Decisive win? You lose.

Charity points would have just sapped my will, and made me stop playing.

But, everything did that.

Either it was a game I totally inherently sucked at, and had no chance at improvement at, so it was like "why are they keeping putting me through this tedium of losing a game I have no stake in?".

It was like being Charlie Brown's baseball team.

OR, I was on the other side of it.
The one thing I excelled at, was goalie at floor hockey.
Cuz, I could easily transfer my Arkanoid skills over to it.


But, then I was too good, and that got boring to the point of a toothache.

Team sports, feh.
*"Ah phooey", wave*

I imagine most people would agree. Those few who wouldn't would basically ignore the standard mercy rule. This new rule is essentially going to force people to back off somewhat.

Conceivably, sure. Then things could devolve into a "who can score on themselves the most" absurdity. I have no idea about the rules of soccer, so I imagine after a while the ref would intervene and stop such a thing from happening.

There are probably stupid possibilities that can stem from any rule. Most likely, though, the situation seems unlikely to change much from a situation where there's a mercy rule.

So does the mercy rule.

It also prevents the members of the better team from continuing to play, score goals, have fun, etc. It means the scrubbier members of the losing team might not get the opportunity to play, or to play as long.

In my book, that is penalizing them.

Now it may be worth causing the members of a winning team to lose the benefits of competition out of fairness's sake or to teach them lessons about sportsmanship or to avoid dealing too severe blows to the egos of the losing team. But that doesn't change the nature of what is happening with the winning team. They are not getting something that most of them would enjoy and would want.

There's the difference between the rule on the books and its effect to consider.

Everyone here seems to agree that it would be a travesty if a team outscored its opponent by five goals and "lost." (As well they should).

But in reality, knowing that this rule exists, no team will outscore its opponent that much. The super-skilled teams will throttle back and players on all sides will play the full 60 minutes.

I don't see how if one is going to oppose this rule as it would work in reality because you are a fan of full-throated competition, one can also support the mercy rule.

Some things go beyond your political compass. Everyone here on the "left" seems to think this is a dumb idea.

And I don't see how this is any more politically correct or touchy feely than a mercy rule. Both exist to avoid hurt feelings and protect self-esteem.

I have, and even I don't embrace that philosophy.

That probably happens to a certain extent whether there's no mercy rule, the regular mercy rule, or this bizarro version of one.

There are going to be teams that are so much better than their competition that they are going to have to pull back, and the pulling back will be obvious.

As an aside, as I was posting earlier, a friend of mine who coaches soccer called up and I talked with him about this. He talked about how after a while he gives his kids a bunch of different things as handicaps (you can only score with your left foot, or every member on his team has to touch the ball before they score).

But he also talked about how one of his sons is most proud of having been on the winning side 32-0. Take that for what it's worth.

Even I don't feel that way...and I would have a decent argument that I have far more reason to think so!

If you don't give a fuck about the game, don't play.

Kinda like Wrodforge.

And he's speaking from his vast experience as a parent.

While there are overbearing sports parents who force their children to play, the majority of the kids on any of those fields are there because they want to be.

That's something that a parent would know. Weigh the ensuing opinion accordingly.

People are only human. Offer them salvation--particularly when their jobs or standing are on the line--and most will gladly take it.

See post 46.

So, what's conservatism for?

A bunch of heroic....suggestions?

No, it doesn't. The better team is not stripped of a victory, or condemned for having better players. The mercy rule simply ends the game so the lesser team doesn't spend the rest of the game being humiliated.

You're really reaching.

There's no fun to be had when you're so much better than the other side that there's no challenge.

So? If their starters get clobbered enough to invoke the mercy rule, how well do you think the benchwarmers would do?

Because the American left has yet to descend to the douchedom level of the Canadian left...

You think it's a "dumb idea" but in the next breath say it's isn't any different than a mercy rule?

Look, a mercy rule doesn't take the thrill of victory (to the extent it can exist against an inferior opponent) from the winners, and it doesn't take the sting of defeat from the losers. It merely prevents the game from becoming a humiliation.

This idiocy in Canada penalizes the winners for the crime of being better players in order that the losers can somehow seem morally superior by comparison. That's retarded and contrary to how real life works.

I'm curious if a goal scored on my own team counts against me. By that I mean, if you're winning by five points, can I score a goal on myself, have it count for you, and then you automatically forfeit?

As I said, under this new rule, it's unlikely anyone will actually be stripped of a victory. Coaches will adjust to their being better than the other team, and both teams will play the full game.

Losing by 5 or so is IMO equally humiliating whether it takes the full game or whether there's "garbage time."

For you, sure. And for many people, probably.

But some people do enjoy racking up the score. See: my friend's kid.

And some people might get a chance to play who don't ordinarily. They'd also get to have fun.

Brain freeze. I meant to type "winning" instead of losing.

Right. I think the mercy rule is a dumb idea. And I don't think in practical impact there is much difference between this dumb idea and that one.

The real-world impact of this new rule will likely be to do the same thing, as teams will start to softpedal when they are up by 4. The thrill of victory against an inferior opponent isn't going to be lost, nor will the sting of defeat be taken away, at least not completely and not any more than it is under the standard mercy rule.

ETA: Looking back at the original post, apparently this league does an even more bizarre version of the mercy rule, where the kids keep on playing but scores beyond those that cause the 5-point differential "don't count."

While that takes away from the argument about the mercy rule denying people from playing, it strengthens the notion that there's not all that much difference between the mercy rule and this. Both involve teaching essentially the same lessons about success and failure being rewarded or punished.

It would if a team in fact lost a game for being ahead by 5.

But in fact, what this rule is going to do is force obviously better teams to play their scrubs or to softpedal once they are up a certain amount. I find it doubtful that any teams are going to in fact lose by winning.

Moreover a mercy rule is just as contrary to how real life works.

You know, for the longest time, I thought you were a little bit more reasonable than some of the more, shall we say, "mindlessly robotic" posters on both sides of the political spectrum. But more and more, I see that you are as single-minded and inflexible as any of them. Canadian left, my ass. Did you miss my comments? Hello, I'm Canadian and a well-known lefty.

This was just a stupid decision, period. Partisan politics had nothing to do with it.

If they play by normal rules, yes it does. This happens even in major league games sometimes, when a team somehow ends up with the ball in their own goal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it has resulted in a loss somewhere or other, but I'm not enough of a soccer fan to know for sure.

It would be an interesting test. Or you could simply start out the game by trying to score as many goals on yourself as possible; if you manage to do it five times more than the other team, they lose.

It would change the nature of soccer radically...

Most people are perfectly capable of standing on their own and dealing with life as adults. Challenges must be met and adversity overcome if one is to become a fully developed human being. It's through the work and effort involved that we become more tomorrow than we were today.

But if one never faces those challenges--if one is coddled, taken care of, bailed out--then one never develops. A person in such a state never learns, never earns responsibility, never feels the joy of real achievement. Such a person never grows...because that person never HAS to.

Once, nature forced human beings to accept this reality. Work or die. Build shelter or die. Make provision for the future or die. Modern wealth makes the dying part obsolete; therefore, many will choose the least ambitious life they can possibly get away with.

And if it were just their own wasted lives at stake, I'd say "go for it." The problem is this: the irresponsible many require care by the responsible few. And if the responsible few could refuse, I'd still be content. But in our society, the irresponsible masses have no problem using the coercive power of government to take from the responsible. And the governing class, empowered by the process, is happy to facilitate it.

The trend is ominous: fewer and fewer responsible people, paying for more and more irresponsible people, while bureaucrats grow powerful.

Don't believe it? Take a look at where people's incomes are coming from these days...

So..."yes"?

It honestly sounds like that Dicky's never actually played soccer and is purely judging the game by having been forced to watch it. With the amount of running going on in a game to chase down that damn ball, it's hard to have any time to find it boring.

Playing outfield in Little League, though... that sucked for a while.

You'd be incorrect.

Then, I guess we're just fundamentally wired different from the molecule up.


I don't like chasing things, it's like when the cat gets out in the yard, it's like "oh, come on, get over here....".

I don't agree with Diacanu on a whole helluva lot, but on this we do.

I hated playing soccer in school when I was a kid. Too much running for no reason.

Soccer sucks. Canada sucks. Krypton sucks.

Psychologically, no. The superior side still wins, the inferior side still has incentive to do better next time. You aren't penalized for being good.

There is nothing stopping either side from immediately grabbing a ball and going off to conduct a practice, scrimmage or competition - among individuals who are of similar talent and capabilities. You can do that and still have a winner and loser of the official game.

That would depend on the kids and for that matter what level of sportsmanship they had installed in them, yes?

Again, you are acting as if they are barred from participating in game related activities once the game is over. You have the field for your allotted time.

The mercy rule is arbitrary, personally I think the game should continue as long as both sides are having fun and there's any competition at all.

But it's clearly not the same lesson. Getting only a 20 minute official game because you are so clearly superior to your opponent is an entirely different lesson than getting a 20 minute game - and losing because you are so clearly superior to your opponent.

Accidents happen, and any coach will tell you when players lose focus on the game that's exactly when injuries occur. Screwing around instead of playing fundamentally sound technique is not to your advantage at all - especially when the other team is still serious.

I'm not a big fan of the mercy rule. This however takes that to it's illogical laughable conclusion. And at least the mercy rule doesn't take competitive instincts away. Once the kids reach the teens and understand that they can win the game by getting such a specific advantage and its a sure thing many of them will try for just that. Because it is the sure thing.

Except one penalizes the point of the game, which is to stretch your own capabilities, better yourself, and do so through competition. Regardless of your ineffectual protestations, that's not something that the mercy rule denies.

The mercy rule acknowledges that self-esteem is a factor while still allowing for superior athletic ability, team work and drive to be rewarded. Yes, it is a reward to win a game. The overly competitive types can still do so even with the mercy rule - by the time period it takes them to get a win.

The 'don't play too well or your lose' concept says that self-esteem overrides all other concerns, and that it's more important to be nice than it is to do well.

I understand you refuse to see the difference.

But that's on you, not anyone else.

Kinda like when that one crazy old lady mayor passed a law in her town that police weren't allowed to RUN after criminals for safety concerns.

How about comfort?
Can that trump other concerns, such as say, the objective bracing truth?

Again, in a regular mercy rule setting, you get less of a chance to play in an official game setting. The good players don't get to score goals that they might otherwise would have. The bad players on the good team might miss on playing time.

In the mercy rule as this league does things, people who score goals will not have their goals recognized if they contribute to a lead more than 5.

Those things are penalties.

By the same token, there's nothing stopping the true winners from realizing that they truly won.

There's some value in having all this happen in the real competition and be officially recognized.

Of course. As I said in some previous post, some kids are not going to continue to whomp on loser kids. Other kids are going to want to run up the score.

Both the mercy rule and this rule, though, sends the same message: after a while, it's good sportsmanship to run up the score. If you run up the score past that point, there'll be a penalty. And on the flip side, after a while if you get beat down, the rules will come to your rescue to mitigate the beatdown.

There's a difference between playing around for the sake of playing and having your actions in a full-fledged, officially recognized game situation. Again, by the same token, the team that loses by outscoring its opponents can simply think of itself as the winner.

But in reality, the latter is just not going to happen because the coach will tell the team to slow itself down.

No one says softpedalling things means playing less-than-sound techniques.

I find it doubtful that anyone competitive enough to want to mercy-rule a team wouldn't try to beat the team anyway.

The overly competitive can still be rewarded for their superior atheletic ability under this rule.

All they have to do is keep the game within 4 goals.

Ultimately, so does the standard mercy rule, only in a more acceptable way.

Everyone seems to hate the idea of a team actually losing because it does better than another team. In reality, it's not going to happen.

I don't know why this league abandoned its old mercy rule. But at a guess, it did so because kids were just continuing to rack up scores on inferior opponents and being OK with those goals not counting.

5 goals isn't that much of a beat down in youth soccer. People comparing this to a "mercy rule" don't have any perspective. A good mercy rule would be more like a 10 goal deficit ending the game. This is just bullshit all the way around.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Runaway games aren either side/3116535/story.html

Here's a letter to the editor that some might find interesting and relevant.

Also, in looking around, there's apparently Canadian equivalents of this rule in basketball. If a team is up by 40 points, they can either lose or go back to zero, depending on the league.

While it may not be that much of a beat down in a youth league, five goals is an essentially insurmountable lead in any soccer league where the players have any skill whatsoever, and the children here are old enough that some skill is involved. Telling teams to not run up the score with a five goal lead is reasonable. Telling them to quit playing the game isn't. The rule in question is of the latter form, not the former, and is therefore wrong, but it's easy to see what the legitimate motivation behind the absurd rule is.

Oh bull fucking shit.

What color is the sky in your world?

You bedwetting lefty pussies preach this shit constantly. Don't pretend otherwise. Nobody here is that fucking naive.