Not really. Honor, like "chivalry," was not a singular concept in the medieval period. It was't like a score where points would be deducted for particular actions. Conceptions of what was honorable or chivalrous varied immensely across different individuals, societies, regions, and time periods. In general, however, these notions were largely unconcerned with individual actions on the battlefield. There is a fair amount of mythology in the modern day about medieval warfare where people seem to believe that knights disdained missile weapons as "dishonorable" or foot combat as "unchivalrous," but these are distortions. Medieval warriors, given the context of their times, were fairly practical sorts when it came to the brutal reality of combat. They had no compulsions against stabbing opponents in the back if the opportunity arose. Outflanking and outmaneuvering opponents to hit them in the sides or rear were common tactics. Pursuing fleeing opponents in order to kill as many of them as possible was also a routine and valid part of war. During the pursuit, there would be no illusions about "honor" clouding the actions of the victorious and the vanquished. The pursuers would attempt to kill large numbers of the enemy in order to discourage them from reforming and returning to the fight, as well as weakening the enemy's capacity to resist in the future. The pursued were more concerned with saving their own lives than the humiliation of fleeing. While commanders might later be held accountable for running away from a fight, a rout was not a rationally calculated action, but a panicked reaction to imminent (perceived) defeat.