It might be time for a mercy rule in soccer

It’s probably been close to 20 years by now, but the coach’s laughter still irks me to this day.

One afternoon, a standout area girls soccer side was playing a vastly inferior foe in what, at the time, can only be described as a developing high school soccer conference.

Obviously, with those descriptors, we’ll keep identities out of it.

The coach told me how it was 8-0 at halftime, and then something unusual happened: His goalkeeper scored.

She dribbled into midfield and took a crack from distance. The coach laughed while describing the sequence.

That was, is and always will be part of the reason why asking me about lopsided matches at the high school level draws such a level of frustration.

It’s not about being a killjoy or lacking a sense of humor. It’s just not funny.

We are so many years removed from that anecdote that it’s possible the players that afternoon have children not far from high school age now. And yet, the problem is still as prevalent today as it was then.

What do you do in a terribly lopsided match? How do you approach it, especially when it gets ugly and beyond manageable?

And what about the broader point about these matches being on the schedule at all?

It all comes back to one vital point, as true in 2018 as it probably was in the early 2000s when that goalie scored.

It may be long past time to consider a mercy rule in soccer similar to the one in high school hockey.

In hockey, if a 10-goal margin is reached after two periods, the game is over. The mercy rule in that case is a widely accepted method to bring an honorable conclusion to a pummeling. Soccer may need it, too. Typically, at least one match per day or every couple days is decided in our area by 10 goals. That number increases to three or four — sometimes even more – for matches decided by seven goals or more.

Lopsided matches are inevitable. Maybe there’s a conference with a heavy disparity between the haves and have nots. Maybe there’s an open date that simply has to be filled. Maybe there’s a sectional semifinal in the postseason in which the amount of sides doesn’t allow for a play-in opening round.

Maybe the coaches know each other, or the schools are in such close proximity that the match just has to take place.

Or maybe, and sadly, a side has no qualms about weak scheduling to build up a gaudy record.

Whatever the reason, it doesn’t benefit anyone, and there is no good way to handle it.

I’ve had coaches tell me in strict confidence for years how much they despise it and how awful they feel. They empty their bench. They tell their side not to shoot. They use stretches of play as a possession exercise, trying to string a certain number of passes together and then restart the count.

But respectful as the intention is to not humiliate someone who can’t put up a fortified front, doesn’t it reach a point at which it’s not really a soccer match anymore?

And doesn’t it send a dangerous message to the side on the business end of such matches to take it easy to that extent?

That doesn’t even take into account the coaches and sides who clearly cannot be trusted with that responsibility in the first place.

There’s a way, and assuredly, there will be people in the sport who don’t want to hear it.

Once a margin is reached — say, like hockey, a margin of 10 — the match is over (with at least one half played). Line up, shake hands and call it a day.

In a constant-action sport, pretending a running clock regardless of circumstance is going to help simply isn’t. That last 25 minutes of a match is still going to be 25 long minutes.

Back in 2008, I wrote an extensive feature story about lopsided matches through the eyes of area coaches.

They all expressed their discontent, and some are still around today. One coach said, if another coach leaves his starters in for a full match when it gets that lopsided, that they’re an idiot.

One even did – to his credit, by the way – offer the counterpoint. He argued it wasn’t teaching the proper lessons of sports to show mercy or ease up vs. an opponent, inferior or not. He cited how his side had beaten a conference foe by 11 goals in their first meeting then lost, 5-3, in the second meeting. In his view, the annihilation made the other side better.

Well, it certainly motivated them if nothing else.

That said, avenging such a defeat almost never happens, of course.

And these matches will continue to be played, because there’s far too many reasons why they can’t be avoided.

So if they have to be, if it comes down to it, let’s aim for honorable.

Let’s aim for a swifter conclusion – one that is absolutely not a sign of weakness and doesn’t mean we’re losing our edge as a society. Let’s aim for a mercy rule. It’s time. It was time the one night there was an 18-0 scoreline in a rivalry match years ago, or the 20-0 scoreline recently in another match.

It was time the one afternoon the goalie scored a goal.

And it is well past time when we’re seeing it day after day with no end in sight.

Lillstrung can be reached at CLillstrung@ News-Herald.com; @ CLillstrungNH on Twitter.

NEWS-HERALD FILE The amount of lopsided matches in area high school soccer continues to be as prevalent of an issue today as they were 20 years ago. So a mercy rule may be long past necessary.