looking for mercy rule input

[wizard]

Here's an article about the mercy rule.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/sport...18billing.html

There are some good points made. Here's a thought: Why not schedule teams who are along your competitive level more than once? Even if they aren't in your league. Just a thought.

[JRutledge]

He made every point that I have been saying myself on this issue. Let these kids play. Mercy rules in other sports are for injuries and time constraints. Basketball is not a sport that has to worry about that. The team down by 30 is not in threat of blowing out a knee.

Peace

[Rick Vietti]

I agree with Rut that I am not sure a "Time" type mercy rule will really accomplish anything.

Instead of a mercy "Time" rule maybe they could institute a "No Press" rule when a team gets up by 30. I think that is a bigger sportsmanship problem when you have a skilled team versus an unskilled team. By this I would go so far as not let the team that is 30 pts ahead challenge a rebound in the backcourt(defense gets the ball off re-bound, now other team retreats to mid court) or challenge any outlet passes.

This would speed up the game and allow the team that is not very skilled to set up and run a play. Now some coaches do this now by having some class towards the other team, but I have seen them keep the pressure on until about half way through the 4th quarter.

[Hawks Coach]

After reflection on this issue, I have come around to the viewpoint that the rule is un-necessary. We have been on both ends of blow-outs recently. Each shed a little light on this subject.

In one, we played in a five-team pool in which all games between all teams were close except one - our second game. So all teams were evenly matched and everybody finished with at least one loss. But for a number of reasons (match-ups, style of play, our own mental preparedness for the game), we did not handle one game well and ended up way down. I called a final TO halfway through the second half to get us re-situated one last time and tried to make something positive out of it, depite being down about 35-40 at the time. We went on a 20-6 run that really prepared us for our next two games. And we didn't need to be bailed out by a running clock, we needed to play this team and sort things out. The next morning, we beat a team by 7 - and this team had won by 8 against the tema that blew us off the court. Go figure - that hoops sometimes.

The other situation, we played a team that wasn't at all prepared for the level they had entered. They were a new AAU team, our 5-team pool was composed of 4 strong teams and this new team. I had a minimal roster (8 players) for this tournament because it was the beginning of spring break. I have 14 players, 10 can really play, and this tourney I had my bottom 3 bench players present and only 2 starters. We were up 20-3 with no press and showing no signs of letting up. This team began to find ways to score and went into halftime down 33-15. So the margin stayed large, but they were running with us for a while. 2nd half we extend the lead immediately, and the ref tells the table to let the clock run except on FTs. I was always going to have a talented team out there, but I was giving my bench unprecedented playing time and resting my starters (although I had to put them in from time to time with only 8 players present). It really hurt both teams, because this team was learning as they played, and my bench got shorted some valuable playing time.

I agree with the article. Baseball needs a mercy rule because there is no end point if you can't get a team out. Sports where injury is a high risk when there is a mismatch need to have mercy rules. But sports with a clock and no significant additional injury risk should just play it out. You don't save that much time in the end, and you take away time from the players on the bench that benefit from blowouts.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

I agree with the article. Baseball needs a mercy rule because there is no end point if you can't get a team out. Sports where injury is a high risk when there is a mismatch need to have mercy rules. But sports with a clock and no significant additional injury risk should just play it out. You don't save that much time in the end, and you take away time from the players on the bench that benefit from blowouts.

And I agree with you. No need for a mercy rule in basketball, it will eventually end and it creates no greater risk of injury...unless one of the teams gets rough, but that's something else again.

[stan-MI]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
No need for a mercy rule in basketball, it will eventually end and it creates no greater risk of injury...unless one of the teams gets rough, but that's something else again.

Almost every high school coach or official in Michigan, which used the mercy rule for 3 season, is thrilled that it's back.

Our mercy rule worked like this: running clock in the second half when one team got a 40-point lead. Clock stopped for time outs, the end of the 3rd quarter, and on FTs in the last 2 minutes of the game. If the losing team got within 30, normal timekeeping resumed.

Nothing good happens in a 40-pt game. Teams don't come back. All these types of games do is dramatically increase the number of frustration fouls and rough play. No one learns anything from this type of game. It's just a layup drill for the winning team, and even the deep bench players on both teams lose interest in playing.

With the mercy rule in place, you'll see some teams demonstrate good sportsmanship by pulling off the press and playing reserves earlier, in order to avoid the running clock. And for coaches that don't care about sportmanship and try to run up the score, the running clock takes care of that.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by stan-MI

...All these types of games do is dramatically increase the number of frustration fouls and rough play.

That's an officiating issue.

No one learns anything from this type of game. It's just a layup drill for the winning team, and even the deep bench players on both teams lose interest in playing.

And that's a coaching issue.

[wizard]

[/B][/QUOTE]
Almost every high school coach or official in Michigan, which used the mercy rule for 3 season, is thrilled that it's back.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I agree that it can be a difficult situation for both sides. But for the teams that are on the losing end of this situation, you're not giving them any incentive to get better. I'm not talking about from game to game. I mean from year to year. The mercy rule is ok for grade school, but for high school, they should stand on their own two feet and have some pride in themselves. Do I want to see girls teams get pummeled? No. Programs should want to get better. On their own.

I bet if you asked parents what they wanted, many would want the mercy rule for their daughters, but not their sons. Parents (especially mothers) overall are more protective of their daughters. But is this making them a stronger person? I don't think so.

Sound like there are some serious matchup/league alignment problems in Michigan.

[Hawks Coach]

Stan
It's a pretty strong statement to say that nobody learns anything. I cited two cases in the past month where this was not true. Our team progessed greatly after being down perhaps as much as 40, and the team we hammered also was still learning. And neither of these games degenerated into a bunch of cheap fouls.

It may be your experience, but I think that the potential benefits of playing games out outweighs the potential issues that you have raised. And I know that MI has some issues with major mis-matches, but that might be an issue for the governing body to handle in some other way (i.e., instead of changing rules, turn on their brains). It's not clear to me that the post-season rules couldn't have been altered in some way to make the lowest teams play their tournament game against a moderately superior team rather than a powerhouse.

[JeffTheRef]

My old timey AAU team, back when there were only 6 teams in the State, not 600, was blowing out a very good high school team in a post season tournament. Every time we came down the floor, those guys dug in. They probably only stopped us from scoring about 5 times in the whole game but they treated each chance as challenge. They took it as an opportunity to get better.

'Mercy Rule' is attractive . . . governmental overkill. It's not necessary. The officials and the coaches can find the right balance of play in difficult situations.

[stan-MI]

Hawks Coach:

It's not just in the post-season tournament where we have blowouts; it's the regular season, too. Over the last 4 years, I probably average about 3 varsity girls games per year (out of 25-30) where we've had the mercy rule come into play. How much could you have gotten out of your team if the halftime score was 43-4, or 39-0, or 52-6. These are actual scores. In these games, the losing coach either sits on his or her rear and takes the beating, or starts snipping at the opposing coach (until we take care of it). You continued to play hard and, under the Michigan rule, the clock would have reverted to stop time when you got the deficit back to 30. In games this lopsided, the winning coach doesn't call off the dogs. In that 43-4 game, the winning coach was screaming at me when I passed on a mid-court travel by an unguarded player on the losing team on the first possession of the second half.

The fact is, some schools don't have competitive programs and some recruit. Some coaches are poor sports, while others like yourself turn bad situations into teaching opportunities. Teams don't always schedule every game against the appropriate level of competition. The mercy rule takes care of those situations where coaches and administrators create the problem and are not going to solve it.

[stan-MI]

Just to give you an idea of the extent of the problem and the type of lopsided scores the mercy rule prevents, check out the Detroit PSL scores from two weeks last season, when the mercy rule was taken away:

http:www.freep.com/sports/prep/girls11_20020911.htm
http:www.freep.com/sports/prep/girls13_20020913.htm
http:www.freep.com/sports/prep/girls18_20020918.htm
http:www.freep.com/sports/prep/girls20_20020920.htm.

How would you like to be on the losing end of any of these:

98-34, 76-14, 99-58, 96-17, 80-8, 100-34, 74-28, 81-14, 85-25, 62-17, 96-20, 99-24 and 74-27.

These were league games, and the teams all had to meet again later in the season.

[wizard]

[i]Originally posted by stan-MI

The mercy rule takes care of those situations where coaches and administrators create the problem and are not going to solve it. [/B]

Why should the mercy rule have the responsibility of correcting this problem? If someone has a problem with the blowouts (parents, boosters, coaches, etc.), it should be solved by the school or league itself. These games shouldn't be scheduled. Instead of taking away playing time, they should work harder to make the games competitive. If I coaching the superior team, I don't want these games on my schedule. It's the one opportunity for the end of the bench to get PT and it's being taken away. And wouldn't want the other way around. Take pride in your team or play more equitible competition.

The rules should be there to enforce equality, not console inequality.

[mick]

Originally posted by wizard

The rules should be there to enforce equality, not console inequality.

wizard,
The enforcement is there for when the consolation is not.
mick

---

Inside every older person is a younger person wondering,
"What the hell happened?"

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by stan-MI
Just to give you an idea of the extent of the problem and the type of lopsided scores the mercy rule prevents, check out the Detroit PSL scores from two weeks last season, when the mercy rule was taken away:

http:www.freep.com/sports/prep/girls11_20020911.htm
http:www.freep.com/sports/prep/girls13_20020913.htm
http:www.freep.com/sports/prep/girls18_20020918.htm
http:www.freep.com/sports/prep/girls20_20020920.htm.

How would you like to be on the losing end of any of these:

98-34, 76-14, 99-58, 96-17, 80-8, 100-34, 74-28, 81-14, 85-25, 62-17, 96-20, 99-24 and 74-27.

These were league games, and the teams all had to meet again later in the season.

1. These games stink - no doubt about it. Although you could probably drop the 99-58 game from your list as it barely meets your state criteria and the team did get quite a bit done to score that many points, even if they were blown out. In fact, any game where they got more than 20 then something decent was happening, just not much.

2. Isn't there another way to fix this? Are these losing teams always this bad, or the winners always this much better than these specific opponents? If so, then maybe these teams shouldn't be scheduled to play each other. If it changes who is who in these scores from year to year, or some years the teams are much closer than others, then we can conclude that teams learn from these games and improve. Then you just need to let them play through a blow out and learn.

3. If you feel you need a mercy rule, 40 points is probably a decent margin to choose. I can't think of anything I've ever done to come back from that far down or to blow that big a lead! I have recovered fro 17 down with 8 minutes to play, so you want to be sure the number is large enough. But you might also want to add in that the losing team has less than 20 points. If the team is able to score, they must be able to run some form of offense and are therefore benefitting from the game even if they can't win it. If they can't score and can't stop their opponents, probably little is being gained by anybody in this game.