mercy rule

[Junker]

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.

[wizard]

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.

[Hawks Coach]

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!

[wizard]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
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.

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[Hawks Coach]

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)

[wizard]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I'm not mad, but I strongly disagree with you.

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!

[Hawks Coach]

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.

[mick]

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

---

Winners and losers Whiners are not equal.

[AK ref SE]

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

[JRutledge]

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

[mick]

Originally posted by JRutledge
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.

Rut,
With a really unskilled, down-by-30 team on the floor:

Lotsa fouls

Lotsa out-a-bounds

Lotsa travels

Lotsa crashes

Lotsa substitutions

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

[JRutledge]

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

[mick]

Originally posted by JRutledge
.... 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.

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

[Nevadaref]

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.