NZ Olympic Soccer Team Accuse CAN Team of UAV Spying

[The Bread Guy]

Reads to me like the funding is tied to the specific individuals. So get new staff I guess?

Well, if that specific coach isn't allowed to coach for a year, makes sense.

 

[brihard]

Well, if that specific coach isn't allowed to coach for a year, makes sense.

No reason the government should pay for someone who’s suspended and cannot do the job the government provided funding for.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Makes sense now....

 

[Brad Sallows]

It’s a team sport, and any uncompetitive advantages gained by the team’s staff cheating advantages the team as a whole. A meaningful deterrent has to therefore remove the incentive of greater team success, and that can only be done by a punishment that harm’s the overall team’s standings- pour encourages les autres. Nothing unusual or inappropriate about this in a team sports context, and the integrity of the sport demands nothing less.

Sucks that it’s our crew this time round, but it is what it is.

It's a platoon, and any tactical advantages gained by the platoon commander or 2I/C violating a law or custom of war advantages the platoon as a whole. It's a business, and any competitive advantage gained by the executives violating competition law advantages the employees as a whole.

Not buying it.

 

[brihard]

It's a platoon, and any tactical advantages gained by the platoon commander or 2I/C violating a law or custom of war advantages the platoon as a whole. It's a business, and any competitive advantage gained by the executives violating competition law advantages the employees as a whole.

Not buying it.

It’s competitive sport. Your analogy is garbage and you know it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Makes sense now....View attachment 86914

Glass 1/2 full me: nothing to see here, a coach should be able to drone their own team while training to get a better big picture when needed.

Glass 1/2 empty me: I wonder if that's related to this quote from the Minister in the above article?

 

[Brad Sallows]

It’s competitive sport. Your analogy is garbage and you know it.

Good counter-argument.

Either the principle of eschewing collective punishment means people not responsible don't suffer strong direct consequences, or it doesn't. The venue shouldn't matter.

A company can pay an anti-competitive fine or settlement and that will impact owners/shareholders and employees at the margins, but they don't have to wait four years for another opportunity.

 

[brihard]

Good counter-argument.

Either the principle of eschewing collective punishment means people not responsible don't suffer strong direct consequences, or it doesn't. The venue shouldn't matter.

A company can pay an anti-competitive fine or settlement and that will impact owners/shareholders and employees at the margins, but they don't have to wait four years for another opportunity.

The Canadian team is still in and could still possibly advance if they REALLY rock it, but the cheating, once caught, placed them at a *dis*advantage specifically to disincentivize and deter. The whole premise of team sports, unlike business or war, is to place all competitors on as level a playing field as possible. A punishment to anticompetitive behaviour that is levied against the short term competitive of the team in the tournament they cheated in is entirely rational. The team itself is the relevant actor here. This sends a sharp message to all teams to keep a grip on their total players and staff, and to make the expectations of fair play clear. This is not business, it’s not war, it’s not criminal law- the collective sanction is appropriate for the forum. And, more to the point, it’s part of the regulatory schema of the associations and competitions all of the players and their teams voluntarily choose to participate in. This was cheating intended to benefit the team, so the team faces a penalty for it, on top of the individual(s) directly involved losing their jobs.

 

[Remius]

Good counter-argument.

Either the principle of eschewing collective punishment means people not responsible don't suffer strong direct consequences, or it doesn't. The venue shouldn't matter.

A company can pay an anti-competitive fine or settlement and that will impact owners/shareholders and employees at the margins, but they don't have to wait four years for another opportunity.

It isn’t collective punishment. It is collective consequences.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It isn’t collective punishment. It is collective consequences.

Punishment is basically a consequence.

 

[Haggis]

I wonder if the French taunted her as she left?

Oooh! That's harsh!

 

[Good2Golf]

Taunting didn’t work…

2 - 1

 

[Brad Sallows]

The Canadian team is still in and could still possibly advance if they REALLY rock it, but the cheating, once caught, placed them at a *dis*advantage specifically to disincentivize and deter. The whole premise of team sports, unlike business or war, is to place all competitors on as level a playing field as possible. A punishment to anticompetitive behaviour that is levied against the short term competitive of the team in the tournament they cheated in is entirely rational. The team itself is the relevant actor here. This sends a sharp message to all teams to keep a grip on their total players and staff, and to make the expectations of fair play clear. This is not business, it’s not war, it’s not criminal law- the collective sanction is appropriate for the forum. And, more to the point, it’s part of the regulatory schema of the associations and competitions all of the players and their teams voluntarily choose to participate in. This was cheating intended to benefit the team, so the team faces a penalty for it, on top of the individual(s) directly involved losing their jobs.

That collective punishment can have a deterrent effect is obvious, but doesn't justify collective punishment. That collective punishment can provide an incentive to members of a group to apply peer pressure to affect member behaviour is obvious, but doesn't justify collective punishment.

"They" didn't cheat. "The team" didn't cheat. Specific individuals - identifiable and identified - cheated.

The conclusion "B is liable" doesn't follow from the premise "A cheated to benefit B".

If the punishment doctrine is correct, then if a competitor in an individual sport - say, a swimmer - received an instruction from a coach and placed in the medals, and that instruction was later determined to have been developed by some anti-competitive means, then the swimmer could be stripped of the medal. This would be justified even if the competitor had no knowledge or intent or even applied the instruction or needed it.

 

[brihard]

That collective punishment can have a deterrent effect is obvious, but doesn't justify collective punishment. That collective punishment can provide an incentive to members of a group to apply peer pressure to affect member behaviour is obvious, but doesn't justify collective punishment.

"They" didn't cheat. "The team" didn't cheat. Specific individuals - identifiable and identified - cheated.

The conclusion "B is liable" doesn't follow from the premise "A cheated to benefit B".

If the punishment doctrine is correct, then if a competitor in an individual sport - say, a swimmer - received an instruction from a coach and placed in the medals, and that instruction was later determined to have been developed by some anti-competitive means, then the swimmer could be stripped of the medal. This would be justified even if the competitor had no knowledge or intent or even applied the instruction or needed it.

Well, fortunately nobody is obligating you to play Olympic soccer under a governance structure and rules set you personally disagree with.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well, fortunately nobody is obligating you to play Olympic soccer under a governance structure and rules set you personally disagree with.

Of course. My OP and everything following is editorial opinion, not an exposition of soccer governance.

 

[Remius]

Punishment is basically a consequence.

I can give you a good example.

A 4 man relay race team wins gold and one guy tests positive for performance enhancing drugs.

They get caught. The whole team will suffer the consequences and have their medals revoked. The guy who tested will be punished by getting a ban and sent home. The three others can still continue racing in their other event but the one guy will not.

Same situation here. They are lucky to have been given what they were given.

 

[brihard]

I can give you a good example.

A 4 man relay race team wins gold and one guy tests positive for performance enhancing drugs.

They get caught. The whole team will suffer the consequences and have their medals revoked. The guy who tested will be punished by getting a ban and sent home. The three others can still continue racing in their other event but the one guys will not.

Same situation here. They are lucky to have been given what they were given.

So far they’ve won their first two games. From something I saw earlier if they win their third qualifying round match they stay in and advance.

 

[PuckChaser]

So far they’ve won their first two games. From something I saw earlier if they win their third qualifying round match they stay in and advance.

Canada has to beat Columbia, with France likely to beat New Zealand giving Canada 2nd spot in the group. Much like any tournament, you just gotta get into the playoff rounds and round robin doesn't matter.

 

[brihard]

Canada has to beat Columbia, with France likely to beat New Zealand giving Canada 2nd spot in the group. Much like any tournament, you just gotta get into the playoff rounds and round robin doesn't matter.

How does the tie break work for points in the prelims? If three teams in the group each have 3 points, does it then go to most wins?

 

[Blackadder1916]

How does the tie break work for points in the prelims? If three teams in the group each have 3 points, does it then go to most wins?

The ranking of teams in the group stage will be determined as follows:

1. Points obtained in all group matches (three points for a win, one for a draw, none for a defeat);
2. Goal difference in all group matches;
3. Number of goals scored in all group matches;
4. Points obtained in the matches played between the teams in question;
5. Goal difference in the matches played between the teams in question;
6. Number of goals scored in the matches played between the teams in question;
7. Fair play points in all group matches (only one deduction could be applied to a player in a single match):
   • Yellow card: −1 point;
   • Indirect red card (second yellow card): −3 points;
   • Direct red card: −4 points;
   • Yellow card and direct red card: −5 points;
8. Drawing of lots.