SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Boys Varsity Soccer Mercy rule

got an email from our local referee assignor asking about input on this, attached a l;ink to Georgia's mercy rule:


http://gsoa.net/n/p/1085.html

GHSA Mercy Rule
National Federation Mercy Rule

If a Team is 7 or More Goals Down at the Midpoint of the first half (20 or Less Minutes Played), the half will end and the Second Half will be 20 Minutes.
If a Team is 7 or More Goals down at Halftime, the second half will be 20 Minutes in Length.
If a team is 10 or More Goals Down in the Second Half, the game will be Terminated.

Here are the decision points considering it is a HS Varsity match:

If you have achieved the 7-goal differential at the 20-minute mark of the first half, the half will end. The second half will be 20 minutes in length unless a 10-goal differential is attained and then the games ends.
If you have achieved the 7-goal differential at the end of the first half, the second half will be 20 minutes in length unless a 10-goal differential is attained and then the games ends.
If the goal differential goes below 7 during the second half, that half is still 20 minutes
If you attain a 10-goal differential in the 2nd half, the game ends immediately

I'd be in favor of that rule.

I see no difference in this rule than the mercy rules in baseball or softball. I have been on the receiving end of my lopsided matches, and I am in favor of it.

What would we, as an organization, need to do with adopting something like this? It seems that it is a NFHS rule, would we just have to take it to the SCHSL and say we want to adopt it?

Yes, I believe that is correct Sean. We will bring this up at the Winter Clinic and vote on it and if it passes, present to the SCHSL for 2014-2015 school year. Please discuss freely in this thread.

I have been on both sides of these types of scores and I think this would be good for our state.

I just wonder how many coaches would get to 9-0 (or whatever the threshold would be) and would stop scoring and just pass the ball around. Sometimes that can be more embarrassing than a team scoring 17 goals.

But if that is the case, the 2nd half would still only be 20 minutes…according to the rule.

Also, I was thinking. Lets say that the match is 10-0 at half time. According to the rule, the 2nd half is 20 minutes. But at the same time, if there is a 10 goal differential in the 2nd half, the match is terminated. Don't you have start the 2nd half for a match to be consider legal? Does that mean you start the 2nd half and then terminate it basically at the same time?

My understanding is that one half of play (40 minutes) is considered a full match per the NFHS.

Not that I am in favor or against this rule, just want to put this into the discussion.
Todd Ellis said during the Carolina football blowout this past Sat. When the fifth string QB got in.
"This guy runs the same sprints, spend the same time in practice and the weight room. This is his time, during a game like this." (Paraphrased)

Same is true with some of our players. Whether you are on the losing or winning side of a blow out, those games may be the only time certain player get on the field. Do you really want to cut their time to play? Just because we as coaches can't stand there for an hour and a half?

Having said that, if you keep your all state forward in, trying to score the 12 goal, her four of the match, in the last 30 seconds of the game, well you are jerk and it will come back to you.

Again, not sure if I am for or against this rule.

Aiken High beat someone last year 10-0 in Georgia. The Georgia team tried to keep the score down in the first half. The Georgia team held us to 5 goals in the first half. Five minutes the second half the game was over. The rule helps keep scores down, but it also makes it easy for teams to quit.

The rule makes teams try to win the game in the first half and never play bench players to get the game over as soon as possible.

I do not want to drive over an hour for a 40 minute game.

Blowout games can be a problem for both sides. I see positive & negatives the mercy rule. Having been on both sides of excessive scores, I have a few points:
* I like giving less used players playing time or for teaching players new positions - they need game experience against different opponents.
* Coaches should be reasonable & cooperate with each other - coaches & refs can agree at halftime to cut the 2nd half time to 30 minutes or less if the score gets out of hand.
* Both coaches monitor your players closer to be sure sportsmanship doesn't get out of hand. No one want to have a player hurt or red carded when frustration builds for the losing team.
* Getting beat by a far superior team was a good lesson for my team (reviewing the tape afterwards allowed my team to be educated how to play a particular system or formation). It's also helpful to show my team how another team more intense, plays less selfish, communicates better, etc...
* Have you ever taken off players and played short-handed? Makes your team work that much harder and makes for a better game.
* On Short-handed games were the opposition has less then 10 players, I am very unhappy with coaches that will still play with a full squad and look for the blowout. I have always played games with an even number of players as the opposition (except when players were sent off). Sportsmanship starts with the coach & the players see that.
* I believe playing one blowout against good competition (esp. in a scrimmage) can be a good thing for learning. But repeated beatings throughout the season - the mercy rule would be very good to have.

this is the only consideration that makes me hesitate to vote yes.

But also, I think mercy rules smack of the reputation that soccer can't seem to shake. You know...trophy for everyone, don't hurt anybody's feelings...everybody in the winner circle garbage. We all know that boys soccer in SC has developed into a pretty good product and I think we should have the attitude of football and basketball which is the winning team should win with class and losing teams should fight to the bitter end. And if you look at scores last year, there really aren't many games at all that were of the 10-0 at halftime and play keep away in the second half variety. Now, girl's soccer is different. They just don't seem as able to overcome technical inferiority with athleticism and fight. Therefore you see teams quit. Maybe they do need a rule but boys do not IMO.

Quote:

---

Aiken High beat someone last year 10-0 in Georgia. The Georgia team tried to keep the score down in the first half. The Georgia team held us to 5 goals in the first half. Five minutes the second half the game was over. The rule helps keep scores down, but it also makes it easy for teams to quit.

The rule makes teams try to win the game in the first half and never play bench players to get the game over as soon as possible.

I do not want to drive over an hour for a 40 minute game.

---

As a former player I hate mercy rules due to a clock being used for soccer. Eventually time will run out. You can use a continuous clock and even 'shave' some time if you wish. However, the biggest issue to me is scheduling. Why schedule a team that you're going to beat 10-0? I know region opponents have to play each other, but non-region should never be a huge discrepancy. The other argument I have though, is it's hard to play 'other players' on your team if you're in a 10-0 game and you give up a goal and your region tie-breaker is goals allowed or differential or something like that. You end up screwing yourself.

If they put a mercy rule in for soccer, would they do it for other sports? I have heard of basketball teams losing 70-3 and if you look at the results of the first round of AAAA Division 2 football PLAYOFFS 7 of the 8 games were decided by 30 or more points with Goose Creek beating a team 76-0.

I agree with player about non region games but sometimes it's not that easy. Teams get better/worse from year to year and travel is also taking into consideration when scheduling non-region games.

I like Alister's thought: If they do it in pads and helmets, then maybe we should think about it in cleats and shin guards. Of course we know that will never happen. I go back to it being about class and dignity. If you have your third string GK scoring the tenth goal against me, okay. I have no problem with that. But if you have your starting QB throwing TD passes in the the last 30 seconds to go up by 30(Byrnes), well.... you're classless regardless of what happened in the game. IMO

Is this one of those thread hijacks from Mademoiselle Magazine?

Florida -- 8-goal lead at or after halftime, match ends

Illinois -- 7-goal lead after half, second half is cut in half

Kentucky -- 10-goal lead at or after halftime, match ends

Wisconsin -- 10-goal lead at half, losing coach has the option to end match; 10-goal lead after 60 minutes, the match is over.

NO MERCY RULE
Alaska
Maryland

I am in favor of their being a Mercy Rule in Soccer, as it would take the guess work out of it in these situations for all players, coaches and referees involved. Anytime there is a lopsided game in progress everyone is uncomfortable so this would be a way of having guidelines for all to work with.

I have done matches in both Ga and SC and I can tell you...SC really needs one. Having been involved in dozens of mercy rule games there is no embarrassment when a team loses by 10, is accepted in GA. In fact MOST of their girls first round playoff games end in a mercy rule. It actually protects the players from potential injury, or a red card sit out. And while some think it may be unfair to the losing team, it really is unfair to the winning team. Why should they be out there for a full 80 minutes kicking the ball around for no reason when they are the superior team.

I am not in favor of it at all. IMO it is a coach’s responsibility to manage the game to recognize when it is over as a contest and manage the bench accordingly. I have no problem being on the end of a big loss if their coach at least tried to manage the game at some point and my players didn't quit. Besides, you take away a crucial element of match fitness by ending the contest early, especially for players who may never see much playing time. What if you travelled over an hour to get there? Taking a good licking is an opportunity to question your players commitment, to make them stronger, to teach life lessons, to never quit despite facing tremendous adversity. Shielding them from these life lessons is not healthy. In the long run, it is counter-productive. I understand why people may think that it is beneficial, I really do, but it’s a sad indictment of today’s society that we want to adopt a "mercy" rule in an inherently competitive environment. Extrapolate that thinking and you may as well have teams deciding whether to play or not based upon their records alone. This rule is a copout.

I think Cav and CJ made great points. Its about class and dignity. We won a scrimmage 9-0 with starters off after 15 mins. Their coached thanked me and didn't want my bench to hold up as it wasn't fair to them. We possessed the ball two touch for the last 15 and it was a good exercise in speed of play. We did what we could to be respectful. It was a mismatch as I couldn't get anyone else to travel to us but we fed them pizza and mingled after the game together. Conversely, Northwestern taught us a lesson 7-0 and we watched tape of every goal to learn from it. Losing 7-0 was a defining moment for us this season. We have gone 3-0 since then. Picking an arbitrary number to end the contest creates problems in of itself. What if a team keeps the score at 6-0 and plays keep-ball for a whole half when the mercy rule kicks in at 7? Are we okay with that?

I’d be more in favor with carding a coach (who is pounding on a team relentlessly) for "ungentlemanly conduct / unsportsmanlike behavior" for not respecting his opponents than simply cutting the game short. Perhaps i'm intentionally opening a can of worms with that comment but if you want to see the game managed better, you’d get more mileage out of that, especially if the coach runs the risk of being out of his next game and the fines that accompany coaches ejections. Just my two cents.

I see nothing wrong with it as long as the score is high enough that it hardly happens and it is more of a judgement call for the ref than a set rule.

Once a game gets to the point that neither team is benefiting from its continuation then it should end.

No one wants to watch a good team play keep away or watch them take turns running plays were only one player is allowed to score. Or to the extreme where the team was told they had to dribble the ball across the line if they wanted to score.

And let's keep in mind that blow outs are just as bad for the winning team as the losing team. We went from an 8-0 game where the losing team didn't have a shot on goal to playing a very tough team and you could tell our team had a hard time adjusting. If you play hard against a team that hasn't won a game in two years you'll crush them, but when you play back and take it easy you develop bad habits that hurt you against good teams.

I think this is a bigger problem on the girls side though since the disparity between the good teams and the not so good is much bigger than on the boys side.

In response to the mercy rule...

Nuts.

How do you come to the conclusion that I have defeated my own argument?

Arrgy said ... "When you are on the end of a blowout what fitness are you getting? Really?”

Honest question, not being facetious but when was the last time that you personally played in a game and had to chase the ball for a whole half without being winded? How can that ever be construed as anything other than something that could test your fitness. However, once the mercy rule ends the game, I can guarantee you that there is ZERO fitness occurring for at least 22 players on BOTH squads.

The varsity game is 40 minutes per half. Its what we all signed up for. Just think, long and hard, as to what this rule is purported to achieve. It creates more problems than it solves. Are we really "protecting" players if we don't intervene OR...are we making this rule simply to say..."Hey, you won already....let's all go home" In the latter scenario, you open up a can of worms. What if a team goes down to 9 men (2reds) and is already 2-0 down. Is the game not then over as a contest? Why wait for 7-0? Lets just go home now. Should the ref have told Arsene Wenger to pack up and go home after 17 minutes against Chelsea after being 3-0 down. After all, they went on to lose 6-0 but it was essentially over as a contest after just 17 minutes with the red card. The comparison to professional Men's Soccer is appropriate as these are our players' role models and some of these players are the same age as ours.

All games can degenerate into a non-contest (in terms of who is going to win or lose) well before the final score. My point is that you don't start making arbitrary parameters as to "when" to make that call. That is already in place. It is called the final whistle. You maintain the integrity of the game by keeping the contest at 40 minutes per half and let the chips fall where they may. Come on, is a 90 minute timeframe including halftime so difficult to sit through? Why on Earth do we think that calling games before their scheduled end is somehow helpful for our players? Or is it more for the adults involved to get home sooner under the guise of everyone’s benefit.

Arrgy said ... "How in the world are you going to card a coach for unsporting conduct for doing what the rule book instructs their team to do, score goals? "

No rule exists to instruct you to score. Again, a coach of moral fiber realizes that the game may be won well before the final whistle and decides to manage the game accordingly and in a sporting like fashion by taking off his starters and / or making restrictions that can still challenge his players. If losing, you can make secondary targets for your players. Can you compete for every ball? win your next 50/50? take the ball out of the air from GK punts? Get creative. A coach not of moral fiber will continue to pound on a team, run up the score with his starters, enthusiastically coach etc. It is clear as day when this happens and can easy be justified as unsportsmanlike. The ref can easily have a quiet word with the coach to make an attempt to manage the game. If he doesn’t, card him. Simple. I never said that carding a coach was a perfect solution but I offered a solution that makes more sense to me than the ridiculous. Why is it okay to potentially change the entire structure of the contest; yet it is not okay to sanction a coach under unsportsmanlike rulings that already exist in the game?

Arrgy said ... "I have NEVER seen a mercy rule game degenerate into anything that was unsporting. I have NEVER seen a card given for unsporting conduct in a mercy ruled game."

Asinine logic. Do these players all somehow decide before the game to not get frustrated with other players because they know in advance it will be a mercy ruled game? A competitive athlete will get frustrated and potentially carded regardless of the score. So when a game eventually ended 9-0 and was called via mercy, you have never seen a player get carded at the 1-0 or 2-0 mark?

If you are talking about young children perhaps this may have some merit. Some valid arguments have been laid forth regarding this rule being perhaps more effective in the disparity of the current girls game. However, as a boy’s varsity coach, I don’t think it is for the good of the game, nor the education of young men. It implicitly says to players, sorry lads, we had to step in for your protection today, we had to change the rules and offer you mercy because you were unable to compete, you were so bad today that no-one could bear to watch anymore and we just had to put a stop to it. How does this message offer more dignity and respect to our young men?

Life lessons go way beyond the score of a single game. PC police, enough already.

I have to agree with much of what CS says...having been on both ends of a mismatch more times than one. Realizing that there's no way to win a match doesn't mean there's nothing left to learn from it...again, it depends on the character and mindset of the coaches and players involved. We can simply end a match to keep it from getting out of hand...OR we can do what high school athletics are SUPPOSED to do for our young people and teach them how do deal with situations that are often beyond their complete control.

To say that we have to end the match to keep our young people under control is to say that they cannot be taught to control themselves in tough situations...and this is not a concession I am willing to make. If all we are here to do is coach wins and losses, and our jobs are over as soon as the win or loss is decided, then I say we are wasting a lot of precious time that can be spent on much more important and life-enhancing lessons for our young people.

I am curious about one thing, arrgy...how did that one team intentionally scoring on themselves help to end the match early?

While you may have some valid points about building character you need to realize some other factors that take place in these blowouts. My team plays in a non-competitive region where our games take up to 3.5 hours round trip. We must play these games because they are region opponents and I would like my student- athletes to get home before midnight on a school night. There are more important things than finishing a completely one sided game.
To speak to your point about match fitness, when the score is absurd at half the opposing team often loses their fight, so who is getting match fitness from that? My answer would be no one.