Espn's Page 2 has a poll question today about mercy rules. As of when I'm writing this, most people have voted that "teaching better sportsmanship" would be a better solution. I found it kind of interesting to see what "the people" thought after the discussions about this rule on the forum.

IMHO, the blowouts will slowly decrease in the coming years. Many of the girls programs are still playing catch-up and will get to a position where they will be competitive. But there will still be the programs who don't aspire to (or aren't able to) receive such lofty goals. And hopefully that will lead to less over the haves vs. have-nots. I may be wrong, but if a mercy rule is installed maybe these two teams should be playing in the first place.

Teaching better sportsmanship applies if you are talking about pulling out of a press. Clearly some coaches don't know when to call of the dogs. But when to back off is also a difficult question to answer in a competitive game. We came back from 17 down with 8 to play when a team backed out of a press, so anything is possible while time remains.

But the more important problem is what you do when your team can crush without pressing. We played an AAU tournament recently where we pulled our press 10 minutes into a 25 minute game. The score was about 23-1 at the time. We ended at 44-3 (with a 25 minute running clock!!!). I can't stop my team from playing, I can just take a little of the pressure off. If you are over your head, at some point it isn't something I can help you with, good sport or not!

I wholeheartly agree with you, Coach. What could be happening in some situations is a lot of coaches feel like they have to "play up" to make there team better. That only works if you have talent that can withstand that challenge. And having coached (and officiated) boys as well as girls, I have seen that boys can handle adversity better. As a whole they seem to fight through being down big. Girls team can do it too. But not as much. I hope I don't get girls coaches mad (especially you, HC) but that's the way I see it.

I have already spoken with some parents of players regarding this and one of them (an attorney, of course), said that, since his son has to pay to play, if the game is shortened and he loses playing time because of it, he will sue!

He says this is not the same as a coach deciding whether or not to give a player playing time, since it takes playing time away from players not based on their ability or contribution to the team, but on some arbitrary point differential that penalizes a team not only for not being nearly as good as another team, but penalizes a player who really is good, since both teams lose playing time.

He suggests a mercy rule that would not result in running clock, but would eliminate back-court guarding and pressing once there is a certain point spread.

Although I'm not sure I buy his first point, I do support the "limited defense" mercy rule instead of running clock. If my experience in rec leagues is any indication, you will wind up with teams trying to "run the clock" on other teams, which is the exact opposite effect of what you are trying to achieve.

I'm not mad, but I strongly disagree with you. My experience is that boys have much bigger egos, are much more concerned with winning, and really don't take well to getting stomped. Most of them look like they want to break something when they lose bad, and they tend to squabble with each other when things go south. Never heard as much B****ing as when my boys teams got whipped. Nt to mention water bottles getting flung in anger, benches getting kicked, etc.

Girls vary in their response, but seem to take it better. They have more of a team centered attitude, and forget wins and losses much more easily than boys, and just have fun playing the game with each other. And the girls need to be able to handle the blowouts, because I see many more mismatches in girls than I saw in boys.

(these are all generalizations of course - there are clearly boys and girls that vary from this generalization)

HC,
I think we said the same thing, just a different way. "Boys don't take well to getting stomped" and "they seem to fight through being down big" is more or less along the same lines. I tried to tap dance around what you hit right on the head. There are good and bad with both genders. But I clearly enjoy how quickly the girls bounce back. It refreshing.

As for Mark Padgett's comment about a "no press" version of the mercy rule: We have that with the youger grades. You can't run out the clock beacuse the 10 second rule is still in effect. An in the last minute of games, on dead ball in-bounds, the clock does not start until the ball get across halfcourt.

Having two young girls, I would hope that the future would not include any for of a mercy rule in girls high school. And don't worry, I won't sue!

Mark P
Nix the idea of limiting defense in an HS game. I hate limiting the way a team plays. That gets into thorny areas.

SUE?! Over a running clock? On what grounds? I checked my pocket Bill of Rights, am having troulbe finding where it says that having 32 minutes of stop clock play was a constituional right. Please be serious here. A governing organization has the right to determine the rules under which a game is to be played. Why not sue over a roster limit, because it caused my kid to get cut and limited his play?

I should go sue over the five-inning mercy rule games we played in softball, because at least I payed money to be in those leagues.

I have a thought.
 

Michigan has used the mercy rule, on a trial basis, as prescribed by MHSAA and NFHS.
NFHS discontinued the trial for varsity sports in Michigan, but MHSAA knew it worked and, with NFHS blessing, has allowed the mercy rule to be employed at sub-varsity levels.

If a team cannot stay within 30 points, they should strongly consider more practice, more hustle, more coaching, more after-practice parental involvment on an outdoor court.

Better teams should not be penalized to adjust their game for the practiced omissions of lesser teams.

In many cases, when the third team is beating and increasing the score delta of the opponents 1st team, then what do you do? Do you ask the winning team's third team to quit playing defense, to run another offense?

Then, where is the equality and fairness to the winning team to allow their subs to showcase their skills? Do we take it away because the losers wouldn't practice, couldn't practice, cut practice?

The score can obviously be controlled by the winning team:
Starting guards can be playing to assist the third team post players. Third string guards can be playing with 1st team post players. Winning starters do not have to shoot. Everyone on the winning team can have a good time and with this mish-mash of players, the winning bench can gain experience. It results in legally shaving points. Is that right? Is it fair to winner or loser?

Do we tell the winners to slow down their game and to forget "tuning-up" for the big game with their arch rival in two days? Do we ask them to slow down their game and to risk injury because of a change in playing tempo? That is not fair to the better team.

Put in the Mercy rule. Then, let the winning coaches decide who to play, how long to play, what defense to run. It is in the winner's control and it should be! They worked, sweat, ran, shot, got floor burns and jammed fingers for that right.

Let's quit worrying about the losers. Let them lose! Put 'em out of there misery instead of prolonging the pain.

mick

<HR>
Winners and <S>losers</S> Whiners are not equal.

The thing I do not like about the No press mercy rule. I have done youth leagues where you are not allowed to press.
The interpretation that people have. What I mean by this is, After a rebound there will be a limited amount of defense to be completed prior to the player turning around and heading up court. I would constantly hear coaches, fans, other players yelling "No press". I would rather see a running clock!

AK ref SE

I hate this suggested rule.
 

I do not like them at all. Basketball is not football, where players can get seriously hurt if the game continues. Basketball is not baseball, where someone can lose their arm for keep playing. In Basketball the clock pretty much runs anyway. It only stops for dead ball situation, and basically that does not take that much time if the officials keep the game going. I could see a team with a lead, then doing everything to just waste time. At least in a football game, we have the ready for play that still teams have to keep moving (delay of game rule). If this happens with just one side of the ball, I think the rule does not benefit everyone.

Peace

Re: I hate this suggested rule.
 

Rut,
With a really unskilled, down-by-30 team on the floor:
<LI> Lotsa fouls
<LI> Lotsa out-a-bounds
<LI> Lotsa travels
<LI> Lotsa crashes
<LI> Lotsa substitutions
<LI> Lotsa time-outs by losing coach who has finally to use that venue to finally begin coaching.

The fans even get tired of yelling and begin yawning.
mick

Never question the fun.
 

Mick,

I never said it was pretty or enjoyable. But then again, i did not have one 30 point game this past year. I also think in the long run, it hurts both teams. Kids that could get a change to play will get time taken away from them, and the kids need to play more will get that taken away too. So basically the stradegy will be to get the score above a certain level and press to run the score up. And because basketball it can be hard to do that completely, you will foster more resentment from the loser and deprive kids that could play, little time to improve. If this happens more on the girl's side, I do not think it is far to make a rule that affects both genders.

But then again, I am one person that has an opinion on this. I just think officials are more motivated by leaving early than giving the kids the opportunity to play. It is that way with football.

Peace

Re: Never question the fun.
 

Rut,
I applaud your concern for the kids, but like I said before, the score can be dictated by who the coaches put on the floor and how well the teams practice.
If the rule is in place, the coaches may still keep the score under the mercy number if they choose.

Can a team come back from "down by 30"? Dunno.
I thought Michigan's rule was right enough, where if more than 40 in the second half then the clock ran until the losing team was within 30.

I guess "down by 30" in the 4th quarter is nearly the same difference.

As far as playing time for the kids goes, again I say practice better, practice harder, practice more often.

Let's put the onus on the coaches and their programs. If they want to prepare properly, we'll work hard for 'em. But if all they are gonna do is go through the motions, it's counter-productive for the emotions.
mick

I'm for down by 30 at ANY point in the game means the game is over and you go home.
I don't want to hear the we can still win argument either. I don't care. Don't get down by 30 then.

I agree about the problems with administering mercy rules, but there is one thing that really bugs me in some blow-outs: it's when the winning team keeps their top player(s) in the game, and the coach doesn't get his/her subs in. I would endorse a rule that put the starters on the bench once the point gap reached the mercy limit. Some arrangement could be made for squads of fewer than 10 players (like the top n scorers should sit) but in general it should be pretty easy to administer with some help from the table. It would not penalize (or even affect) any of the many coaches who already practice good sportsmanship, and it should reduce some of the hard feelings that come out during blow-outs.

At the rec/MS level, I support playing time rules to a degree, and only in the second half. You can't force starters to sit more than half a game just because the team is good. At the HS level, don't get into controlling who plays or how they play the game. It's not where you want to be.

But if the coach expects to win, but really wants to rub it in, he could just start the second string guys, then pull them out at the first dead ball. Then the normal starters wouldn't have to sit when the point margin got too big.

Chuck

I'm with Coach on this one. What is the common goal at the HS level? To have good competitive games? If you add additional rules because school B doesn't want to (or isn't able to) be competitive, don't hold back school A who does.

With that said, as for coaches who think they're "the next Geno" and keep their starters on the floor in blowouts, I don't know what you do with those guys. I could come up with a few ideas but...

Special rules, no backcourt defense, etc. is OK for grade school but at sometime you have to stand and walk (or in this case, get back and play D!).

Nor I. Good comments.

You can't legislate common sense
 

I hate blow-outs as much as anyone else. I think there are two types of blow-outs however. One where the teams were obviously mismatched but the winning coach makes in-game adjustments percieved to be sportsmanlike (eliminating full court pressure with starters, trimming back transition game, etc.) Then there is the other type where the winning coach just seems hell-bent to full court press, create a turnover, and score an easy transition bucket for the entire 32 minutes.

So what does a running clock rule do? Shorten the game a tad? Yes. Make it any less ugly? Nope. More importantly, will it turn an idiot into a sportsman? No way. You just can't polish a turd.

Why?

Well how about the we still wanna play argument?

Re: You can't legislate common sense
 

And you can't teach an ***hole good sportsmanship!

Thanks Dan
 

For responding to the "end the game" now comments. I really don't like that solution either. My son plays lacrosse, he is a sophomore in a school system that has no JV lacrosse program. He gets his few varsity minutes when the margin becomes one where both teams know the game is over.

He has played against the other team's starters when his team is getting blown off the field, and that's fine. He is playing. He has played in the second quarter when his team was on the up side of the blowout, cause that's how his coach handles it.

Even if there is a JV team, almost every varsity team has those seniors who have played 4 years, but not played varsity much. They get their minutes in these blowouts as well, and may only play in 2 or 3 games their last year of school. Let em play.

Re: Never question the fun.
 

No one enjoys playing or learns anything in a 40-point game, let alone a 120-2 game. If you want to see resentment, look at the faces of the losing players that have to go through the motions of finishing one of these games when the winners are smiling and laughing. All these blowouts due is increase the opportunities for poor sportsmanship and frustration fouls.

Every Michigan coach and official begs for the return of the mercy rule (running clock in the second half once a team leads by 40). As you can see from the following item copied from today's Detroit Free Press website, http://www.freep.com, the rule might be adopted nationally.

"HAVE MERCY
"Flint Powers girls basketball coach Kathy McGee
said a mercy rule -- which calls for a running clock
once a team leads by a certain number of points --
has a solid chance of being adopted by the
National Federation of State High School
Associations.
"Michigan experimented with it for a
couple of years, but had to discontinue its use when
the federation decided not to make it a rule. The
topic is on the agenda again for the federation's
basketball rules committee meeting Sunday and
Monday in Indianapolis, which McGee will attend."