Instructor Name: Point Value: 30 Student Name: CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points Content Quality 40% of total Discussion grade Student participated in the Discussion about the presented topic with detailed, relevant, supported initial posts and responses. Student enhanced points with examples and questions that helped further discussion. Discussion is well organized, uses scholarly tone, follows APA style, uses original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate-level writing style. Discussion contains multiple, appropriate and exemplary sources expected/required for the assignment. Student participated in the Discussion about the presented topic with detailed, relevant, supported initial posts and responses. Discussion is mostly consistent with graduate level writing style. Discussion may have some small or infrequent organization, scholarly tone, or APA style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors, and/or somewhat less than the expected number of or type of sources. Student participated in the Discussion about the presented topic with adequate content but the content lacked either detail, relevancy, or support. Discussion is somewhat below graduate level writing style, with multiple smaller or a few major problems. Discussion may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or shows moderate reliance on quoting vs. original writing and paraphrasing. Discussion may contain inferior resources (number or quality). Content of student's post and responses was not clear, relevant, or supported. Discussion is well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or relies excessively on quoting. Discussion may contain few or no quality resources. Student did not submit a post or response. CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points Engagement 40% of total Discussion grade Student participated actively as evidenced by strong reflective thought in both the initial post and in responses to classmates' posts. Student response participation exceeded the stated minimum requirements. Student participated actively as evidenced by strong reflective thought in both the initial post and in responses to classmates' posts.Student responses contributed to classmates' experience. Student participated somewhat actively as evidenced by posts and responses that were adequate but lacking strong reflective thought. Student did not participate actively as evidenced by little reflective thought in initial posts and responses. Student did not submit a post or response. CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not.

1. Instructor Name: Point Value: 30
Student Name:
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1
points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Content Quality
40% of total Discussion
grade
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Student enhanced
points with examples and
questions that helped further
discussion. Discussion is well
organized, uses scholarly tone,
follows APA style, uses original
writing and proper paraphrasing,
contains very few or no writing
and/or spelling errors, and is fully
consistent with graduate-level
writing style. Discussion contains
multiple, appropriate and
exemplary sources

2. expected/required for the
assignment.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with detailed, relevant,
supported initial posts and
responses. Discussion is mostly
consistent with graduate level
writing style. Discussion may have
some small or infrequent
organization, scholarly tone, or
APA style issues, and/or may
contain a few writing and spelling
errors, and/or somewhat less than
the expected number of or type of
sources.
Student participated in the
Discussion about the presented
topic with adequate content but
the content lacked either detail,
relevancy, or support. Discussion
is somewhat below graduate level
writing style, with multiple smaller

3. or a few major problems.
Discussion may be lacking in
organization, scholarly tone, APA
style, and/or contain many writing
and/or spelling errors, or shows
moderate reliance on quoting vs.
original writing and paraphrasing.
Discussion may contain inferior
resources (number or quality).
Content of student's post and
responses was not clear, relevant,
or supported. Discussion is well
below graduate level writing style
expectations for organization,
scholarly tone, APA style, and
writing, or relies excessively on
quoting. Discussion may contain
few or no quality resources.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1
points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points
Engagement
40% of total Discussion

4. grade
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates' posts.
Student response participation
exceeded the stated minimum
requirements.
Student participated actively as
evidenced by strong reflective
thought in both the initial post and
in responses to classmates'
posts.Student responses
contributed to classmates'
experience.
Student participated somewhat
actively as evidenced by posts
and responses that were adequate
but lacking strong reflective
thought.
Student did not participate actively
as evidenced by little reflective
thought in initial posts and

5. responses.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not
Complete (0 points) # of points
Timeliness
20% of total Discussion
grade
All postings were made in time for
others to read and respond.
Almost all postings were made in
time for others to read and
respond.
Most postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Few postings were made in time
for others to read and respond.
Student did not submit a post or
response.
Final Point Total: 0
Feedback
KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport - Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7
“Winning isn’t everything.. . . it’s the only thing.―

6. This oft-quoted phrase, attributed to both Henry (Red) Sanders, coach of the UCLA Bruins and
Vince Lombardi, coach of the Green Bay Packers, sums up the fervor with which fans, athletes,
coaches, parents, and others approach sport.
Many individuals believe that the goal of sports is to win, no matter what that costs. Others
believe that other aspects of sports should be the focus, such as effort and teamwork. While
sports contests are designed to determine who wins, it is important to concentrate on the process
by which the winning takes place. Yes, winning is important, but so is the process, particularly if
participants wish to act ethically. Sport administrators are often caught in the middle when it
comes to this debate over winning versus sportsmanship. This is a debate that can get quite
heated when a drive to win a game or a season or a big event appears to be in jeopardy over less-
tangible concerns such as fairness or safety. As a sport administrator, you will need to
understand your responsibility for the actions of others, the rights of all you serve, as well as
concepts such as sportsmanship, gamesmanship, and fair play.
"I would prefer even to fail with honor than win by cheating.“ —Sophocles
The phrase “foul ball― took on a different connotation at the 2015 Little League World
Series when a girls’ softball team from Snohomish, Washington, was accused of cheating in
a playoff game. Interestingly, the team allegedly cheated to lose, not win, but the intention was
likely to set up a better situation for the next round of play by allowing an inferior team to be
their next opponent. The Snohomish team was ordered to play an additional game with its rival, a
team from Iowa, and lost, thus being eliminated from the series (Mather, 2015).
The United States is, of course, not the only nation to have scandals erupt over cheating.
Research reveals scandals from other nations across the world, from a German man posing as a
woman in the 1936 Berlin Olympics high jump to a Puerto Rican 400-meter relay racer
substituting her identical twin sister to run in the 1984 Los Angeles games after she was injured
(Klein, 2012).
Cheating, then, is a universal breach of ethics common in sports. Not only is the practice
universal, but in all of these instances there were likely opportunities for a leader to prevent these
occurrences had these individuals been able to analyze the dilemmas and apply values
consistently. As a sport administrator, you will not be able to avoid ethical dilemmas completely.
Decisions can be made in a more informed, reasoned way when you have a deep understanding
of different models that you can rely on as a basis
1. Klein, C. (2012). Shortcuts to the Gold: 9 cheaters in Olympic history. Retrieved from
history.com
2. Mather, V. (2015, August 18). Little League softball scandal ends in elimination for the
accused. Retrieved from nytimes.com
> Use the Weekly Learning Materials to video to help you with this Discussion.
Instructions

7. For this Discussion, conduct online research to select one article on an ethical dilemma involving
cheating, and one article on winning in sport. Your example should not be related to the “Big
4― U.S. sports: football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. Rather, you should reach beyond to
seek an article on an international sport and/or a lesser known sport in the United States or an
international sport not always featured predominantly in the media.
By Tuesday, 11:59 p.m. ET:
Post a brief description of the article and provide the citation. In this situation, how did
perspectives on the importance of winning influence the outcome of the situation and ethical
decision making? Describe an ethical theory from your Learning Materials and explain how it
applies to the situation in the article. Explain the ethical dilemma or dilemmas involved
including the values in conflict. Finally, explain your own perspective on the importance of
winning, the ramifications of cheating and how this perspective might influence your ethical
decision making.