Northmont 18 Springfield 1

multisportdad

Active member
And then what? 25 minutes to play and you’re up 9. You’ve already (one would hope) removed your top players, put your players in unfamiliar positions....now what? Goofy restrictions which make a mockery of the game? Shoot wide (as some AD’s instruct their coach)? Pull up on a breakaway with the keeper because “goals can now only be scored off a cross with your head”? Play keep away for 25 minutes (which is the most humiliating thing I’ve ever seen happen in a game)?

Take players off the field. You should know 3 or 4 goals in how that game is going to go. Play 10 v 11 - score again? Play 9 v 11. My experience is this usually balances things out a bit, and the kids get to keep playing.

Just my 2 cents.
I supported a team a few years ago that frankly wasn't any good. In league play, they lost 10-0, with the 25 minutes of keep away. in tournament play, they lost 9-0, where the opposing coach started pulling players until it was 9v11. The referees were aware of the situation, as was our coach. There was very few in the crowd that noticed (at least no one mentioned it), and I think some of the girls on the team were oblivious to it. However, the game became much more evenly matched, and the opposing keeper even had a save or two.

It was a very classy of the opposing coach to do so, and he did it in a way that it wasn't noticeable. He would sub 5 girls, but 6 would come off. Hard for the crowd to count that high.

The girls appreciated the latter much more than the former.
 

K-1122

Member
Isn't it odd that baseball, which has no time limit and at any point in the game a team has the possibility of overcoming a large deficit, but mercy rules have been around for years.
Then, only recently in football, basketball (tourney only?), and now soccer, where the game is timed; have running clocks come into play, and in these sports there can be such large leads that it would be almost impossible for anyone to mount a comeback in the standard time allowed?

So if baseball, which shortens their game by a few innings when there is a large difference in score, but probably shouldn't (though one could say that some high scoring games could go on past midnight if not). Why not truncate the second half in soccer (20 mins.), as others have mentioned numerous times, a running clock in soccer only reduces the game time by a fractional amount...
 

5x26

Member
Baseball could go on forever in some cases. Soccer is bound by time. Play the game. It is what it is. win big, lose big, that's the game. A few years back the Rangers beat I believe the Orioles like 30 or 32 to 3. Everyone was just fine....
 

K-1122

Member
Baseball could go on forever in some cases. Soccer is bound by time. Play the game. It is what it is. win big, lose big, that's the game. A few years back the Rangers beat I believe the Orioles like 30 or 32 to 3. Everyone was just fine....
My post was to not agree with shortening games, only that in most youth sports there are rules to do just that, and soccer's current rule does little to do that.

I did not say that teams need insulated from the horrors of getting smoked and are not "fine" after a whooping
I did mention that baseball could go on deep into the evening, so why the mercy rule with youth teams
Used baseball as an example that its the one sport that one could come back from a large deficit, but mercy rule kills that chance
So if we are willing to eliminate the chance for a youth team to come back and get a V in youth baseball, why not do the same for soccer
But, the current rule of a running clock does not really do that (only makes probably on average a 42-43 min half with stoppages a 40 min half with the running clock).
 
.
Top