Quote:

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.



You have already defeated your own argument with your second sentence, by freely admitting that at a certain point you no longer have a soccer game (because the contest is over), so why is everyone out there then? Is it for match fitness? Really? When you are on the end of a blowout what fitness are you getting? There is no competitive environment (according to your argument in the second sentence) at a "certain point" all a mercy rule does is state what that point is.

In GA almost all of the mercy rule games occur in the mandatory region games that you can not avoid. 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. However, I have seen games get ugly where teams have stopped scoring on purpose at 9-0. In one instance the team got so disgusted that they had to be out there for another 30 minutes, that they scored on themselves intentionally so they could end the match. Possessing the ball for two touch is not competitive and is not a sport.

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?

There is no class or dignity in playing keep away for 30 minutes, and everyone knows it, no one wants to be out there watching it or participating in it, no one learns anything from it.