Decisive win? You lose.

Sokar is that fucking naive. He's naive enough to believe that he's not naive, which means he's more naive than humanly possible, which means he's not human. We knew that already, so that's no revelation. That's not the evidence you asked for, but it's more than any evidence you'll possibly get from a subhuman piece of filth like Sokar.

Depends on the person, obviously. Have you left the nest yet? What does that tell you about comfort versus the objective bracing truth? LOL.

All I needed to hear.
To know you're full of shit.

Yes, your obtuseness. They are unofficial penalties to certain people's (but not everyone's) enjoyment of the game. They aren't official game penalties that alter the outcome of the game.

You can argue that point all you want, but it's vastly irrelevant. The 'score to many penalties and you lose' rule penalizes you for trying to be good at the game within the context of the game itself.

The mercy rule doesn't. It recognizes the better team's superiority in the game.

Except for the hypocritical adults saying they didn't. An eight year old isn't likely to understand the difference.

If you are more in to the touchy feely self-esteem aspect being written into the official rules than you are about the other positive aspects of the game, yes. You are penalizing excellence within the context of the game itself, not the subtext of the game.

Context and subtext of how the game is played and what people intend to get out of the game is a different issue than the traditional rules of football/soccer. Even mandated substitution patterns for the coaches doesn't interfere in what the goal of the game is.

This changes completely the aspect of the game. You should never be penalized in a competitive team sport for trying to win. My goodness, you might actually score a goal, don't shoot! That's the absurdity level of this rule.

Hence the 'political spectrum ideology' issue that you discount, yet are clearly the only one even remotely arguing FOR the benefits of this.

The rest is just a rehash of already discussed points except for this:

If the letter you posted later on is correct, then clearly they didn't have a 5 goal mercy rule in play last season. They apparently didn't have a mercy rule at all.

And of course the real answer is to disperse the level of talent among the different teams. They claim they are attempting to do that, but it doesn't seem that hard to me. Have the last year's coach rate the players, have a random lottery based on those skill levels, you are done. It doesn't have to be perfect.

OK, Dicky, perhaps I was overly harsh there.

Was there something relevant within the context of this discussion by your statement? I'm not sure what 'comfort' versus 'objective bracing truth' has to do with this, other than your belief that your ideology of being an abrasive dick is morally superior to those who aren't as 'insightful' as you feel you are.

Is there something more to it? Or is this just another example of you talking down to everyone else because they aren't as pissed off about everything all the time as you are? I certainly read it the later way based on the subtext of your conversations here over the years, but I'm willing to consider other possibilities.

Just seems to me, pity points, pity trophies, telling some granny their neural pattern will survive death, and go to Gumdrop Land, all the same deal.

Bullshit in denial of reality to make people feel good.

Don't see how you can square sneering at the "self-esteem above all else", mindset, with one breath, and think the other is just lovely.

I'm sure you're going to tell me, and I'm sure it'll be a bunch of shit.

Because I view the mercy rule as more than anything else an insult, and not so offhanded - you are so bad there is no point to this. Hell, it's as much about 'there's no point to you playing this team, and someone might get hurt' (especially once the kids are teens) as it is that there are raindrops and lollipops everywhere and you just have to appreciate being on the field.

That's a completely different animal than 'you are so bad that the other team loses.'

Seems pretty clear to me.

So naturally you will think it's bullshit.

:youfail:

He gets it more than the adults around him do, for sure. No one ever got better by having victory handed to them by default. Who would be proud of winning like that?

Protecting against a fifteen point blowout is one thing; saying that you lose by scoring too many points is another animal entirely, and tells both sides not to try.

Cut the shit. There's more truth to that than you evidently want to admit. The left end of the spectrum is indisputably the champion of redistributionist "safety nets" and social "equality" measured by outcome.

Your mileage may vary.

And again, in practice, no team is actually going to lose a game by scoring too many goals, because coaches will pull up.

The better team's superiority is still going to be recognized in reality.

An 8-year-old is going to know that scoring more goals than the other team=win.

Penalizing excellence=penalizing excellence in my book.

I'm not arguing for the benefits of this rule. I'm saying I don't think there's a substantial difference between this rule and the other one.

And that while the rule as it is written is stupid, no one has to worry about a game actually being decided this way.

I think the article at the original post (or maybe it's one of the other articles I googled, not sure) explained this.

The mercy rule I and I presume most people were familiar with is that the game ends when one team scores more than X amount of points.

The mercy rule this league was operating under is that the game continues despite the blowout, but it's just recorded as a X+5 to X win. So even if the one team scored 15 goals, the win is recorded as 7-2.

Which as I said seems even dumber in some senses than the conventional mercy rule -- the losing team is still humiliated and the winners don't have all their goals count.

Well, even then, sometimes one team is just going to blow another out.

The fairest solution would be to have their coaches not be jerks who run up the score and to mandate they mix things up through handicaps.

I think that's the proper trade-off between competition and sportsmanship.

I think I could get on board with something along those lines...

Bah.

From the lofty perch of my teal-colored supremacy, I will solve this problem for you, pitiful mortals that you are.

First team to open a five-point lead wins. Period. If it happens before the halfway point of the game, then it becomes a best-of-three series, with the remaining two games also "first to five". That should give all players enough field time to work on skills without being overly embarrassing to the less skilled team.

Not sure if it has been said yet, but looks like this weak ass rule has been rescinded.

Link

Nice to see common sense prevail. Mercy rules with the option to play on are fine, goals should only matter when goal differential comes in to play in a tournament for example.

Canada gets it right, once again.



​

^ Eventually, you mean, Ten Lubak...

It's good they changed their minds.

But they're still retards for even putting the rule in place.

And it has nothing to do with being Canadian. It has to do with being retards, and all countries have a good share of retards.

^ Let me have my "Eh" moment Async, gosh.

Wrong account, Manhattan.

You'll get no problem from me on that. I'm one-quarter Canadian and proud of it.

No you won't, Eeyore.

I don't know about soccer, but I do know that Bill Gates was known for playing high-stakes poker before he dropped out of Harvard to start Microsoft.

Meh. Soccer is the sport of little girls and communists. I figured they already did this.

D'oh.

Accidental bump.