"Anti-Rout" Rule

[ninersdd]

This also denies deep bench players of scoring when they have a chance to

[LMU]

I swear... this is just a branch of the modern educational system where it's a crime to hurt a kid's self-esteem. Don't punish a coach because his team made the other team feel bad. What kind of lesson does that teach? And think about it... according to this logic, Mack Brown would have been suspended from the Rose Bowl because his team, one of the most talented ever to take the field, "ran up the score" against those poor Colorado kids.

This just reeks of rediculousness.

[lilgump]

I dont really like coaches running up the score, but to do this is just kind of stupid. The clock idea, that sounds like a plan. Running up the score can also maybe make a team want to work harder, my high school was absolutly crushed about 6 years ago by a team, and then the next year they sent us some taunting stuffed animals, and we havent lost to them in the past 5 years.

[yh]

Secondly, having someone review games is not going to work. Whose job is it to watch these games?

I thought I had stated it fairly clearly that it would be the responsibility of the governing body, not the game officials, to review the games. They are full time employees paid to oversee high school athletics and it should be their responsibility to conduct these reviews. If they felt the problem was serious enough to warrant having a rule to suspend a successful coach, then the problem should be important enough for them to put a bit more thought and effort into the review process. They're being lazy and categorizing all blowout wins as poor sportsmanship. They're sending a terrible message to the kids that it's okay to judge a book by it's cover - if a game produces a lopsided result then it's clearly obvious the coach is at fault and should be punished. How can people tied to the education system allow someone to be punished for misconduct without providing a full and fair hearing? This is out and out denial of due process.

The more I think about this the more I feel there will be a constitutional challenge by the first coach to be negatively affected by this ill-conceived rule.

[Bleujayone]

I have to say that I'm not a fan of running up the score and humiliating the other team in ametuer sports. I have no such qualms on a professional level. Even so while sportsmanship is an honorable and classy way to conduct yourself in sports, it should not be forced upon people. So long as you're not doing anything against the rules, I don't think it should apply.

Now personally I've found in most cases when a team runs up the score its because the coaches kept their starters in against an inferior opponent. If you put in enough reserve players in there, eventually the level of play will equalize. While I'm sure some of you out there can cite an occation or two where the junior varsity was still more dominate than the other team's starters. The fact of the matter is if a team's coaches really wanted to show mercy they could find a way. Then again it's not up to coaches to level the playing field for thier opponents- it would be nice to only loose by three touchdowns instead of seven, but I still don't think there should be a penalty .

Rather than penalizing a team for crushing the other, why not have a "slaughter rule" option. Think of it as a way for the officials to "throw in the towel" if they feel the game's outcome is determined. They would of course have to clear it with both teams, but if a team is up by a certain amount of points and the game is more than half over, then there should be an option to stop the game. No sense beating someone into oblivion. While 49-0 doesn't look much better than 70-0 to the losing team, letting them have a chance to recooperate for the next game might.

[buildingmaint]

Why stop at football. My high schools track team used to beat teams 145-5,our cross country team would win 15- 70.I see wrestling teams winning 80-0.How can you tell a kid not to play to win.What is the point of playing.I think it would be more embarrassing to see a running back run out of bounds at the 1 yard line or stop and hand the ball to a would be tackler so not to win by fifty.

[Fred T. Jane]

Rather than penalizing a team for crushing the other, why not have a "slaughter rule" option. Think of it as a way for the officials to "throw in the towel" if they feel the game's outcome is determined. They would of course have to clear it with both teams, but if a team is up by a certain amount of points and the game is more than half over, then there should be an option to stop the game. No sense beating someone into oblivion. While 49-0 doesn't look much better than 70-0 to the losing team, letting them have a chance to recooperate for the next game might.

Well, our last baseball game of the season here at Bethel, the umpires called it in the middle of the 4th with us down 22-0. In Louisiana baseball, the mercy rule kicks in after the middle of the 5th (if the home team is ahead). I didn't blame them. We gave up 30+ runs 8 times this season...

[TFoA]

Or use the mercy rule I always use when playing people in Madden. After a team gets so far ahead game over.

lol, we call that "skunk" when you get up 21-0, which is mercy automatically. It's like one of the #1 unwritten rules of Madden.

But yeah, this rule is dumb, and obviously PC. And like the legendary NJTank is gloriously quoted as saying, "PC is take away my freedom 1 day ata time."

[WJMorris3]

Why stop at football. My high schools track team used to beat teams 145-5,our cross country team would win 15- 70.I see wrestling teams winning 80-0.How can you tell a kid not to play to win.What is the point of playing.I think it would be more embarrassing to see a running back run out of bounds at the 1 yard line or stop and hand the ball to a would be tackler so not to win by fifty.

See, there are certain sports that an anti-rout rule can't apply to -- namely, most individual sports. It's never the winning coach's fault that a cross country match be won 15 - 50, or a wrestling match be won 84 - (-1). (Yes, I've seen that one).

Team sports, on the other hand, might be better served with an optional mercy rule, to be exercised by the LOSING coach.

My freshman year, there were a couple baseball games that we had a 10 run lead in after 5 innings. Quite a few times, the losing coach would rather play the last two innings to see what their players can do.

But sophomore year came, and the NJSIAA passed the rule to make 10 run mercy mandatory after 5 innings. A lot of coaches of weaker teams did not like this, because it robbed them of the chance to get players some game experience.

[sc49erfan15]

Or use the mercy rule I always use when playing people in Madden. After a team gets so far ahead game over.

lol, we call that "skunk" when you get up 21-0, which is mercy automatically. It's like one of the #1 unwritten rules of Madden.

Heh, nope, the #1 unwritten rule of Madden is that if you go for it on 4th down when it's not realistic, then you suck. Nothing says "amateur" like someone who doesn't punt.

But back to the point, I played on some atrocious football teams back in the day. Worst we ever got beat is 72-0, and there were a smattering of 60-something and 50-something to 0 or 6...12 if we got lucky. Did I want to quit? , no. However, some people might want to avoid further humiliation, and the option should always be there to either keep playing or throw in the towel when you're down by 42 or more, or whatever it is.

It's easy to tell the difference between being just plain outgunned and having the score run up on you. It's like Potter Stewart on pornography. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

[Alphabet Man]

i tihnk a bit of match-fixing comes into play, if a team is 45points up, you cant force a team, and they wont lye down, isn't that a bit corrupt to lye down?

[no97]

I complete agree with the "slaughter rule" concept. I've even mentioned it to several coaches I work with (Bemidji, MN HS had a 23 game losing streak snapped this past season, and many of the games the Lumberjacks lost weren't even close). Minnesota has it for both Baseball/Softball (10 runs after 5 innings) and hockey (6 goal lead in the third period - running time). Why not for other sports as well?

Running time seems like a good idea in football. I like the idea of 42 pts in the second half (35 pts seems too low); Basketball may be tough to implement a running time rule into, because of the fluidity of scoring/time management, but that might make sense as well... Maybe a 40 or 50 pt rule there as well...

Moose

[Gamingboy]

This is a horrible idea.

For one thing, during blowouts like that is sometimes the only times a scrub player ends up playing. If your a 6th string running back, how is it fair that you aren't allowed to play at your hardest and try to score when this might be the only time you will play all season simply because your team is up 50?

A better idea would be this: If a team is up big, they (the team up) cannot stop the clock in anyway except for injuries. The clock doesn't stop if they call a timeout, the clock doesn't stop if they run out of bounds, the clock doesn't stop if they spike the ball, etc. etc.

[A Virus In Shoes]

Humiliation builds character.

That's the single most disgusting and vile thing I've ever read on the Internet.

So you think that say, having the jocks on the football team in high school pull a freshman kids pants and underwear down and make him walk the walls holding his dick in his hand is acceptable behavior because it somehow builds character.

Right.

How precisely does that build character?

[Discrim]

Humiliation builds character.

That's the single most disgusting and vile thing I've ever read on the Internet.

So you think that say, having the jocks on the football team in high school pull a freshman kids pants and underwear down and make him walk the walls holding his dick in his hand is acceptable behavior because it somehow builds character.

Right.

How precisely does that build character?

i'll give ya that...no one deserves that indignity. builds resentment if it builds anything.

dude probably meant that old cliche "losing builds character" more than he meant humiliation.

[BB61]

I've played, coached, refereed, and otherwise officiated over 1,000 games in six different sports involving kids from ages 4-19. About 95% of these games were in an "intermural" environment, so I can see where this is coming from. I've seen my share of blowouts. I've been on the end of a 26-4 buttkicking as a baseball player, and I've been on the winning end of an 11-0 win as a soccer coach.

My philosophy as a coach is that all bets are off in the first half. If you build a fifty point lead after the first half, that's fine. I now have enough points to where I can play defense in the second and stress passing, my backups, and ball / clock control. Unless you're in a tournament enviornment or in a league where point differential is used as a tiebreaker, there is no reason for you to be posting 100 point victories.

As a commissioner, I've been a part of and set up leagues in which the first tie-breaker is usually fewest points allowed. Therefore, you can score as many points as you want, but it stresses defense.

Here are some suggestions:

-- "No Press Rule" for basketball -- You can't play defense in the backcourt with a 15 point lead or more. First offence: warning, after that a technical foul.

-- "Ten batter rule" for baseball -- Ten batters at most per inning. Last batter cannot walk, has to either strike out or put the ball in play. (if he's hit by a pitch, then he takes his base and the eleventh batter bats, and so on).

-- "No Blitz Rule" for football -- similar to the linebacker rules in the Arena league. If it's a run or a scramble, they can go after the runner / QB, but they can't cross the line until he leaves the pocket. 15 yard penalty.

-- "No timeouts rule" for football / basketball -- Teams with a lead of 40 points or more may not call a timeout unless in case of injury.

That's all I have.

[A Virus In Shoes]

I'll give ya that...no one deserves that indignity.  builds resentment if it builds anything.

dude probably meant that old cliche "losing builds character" more than he meant humiliation.

If he had actually meant to say "losing builds character" he would have said it.

[Stampman]

I disagree with the rule--and I've been on teams that were on the receiving end of the rout.

One year in hockey we lost 13-0 and the other team took it easy after the first period.

They could have won by a bigger margin.

They were bigger, faster, better skaters, shooter, passers, etc.

To me it was worse when they slacked off--they were taking it easy and still kicking our butts!

It looks like showing off when they slack off and kick your butts.

Now there are some things you shouldn't do when up by 50 in football-such as go for it on 4th & 1.

What if the other teams fumbles on their 1? Are you supposed to let them get it?

Or just rollover and not punch it in?

That would be more demoralizing to the other team.

Plus a good whooping in sports can build character.

(I'll agree humiliation doesn't necessarily do it--especially the example given.)

But don't rub it in.

[DaytonBlue]

This rule is ridicolous. Running clock after a certain margin is fine.

Also, you could have a rule which would allow losing coaches of more than 50 pts to file a grievance if they felt the other coach was running up the score and then the governing body could look at it.

As one who was a reserve when I played high school football, that chance to get in and open a hole with a block that helped score a touchdown was a big deal and an experience which shouldn't be denied to kids who might not get to see the field much otherwise.

And what if a team is in there and they're told to kneel with a 49 pt lead and some kid takes off for the endzone. Though it's not likely to happen, would that be worhty of a suspension?

[bgbry44]

In an article I read about this they said that they looked at a running clock rule. But that it wouldnt allow a team's reserves enough garbage time.

In Indiana you can run the clock in the second half if both teams agree. I reffed one particular game where at half time with it 49-0 the losing teams coach did not want the running clock. This pissed off the other coach so he went on to with 94-0. I wish they would make the running clock automatic here. But what can ya do.

I saw some people mention kneeling or other ways of not playing earlier in the thread. I think thats more of a slap in the face than running up the score IMO.