A question for sports parents/coaches and a vent...

[Live2Ride]

I coached boys recreational soccer for almost 5 years. By the second year I had a very good team. I taught them to play fair, to be kind, and to play 'down' when needed. This involved moving boys to positions that they weren't as strong in and having them make goal shots from further back. At times they would even play for the other team when they didn't have enough players show up. They just wanted to play :)

 

Maybe I'm the minority in this but I found absolutely no pride in winning by large margins. Especially against a team that was young or new. What's the point in crushing another team. My boys would give them pointers when on the field. They learned that it's not always about the win, but in helping others to learn more...

 

My dd is playing rec softball and are a very new team. Only three of the girls have ever played before. The coaches always talk before games to discuss their teams and most Umps have 'mercy rules' in place. The two teams we've played thus far have been kind and they would put the rules into play when they got a decent bit ahead. Our girls are learning from them and through experience, but they didn't feel as if they were just out there to get slaughtered.

 

We played a team last night and lets just say they could care less about any of that. We played a double with three innings each game. They crushed us and had no beef about it. We're talking 26-0... second game was just as bad. I was sad for them and our girls though. I just didn't see how they could feel good about that sort of game play. It was going to be an easy win since they were light years ahead of us in skill, but seriously...

 

It's all good though, our girls learned a lot and though they got a little down a couple of times, they continued to rally together and push each other to keep trying.

[bolt.]

I feel like its the organization's responsibility to settle teams that have roughly equivalent skills. If some teams are light years ahead of others, that just not a league -- a league is a group of teams that play each other because they are good competition for one another. That's when everyone can play their best without feeling guilty that thier skill level isn't fair to their opponents.

 

It's no good to slaughter or to be slaughtered, but neither is it good to be put in a position that one has to 'play down' or have 'mercy rules' in order to be sportsman like.

 

In all my experiences (Canada, suburban) teams are arranged so that each team gets a fair share of last year's top players, as well as medium skilled players and new players. There would be no such thing as a 'new' team, and no team would be kept together year after year. Except by totally bad luck, or absolutely exceptional coaching, no team would ever be able to consistantly slaughter the others -- and everyone would be doing their best to win.

[magnificent_baby]

I played fastpitch for the majority of my childhood and coach Dd as well (though we had not kept score, but will this year). I would not expect my team to ever play down, and haven't heard of that. When I played, we always had a 10 run rule, and game over at that point. It's also true at the high school level as well (or something similar). Have not encountered that in soccer. This may sound rude, but I think it's a fair lesson for the team and coach when losing by a lot and should be motivation for more practice. As a coach, it reinforced to me that we needed to focus on particular skills.

[FriedClams]

FWIW, I am also a youth sports coach, and was a competitive athlete through college.

 

I agree with you in some of what you're angry about. I think it's poor sportsmanship to destroy another team for sport. But the reality is that some teams a just way better than others. I think the coach of the team you faced should have used the game as a training tool for his team - try new positions, switch things up, play kids who don't play as much. But, I think it's unfair to ask better players to play down and give up plays and runs on purpose because the other team is weak. As a player (on the losing side), I would have been insulted. [We had a "DC" rule as kids in the neighborhood. "DC" meant "doesn't count". We'd yell it when a little kid got up to kick - and then we'd let them kick and fake a homerun with missed throws, etc. That's what I would have felt like if another team played badly on purposed so as not to hurt our feelings.]

 

To me, sports are played for health - and to learn all those "life lessons" coaches talk about. One of them is that some teams lose. And as an athlete - I learned the most in the losses. And I learned more in the painful ones. To pad it and rig the games is so obvious to the kids - and they really don't get anything out of it. For every team to be one or two runs from each other is not real and kids know it. Softening a loss (again, beyond the runaway score spread) is IMHO a gross disservice to our kids. In your game's case - it should have been stopped at 10-0, and a new game started. Losing 10-0 lets the winning team win, and the losing team lose with grace.

 

I will add that I think there's a huge difference between developmental leagues and competitive leagues. If this is a developmental league - then I think the rules need to be readdressed. Also - if all of the teams are this lopsided with talent - then the draft system needs serious overhaul.

 

Let me say clearly - I am not for running up scores, or beating up other teams, or making kids feel bad. My girls bball team went 0-3-3 this season. I know how losing feels. I am just saying that to get all of those life lessons one must lose, sometimes big, to get the lessons. A reasonable ump should have stopped the game at 10, depending on league rules.

 

You sound like a wonderful coach who will teach the girls a lot and have fun doing it - and that's the best part of youth sports. I hope the rest of your season goes great!

[Live2Ride]

I feel like its the organization's responsibility to settle teams that have roughly equivalent skills. If some teams are light years ahead of others, that just not a league -- a league is a group of teams that play each other because they are good competition for one another. That's when everyone can play their best without feeling guilty that thier skill level isn't fair to their opponents.

 

It's no good to slaughter or to be slaughtered, but neither is it good to be put in a position that one has to 'play down' or have 'mercy rules' in order to be sportsman like.

 

In all my experiences (Canada, suburban) teams are arranged so that each team gets a fair share of last year's top players, as well as medium skilled players and new players. There would be no such thing as a 'new' team, and no team would be kept together year after year. Except by totally bad luck, or absolutely exceptional coaching, no team would ever be able to consistantly slaughter the others -- and everyone would be doing their best to win.

 

Unfortunately there aren't enough teams to group them like that. We all play each other. There is no forcing of 'playing down' but mercy rules are used by umps and coaches (cutting innings shorter by having less runs per inning-things like that). While I realize someone has to be #1, I find it hard to see how someone finds joy in playing a game like the one last night...

[Jan in SC]

Our baseball league has mercy rules in place, but only after three innings. If this is a recreational league, then more mercy rules need to be in place. If this is a tournament league, then sometimes it is harder to control the score than in soccer. Also, in our baseball league, the more runs you score, the higher your rank.

 

If it is a recreational league, then I would wonder why the discrepancy in player ability. Do they draft? Yes, sportsmanship is a huge issue, and that team might not have displayed it, but if you have all the newer, weaker players, you could see that score from a team trying to be nice, too. You never know when a team will start hitting well and I wouldn't want a weak hitter on a good team to be told to not try- at any point.

[linders]

I voted other, because either way it is unfair to someone. For the "good" team - do you ask players to purposely miss shots, drop balls, walk instead of run? Yet there is no joy for them or the other team in a slaughter.

 

DS12 was on a winning soccer team. Their coach insisted that every kid, star or not, play the same amount of time, and allowed all the kids to play all the positions. Despite this, there were a couple of games where they readily racked up 7 goals before the other team had scored. He called a time out and asked the team to "ease up," but honestly, I'm not sure what less they could have done. The 2 really good kids weren't even there that night!

 

Umps/coaches should stick with 10-run rules and such, I think.

[Dad 4 Boys]

I think it all depends on how the runs were scored. If it was all clean hitting without any stealing or overly aggressive baserunning, there's not really much to be done about it. In baseball/softball, I don't think you should ever coach your players to not try to do their best at the plate. It can be too counterproductive.

 

On the basepaths, you can turn down the aggressiveness to keep from piling on the runs. We call it "lifting the throttle" or "station-to-station". We'll let the runners take as many bases as it looks like the batter is going to get on a hit. We won't steal, advance on errors or score on passed balls and wild pitches.

 

I think in the scenario you described, the other coach would have been quite wise to try out some pitchers who needed more experience. It's the perfect opportunity for that. That makes it a better situation for both teams. They get practice for pitchers who need it and your team gets to hit off more appropriate pitching. Unfortunately, some coaches like to pour it on.

[Live2Ride]

FWIW, I am also a youth sports coach, and was a competitive athlete through college.

 

I agree with you in some of what you're angry about. I think it's poor sportsmanship to destroy another team for sport. But the reality is that some teams a just way better than others. I think the coach of the team you faced should have used the game as a training tool for his team - try new positions, switch things up, play kids who don't play as much. But, I think it's unfair to ask better players to play down and give up plays and runs on purpose because the other team is weak. As a player (on the losing side), I would have been insulted. [We had a "DC" rule as kids in the neighborhood. "DC" meant "doesn't count". We'd yell it when a little kid got up to kick - and then we'd let them kick and fake a homerun with missed throws, etc. That's what I would have felt like if another team played badly on purposed so as not to hurt our feelings.]

 

To me, sports are played for health - and to learn all those "life lessons" coaches talk about. One of them is that some teams lose. And as an athlete - I learned the most in the losses. And I learned more in the painful ones. To pad it and rig the games is so obvious to the kids - and they really don't get anything out of it. For every team to be one or two runs from each other is not real and kids know it. Softening a loss (again, beyond the runaway score spread) is IMHO a gross disservice to our kids. In your game's case - it should have been stopped at 10-0, and a new game started. Losing 10-0 lets the winning team win, and the losing team lose with grace.

 

I will add that I think there's a huge difference between developmental leagues and competitive leagues. If this is a developmental league - then I think the rules need to be readdressed. Also - if all of the teams are this lopsided with talent - then the draft system needs serious overhaul.

 

Let me say clearly - I am not for running up scores, or beating up other teams, or making kids feel bad. My girls bball team went 0-3-3 this season. I know how losing feels. I am just saying that to get all of those life lessons one must lose, sometimes big, to get the lessons. A reasonable ump should have stopped the game at 10, depending on league rules.

 

You sound like a wonderful coach who will teach the girls a lot and have fun doing it - and that's the best part of youth sports. I hope the rest of your season goes great!

 

lol...I'm not coaching this team :). Don't know as much about softball as I do soccer. I will by the end of the season though.

 

I agree that padding and outright softenings that are obvious aren't a good idea. My boys did not say a word when I coached and instead we treated it as a realtime practice game. They still played hard and understood why, but it was more a fun game than a serious one.

 

They always learn from each game. I love that and I love that each of these girls are bravely taking on a sport that most know little about and working hard at it....

 

Like I said, as a prior coach, I just never found it pleasant to win like that....

[bolt.]

 

 

Unfortunately there aren't enough teams to group them like that. We all play each other. There is no forcing of 'playing down' but mercy rules are used by umps and coaches (cutting innings shorter by having less runs per inning-things like that). While I realize someone has to be #1, I find it hard to see how someone finds joy in playing a game like the one last night...

 

I don't understand this. If there are enough players for teams, there are enough players for the teams to be made roughly equivalent. Something is stopping that from happening, and that's where the problem is coming from.

 

If there are 35 kids and 4 teams, it doesn't matter. the top 4 kids should be one on each team, then each team gets a 2nd best kid (in reverse order), then each team gets a gaggle of mid level players, then each team gets a few kids that did poorly last year, and each team gets an even share of new registrants. All it takes is a general awareness of how well kids did last year to have a good chance of achieving rough equivalence.

 

Thats how people make a recreational league work. There's no question of 'not enough teams' -- it's a question of how the teams are formed. They can be formed as a league, or they can be formed as the basis for a variety of unfair and frustrating games between mismatched teams... Which sounds like what you have. Having a play schedule doesn't make that situation into an actual league.

[magnificent_baby]

I think it all depends on how the runs were scored. If it was all clean hitting without any stealing or overly aggressive baserunning, there's not really much to be done about it. In baseball/softball, I don't think you should ever coach your players to not try to do their best at the plate. It can be too counterproductive.

 

On the basepaths, you can turn down the aggressiveness to keep from piling on the runs. We call it "lifting the throttle" or "station-to-station". We'll let the runners take as many bases as it looks like the batter is going to get on a hit. We won't steal, advance on errors or score on passed balls and wild pitches.

 

I think in the scenario you described, the other coach would have been quite wise to try out some pitchers who needed more experience. It's the perfect opportunity for that. That makes it a better situation for both teams. They get practice for pitchers who need it and your team gets to hit off more appropriate pitching. Unfortunately, some coaches like to pour it on.

 

 

This is usually what I see happen in my area, at all levels. Also, the 10 run rule (in softball anyway) really makes it not an issue.

 

Also, I have never heard of drafting or spreading out the top players amongst teams. I'm glad we don't do that here. It's either rec league with random players from a list, forming a team amongst friends/schoolmates or tryouts for competitive teams. I don't like the idea of spreading the talent to make things fair. Life doesn't work that way. Highschool is a bit different, where players often open enroll to schools with strong teams and good coaching, but I don't see a problem with that either as it's optional, and not forced to make it a more even playing field.

[Live2Ride]

I think it all depends on how the runs were scored. If it was all clean hitting without any stealing or overly aggressive baserunning, there's not really much to be done about it. In baseball/softball, I don't think you should ever coach your players to not try to do their best at the plate. It can be too counterproductive.

 

On the basepaths, you can turn down the aggressiveness to keep from piling on the runs. We call it "lifting the throttle" or "station-to-station". We'll let the runners take as many bases as it looks like the batter is going to get on a hit. We won't steal, advance on errors or score on passed balls and wild pitches.

 

I think in the scenario you described, the other coach would have been quite wise to try out some pitchers who needed more experience. It's the perfect opportunity for that. That makes it a better situation for both teams. They get practice for pitchers who need it and your team gets to hit off more appropriate pitching. Unfortunately, some coaches like to pour it on.

 

 

I certainly am not advocating telling players to not do their best, but a coach should know their players well enough that switching them around would allow for different practice time in a situation like that :) My kids thought it fun to play someone elses spot, lol.

 

These girls were playing hard and stealing, advancing and such. They were even purposely bumping forward into balls that would fly near them but not near enough to actually make contact so they could get a walk. It happened four times and I was surprised by it. One ump did actually start calling off girls on the third base for leaving too soon...they lost 5 girls to that...

 

Its always interesting to see other coaches work and other teams play. If I coach again, I'll still continue as i did before. My boys team was amazing the last two years, but I felt like they learned much more than just how to play and that's what I wanted. I love seeing them now as they are moving up through the last of middle school into highschool and still playing. I see some of them in town from time to time and they are always telling me about how their team is going now and talking about old games they played with me :) that's the best, lol!

[Live2Ride]

I don't understand this. If there are enough players for teams, there are enough players for the teams to be made roughly equivalent. Something is stopping that from happening, and that's where the problem is coming from.

 

If there are 35 kids and 4 teams, it doesn't matter. the top 4 kids should be one on each team, then each team gets a 2nd best kid (in reverse order), then each team gets a gaggle of mid level players, then each team gets a few kids that did poorly last year, and each team gets an even share of new registrants. All it takes is a general awareness of how well kids did last year to have a good chance of achieving rough equivalence.

 

Thats how people make a recreational league work. There's no question of 'not enough teams' -- it's a question of how the teams are formed. They can be formed as a league, or they can be formed as the basis for a variety of unfair and frustrating games between mismatched teams... Which sounds like what you have. Having a play schedule doesn't make that situation into an actual league.

 

This is recreational in the sense that they are a homeschool group league playing other homeschool groups and Christian schools. The groups are each formed individually and come together to play. Its not as competitive like highschools playing each other, but scores are still kept and I believe there will be a last playoff between the two better teams.

 

And thanks everyone for your insight! It's been very helpful to me in sorting out how I feel about the whole thing :) and helping me to see how it's done in other places

[magnificent_baby]

I don't understand this. If there are enough players for teams, there are enough players for the teams to be made roughly equivalent. Something is stopping that from happening, and that's where the problem is coming from.

 

If there are 35 kids and 4 teams, it doesn't matter. the top 4 kids should be one on each team, then each team gets a 2nd best kid (in reverse order), then each team gets a gaggle of mid level players, then each team gets a few kids that did poorly last year, and each team gets an even share of new registrants. All it takes is a general awareness of how well kids did last year to have a good chance of achieving rough equivalence.

 

Thats how people make a recreational league work. There's no question of 'not enough teams' -- it's a question of how the teams are formed. They can be formed as a league, or they can be formed as the basis for a variety of unfair and frustrating games between mismatched teams... Which sounds like what you have. Having a play schedule doesn't make that situation into an actual league.

 

This would never work where I live. It's not a question of making things fair and equal, in rec leagues, it's begging to get parents to coach. Trying to sort out by playing ability would make the rec director's head spin and I imagine he would quit his job. Here the same kids play together for years, unless they choose to leave the team, or it's a random list of kids that need a team/coach. It seems to work fine. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose and in most cases with hard work, teams can become really good.

[Live2Ride]

 

This would never work where I live. It's not a question of making things fair and equal, in rec leagues, it's begging to get parents to coach. Trying to sort out by playing ability would make the rec director's head spin and I imagine he would quit his job. Here the same kids play together for years, unless they choose to leave the team, or it's a random list of kids that need a team/coach. It seems to work fine. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose and in most cases with hard work, teams can become really good.

 

Exactly. I coached by myself for three years! 16 boys at a time!

[Dory]

I feel that it depends on the ages of the players. If we are talking young elementary age kids, than I feel that sportsmanship, team playing, and learning to help each other out is more important. For older kids though, the competition and push to win often helps them play better. That's what I've deduced from watching my brother coach basketball. His approach changes completely depending on if he is with high schoolers, college players, or elementary kids.

[Pawz4me]

My DS had a baseball coach a couple of years ago who totally did not believe in running up the score. I admired him for that. If our team got comfortably ahead, he'd stop aggressive base running, put in his not-so-good pitchers to give them practice and bring in the outfielders (usually the younger kids) and give them an opportunity to get some experience playing the infield positions. That was a team in the 11-12 yo age range. Most coaches we've encountered in that age range have no issue with running up the score, and certainly the coaches of older kids' teams don't. There is a 10-run mercy rule, but in the league my son is now in it only applies after the completion of the fifth inning, which gives plenty of opportunity for blowouts.

[Mommy22alyns]

Even in MLB, there's an unwritten code of ethics where if you're slaughtering a team, you don't push for a stolen base, you don't swing 3-0, you don't bunt for a base hit. In fact, in the WBC, there was just a brawl between Canada and Mexico because Canada was up 9-3 and someone bunted for a base hit. The Mexican 3rd baseman blatantly called for the pitcher to hit the next batter. Chaos ensued.

[caroljenn]

I voted other, because either way it is unfair to someone. For the "good" team - do you ask players to purposely miss shots, drop balls, walk instead of run? Yet there is no joy for them or the other team in a slaughter.

 

DS12 was on a winning soccer team. Their coach insisted that every kid, star or not, play the same amount of time, and allowed all the kids to play all the positions. Despite this, there were a couple of games where they readily racked up 7 goals before the other team had scored. He called a time out and asked the team to "ease up," but honestly, I'm not sure what less they could have done. The 2 really good kids weren't even there that night!

 

Umps/coaches should stick with 10-run rules and such, I think.

 

My dh has coached youth basketball for years, and then coached girls basketball at the high school level. He absolutely would not slaughter a team. He hated it when it happened to his kids, and he hates it as a coach. It is rude and certainly not the way to teach your kids empathy.

 

The way dh went about it was to put in the second or benchwarming team when they were getting too far ahead. He would leave in players who were inexperienced or just not that good. It would give those players a chance to play and make sure he wasn't crushing the other team.

[bzymom]

26-0 in children's sports is shameful. We've played a million sports and I've coached quite often, and I would never allow that. Any time a team is up by 10 points in a single point sport, mercy should kick in. I get that the games are competition, but we want to keep kids IN sports, not humiliate them.

 

We had a game last season (I was not coaching) where we were playing without subs and one of our girls was injured. Our coach approached the other coach about finishing the game with both teams playing one player down, and the response was "no thanks, we'll play full." I think our coach was shocked at the lack of sportsmanship, as were our girls.

 

There is no honor in that kind of score. As a coach, I would not play them again. I'd take the forfeit if I had to rather than encourage that kind of coaching.

[FaithManor]

Hmm...in my area, the coaches would use a mismatched game like this as an opportunity for less experienced players on the team to be in the game for a long period of time. It wouldn't go as far as you described because as soon as the lead was substantial enough it was obvious the other team could not make it up, a lot of kids who do not get much playing time would have been subbed in and gaining some much needed game time.

 

We do have Mercy rules here and so some coaches begin subbing players in one or two runs shy of the mercy rule so their newbies play the rest of the game and it doesn't prematurely end.

 

Faith

[zoobie]

26-0 in children's sports is shameful. We've played a million sports and I've coached quite often, and I would never allow that. Any time a team is up by 10 points in a single point sport, mercy should kick in. I get that the games are competition, but we want to keep kids IN sports, not humiliate them.

 

We had a game last season (I was not coaching) where we were playing without subs and one of our girls was injured. Our coach approached the other coach about finishing the game with both teams playing one player down, and the response was "no thanks, we'll play full." I think our coach was shocked at the lack of sportsmanship, as were our girls.

 

There is no honor in that kind of score. As a coach, I would not play them again. I'd take the forfeit if I had to rather than encourage that kind of coaching.

 

 

I've seen scores like that in t-ball and early baseball. My son's 7 and has played 6 or 7 seasons. There have been quite a few 25 or more to 0-1-2ish games in a "balanced" league. Our old league played 5 innings, 5 runs or 3 outs per inning for t-ball. At age 7, there were 6 innings. The last inning is a free inning with no run limits. All the kids bat, there's not supposed to be any changes to the lineup order, and the kids rotate positions with no more than 3 innings played in the infield. You don't advance more than 1 base unless it's a home run (never saw one of those). Even in the next league up, the runner is not supposed to advance once a player has the ball under control. No stealing bases or lead-offs. In that league, kids get 5 pitches/3 strikes (machine or coach pitch) at the plate. Many times it was 3 up, 3 down, and no one on the losing team got to first base through no "fault" of the winning team! Sometimes one team has a horrible day and the other team doesn't. It's entirely possible with mercy rules in place and appropriate coaching to have blow out games. It's a lesson in good sportsmanship on both sides to handle a game like that gracefully. :)

 

The only time we have been disgusted by the other team's behavior was when the home team was winning (by a large margin, though the margin was irrelevant) and their coach insisted they bat at the bottom of the last inning.

[AK_Mom4]

I voted "No" for sportsmanship reasons, but I have to admit there have been times coaching girls softball where we got caught in a situation where the mercy rule didn't apply (too early in the game) and we COULD.NOT.GET.OUT. I even sent a batter out with instructions to swing at literally anything and she got hit by a pitch and walked. I put in all my subs early. Everything I could think of that was legal, I tried. The game ended up 45-0 after 3 innings when the mercy rule finally kicked in. Sometimes you just get stuck.

 

But for sure we did not allow our team to mock the other team. It was all Good Game, Nice Effort, and cheering for the other team when they made a play. Our team still was cheering when we made our own runs, though, so I am sure that the other parents felt bad.

 

The best oyu can do sometimes is demonstrate good sportsmanship.

[Alessandra]

I can't speak for baseball/softball, but in our rec leagues, there are specific written rules. For example, in soccer, if a team is a certain number of points ahead, they play with one less player in the next quarter. And I have seen coaches switch strong and weak players to even things out in both soccer & basketball.

 

On another level, we used to play Little League Challenger baseball. The final score was always tied. Everyone batted until they hit the ball. An inning ended when everyone had batted -- no one counted 'outs' or even called them. Each game lasted two innings. I loved the atmosphere!

 

I think your approach to soccer was just right.

[Live2Ride]

This Mom will not return there to play. It was a very long drive to only have the girls humiliated (the second game was almost near 20-0). Thats essentially what they did. I'm all for a bit of healthy competition and learning but those two games went well beyond that...

 

And we even had opposing parents sitting with us cheering on their team :glare: ...and their bleachers had plenty of room for seating (many of their people brought chairs to sit). I wouldn't dream of doing that to another team...it was odd.

[Harriet Vane]

No. That is a situation that is a great opportunity for the second or third string players to get some much-needed and much-wanted experience.

[bettyandbob]

At the recreational level it is not OK to play this way. It's "recreational". If you want something more competitive you get your kid in a club level program.

 

And the parents cheering when the score in that imbalanced. EWWW.

[acablue]

These girls were playing hard and stealing, advancing and such. They were even purposely bumping forward into balls that would fly near them but not near enough to actually make contact so they could get a walk. It happened four times and I was surprised by it. One ump did actually start calling off girls on the third base for leaving too soon...they lost 5 girls to that...

 

This says a lot more to me than the actual score. Baseball is harder to keep close than soccer, but there's really no excuse for how the opposing coach handled his team. If I was coaching your daughter's team, I'd speak to the league coordinator to find out how to keep the same thing from happening again. Maybe they can forfeit the next game against this team and play a mixed-squad game instead?

[Donna]

My ds's first year playing football for a rec league, teams were arranged by town. Some bigger towns/cities in the area had a huge number of kids to draw from (50-60 kids)...sometimes so many there were try-outs to thin the numbers whereas our little township had 12 kids come out for their team that year. They won a few games later in the season but their first few games were against a couple of these "big" teams (with very big boys....some looked bigger than dh and nowhere near the size of ds and his teammates).

 

Anyway, those teams slaughtered our team 50-something (or more) to nothing. What made me a bit upset was that the teams kept their largest, best players in the whole game when they had lots of other (smaller and probably less experienced) players who they never put it. It seemed to me, if I were coaching and my team was winning by a huge margin, I would put in my less experienced kids to play and gain some experience rather than completely blow out a team with so few kids who were obviously less experienced. It just seemed unnecessary.

 

As parents we were joking that we wondered when our kid would be taken out of the game to rest while the other team's parents wondered when their kid might be put in.

[weaver_67579]

At the recreational level it is not OK to play this way. It's "recreational". If you want something more competitive you get your kid in a club level program.

 

And the parents cheering when the score in that imbalanced. EWWW.

 

 

As a pp stated-sometimes the mercy rules don't apply till a certain inning so there is not much you can do to get out of an inning other than not bat at all when up at the plate or tell the fielders to not field the ball. That is also not cool to have them obviously throw the game. I'm all for playing the bench warmers and moving around the fielders though. However, last year our team had barely enough players and we often had to play up younger girls so there would not be many players we could swap out. Our team won the recreational league championship.

 

I find it odd to think it isn't ok to cheer for your own kid if the team happens to be winning by a lot. If DD got a homerun, for example, I don't care what the score is-I'm going to cheer her on as she runs the bases. Btw-I also cheer for good plays/hits by opposing teams. DD's coaches also comment on good plays to players of the opposing teams. I have no problem with opposing team parents cheering on their own kids/team when we are on the losing side.

[Spy Car]

As far as I'm concerned it is good sportsmanship to sub in the bench when you are way ahead and not to push for extra bases.

 

But personally I find the mercy rule more humiliating than being beaten badly. So would be having a team going obviously easy. Bad losses sometimes happen.

 

Sunday my son's team will have its first lacrosse match. It will be first match of a first year club up against a very well established team. We could get drubbed. It will be like this all season. Established programs against neophytes.

 

I would rather take a good beating than have the game called for "mercy." Or having the other squad start playing left-handed. Much better would be if we turn into the "Bad News Bears," but I'm not holding my breath :D

 

Bill

 

 

[2squared]

I find it odd to think it isn't ok to cheer for your own kid if the team happens to be winning by a lot. If DD got a homerun, for example, I don't care what the score is-I'm going to cheer her on as she runs the bases. Btw-I also cheer for good plays/hits by opposing teams. DD's coaches also comment on good plays to players of the opposing teams. I have no problem with opposing team parents cheering on their own kids/team when we are on the losing side.

 

 

I'm this way too. Our youth wrestling team won a match 87-0 or some such score, and I cheered my little guy despite the other team not having any points on the board. I felt really badly for the other team, but my guy wrestled his heart out just like he would in any other match.

 

I cheer and admire good moves/plays by all kids on either team, but I am going to always cheer for my kid no matter the score.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I LOATHE when any team runs up a score. That said (and I realize OP was not advocating this) I can't, in good conscience, tell a kid not to play their best when they take the field. Changing players around and giving more inexperienced players a chance to get in the game are the best ways to handle it, but if that happens and it's still a "slaughter"---well, that's part of sports.

[bettyandbob]

I took the cheering to mean that groups of parents were loudly cheering each play. Not OK in a recreation level game when one team is being slaughtered. Yes, cheer your own kid, but otherwise it is possible to be subdued.

[Donna]

 

I'm this way too. Our youth wrestling team won a match 87-0 or some such score, and I cheered my little guy despite the other team not having any points on the board. I felt really badly for the other team, but my guy wrestled his heart out just like he would in any other match.

 

I cheer and admire good moves/plays by all kids on either team, but I am going to always cheer for my kid no matter the score.

 

I think wrestling matches are a bit different. Each child competes against another child in a match. I don't think a coach can help the team score because it is an individual sport. I wouldn't expect my kid or any kid on either team to throw their individual match to make the team score different. Nor would I expect their parents/fans to not cheer for them. Though I do know our high school coach and others will occasionally put in less experienced wrestlers to give them a chance to compete if the score is very one-sided.

 

It is a bit different when you have a team full of kids with a bunch of kids sitting on the sidelines just hoping to play but then they aren't given a chance even though the team is winning by so many points the other team couldn't possibly catch up.... especially if it is a rec team because the purpose of rec sports, to me, is to teach kids how to play the game. I feel a little differently when it is high school sports though I have seen quite a few blow-outs there as well.

[LaxMom]

We have mercy rules in place in lacrosse - the team down by so many points gets possession of the ball, rather than going to face-off - and our coaches will discreetly tell the team they need to increase the number of passes before scoring (there's a 2 pass standard rule, but our coaches will tell the kids they need to make three), so the other team has the opportunity to get possession.

 

Sometimes, the kids feel really good about trouncing a team that they've played before, who just slaughtered them. But they're feeling good about their personal and team development, and not being outclassed, if that makes sense. It's about coming in as the new club underdog and being able to take a really good team.

 

Our coaches (and parents, and most importantly, players) are very concerned with winning graciously. Our kids know what it is to be the losers, and they are very willing to give other teams the opportunity to play a competitive game.

 

Plus, it's just not very much fun on the field when there's no sport in it. Kwim?

[Live2Ride]

I appreciate all the feedback thus far :) It's nice to know that there are in fact other coaches/parents out there that seem to think the way that was handled was inappropriate. This is their first year as a team and I know that through practice and hard work they will become better. I also know that with the current coaches we have, they will not be a team that annihilates another just because they can (especially if they are new and young). If they were, I would have to remove my daughter from the team. I am that adamant about good sportsmanship and appropriate standards of play involving youth rec teams. Competition teams are a whole other ballgame and I expect a different standard of play, but how a team conducts itself is always important to me.

 

Anyways. Thanks to all of you for weighing in on this. The drive home from that game gave me ample time to think over the whole play of the game and I went to bed a bit agitated by it. When I got up I thought: I'm going to ask the WTMer's what they think about the whole thing :D

[Desert Rat]

We don't allow our team to "crush" another team.

 

We play soccer. If our team is up by x amount of goals (I think it's five) a player comes off the field until they score. If we're up by 10, another player comes off. It's written into our rec league's rules.

 

Dh said when he played, they were state champs 3 years in a row while he played, they would have a 3 touch rule. You had to touch the ball 3 times before you passed. Or they would have to pass with their non-dominant foot.

 

I don't think it's good sportsmanship to slaughter another team. I think it can be a learning experience for a good team- practice some skills, show some kindness.

[momofkhm]

I've been a parent and I've been a coach. Like you said, when the margin gets more than a few, you put mercy rules in place. I've never gotten to that place when I was a coach, but my kid's coaches have. And coaches for the other team have as well.

 

You put kids in positions that they are not strong. I've seen a coach in indoor soccer make his girls pass the ball 5 times before they were allowed a shot on goal. Then 7 passes and so on. I've seen coaches take kids out when the other team has to play with fewer kids on the field. I think coaches who do these things are much more respected than those who run up the score.

[Live2Ride]

I've been a parent and I've been a coach. Like you said, when the margin gets more than a few, you put mercy rules in place. I've never gotten to that place when I was a coach, but my kid's coaches have. And coaches for the other team have as well.

 

You put kids in positions that they are not strong. I've seen a coach in indoor soccer make his girls pass the ball 5 times before they were allowed a shot on goal. Then 7 passes and so on. I've seen coaches take kids out when the other team has to play with fewer kids on the field. I think coaches who do these things are much more respected than those who run up the score.

 

 

 

I also used the multiple touch rule, as well as shooting from further back and swapping kids around. Having the same core group of kids helped, as they taught the new ones coming in how we played and how we dealt with things like that. I'm glad I had a good team, but I refused to have poor sportsmanship. We played some really ugly teams, but I always told the boys to get more aggressive on the ball and not on the opposing team players. I actually refused to return with my team to a local venue because the team was overly aggressive (handsy and mouthy) and when I approached the head of the club he was very patronizing. Lets just say that he got an earful from me.

[momofkhm]

We played some really ugly teams, but I always told the boys to get more aggressive on the ball and not on the opposing team players. I actually refused to return with my team to a local venue because the team was overly aggressive (handsy and mouthy)

 

This is why my oldest isn't playing anymore. The refs didn't see it and so no one got in trouble over it. They were playing each team twice a season. She got tired of it. When I let the coach know why, he completely understood. He was feeling the same way in the adult league he played in. He was an awesome coach!