Mercy Rule
 

Ohio says no running clock so would you as an official invoke the emergency rule if one team is just getting the hell beat out of them???

Personally I would like to see a 'run rule' in football, up 40 points in second half, GAME OVER.

Just too much bad happens in most blowouts and it ends up being a JV game anyways.

http://www.ahsaa.org/public/docs/Foo...rcy%20Rule.pdf


Note: The use of this rule does not preclude the use of NFHS Rule 3-1-3, which
reads: “A period or periods may be shortened in any emergency by agreement of
the opposing coaches and referee. By mutual agreement of the opposing coaches
and the referee, any remaining periods may be shortened at any time or the game
terminated.”

Both HC would need to agree to a running clock which is what we have to do in NC as we have no "mercy rule". The problem is we are told not to broach the subject with the losing coach but wait for him to ask for it. Some never ask- either to "teach their kids" or they simply just don't think to do it.

Short of that, a crew can wait for the referee to come to the dead ball spot to analyze if the LTG has been reached before stopping the clock and forward progress in bounds becomes much more prevalent.

I wish we would impose a set rule here but there has been no movement that I've heard of.

No running clock here either. I have had the losing coach ask to shorten the time in the remaining periods, which is usually (but not always) agreed to by the winning coach.

I always remind my crew to work as hard in blowouts as in a tie game, since things can get out of hand quickly. And, my ECO will be watching only me for start/stop on 1st downs, as I'll give the signals back-to-back.

Since both teams will likely be running the ball, we can get these over with in reasonably quick order.

My question is this, is getting blown out an emergency? What kind of emergency was this rule written to cover? Maybe darkness on a field with no lights???

I can't think of any other EMERGENCY that might warrant shortening a game and not just ending it abruptly or postponing it.

We have the mercy rule in PA and it's a great rule. I had a game week 2 that ended up 84-12. We had running clock in second half and both coaches agreed to cut the 4th quarter to 6 mins.

Shortening a game and ending it abruptly are the same thing.

I meant shortening the quarters.

Then I agree with you. I can think of no actual "emergency" that would result in the officials or coaches wanting to just shorten the quarters.

Many states have unofficial mercy rules, especially at subV. In Texas, at Varsity, I've never seen or heard of a game shortened or a running clock instituted (exception for 6-man)... but have been involved in numerous subV games where the clock ran in the 4th quarter or even 2nd half.

In Georgia the mercy rule is as follows:

At the end of the first half of play, if a team is trailing by 30 points or more, the coach of the trailing team may choose to play the second half with a running clock. Quarters would remain at 12 minutes.

If the coach does not exercise the option of the running clock, the third quarter will be played with regulation timing.

If the point differential reaches, or remains, 30 or more points during the third quarter, the clock will still run according to rule for the remainder of the third quarter, but the fourth quarter will have a running clock mandated.

A running clock means the clock will be stopped only: (a) after a score and until the ball is kicked off. (b) during deliberations for penalty administration. (c) during charged timeouts or official's timeouts.

A game that is reduced in time by use of a running clock shall constitute a "completed" game to meet other by-law considerations.


The leading coach has no say so. Personally I don't like the running clock in the third quarter. It really limits the snaps the younger kids get.

We have a 35 point running clock rule in the second half. Works well, I think. Ours runs during penalty administration, unlike Georgia. And we take full advantage of that, when it feels necessary.

Minnesota has a mercy rule at 35 points in the 4th quarter. A few weeks ago we had a game that was 66-6 at half. At halftime, the losing coach asked what we could do to get his team on the bus. Both coaches agreed to a no-stop clock for the entire second half.

Small schools with limited bench players need extra protection in these games when compared to a Twin City school with 90 kids on the sidelines. As a referee, I think my most important duty is to keep the players safe.

Agreed, Rich....don't know about you, but more than half of our games this year here were running clock at some point in the second half.

I may be the minority in this, but I can't envision why every state doesn't have this adopted....even if it's more than the 35 points.

Colorado's mercy rule is a running clock once the differential hits 40 points (45 in 6-man) regardless of when that mark is hit. I've worked a couple of subvarsity games this year where it was still in the 2nd quarter and the winning team got it above 40. Made for a really quick 2nd half. I see both sides to it. It does limit playing time for the kids, but I also know that many of the kids on the short end of the score would rather just be done with it, especially if they are just getting clobbered.

Oh, that's an easy one: if a state doesn't have it, then the coaches voted it down.

It certainly wasn't the officials!

Oh trust me, Georgia doesn't always adhere to it. One game in particular saw one team up 49-0 at half and the losing team was very undisciplined. The middle linebacker led the region in personal fouls and we knew he had one for this game coming. Sure enough before the snap in the 3rd quarter he blitzed in, left his feet and launched himself helmet first into the shoulder of the quarterback. Everyone kept their cool then and he was the only one ejected, but it did get chippy afterward. The game clock kept running the whole time, even as the white hat made the thumb motion. I'm glad it did. That game needed ending fast.

In ND: +30 in the second half. Continues to run during OOB, incomplete pass, try and first downs (just added this year). It works pretty well and everyone seems to agree it is worthwhile.

We had quite a few. The most frustrating game we had was a 57-31 masterpiece that got to 34 points in the third quarter and never got closer than the 26 point final margin. The game ran 2:55 and we ended up with at least 4 UNRs and one UNS in the fourth quarter.

Only one game left (actually 2 as we're working a game between two 1-7 teams tonight), so we'll see how that one goes.

Why the need for the running clock when one can shorten the game directly? Even in Ohio (where the OP mentioned there's no running clock mercy rule), the coaches can agree to shorten the game or end it at any time. I heard of one game in these parts where they ran 8 minute quarters for the 3rd and 4th a couple weeks ago. If that's not enough, shorten it to 4 minutes or just call the game completely.

CAN being the operative word.

As I stated earlier, some coaches want to teach their kids some weird, twisted lesson. Some don't think to mention it. Some are job scared and don't want to show the faithful that they are "giving up". A state mandated rule makes it easy for them and us.

We had a game a few seasons ago where the score was 56-0 at halftime. The visiting team had about 16 players and a few were injured in the first half.

EVEN WITH A RUNNING CLOCK, the visiting team wanted to shorten the quarters. The home team coach was annoyed at this and I had to mediate this. Personally, I didn't care one way or the other, but it was an unpleasant thing.

Imagine if we had to deal with this every week just to have a running clock.

I like the running clock rule, but the 35 point margin shouldn't be the only thing that dictates clock mechanics. If a team pulls to 34 with 6 minutes left, the clock should still run.

The use of this rule does not preclude the use of NFHS Rule 3-1-3, which
reads: “A period or periods may be shortened in any emergency by agreement of
the opposing coaches and referee. By mutual agreement of the opposing coaches
and the referee, any remaining periods may be shortened at any time or the game
terminated.”


That is my question, is one team getting beat the EMERGENCY that this rule was written for?? It says periods may be shortened in an emergency by mutual agreement of the coaches and the referee. 3 people have to agree that one team getting their lungs kicked in is an emergency!!

I think the running clock is a better option. I've seen both teams play their subs and they get playing time. I don't think playing time should be taken away from the kids. We had a team in NW Minnesota which won something like 60 straight games. In the second half they were playing their subs and that is how they got experience for their younger kids. If the game was over, those kids wouldn't get to play. If they practice all week long, they should get a chance to play a game.

There are two separate statements in that rule:

"A period or periods may be shortened in any emergency by agreement of
the opposing coaches and referee."
Last year I had a 2nd quarter that ended with 35 seconds left because of a player injury that necessitated calling an ambulance. Two years ago I had a varsity game that ended with 1:20ish left due to an ambulance call. I'd say these constitute "emergencies" for purposes of this rule.

"By mutual agreement of the opposing coaches and the referee, any remaining periods may be shortened at any time or the game terminated."
No emergency required here. If the two coaches agree to shorten the game in whatever manner they wish, I'd find it highly unlikely that the referee would disagree.



Rule 1-7 mentions allowed state association adoptions.
8. Establishing a point differential to terminate games or to use a running clock when the point differential is reached. (3-1-2)

If the state association adopts a running time or ending of game rule, that's completely in the purview of the state association.

No, it's not what the rule was designed to do, but it permits the game to be shortened if both coaches agree.

If you want a mandatory rule, contact OHSAA and recommend it. I should say, however, that it is highly unlikely to get past the (other) coaches, who typically like the power granted them by the existing rule.

Why repeat the question. NO, getting beat is not an emergency. Which is why so many states have opted to create their own mercy rules that supercede the NFHS rule.

itheUmp. I agree with you but have been told by officials that Ohio doesn't allow a running clock and this is not an emergency situation so we can't shorten the quarters.

So the Ohio interpretation is different then the Minnesota interpretation/state adoption.

That's an Ohio problem, not an NFHS problem. I wish you the best of luck in getting it rectified.


Of course, there's always the other "game ending trick" that you could use... The losing coach could decide to forfeit the game on the spot. (I don't recommend this of course, but the option is there).

I have no idea if that is the official OHSAA interpretation. I know they have been told no running clock and that was voted on by principals and ADs. Not by coaches.

It is true that a running clock is NOT permissible. The Ohio interp states that the coaches may agree to shorten any period: we can play 2 or 6 or 9 minutes, for example, instead of 12.

I once shortened a fourth quarter to 30 seconds in a JV game on a hot day where 3 kids from the visiting team had already passed out from the heat. Ran one more play and went home. It was my first year, and I mistakenly thought that we could not terminate the game.

Did have a case last year where both sides agreed to a running clock as a response to an "emergency situation." Subvarsity game in November up in the mountains with the snow falling hard on a field with no lights. Played 10 minute stop clock quarters in the first half and then 10 minute quarters with a running clock in the second half.

Since a team is allowed to forfeit at any time, why is a TKO necessary? Is it just supposed to be a face saver for the coaches for their players? "I'd've liked to have subbed you in, but we ran out of time."

How long do you think a coach who forfeited a game would last. Seriously. You've outdone yourself here. I don't believe any team is "allowed", as far as their district or school is concerned, to forfeit "at any time."

Nevada Mercy Rule

Ours is 45 points. From what I hear it used to be lower, but coaches wanted an opportunity to get their subs in, so the spread between 35 and 45 allows them to take that risk and let the losing team close the gap without costing them a game.

We still get quite a few games mercy ruled by the middle of the 3rd.

We have a 40 point rule in the second half. The clock runs the entire time in the second half until a score, a time out, and injury timeout. Game goes by really fast at that point. Once you ring the bell, you cannot go back to a normal clock.

Peace

And this is a great piece I wish we'd add. Closing the gap to 34 points in the middle of the fourth quarter shouldn't make the clock stop as usual.

Same here
 

Washington State has the same procedure in place!

I had a coach do this in basketball once. He got suspended by the state for two games.

Come on, you should know this. Sure a coach can forfeit a game...as an official, I have no power to stop him. A little more paperwork for me is all that will result. But the coach has people to answer to and unless there are outstanding circumstances, it's highly frowned upon to forfeit...which is usually met with suspension to the coach.

There's paperwork?
I had no idea. It's not like they're playing for money. What is it, like with lawyers, they're supposed to try to win no matter what the overall consider'n of good might be? So even though you, as an official, might think it'd be better for all if the game were aborted, the coaches aren't supposed to make that judgment? Unlike boxing?

I had the impression football was a game.

Yes, there's paperwork. Officials are sometimes accused of taking the game away from the players, but a coach forfeiting in the middle of a game is exactly that. It's an abdication of responsibility, and many state associations will hold coaches to account.

State associations tend to want to know when a coach forfeits a game...for whatever reason.

Like I said, a coach can make that judgement if he wants...he'll just have to deal with the consequences of his judgement. Most states have provisions punishing forfeits/quitting...and if they don't hand any punishments down, it doesn't stop the schools from hashing out their own punishments.

Football is a game, and by a coach deciding to call it quits for his team, he's taken that game away from his players and the opponent. In most people's eyes, there better be a pretty dang good reason for a coach to that, or he's in some trouble.

You cannot terminate the game in this situation. It's up to the coaches.

They both have to agree. Once they do, then the officials should agree as well.

But if they agree, does it bring down hell on both of them, as implied upthread? Or does that happen only if only one of them wants to end the game?

But don't the mercy rules being advocated by many in this thread do the same thing, for the same reason?

Happens in Baseball all the time, run rule. Baseball is the one sport where time is not part of the equation and a team could come back and win. So why do they have the run rule where as a football game has to be played.

I don't agree with kids not getting reps. Most of the kids that play in a blowout have a JV game of their own. Now if it is two big schools playing with plenty of non JV backups, play the entire time.

No...one outright ends the game.

Agreeing to end a game prematurely and forefeiting a game are two different animals.

Only one will have consequences.

The traditional 6-man rule was that a 40+ pt. difference at or after halftime was a TKO. Game over. Isn't that one of the possibilities advocated by someone upthread?

Then what about failure to play within two minutes after being ordered to do so by the referee, which accomplishes the same thing? Does that one have consequences or not?

Put it this way, anytime a team is forfeiting a game, for whatever reason, more likely than not, there will be consequences.

But what if an asteroid strikes at the 50?

We now know the definition of "intentionally obtuse."

That carries a 5-yard penalty and a loss of down.

Even in a blow out?

Keep the flag in your pocket, Ref!
:)

This may come as a shock to you, Robert, but there's a great deal of money involved in HS football in some areas. Coaches are paid well (some as much as six figures), and football receipts help fund the non-revenue sports.

Any coach in our state who forfeits a game will have a bunch of 'splainin' to do.

Hence the "more likely than not" rather than "always"

What I meant was that they're not playing for stakes. AFAIK neither the coaches nor anybody else puts up a stake to be taken by the winner. They may well have bets on the side, but that's not their chief source of remuneration.

When the coach throws in the towel in boxing, the only concern is whether they're paid off to throw the fight, and usually it's evident they're not. I would've thought the same to apply to football. If it's obvious which team has won, with or without a point spread, what's the concern? As I wrote above, the only concern I can see would be from players who didn't get into the game or didn't get as much playing time as they wished.

So I have to ask, what is anyone's motiv'n for ending the game early -- or in some manner that would be considered "early" relative to some standard? Are the officials, the players, and their coaches working at cross purposes, or wouldn't they all have at least approximately the same motiv'ns? The only motiv'n that seems to be a good one is fear of injury -- physical, not psychic, injury. Is there evidence that lopsided games produce more than their share, playing time-wise, of injuries?

Not just fear of injury, but actual injuries and attrition. Had a C team start with about 16 players. By the 3rd quarter he was down to 11. They were getting slaughtered, and rather than risk worse, we agreed to a 1 minute fourth quarter (avoided the forfeit that way) and the winning team downed the ball to end it.

One other time a game was a blowout and we got lightning. Instead of waiting half an hour and trying to continue, the losing coach agreed to just end it.

The only other time I remember ending a game early or officially shortening it (rather than just running the clock) involved a life-flight helicopter and something like a minute or three left on the clock.

Note that none of these were varsity.

Wow, so it really is that different that a technicality and a charade like that would be used to avoid a forfeit on the record?! I wonder why it's so different from boxing -- or wrestling, where they forfeit weight classes all the time.

In some sports, forfeits are common place and not much is thought of them. In other sports, forfeits denote serious malpractice by the forfeiting team and almost never happen. Football is a forfeits almost never happen sport.

If you hear that a football team forfeited a game, your first thought is probably what in the world did they do that was that bad.

Exactly...and there's another one I've been unfortunate to have dealt with more than once this year.

Its actually happened (running clock, mostly) quite a bit over the years, at all levels, including 5A. Now TAPPS has their 40 point clock running rule for the second half. We had it in a game earlier this year and also ran the clock in 2 other V games.

In South Dakota we have a running clock if the lead goes over 35 points in the second half (cannot go back to a standard clock) and game over if the lead reaches 50 in the second half. Works well here. They don't use this in our top division, though.

I never had that thought. If nobody told me the details but I just saw it in a box score, I'd think they made a scheduling mistake that couldn't be better rectified in time, or they didn't have enough players. If I saw in a box score that they had a forfeit in the middle of the season and games before and after it, that would say something different from either starting or ending the season with a run of forfeits. But I could also imagine they were getting beat up in a game and threw in the towel, as in boxing.

What's odd to me is that I'm learning here that although in boxing, both the referee and the coaches are expected to stop the fight according to their judgment, in football you're looking for some uniform rule to stop the fight (the original poster wanted immediate endings, others wanting timing rule changes) early, and although the teams are allowed to do so, it's considered outre for the captain to forfeit under the same sort of conditions and for the same reasons that you want the rules to cause the game to end. So you want to make them do it, but acknowledge that it's bad for them to decide to do it. And it's under circumstances that would be extremely unlikely to make a difference to gamblers. It just seems like a very odd situation to me.

If a game ends due to a mercy rule, it ends because of a stipulation that existed before the game started. If a team forfeits, it is declaring the game over despite the wishes of the opposing team. That's a significant difference.

Take soccer for instance. If you pull your team from the field in soccer (the only way to forfeit a match in progress), you force the referee to abandon the game. Whoever forces a soccer match to be abandoned is hit with significant penalties. It's consider very unsporting.

Not my game, but a crew in my chapter were informed by both coaches that they agreed to shorten the periods to 8 mins. to begin the third period. The sad thing is, the losing coach actually requested to have a running clock before the game even began.

[QUOTE=voiceoflg;858865]In Georgia the mercy rule is as follows:

At the end of the first half of play, if a team is trailing by 30 points or more, the coach of the trailing team may choose to play the second half with a running clock. Quarters would remain at 12 minutes.

If the coach does not exercise the option of the running clock, the third quarter will be played with regulation timing.

If the point differential reaches, or remains, 30 or more points during the third quarter, the clock will still run according to rule for the remainder of the third quarter, but the fourth quarter will have a running clock mandated.

A running clock means the clock will be stopped only: (a) after a score and until the ball is kicked off. (b) during deliberations for penalty administration. (c) during charged timeouts or official's timeouts.

This is a good rule. I like that it gives the option to the losing coach. As stated in Ohio, there is no running clock, only shortening quarters. This almost never occurs because the coaches egos won't allow it. A running clock, on the other hand, is less offensive to them because they can fluff the blame onto us. I'm okay with that. As it stands now, nothing happens and we deal with these blowouts and all that goes with them.

The local HS here in NW Ohio had a running clock for the entire second half Friday. 40 point half-time lead.

And people scoff at the Gold Book. As goofy as some of its provisions might be, I applaud the effort to improve consistency across the state.

I had that happen one time. We didn't do it... but we quickly saw why he wanted to do it, and ran the last part of Q2 and all of the 2nd half.

Sounds like we have some wayward rebels on our hands. WHat's next, pink whistles?

Maybe a noble goal. However, the heavy handed way it was implemented was, in my opinion, unprofessional.

The folks in my association who complained about Maurer being "heavy handed" are the same ones who haven't peeked at a book in 30 years. Their egos mostly have prevented them from adopting any standardized mechanics. Nobody's going to tell them how to officiate!

I don't know you, parepat, and would not presume to paint you with the same brush. Still, it hardly seems "heavy handed" to me: what's the penalty for ignoring the state? Losing playoff games? When 90% of officials don't get playoff games anyway?

1. I doubt that those officials who haven't looked at a rule book in 30 years are wasting their time on sites like these.

2. Threatening to suspend officials for up to two years for failing to follow brand new mechanics which were not even rolled out until August of the first year was, in my opinion, heavy handed.

The only place I could find a 2 year suspension for the season was here:

Is that what you're thinking of? I admit that seems heavy handed, especially since crews around here always have a book (whether they follow the rest of this prescription I don't know).

But it's misleading to say that this threat applies to every mechanic in the book. It's just for this one provision — and I would guess it's the one the coaches fought most for.

I very much agree with this.