Decisive win? You lose.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/0...-five-points-and-you-lose-ottawa-league-says/

Win a soccer game by more than five points and you lose, Ottawa league says

It's like "no child left behind", only for sports.

from the mouths of, well, young'uns... kid is obviously more mature than the adults around him.
it's kinda shameful that these same adults are gen Xer's....

Not that I care much about sports, but

Life is defeat, disappointment and crushed hopes. Sheltering them from it will only ensure that they grow into stunted adults who expect everything to go their way.

Or who expect someone else to bail them out.

Another reminder of why liberalism is a fucking disease...

At least they're still keeping score.

If I was the coach I'd run up the score every game, and then when the other team was like you lose, I'd just grin at my kids and ask them who schooled who. We might go 0-10 on the books but kids are far smarter than to fall for this liberal bosh.

What a stupid rule.

Wonder if you can exploit it with own goals.

That's ridiculous. Part of life is learning to use the rules to get what you want. So if they have this stupid five point rule, I wouldn't have my team run up the score more than that. After my team was ahead by five, I'd give them all machetes to butcher the losing team. That way everyone wins.

You know the way I would get around this? I would score on myself. I would make the other team look truly stupid. When I got to four goals, I'd score two on myself, give the ref the bird, and then score another on the other team.

This is so stupid.

It is sad that there was a problem to overreact to in the first place. In sports, you either win or lose, imo. Its not like a business where there is a tangible difference between making 100k and 100 million.

Maybe the league ought to do a better job of splitting up the talent among the various teams if they're so concerned about it. Or do a better job of placing teams within appropriately-competitive divisions.

Well that's just silly. Realistically speaking, when one recreational youth team scores five quick goals you're vastly more likely to be headed to a 30-0 match than to a comeback. Except for reassigning kids to new teams there's nothing much that can be done to overcome the vast gulfs of talent that exist between teams in youth leagues. In any event, people do not generally get better under adversity; that's just utopian new-agey fluff. The kid obviously doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

That said, this rule is ridiculous. I don't know what the league's rules on substitutions are, but relaxing substitution rules and requiring the emptying of the bench when a team takes a large enough lead makes a lot more sense. I don't know what the league carding rules are either, but treating all yellow cards as red in a blowout would make more sense as well. Getting more kids involved and keeping them safe in a blowout is one thing, but telling kids not to even try is no fun for anyone on either team.

So you are basically teaching kids how to "run the clock out" if they are getting too far ahead.

As usual, you don't.

As with any skill, you don't get better by not challenging yourself. If you're even half-way serious about the activity which you've undertaken, engaging a more difficult challenge/opponent/task yields an improvement in one's skills and performance. That's exactly the adversity about which this kid is talking.

I would rather lose by 50 points than win by the other side's good play being held against them.

This is typical of the leftist mindset: give someone the fruits of labor and believe that their not earning it doesn't matter. Well, it does. You don't get self-esteem by having victory handed to you; you get it by achieving something worth feeling good about. Self-esteem without underlying virtue is simple vanity.

This dangerous philosophy also has the perverse consequence of punishing the winners and of making them feel guilty because they DO have something worth feeling good about. Sorry if it hurts you to hear it, but here's reality: brain surgeons, Nobel laureates in physics, multi-million dollar athletes, and Fortune 500 CEOs are composed of the elite few; they have capabilities that the common person does not. And no amount of self-esteem building is going to change that.

I wouldn't allow my child to play in such a league. I would want him or her infected with the self-esteem-uber-alles and celebrate-mediocrity mindset that infests it.

Ok, well since I am from the country that gave birth to football (soccer) all I can say is that this is utterly disgraceful. This simply isn't what the game is about. Its there for winning. If you aren't good enough you lose.

End of.

My God.

More punishing excellence...and people wonder why everything is going to shit.

The only thing worse than playing these games will be watching them.

And I'm sorry...my self-esteem is gonna be worse when my opponent is over there just playing keep away and making my team look even more like fools than simply losing with a large spread would.

Wow.

Just..... fucking wow....

Well, it explains a lot about Liet, doesn't it?

My kids have played in leagues with Mercy Rules before.

In baseball it's usually 10 runs after 5 innings, sometimes 15 runs after 4 innings also.

In Indoor Soccer it's usually been that once a team get's up by 5+ goals, either:
a) other team gets an extra player, or
b) dominant team cannot score from within the penalty area.

In Outdoor Soccer I don't think they have any actual Mercy Rules, but any self-respecting coach who is winning by 5 or more goals will generally put his forwards on defense and his backs up on offense, etc... Youngest had one game last Fall where they were up by 8 goals or so, and the coach told them to just work on their passing.

Please note that in none of the cases above were the leading team penalized with any sort of game forfeiture or the like. That's just friggin' ridiculous!!!

I live in a county with a really good high school (American) football team. The mercy rule in that league is that the clock runs with extremely limited stoppage. Scores still get run up but not nearly as badly and no one actually gets punished for being good at playing the game. This? This is just plain stupid.

So, BP execs, sellers of liars loans, and bailed out failed bankers who still thought they were worth their golden bonuses off the taxpayer dole were all leftists?
Did anyone take a poll on that?

For those of you who don't know Canada, let me explain something.

Ottawa is our nation's capital. It's the seat of government and is populated largely by civil servants.

In other words, it's about five hundred square kilometres surrounded by reality.

'nuff said.

In simple terms, then: Ottawa is about like Washington, D.C.

I have no problem with a "mercy" rule. If one team is simply slaughtering the other, it IS good sportsmanship to bring an end to it. There's getting beat, and then there's being humiliated.

I'm all for sparing the losing team an extended session of humiliation. But you shouldn't punish the winning team for being so much better...

No. Those who BAILED THEM OUT were. The government essentially rewarded those who failed the worst by absolving them of any financial responsibility.

I'd have let the lot of them drown.

Hey, it ain't the public who bailed them out, it was the Democrats.

Oh, okay, so doling out the cash is commie, but taking it isn't?

Who made that claim? The bailouts should never have been offered, but once the cash was handed over it was used to fufill contractual obligations.

I see, so, the "golden bonuses", which are allegedly contingent on the "quality of talent", said talent having failed miserably, hence the bailout, let's remember that,...justified?
Or "contractual obligation"?
Badly written contract there.
Or, slimy lawyers.
Slimy commie lawyers?