The good and bad of mercy rules

Some indoor soccer facilities stop changing the scoreboard once a team takes a commanding lead. In some Maryland youth basketball leagues, a team must stop full court pressing once it is up by 10 points. Many girls? youth lacrosse leagues stop having a draw when a team is up by five goals. Instead, the losing team starts with the ball.

In high school, some basketball and football leagues keep the clock running once a team takes a huge lead.

In baseball and softball, the rule does more than speed up the game; it ends it early. The Maryland Public Secondary School Athletic Association is typical of many in the country. If a team takes a 10-run lead anytime after 4 1/2 innings are complete, the game is over.

Mercy rules have passionate supporters and equally convinced opponents. There are good arguments on either side of the debate.

Opponents believe the rule punishes children who play sports because they love it, not to win or lose. And it?s true: Plenty of teams that win few games continue to draw players to tryouts and fans to games. And the kids who love the game keep playing hard despite the score.

Mercy rule foes also say good teams should not be punished merely because of their success. Should they be forced to play fewer minutes or innings just because they?re winning? And they argue that the mercy rule most hurts the bench players, who miss out on their chance to play once a game becomes one-sided.

The most common complaint is that sports are games with rules that should not be rewritten over and over. These aren?t the rules in college or pro sports and they dilute the purity of the game.

Just leave the game alone, they say. Instead, teach good sportsmanship.

But sportsmanship is not the issue here.

The arguments against mercy rules are valid and some of these rules are awkward at best. Some were written to cover a specific team or situation and never should have been on the books. But overall, the benefits of mercy rules far outweigh the negatives.

The simple truth is that coaches need guidance for handling blowouts.

Without such a rule, they might empty the bench more often or call plays that reduced scoring. But they might not. And often it?s not a question of sportsmanship.

Starters still need playing time, even against lesser opponents, to prepare for tougher opponents ahead. And in preparing for those games, coaches want to encourage aggressive play, not change their style to adapt to an easy game.

And coaches have some motives and some pressures beyond the game at hand. They know which players need better stats for college recruiting. They may face pressure from parents, alumni or athletic directors to keep going till the final whistle, no matter what the edge on the scoreboard.

They know that there could be consequences of preventing a player from setting an achievable record. They also understand that their own tenure is based on the level of success on the court, field or diamond.

Because the buck stops with the coaches responsible for decisions that effect final scores, the rules take away some of their power. It moves those decisions to the league officials, who have far less interest in individual accomplishments.

Do these rules change the way some games were designed to be played? Sure they do. Do some of them change the outcome of a game? Probably, but rarely. Are they better suited for youth sports than high school competition? Generally yes. Do they need to be frequently reviewed and reconsidered? Yes indeed.

But when mercy rules are thoughtfully created and evenly applied, they won?t dramatically affect a player or team. They simply set parameters for coaches who can get lost in the heat of competition, while teaching young players that games are meant for everyone.

Effie Dawson writes about high school and youth sports. She can be reached at [email protected]