|
Post by deobserver on Feb 1, 2015 9:54:36 GMT -6
I am from Florida and have played and coached at the high school level here and there. My girls team lost 9-1 in to one of the top teams in the state. I took a lot of responsibility as a coach. Shifted something around. And we found ourself beating teams of that quality later in the year. It was a learning experience. So I have been on both sides as a coach and to be honest it's a great rule. What do you get out of a game when you beat a team by more than 8 or more. Passing the ball around, scoring only by crosses. Your players yelling we need 10 passes before you can score is demoralizing. Also unfortunately there are people that allow there players to score 15+ goals. So the rule is there for them. This rule is good and after a couple years no one will talk about it anymore. I like the Jv idea if you score 8th. Hopefully the refs agree to do that. Or what happened in Florida was some coaches would come to you ask you please let us play beyond halftime. So that's what we did. Usually play girls that never played. Lastly the girls on these teams are usually really good sports about the rule. I have not heard anyone complain in Florida.
|
|
|
Post by alto1smom on Feb 2, 2015 22:49:06 GMT -6
Districts can do almost anything they want. In softball after some Mercy Rule games, we continue to play situational plays to teach with coaches stepping in and recreating things. Educators can be as creative as they want.
Principals rule the roost and we might not all like it, but no administrator is going to allow their students to be demoralized. They pay the cost to be the boss, there would e NO sports without the principals and ultimately they will make the decisions that are best for their students!
Some players will not allow a total beat down as well. You get the right inner city school you are running the score up on and they will have your players carried out on stretchers. I love the rule and would vote for it again and again. uhscubs1 I fully support your position--preach on!
|
|
|
Post by Sleeper on Feb 3, 2015 18:48:18 GMT -6
Agree don't like idea of 4 division I can only hope they take 24 or 16 in each division next year if not everyone plays?
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Feb 3, 2015 18:57:15 GMT -6
I'm surprised at the amount of people against this rule. I think the reason for the rule is because people can complain and call for investigations when you have won by [insert arbitrary # here] goals. Rarely does anyone know the circumstances of the game.
There are always competing interests on opposites side of the ball. Opting to limit the score and/or time played is an attempt to strike an impossible balance.
I've been on both sides of this score as a coach. You try to get whatever you can from each game. If you need a finishing practice late in the season, it's possible to be classy and win by a large amount. At the same time, you can win 1-0 or 5-0 and be classless. Our arbitrary determination that number of goals won by is an accurate indicator of class is just that, arbitrary, and an easy out when trying to address the obvious disparity between teams in the same district and classification.
My against the grain two cents..
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Feb 3, 2015 18:58:44 GMT -6
Agree don't like idea of 4 division I can only hope they take 24 or 16 in each division next year if not everyone plays? 24 with 1-8 getting byes in all divisions.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad23 on Feb 3, 2015 19:04:44 GMT -6
Like I said before, the rule was targeted at a select number of individuals, people who were consistently drubbing teams by ridiculous scores.....those scores weren't going unnoticed....and as a result we have an unnecessary and dumb rule simply because the sport failed to police itself.
let me tell you whats next...... the fan behavior that's taking place in certain areas....not the majority but a few will cause schools to be required to provide security details.....now you think teams are barely making enough to pay the refs from the gate revenue.....just imagine how much a detailed officer will cost!
|
|
|
Post by Antimatter on Feb 3, 2015 19:28:04 GMT -6
pokle, I think most folks, like myself, are upset that a very small number of arrogant coaches bent on padding stats create the need for the rule.
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Feb 3, 2015 21:26:28 GMT -6
pokle, I think most folks, like myself, are upset that a very small number of arrogant coaches bent on padding stats create the need for the rule. See, I think it's the generalization that it's "arrogant coaches padding stats" that creates the need. Lopsided victories occur in sports. Overreaction to that fact creates a perceived need for regulation. Yes, sometimes score is indicative of something sinister but sometimes it's not. Regardless, the overwhelming response will be to assume worst. Therefore it is easy and just to "fix" the issue by employing the mercy rule. Again, I like the rule. There's victory in not getting mercy ruled and I will be in the cold less time when we're losing or winning 8-0. I know there are plenty that don't agree with me. Just my thoughts.
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Feb 3, 2015 21:39:11 GMT -6
One of my reactions (I always have several) is that 96 teams in playoffs (current & even next year style) may be too many or we'll see the mercy rule kick in during playoffs (which seems contradictory).
Last year it would've occurred in Bi-district: St. Paul's 10, Central BR 0 ED White 11, West Ouachita 0 Episcopal BR 8, Bossier 0
and in Regional Round: Lusher 8, St. Charles 0
and it might've occurred in: Lafayette 9, West Monroe 2 (bi-district) Menard 8, Christian Life 2 (bi-district) Bolton 8, North Desoto 1 (regional)
While we can debate the regular season use of it, something seems off about telling the fans at our best attendance nights of the year (playoffs) that the game is over. Thanks for coming.
May want to waive it for playoffs or go with fewer teams & draw the line higher...
|
|
|
Post by Antimatter on Feb 3, 2015 21:53:11 GMT -6
Pokle, most of the top teams in the state have 1 or 2 "mercy rule" games. How is it a school like Franklin can manage to only have 1 or 2 when some schools have 7 or more? Alex Thomas could have gotten to the Mercy Rule number herself in some of the matches but yet somehow they stay closer. That is not accidental.
Perhaps arrogant is the wrong word but some coaches seem to have other agendas whether padding stats or whatever.
I understand the need for the rule AND hate that we need the rule.
|
|
|
Post by uhscubs1 on Feb 4, 2015 6:19:18 GMT -6
It will be interesting to see how much impact it has next year.
|
|
|
Post by uhscubs1 on Feb 4, 2015 6:22:09 GMT -6
Mercy rule, four divisions, more cokes and trophies for everyone mentality. Look at the just released brackets and try to wrap your head around the idea of a fourth bracket. Let the blow outs begin! As far as RUTS, good coaches can figure it out. I've seen matches go double digit blow out ten minutes in WITH the coach subbing in everybody they had and end up working touch drill/games the rest of the match. Sometimes, the gap in talent is that horrific, especially on the girl's side. And when little Nancy NoTouch accidentally ends up with a break away what happens? Nancy is playing as a sub sees her only chance to hit the net in her high school career with momma screaming like she's in labor, what you think little Nancy will do? Sorry coach, BOOM! But good coaches figure it out and have disciplined teams where stats don't matter. Nobody learns anything by ending a match early. Don't have a dog in the hunt, but please, someone insert some common sense into high school sports before they goes away. Put all the teams together, then can you say relegation?
Have you talked to any coaches about how they feel about the 4 Divisions? I have yet to find one that is against it.
|
|
|
Post by hsref3 on Feb 4, 2015 14:44:37 GMT -6
Why not tweak the rule to give the losing team the option to end the game via the mercy rule. Then if a team is down by 8 goals and feels they have nothing to gain or if they feel the opposing team is unsporting they can call it. If both teams see the value of playing the fill 80 mins they can do so. To assume that neither team has anything to gain if the differential is 8 or more is just not valid.
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on Feb 5, 2015 6:36:36 GMT -6
If you give option to losing team then I think you need to give it to winning team as well.
There are teams that lose by that much who are unsporting as well and seem to be trying to inflict injuries.
Not really in favor of rule but think you either keep it as is or give both teams option.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by blaugranas on Feb 6, 2015 2:21:01 GMT -6
Some players will not allow a total beat down as well. You get the right inner city school you are running the score up on and they will have your players carried out on stretchers. Good to know it takes the "right inner city school", to began reacting when kids feel they are being embarrassed. I daresay, lots of teenagers will take umbrage with what they may feel is intentional humiliation--be it an inner city school, a largely rural one, or one plopped plumb in the middle of a suburban subdivision. It's incumbent upon coaches on both teams, in these type of situations, to reinforce an appropriate approach, attitude, reaction, and respect for the game and opponent, if the score gets to be so lopped-sided. That responsibility remains if there is a mercy rule in place or not. Whether coaches are embracing that responsibility is absolutely not addressed in a "line in the sand" mercy rule. An 7-0 whupping doled out by the right group, (yes even the right inner city school), can be much more humiliating than a 9-0 defeat administered by a well coached team displaying the right attitude who is just much more skilled, and deeper in talent, than his opponent. And often, though not always, lopped-sided scores are the result of district teams who have to play, but have a tremendous gap in skilled players, running all they way down to the JV and lower teams. I fear a mercy rule, while it looks to address and cure a sportsmanship issue, doesn't do that at all. It doesn't confront approach, or attitude, it merely puts a stop to the beating. But I guess in the right inner city schools, that's a WHO DAT good thing.
|
|
|
Post by uhscubs1 on Feb 6, 2015 5:37:37 GMT -6
Have you talked to any coaches about how they feel about the 4 Divisions? I have yet to find one that is against it. Of course they like it. Two more trophies in play makes today's society happy. Keep watering down the significance of winning, success and such, youth sports will slowly die off. Maybe not in our lifetime, but it will happen. Sports mirror society, and I'll stop there, don't want to get political. Actually this one is quite the opposite. It will allow for more competitive play especially down at the small school level. Sounds like you are trying to equate this change to what was done with football and this is far different. This rule is actually moving closer to the Classes (5 before they went Select/Non-Select) that were used for football. I thought the same way you did when I first heard about this change and even made a comment on this board about it being just about handing out another trophy. Then I started talking to coaches and seeing what they had to say about it on here and changed my mind about it. In my opinion this change is not about watering down competition nor the significance of winning but of trying to strike a competitive balance, especially at the small school level. I guess we can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by methuselah on Feb 6, 2015 6:43:06 GMT -6
Mercy rule, four divisions, more cokes and trophies for everyone mentality. Look at the just released brackets and try to wrap your head around the idea of a fourth bracket. Let the blow outs begin! As far as RUTS, good coaches can figure it out.
How does the mercy rule tie into the cokes and trophies meme?
|
|
|
Post by Antimatter on Feb 6, 2015 8:11:36 GMT -6
You can humiliate another team just as much WITH a mercy rule. My wife's high school softball team had 9 players and only four or five knew how to play the game. Almost every game was a Mercy Rule game. They knew their level of play and competed in the games they could. They played one particular school with an ace pitcher and were down enough after one inning to invoke the rule. As it had to go three the other team swang at every pitch after the ball had passed to quickly end their next two at bats. In this same way I think some of the same coaches that caused this rule to be necessary will try to race to over 8 by halftime. All this rule does is guarantee that a number of players will get less time on the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by gryphon8s on Feb 6, 2015 12:06:45 GMT -6
One of my reactions (I always have several) is that 96 teams in playoffs (current & even next year style) may be too many or we'll see the mercy rule kick in during playoffs (which seems contradictory). Last year it would've occurred in Bi-district: St. Paul's 10, Central BR 0 ED White 11, West Ouachita 0 Episcopal BR 8, Bossier 0 and in Regional Round: Lusher 8, St. Charles 0 and it might've occurred in: Lafayette 9, West Monroe 2 (bi-district) Menard 8, Christian Life 2 (bi-district) Bolton 8, North Desoto 1 (regional) While we can debate the regular season use of it, something seems off about telling the fans at our best attendance nights of the year (playoffs) that the game is over. Thanks for coming. May want to waive it for playoffs or go with fewer teams & draw the line higher. They have 11 playoff games last night that would have ended early with this new rule: 6 - Girls 5 - Boys
|
|
|
Post by alto1smom on Feb 8, 2015 8:10:01 GMT -6
Some players will not allow a total beat down as well. You get the right inner city school you are running the score up on and they will have your players carried out on stretchers. Good to know it takes the "right inner city school", to began reacting when kids feel they are being embarrassed. I daresay, lots of teenagers will take umbrage with what they may feel is intentional humiliation--be it an inner city school, a largely rural one, or one plopped plumb in the middle of a suburban subdivision. It's incumbent upon coaches on both teams, in these type of situations, to reinforce an appropriate approach, attitude, reaction, and respect for the game and opponent, if the score gets to be so lopped-sided. That responsibility remains if there is a mercy rule in place or not. Whether coaches are embracing that responsibility is absolutely not addressed in a "line in the sand" mercy rule. An 7-0 whupping doled out by the right group, (yes even the right inner city school), can be much more humiliating than a 9-0 defeat administered by a well coached team displaying the right attitude who is just much more skilled, and deeper in talent, than his opponent. And often, though not always, lopped-sided scores are the result of district teams who have to play, but have a tremendous gap in skilled players, running all they way down to the JV and lower teams. I fear a mercy rule, while it looks to address and cure a sportsmanship issue, doesn't do that at all. It doesn't confront approach, or attitude, it merely puts a stop to the beating. But I guess in the right inner city schools, that's a WHO DAT good thing.
|
|