty.

My "easy-out" thought seems to be that "actions with the intent to injure" could be carved out of "on-the-field" actions, but I know that is a bit of a cop-out...

That being said, I still don't know that an intent to injure is "Cheating" in my book so much as it is just plain wrong... I guess I'll have to think that scenario out and see if I can make it fit cleanly...

[QuikSand]

Fair point... maybe there's a difference between trying to gain an advantage within the game, and trying to gain something else outside the scope of the immediate contest (revenge on a hated player, long-term gain from an injury, etc).

[Maple Leafs]

Great topic.

Two distinctions that I personally feel are important:

- Is the player expecting to be caught, or are they trying to "get away with" something? The CB in Quik's example is simply making a decision based on the situation and is willing to accept the penalty, whereas the guy with the corked bat is clearly not.

- I'd argue that anything involving an attempt to injure is in a different category. A corked bat is bad, but sharpened spikes are worse.

(And at the risk of going off-topic, I'd argue that Todd Bertuzzi aside there have been more intent-to-injure plays in the NFL in recent years than in hockey. Hockey is better used as an example of what can happen to the quality of a league is you allow the "it's not breaking the rules if the ref doesn't call it" mentality to take over -- i.e. the clutch-and-grab epidemic.)

[QuikSand]

I claim no meaningful knowledge of the sport once known as hockey. Sorry to suggest otherwise.

[digamma]

Random thoughts (also without giving a real answer)...

It strikes me that golf plays an interesting role here. On the PGA tour, we still expect golfers to police themselves. There are countless stories of players self-reporting penalties that have cost them dearly in prize money or victories. It strikes me as a counter-example to the receiver admitting he trapped the ball. If I double hit my chip shot, but no one notices, I'm expected to report that, not convince people I didn't double hit it. And, further, the stigma attached to being labeled a cheater in golf is quite large. Vijay Singh still answers questions about his scorekeeping incidents on the Asian tour.

I would write that off to the difference between team competition and individual competition, but I don't think we see the same thing in, say, tennis. Players will rarely admit that a judge's ruling was incorrect if it the incorrect ruling went in their favor. The party line in the post-match press conferences seems to be that "those things even out over time."

I also think about the non-professional (or more participation level) sports. In pick-up basketball, we look down on the guy who calls too many touch fouls. We wouldn't want to play tennis with a guy who is constantly cheating us on close line calls. (On the other hand, cheating may be somewhat expected for the recreational golfer. We take preferred lies, mulligans, don't count a penalty stroke, etc.)

The theme may relate to Quik's point about doing some sort of cost benefit analysis, but it may be larger than just weighing the 15 yard penalty versus the completed pass. In a larger scope, it may be more the costs of being branded a cheater--and how that factors in to your perception (by the outside world) as a competitor.

Not sure I've added much, but interesting stuff.

[Maple Leafs]

Who was the tennis player who recently cost himself a game by over-ruling an official's bad call on a match point?

[John Galt]

I think it is overly simplistic to only talk of defining the limits of cheating without also talking about enforcement of the rules. A few ideas spring to mind on this.

In baseball, it is illegal under the rules to block home plate before the ball has arrived. Doing so also causes a high risk of injury to the player coming home and the catcher. Nonetheless, this rule is rarely (almost never) enforced. Does it cease to be cheating? If you get away with it, is it still cheating? If you get caught, does it then become cheating?

Another baseball rule that is slightly more enforced, but still rarely so, is when a batter leans into a pitch or makes no effort to avoid it. When are you cheating in that instance? Does the slightly higher probability of being caught make it more cheating than the first instance.

The third case applies to most sports, but especially basketball and football. On any given play, the ref is going to miss a ton of calls. The games have even allowed "cheating" in the form of "penalties" and "fouls." In basketball, you are allowed to "cheat" a certain number of times before being ejected. Does that mean you are a cheater if you can play dirty and hurt another player if you don't get caught? There are tons of missed calls - when does the player stop being a "cheater" and instead become "part of the game" when avoiding detection?

Interesting idea for a thread (and probably slightly more appealling to the lawyers among us).

[John Galt]

I also think about the non-professional (or more participation level) sports. In pick-up basketball, we look down on the guy who calls too many touch fouls.

That example also shows a bit of a doublebind. I once had a roommate who was a tad mental. He and his friends would be enraged when someone would foul them with the intent to protect them. For example, I've grown accustomed to hugging someone when I'm partially beat, but don't want to jump for a block and risk injuring us both. I think that practice is fairly common in pickup games. When it happened with these guys, however, they would go nuts. And, according to the rules of the NBA, they were right. By hugging them, I would be committing an intentional foul and not be making any play for the ball. Was I a cheater in those cases?

[henry296]

Who was the tennis player who recently cost himself a game by over-ruling an official's bad call on a match point?

It was Andy Roddick last week in the tournament in Rome.

[weinstein7]

Who was the tennis player who recently cost himself a game by over-ruling an official's bad call on a match point?

Roddick.

Though according to his post-match interview, the umpire would have eventually come over and seen that it was a bad call (it was a match on clay, so there was a mark on the court), so he was just trying to save everybody some time.

Also, IIRC Roddick still had a sizable lead at that point, and probably didn't think that ceding that one point would cost him the match,

[rkmsuf]

golf

[Maple Leafs]

So would it be fair to say that most people don't consider it cheating if it's a common play and there is a reasonable expectation that an official will see it and call a foul/penalty/whatever? I don't think I could call an OL who holds or a player who traps a catch a cheater, since that's exactly why the officials are there in the first place.

(Of course, by this definition going hunting for a lineman's knee isn't "cheating" either, but I think we could all agree that it's a dirty play, and perhaps there's a difference there.)

[DeToxRox]

I can say I've cheated in hockey numerous times.

It became an art form, and everyone does it.

Examples. Puck goes across the line, bringing it back before the ref can correctly see it went over (that one is rare). More common, with the play behind my net, going post to post I could jar the net free from the moorings and never had it called on me. Just small stuff like that.

That said, if they do know I did it and they end up ruling it a goal or what have you, I don't complain about it.

[Daimyo]

How about something like offensive line holding in the NFL where it happens on every play, but is very rarely called (or defensive pass interference before last season's re-emphasis on the rule). In those situations you basically have to "cheat" just to keep up.

[Groundhog]

In cricket if it was a close call and no one could tell whether the ball slightly knicked the bat on it's way through to the keeper it used to be up to the batsmen to call… of course, that changed a while ago and now there is audio technology in place to detect even the slightest contact.

In a recent match however an Aussie batsmen picked up his bat and walked off the pitch (signalling he was out) before the umpire made a decision on a close call, because he knew he'd made contact. This caused him to receive some flack from the captain and the media because he was too honest… a shame I thought. I wish all sportsmen were that honest, especially when you watch the soccer and see someone receive the slightest push and then pathetically fling themselves on to the grass holding their face.

[Maple Leafs]

... especially when you watch the soccer and see someone receive the slightest push and then pathetically fling themselves on to the grass holding their face.This has become prevalent in hockey as well. Pathetic. Say what you want about NFL players, but at least even the most me-first WRs don't stoop to falling over the field in hopes of a pass interference penalty on every play.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I can come up with a definition quite easily. Cheating is breaking the rules, any of them. Grabbing the receiver, holding on the O-line, taking steroids, intending to injure, all of it. However, there are degrees of cheating, and the leagues have set certain punishments for each of them -- whether it is a 10-yard penalty or lifetime expulsion. Just like breaking the law. They are all crimes, but they come with different punishments; and we don't look down on speeders as much as murderers.

With all that said, the first example of the receiver getting up and not pointing out he trapped the ball is not cheating because the rules don't require the player to speak up voluntarily and inform the referees. However, if there was such a rule, he would be cheating if he remained silent.

[ISiddiqui]

I can come up with a definition quite easily. Cheating is breaking the rules, any of them. Grabbing the receiver, holding on the O-line, taking steroids, intending to injure, all of it. However, there are degrees of cheating, and the leagues have set certain punishments for each of them -- whether it is a 10-yard penalty or lifetime expulsion. Just like breaking the law. They are all crimes, but they come with different punishments; and we don't look down on speeders as much as murderers.
Good answer, but it won't satisfy everyone. Some people consider steroid users to be cheating, even though it wasn't against the rules (unless you want to make US law part of the rules of the game... I don't consider it the same).

And the question is posed, when is the epithet of 'cheater' correctly applied in your system, or is it ever correctly applied (as a mark of shame, I mean)?

[Barkeep49]

I think though the foul in basketball undermines VforP's definition. There are many times when a player gets called for a foul, and correctly so, without any real intent to break the rules. To me this intent to break the rules is a mandatory part of cheating. This does not mean that an intent to break the rules is always cheating, because again the semi-intentional foul/CB tackling the reciever are cost benefit analaysis. So I guess my definition of cheating comes to the willful intention of breaking the rules with the expectation of not being caught. And I would suggest that if something is illegal, but not "banned" for a sport, that is still breaking the rules and thus cheating.

[judicial clerk]

I like Barkeep49's answer as much as anything else. however i can think of a couple of examples where a player is not breaking aknown rule or breaking the law, but it seems like the player is cheating. How about Howie Long spraying his jersey with silicon to make it more slippery and harder to grab? Or how about Fred Belitnikoff or Lester Hayes putting glue all over their hands to make catching the ball easier. Assuming these activities were not illegal when the players started doing them, don't they seem like Cheating. And Why is Kenny Stabler allowed to put a towel in his belt and wipe his hands before he takes the snap? I mean, he is bringing a foreign object onto the field to help his performance.

[JasonC23]

Anything that my team does = competitive play

Anything that the other team does = cheating

[Barkeep49]

Funny situation in the little league game I was coaching last night. Kid is running to second on a well hit ball. The throw comes in to the second baseman who is standing way off the bag. The kid runs around the tag, but gets called out. Everyone was stunned at the call and so the umpire asks the kid "You tagged him right?" The kid says "I think so". At the end of the inning as the kids are coming off the field I hear the second basemen say to another kid "I missed the tag." Is this cheating? I don't think so, I just think it's dishonest, but I thought I'd throw it out there.