Mercy rule in playoffs this year - good idea or bad idea?

S

soccerdad72

Well-known member
In case you didn't know, there's a new rule for playoffs this season. The usual running clock applies in the second half if one team is up by 6 goals, but OHSAA has now also added a mercy rule. If any team is up by 8 goals in the second half, the game is automatically over.

This will eliminate the double digit wins that usually occur in the first and second rounds (and occasionally the district semis), but I'm wondering how many coaches will complain (winning or losing) that their team doesn't get to play a full game?
 
 
soccerdad72 said:
In case you didn't know, there's a new rule for playoffs this season. The usual running clock applies in the second half if one team is up by 6 goals, but OHSAA has now also added a mercy rule. If any team is up by 8 goals in the second half, the game is automatically over.

This will eliminate the double digit wins that usually occur in the first and second rounds (and occasionally the district semis), but I'm wondering how many coaches will complain (winning or losing) that their team doesn't get to play a full game?
Click to expand...
So, if a team is up by 8 in the first half....do they even kick off in the 2nd?
 
I think that is better than a team trying not to score for 50 minutes. The first 2 rounds are mostly atrocious…I offered an opinion that a team should be at least .500 to be in the tournament and got roundly criticized. Who benefits from these terrible mismatches?
 
I'm not a fan of this rule, these type of games are perfect opportunities for bench kids that never play to get some time, move defense up to offense for that once a season chance to score, work on new formations, etc. Also, for seniors on both sides this is the last time they get to play, and their parents see them play.
If the coach in the lead manages the game accordingly there are ways around the mercy rule; of course, there's always those that will pound a team mercilessly, but that's another issue.
 
CDRam84 said:
I think that is better than a team trying not to score for 50 minutes. The first 2 rounds are mostly atrocious…I offered an opinion that a team should be at least .500 to be in the tournament and got roundly criticized. Who benefits from these terrible mismatches?
Click to expand...

Amen.

Last year i had a game that was 7-0 after 4 minutes.
 
My only issue with the Mercy Rule is that you're ending seniors season's potentially early. I don't love that idea. I also think big margins of victory are something that you deal with in soccer in early youth ages all the way through high school. That's my one personal issue with it. I get the reasoning behind it.

If you're a team looking for a long playoff run, are you happy to play less soccer in that instance? It could prevent injury, but there may be teams that want to get kids more work, etc.
 
I don't like getting some kids some extra work at the misery of the other team getting whipped. At 8-0 almost NO one is enjoying being out in the cold watching that "soccer". The senior on the losing side of that just wants to be done with it at that point. So I happen to love the mercy rule.
 
I suppose as a referee, it's the chance to make the same pay for half the amount of time. ;)

Although parents probably won't be happy with paying full OSHAA playoff prices for half the amount of a game, but then again, having to sit through a second half of a blowout sucks too.
 
soccerdad72 said:
I suppose as a referee, it's the chance to make the same pay for half the amount of time. ;)

Although parents probably won't be happy with paying full OSHAA playoff prices for half the amount of a game, but then again, having to sit through a second half of a blowout sucks too.
Click to expand...
I never cared about paying to watch my kid play in a high school game. Short, long, starting, sitting, win, or loss. I just enjoyed watching my kid out there enjoying what they do. If I attended a game that ended early due to this mercy rule, I wouldn't care whether my team was on the winning or losing side. I might say to some parents "Well that wasn't my money's worth," but I'd say it mainly in jest to start some conversation. At the end of the say I wouldn't care.

It would be more enjoyable listening to all of the parents that would have no idea why the game ended. They will be the same parents yelling about things happening during games they have no clue about because they have no idea what the rules of the game are.
 
Last edited:
Philly_Cat said:
I never cared about paying to watch my kid play in a high school game. Short, long, starting, sitting, win, or loss. I just enjoyed watching my kid out there enjoying what they do. If I attended a game that ended early due to this mercy rule, I wouldn't care whether my team was on the winning or losing side. I might say to some parents "Well that wasn't my money's worth," but I'd say it mainly in jest to start some conversation. At the end of the say I wouldn't care.

It would be more enjoyable listening to all of the parents that would have no idea why the game ended. They will be the same parents yelling about things happening during games they have no clue about because they have no idea what the rules of the game are.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see the reaction the first time it happens. I hope the PA announcer has a script ready to explain things.

I gotta say it would have made more since to introduce this during the regular season.

A lot of folks won't know it's coming.
 
Salad76 said:
It will be interesting to see the reaction the first time it happens. I hope the PA announcer has a script ready to explain things.

I gotta say it would have made more since to introduce this during the regular season.

A lot of folks won't know it's coming.
Click to expand...

ITA on all points - this will certainly be interesting in the first round of games. Lots of blowouts waiting to happen and who knows how many of these teams know the change for the postseason.
 
soccerdad72 said:
ITA on all points - this will certainly be interesting in the first round of games. Lots of blowouts waiting to happen and who knows how many of these teams know the change for the postseason.
Click to expand...
I went back through my Playoff Log & counted the number of times this would have led to an 'early ending' in the games I was part of the crew for over the last 10 years (since & including the 2013 Post Season, IOW). The number of incidents and ( # ) total games ref'd in those Rounds:

Sectionals: 9 (45)
Districts: 2 (36)

With the way the top 4 Seeded teams in a given District typically have a 1st round bye (there are a few exceptions), I could see this coming into play more frequently in the 2nd Round of the Sectionals........where the gap between the Seeds & thus the talent level might be a bit wider.
 
MJ_SoccerRef said:
I went back through my Playoff Log & counted the number of times this would have led to an 'early ending' in the games I was part of the crew for over the last 10 years (since & including the 2013 Post Season, IOW). The number of incidents and ( # ) total games ref'd in those Rounds:

Sectionals: 9 (45)
Districts: 2 (36)

With the way the top 4 Seeded teams in a given District typically have a 1st round bye (there are a few exceptions), I could see this coming into play more frequently in the 2nd Round of the Sectionals........where the gap between the Seeds & thus the talent level might be a bit wider.
Click to expand...
I have noticed a few really high seeds decided against the bye and chose first round games.

I always find that odd.

Extra home game? Extra wins? More money?
 
Salad76 said:
I have noticed a few really high seeds decided against the bye and chose first round games.

I always find that odd.

Extra home game? Extra wins? More money?
Click to expand...

There's always a few high ranked teams that opt to take a first round game. I've never fully understood it. I suppose the argument could be made that they're wanting more touches in game situations, but honestly, some of these teams would be better served just scrimmaging their JV team. It would make for better competition. I mean, what does Walsh Jesuit (as one example) get out of a first round game with Ashtabula Lakeside?

The way seeding is, there should be some competitive (albeit poor soccer) matches for the first round, but there still are some teams at the bottom that are just not good at all. I did a couple games this year with some really bad teams. God bless them, they're trying hard and they're usually nice kids, but they just don't have much talent.
 
only reasons I can come up with for going with game-game vs. a bye: bolstering stats for some players, avoiding a long rest from last regular season game to first playoff game, reducing likelihood of getting a "good" team to jump on you in the sectional final (more in the case where you have the game, and a decently seeded team has the bye).
 
soccerdad72 said:
There's always a few high ranked teams that opt to take a first round game. I've never fully understood it. I suppose the argument could be made that they're wanting more touches in game situations, but honestly, some of these teams would be better served just scrimmaging their JV team. It would make for better competition. I mean, what does Walsh Jesuit (as one example) get out of a first round game with Ashtabula Lakeside?

The way seeding is, there should be some competitive (albeit poor soccer) matches for the first round, but there still are some teams at the bottom that are just not good at all. I did a couple games this year with some really bad teams. God bless them, they're trying hard and they're usually nice kids, but they just don't have much talent.
Click to expand...
For tournament games, the OHSAA pays a flat fee to the host school. Schools are probably just taking that easy money, as the expenses associated with a first round tournament game are pretty low.
 
soccerdad72 said:
ITA on all points - this will certainly be interesting in the first round of games. Lots of blowouts waiting to happen and who knows how many of these teams know the change for the postseason.
Click to expand...
Fwiw - our coach made us aware when he sent the tournament info to everyone.
 
soccerdad72 said:
There's always a few high ranked teams that opt to take a first round game. I've never fully understood it. I suppose the argument could be made that they're wanting more touches in game situations, but honestly, some of these teams would be better served just scrimmaging their JV team. It would make for better competition. I mean, what does Walsh Jesuit (as one example) get out of a first round game with Ashtabula Lakeside?

The way seeding is, there should be some competitive (albeit poor soccer) matches for the first round, but there still are some teams at the bottom that are just not good at all. I did a couple games this year with some really bad teams. God bless them, they're trying hard and they're usually nice kids, but they just don't have much talent.
Click to expand...
I think our coach does it just to avoid a long layoff but to your point is the game situation any better than scrimmaging the JV? My biggest fear is an injury to a key player. I have seen a few of these early blowouts where the losing team gets a little dirty. Coach starts yanking players as fast as he can if that happens but sometimes hard to do in soccer.
 
CDRam84 said:
I think that is better than a team trying not to score for 50 minutes. The first 2 rounds are mostly atrocious…I offered an opinion that a team should be at least .500 to be in the tournament and got roundly criticized. Who benefits from these terrible mismatches?
Click to expand...
I've said similarly. Teams should be at least top-half of their league/conference, or something. This everyone makes it stuff isn't great.

I get it, it's about the student-athlete experience, but there's rarely upsets with these teams that will be trounced in the first 1-2 rounds.
 
Glancing through D2 first round games (most were last night), it looks like there were like 9 or 10 mercy rule games, including an 11-0 and a 12-0 as well. On the flip side, it looked like there were a few 1-0 games and even an OT and a PK shootout, so a fair amount of close games (between, I can only assume, not very good teams).
 
soccerdad72 said:
There's always a few high ranked teams that opt to take a first round game. I've never fully understood it. I suppose the argument could be made that they're wanting more touches in game situations, but honestly, some of these teams would be better served just scrimmaging their JV team. It would make for better competition. I mean, what does Walsh Jesuit (as one example) get out of a first round game with Ashtabula Lakeside?

The way seeding is, there should be some competitive (albeit poor soccer) matches for the first round, but there still are some teams at the bottom that are just not good at all. I did a couple games this year with some really bad teams. God bless them, they're trying hard and they're usually nice kids, but they just don't have much talent.
Click to expand...
What bugs me is you get say a 1 seed playing a 25 seed followed by something like a 20 seed when maybe the 25 and 20 should have been able to fight out for a playoff win in the first round.

The practice of picking your spots after voting for seeding is odd. Why not just fill out the racket according to seeds?
 
Salad76 said:
What bugs me is you get say a 1 seed playing a 25 seed followed by something like a 20 seed when maybe the 25 and 20 should have been able to fight out for a playoff win in the first round.

The practice of picking your spots after voting for seeding is odd. Why not just fill out the racket according to seeds?
Click to expand...
I agree, but I think now that NE Ohio has gone to the "super district" method of seeding, where two or three districts are seeded all together, it would be more complicated placing teams into brackets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top