• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Controversial mercy rule has football parents angry

Mercy rules are stupid. It encourages people not to try their hardest. It's like socialism - punishing success.
 
There was a rule like that when I played little leauge. I dont see this as a big issue.
 
That is kinda silly, I think the game should just be over when the other team gets so far ahead, and 35 points sounds about right. Yea, fining the team and suspending the coach seems sorta stupid.
Not even the fining and suspending of the coach?
 
Most mercy rules end the game at a certain point. This is just nuts. In my son's park baseball league, they cap runs per inning. Which makes far more sense because it keeps the game going with nobody falling behind 30-1 (Actually happened in a game I played in as a kid. Game still went on and the final was 34-9.).

A more sensible rule would be to end the game after 3 quarters if one team is up by 35.
 
I don't really have a problem with mercy rules in general for young children. It keeps the good players on terrible teams from quitting forever because they get crushed every game. But the way this one was implemented seems stupid. To me it makes far more sense to cap runs per inning or end the game at a certain margin of points, then to punish the teams for trying hard while they're playing.
 
In a fixed time of play sport like football, there is less of a reason for it than in untimed sports like baseball that could go on forever but for a slaughter rule.
 
The real mercy is for the parents, LL baseball could take all day Saturday. My sons played too, it was painful.
 
Here, in high school football, the mercy rule is that after a 35 point lead the clock never stops (except for injuries).

On the one hand that probably is a better solution because the game ends quicker, but it's still a full game. On the other hand, it steals playing time from the less-skilled kids as they usually don't even see the field until the score gets that high.
 
The real mercy is for the parents, LL baseball could take all day Saturday. My sons played too, it was painful.

In one of my kid's games, the score was something like 14-12, so no mercy rule, but... probably 25 of those 26 runs were from walks. I swear, no pitcher on either team that day could find the strike zone. OMG, it was painful to watch.
 
I find the whole idea idiotic. After all, aren't the kids there to play a game? Why call the game before it's done? This is just more liberal "don't make anyone feel bad" stupidity.
 
I find the whole idea idiotic. After all, aren't the kids there to play a game? Why call the game before it's done? This is just more liberal "don't make anyone feel bad" stupidity.

For young children I think it makes sense. You have young players who are good, but on terrible teams quitting forever because they get destroyed every game. Even the best 7 year olds aren't going to react well to that. Once they reach an age where they can handle it, I think it crosses into that don't make anyone feel bad territory shouldn't be done.
 
Ya well their kid sucks at football either way so they've already lost the game of life.

This is so true.
I'll bet that nerdish Bill Gates sucked at football.
 
I find the whole idea idiotic. After all, aren't the kids there to play a game? Why call the game before it's done? This is just more liberal "don't make anyone feel bad" stupidity.

Hyperbole much?
The kids are grade schoolers.
They'll realize soon enough, that life will crush their souls and turn them into dour conservatives.
Why speed up the process?
That being said, the implementation of this particular mercy rule is stupid.
I can feel the poor coach's spirits being crushed as I type.
 
My problem with this sort of thing is that it leads to THIS......

CIAC adopts 'score management' policy for football - NewsTimes

The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Association now forbids any high school football team to score 50 or more points in a game. The first I heard about this was at a game in my hometown last fall. It's insane. I can understand that you don't want to totally demoralize the little kids in little league, pee wee football, etc... but by the high school level you're talking competitive sports. If these teams cannot play on the level of their opponents, SCHEDULE OTHER TEAMS.

I say that as someone who was part of a high school football team that over two seasone (two games) beat one opponent 147-7. They were in our conference so we couldn't avoid playing them, unfortunately.
 
My problem with this sort of thing is that it leads to THIS......

CIAC adopts 'score management' policy for football - NewsTimes

The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Association now forbids any high school football team to score 50 or more points in a game. The first I heard about this was at a game in my hometown last fall. It's insane. I can understand that you don't want to totally demoralize the little kids in little league, pee wee football, etc... but by the high school level you're talking competitive sports. If these teams cannot play on the level of their opponents, SCHEDULE OTHER TEAMS.

I say that as someone who was part of a high school football team that over two seasone (two games) beat one opponent 147-7. They were in our conference so we couldn't avoid playing them, unfortunately.

I don't like that. Penalizing kids for actually trying while playing. And in high school too.
 
My problem with this sort of thing is that it leads to THIS......

CIAC adopts 'score management' policy for football - NewsTimes

The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Association now forbids any high school football team to score 50 or more points in a game. The first I heard about this was at a game in my hometown last fall. It's insane. I can understand that you don't want to totally demoralize the little kids in little league, pee wee football, etc... but by the high school level you're talking competitive sports. If these teams cannot play on the level of their opponents, SCHEDULE OTHER TEAMS.

I say that as someone who was part of a high school football team that over two seasone (two games) beat one opponent 147-7. They were in our conference so we couldn't avoid playing them, unfortunately.
So, what happens if a team is up by 48... the 2nd & 3rd strings are in, plays are conservative run-up-the middle plays intended to waste time and gain little yardage... and the ball carrier happens to get lucky and break away? Is he supposed to stop and allow himself to be tackled? Is he supposed to do an "oopsie" fumble?

That's hardly sportsmanlike, either.
 
There was a rule like that when I played little leauge. I dont see this as a big issue.

Really though? This particular rule? Because as stated in the article it doesn't resemble the old rules that called the game at a certain overwhelming scoring disadvantage. And just have to say, football for the ages 7-13, not the most brilliant idea for folks who care for their kids.
 
Last edited:
I don't like that. Penalizing kids for actually trying while playing. And in high school too.

Exactly. I can see it with the little kids. I used to run the scoreboard for one of the fields in my hometown. We never posted the run totals past a 10 run lead. If the other team caught up some, then we'd "correct" the score, but never more than 10 runs.

At the high school level, these kids are truly playing a competitive sport. They choose to be out there playing. The athletic directors and coaches know the quality of the school's they are playing. If it gets too lopsided, don't schedule that team anymore. Hell, I saw a team QUIT in the first quarter of a game when I was in high school..... They only had 60 kids come out for Varsity Football and by that point in the season were down to fewer than 40 players on the roster. We were up 21-0 with 0:58 in the first quarter when their QB got hurt. The kids went to the coach and said "No more coach. We quit." They canceled the rest of their season; but it was the PLAYER'S decision to do so.
 
So, what happens if a team is up by 48... the 2nd & 3rd strings are in, plays are conservative run-up-the middle plays intended to waste time and gain little yardage... and the ball carrier happens to get lucky and break away? Is he supposed to stop and allow himself to be tackled? Is he supposed to do an "oopsie" fumble?

That's hardly sportsmanlike, either.

I totally agree. As I alluded to before, we played a team one year in the early 1990's that we beat 77-0. At halftime we put not just the reserves but the JV kids into the game and still scored 35 points in the second half. They just didn't have the caliber of players to hang with us. After the game the coaches nearly had a fist-fight during the handshake. Our coach asked essentially the same qustion.... Am I supposed to tell the kids to fall down? What does that teach them?
 
The best part of this thread is that you can tell who the Coke-bottler boys are based on their opinions. I think some people are butthurt because this reminds them of their times being the fat kid picked last in dodgeball.
 
Back
Top Bottom