Mercy Rule

[RichardGraham]

Hi Folks,

I'm curious as to what you think of the mercy rule.

(I believe it's an eight-goal lead in NARCh; in the league I'm playing in, it's 10 goals.)

Last Monday night, we mercied a team 10-0 with about 10 minutes to go in the game. If I hadn't been coming back from a five-hour flight from Orlando (via Memphis), I probably would have wanted to play out the entire game.

When you're approaching a mercy-game win, what do you do with the time that's remaining -- go for the quick kill, or practice passing, defensive breakouts, etc.?

(Conversely, does a team on the losing end appreciate the winning team slowing down the pace, or do they just want to get it over with?)

Sincerely,

Richard Graham
Editor
Inline Hockey Central

[LuRules]

I've only seen mercy rules used in tournaments, never in leagues. If teams are experiencing 10-goal differentials in league play, it seems to me that either the losing team needs to drop down a level or the winning team needs to move up a league to make the games less one-sided and thus - eliminate the need for a mercy rule during league play.

However, if I did play in a league with a mercy rule, I'd rather play the whole game and get my money's worth than quit early.

~L

[MDE3]

As a coach in tournament play I always wanted my kids to work as hard as they could - to see what character was there - so the mercy rule kind of put a limit to the test - sometimes a good thing. In league play - where I assume you see the same people repeatedly - I would assume that either one team was very short of top personel, or they need to reevaluate the team selection process.

[DannyG]

Part of playing sports is learning to play with dignity and grace, no matter what the "problems of play." Kids (and adults, let us all face this) need to learn how to play when our team is ahead 13-2, and well as when our team is behind 2-13.

Our local rule is ten goals. Since we play with a stop-time clock, when one team goes up by 10, with the next face-off, we go to a running clock. Should the losing team bring the margin of the lead back to within 7, then the clock returns to a stop-time situation.

We reason as follows: the players on both teams deserve the playing time of the full game. All players have individual reasons for playing the sport, they deserve full measure of what they pay for, with both their money and their effort. However, "let's get the massacre over with" has some merit, also. So we play the entire game, just speed it up somewhat. We also reason that, should the down team simply get the next goal, that does not present a fundamental change in the nature of the game (the USAHIL rule book says to go back to a stop clock if the margin drops to 9). Even "a second goal by the down team does not a comeback make." However, we draw the line should the down team get a third goal, to bring the differential back to only 7. We reason that, hey, they might be able to pull something off at this point, and their new efforts now deserve a shot. They get the stop-time clock back.

Our league does have several historical anecdotes of the team down by ten getting the next three goals, which we call "getting back the clock," and then "charging back up the hill of adversity, coming back to win the game." Has happened maybe half a dozen times in the seven years we have been doing this, so these occurences are rather legendary, but that's what makes up the local "lore of the game."

[JohnHockey1798]

We really don't have a mercy rule here. The only thing I have ever noticed is that they stop putting goals on the score board when your lead is 10 goals. The league officals also tell the top players when the lead is 6 goals that they need to start sandbagging/not try. THe biggest comebacks we have had is a team down by 5 goals came back to win. I have been beaten by 10 and have been on team where our lead was 10. Usually I try to work on my passing and slapshots when we have that kind of lead.

JOhn

[NoGoals]

As a goalie, I have been beat by that kind of margin before, and I have never played with a mercy rule. It is not something that happened or happens alot, but it has happened. I will tell you my feelings. When I am down by 10, I just want the game to end so I can end the suffering with some cold adult beverages. Games like that are frustrating for the team that is losing and the last thing the goaltender wants is for the other team to start showboating and hot dogging..i.e. trying to lift the puck up and score from behind the goal.
It also frustrates the rest of the team. If the winning team is just playing keep away and passing the puck all over, fights will break out.
I guess after my rambling, I would have to say I like the idea of a mercy rule.

[columbus_RHstar]

Our house league doesn't have a mercy rule p[er say. We have a pain-in-the-ass hat-trick rule. Which says a player can only score 3 goals throughout the course of the game, including overtime in the playoffs. Also if a player has 3 goals and the game goes into a shoot-out, championship only, the player is not allowed to shoot. This negates the need for a mercy rule however we have had teams tht have goalies not show up and have lost by around 10 goals.

There are many types of mercy rules but if I am on either side a mercy rule I want to finish the game and get what I paid for.

[DannyG]

All rules are arbitrary, but...I must admit that this hat trick restriction does what I call, "penalize excellence." To do so, does not produce "the most opportunity for success for all players."

That rule's kind of a bummer...

[ClarkAddison]

That hat trick thing is a new one on me. I know as a coach that if I have a kid that is capable of scoring at will in the house league I challenge him to get three assists for every one goal. Not a rule, just a philosophy. It changes his mind set from individual to team play. It helps his teammates improve as well as they learn how to get open for him.

I've seen too many superstar 8 year olds quit when they get to be a 12 year old because they don't score 5 and 6 goals a game like they used to. Only because they've never been taught how to play the team game. I love playing against individual players. They are the easiest thing to defend.



http://www.eteamz.com/ChillDawgz/images/NPMikeShot.jpg

[DannyG]

my hat (trick) is off to Clarke on this one...he is absolutely right in pointing out that scoring prowess alone is not "excellence."

I have finally allowed one of our Peewee Division, offensive aces to join the travel team I coach...this after long consultation with the kid's father.

Monday night training, I confronted (at his father's request) our 12 year old scoring ace. Here's a kid with very high skills, who could skate rings around everybody when he was eight. Now, everybody can skate, but Tony still has this intimidating slaphot. He perennially leads the youth division in scoring, but...his stats are like, 45 goals, 6 assists...

I pointed out to him that a) it was not a coincidence that his tournament team got mercied at regionals, every game last year, and b) he has not played in a single division championsip game in rec league play in six seasons!

The kid plays in isolation from any teamates, then blames teammates for team defficiencies. In fact, my daughter loves to draw Tony's team in the playoff semi's, 'cause she knows all she has to do is shut Tony down, he has no clue how to tactically use any of his teammates, and it virtually guarantees Caitlin's team will make it to the division finals every time.

I still am not sure that a hat-trick-restriction to scoring is the key, but I wholeheartedly agree with Clarke that you must address the scoring-at-the-expense-of-everything-else syndrome.

[DannyG]

incidentally, the yardstick for highly skilled players in rec league play is:

"How do your teammates react when you get the puck, do they instantaneously burst into action, cutting into passing lanes and spaces, because they know that you are looking to get 'em the puck, or do they just stand there and look at you, 'cause they know that they won't be included in the play no matter what they do?

"As the coach of our Peewee travel team, I look for the players whose teammates all explode into action, whenever they get the puck!"

[ClarkAddison]

To me its one of the hardest concepts to teach a young skilled player. He knows that if he passes the puck to one of his teammates it will probably result in them losing the puck. He also knows that if he keeps it there is a good chance of them scoring. It's hard for an 8 year old to care about his long term career.

The problem is compounded by coaches putting winning the game over long term teaching. All I can do as the program director is stress to the coaches, parents, and players the long term goal. Some get it, some don't.

Another technique I stole from a magazine. I read about a coach who at the end of every game would hand out hockey trading cards. One for every assist, one for every 5 goals. I'm not as enthused about the results as the coach from the article was but at least it offers an excuse to talk about the team concept every game and practice.



http://www.eteamz.com/ChillDawgz/images/NPMikeShot.jpg

[missionhockey21]

When I was younger in house league, I'll admit that I wanted to dominate so I scored as much as I could, and I dont think thats wrong if somebody wanted to do that. But if a house league has players of that capability that can score like that they need to be spread around to the teams of lesser talent, as I was. I dont agree when coaches put a restriction on scorers, but I do agree with the mercy rule. It was 8 goals for our league and since I played on a fairly lousy team we lost a lot like that. And I perfered to just get the game over, end the suffering, because when a team basically plays keep a way from the other team, its embarrasing. I rather just get it over and forget about it. I remember once, probably in 10u the other team was trying to do the flying v from the mighty ducks movies, and I never felt so ashamed, it was like rubbing the loss in our faces. But in terms of when faced with a mercy rule option, most of my coaches wanted us just to pass the puck with no shots, even though I never agreed with that, but my opinion isnt worth much in that argument ;-)

[missionhockey21]

I had to learn the hard way growing up, I was on a team from about 7 to 15. Our orginization had both house and travel. And basically my house team quickly developed into a travel, with about 7 puckhogs, 3 defense, and a goalie. That worked awhile but as we got older it got much harder for a team that had one guy straight up bringing the puck down. Fortunatly for me, I had my dad and my coach develop me into a passer, and even though it wasnt my favorite descion I hated losing so I complied. I already had pretty good passing ability because I learned that very well in ice. Well to make a long story short as we got older almost all of us had a larger pass-shoot ratio than we did before and it all came together for us. I've often had tournaments with 0 goals and 10+assists. I think it is hard to get a little kid to pass more than shoot, everyone wants to be the star, but once goalies become tougher most of them will drive away from the shoot at every chance mentality, even though I know some 16yr olds who still never pass the puck after playing hockey for 10 years. lol

[ClarkAddison]

The ironic thing I'm learning as I reach the twilight of my own career. Passing is the only bullet you're left with.



http://www.eteamz.com/ChillDawgz/images/NPMikeShot.jpg