In the never-ending saga of people sending me links to make the veins in my forehead pop out, reader "Stretch" sent me the following heartwarming story*
Win a soccer game by more than five points and you lose, Ottawa league says
Look, I think we can all agree that lopsided scores in children's games aren't any fun. I've been on the receiving end of a butt-whooping, and it's never any fun - at some point you just want the game to end, and you've stopped caring altogether. Some coaches do the right thing and pull all the star players, letting the second- and third- tier players take the field when things are seriously one-sided. That's great.In yet another nod to the protection of fledgling self-esteem, an Ottawa children’s soccer league has introduced a rule that says any team that wins a game by more than five points will lose by default.
The Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league’s newly implemented edict is intended to dissuade a runaway game in favour of sportsmanship. The rule replaces its five-point mercy regulation, whereby any points scored beyond a five-point differential would not be registered.
But saying the team must forfeit after "X" goals ahead? That's idiotic. That's going to result in Team A being ahead of Team B by five points EXACTLY for the entire game. Every player on that field is going to know exactly what's going on - Team B scores a goal, Team A immediately scores another one to answer. All it will do is make the game an exercise in tedium for Team A and remind Team B just how outmatched they are. It's not going to do a damn thing for the vaunted "self-esteem" of the players on the field.
One of the dads interviewed hits the nail squarely on the head:
“Everybody wants a close game, nobody wants blowouts, but we don’t want to go by those farcical rules that they come up with,” he said. “Heaven forbid when these kids get into the real world. They won’t be prepared to deal with the competition out there.”Bingo. Even if by some miracle this rule does manage to overcome eons of human evolution and make all the players happy, it's going to bite them in the ass later on in life. At some point, these kids are going to run smack-dab into failure. It may be not getting into the college of their choice; it may be not getting a date with the cute blonde down the street; it may be going up against the boss's son for a promotion. Failure is an inescapable part of life, no matter how much we wish it weren't so.
Sparing our kids from failing at all costs is orders of magnitude worse than a lopsided soccer goal.
That is all.
*Sarcasm. By the truckload here...
13 comments:
Under those rules, a victory is a loss. Therefore, I would encourage my team to go 0-15 on the season and maximize the plus-minus.
Yes, I can be a jerk at times...
Showing mercy to an honorably beaten opponent is an important lesson that is taught by youth sports. It is not taught by mandating outcomes.
I say we go start a team in the league and with some luck, we can go 0-and-everything this season.
Tam,
You are absolutely correct. However, in this politically correct, zero-tolerance world where rational thought is frowned upon and teaching good manners is no longer expected (self-esteem must be preserved at all costs), the law of unintended consequences will bite this rule in the backside. If this were my team (and I used to coach youth soccer), I would have a meeting with the parents and kids, lay it out for them, and see what they said. If today's parents are anything like the parents of my players way back when, they are already keeping score, and a 6 point victory "loss" would be a satisfactory outcome. As a coach, I would never run up a score, even to the point of playing short-handed. But if the opponent sees this, they are still going to have to acknowledge the reality that they are getting their game handed to them.
This rule achieves nothing...
Tam's point is well-taken though - what about teaching the *winning* team how to win graciously?
Sure. we're all concerned that the *losing* team might get all butt-hurt and such, but this rule removes a valuable lesson for the *winning* team. Instead of teaching them how to win with grace and sportsmanship, it teaches them that if they do well, they will be punished.
Come to think of it, it's pretty much what the left wants to do to America anyways...
If you want to be champs, and 'undefeated' just kick the ball into your own goal 6 times, forcing the other team to forfeit. The games are over in 5 minutes and you get a pizza party and a trophy.
Heh. T-bolt wins the internets.
I made the same comment as t-bolt on Bruce's facebook.
The rule creates an interesting game, but it isn't soccer. I think it'd be fun to try it, with the understanding that both teams are trying to win, either by putting the other team ahead by 6, or being ahead when time runs out. There would be a ton of strategy in which goals to attack/defend and when.
T-bolt beat me to it, but then he always has; he got his Garand before I did, and I still don't have an M1A. That sixth "own-Goal" would be hard; I think even the opposing goalie would be there once they figured it out.
Zeke42 is right, this would be an interesting game, a sort of Blackjack, played with soccer goals instead of cards.
I wonder if anyone will actually play a game by "Gloucester Rules"
I think you missed the best part. The Diktator of the league said:
“The registration fee, regardless of the sport, does not give a parent the right to insult or belittle the organization,” he said. “It gives you a uniform, it gives you a team.”
No right to free speech even though you're paying the bills? An attitude like that belongs in the 0bama regime.
Long term, I think it may help.
Consider it an immunizing shot - lots of little ten-year old minds are getting the message "these rule-makers are fools" good and hard.
They pulled the same shit in my football little league 13 or so years ago. Mostly in an attempt to prevent my team from kicking the ass of all the other teams again. The league was headquartered in a large, more populace town about 70 miles away, and apparently they were pissed off a bunch of hicks from a small town were trouncing their little darlings.
It didn't work. And the shit we had to pull to keep from "losing" was more embarrassing to the other team than us winning by 30+ points, like setting up intentional interceptions. It was a bad idea all around.
I should note that our team had 15 guys on it. We didn't have enough people to field a full offense and defense. We didn't have a second string to send in when we were winning.
And we weren't exactly the elites, either. Everyone who wanted on the team, got on. There were no tryouts. You showed up, you played. We just didn't have a large pool of potential players to draw from.
So, our options when we started trouncing the other team were either to quit, or keep playing.
Post a Comment