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

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.