Are ‘mercy rules’ the answer?

Editor's note: Nancy Justis, a former competitive swimmer, is a partner with Justis Creative Communications.

By Nancy Justis, correspondent

How do you feel about 'mercy rules” that state if a score becomes too lopsided, the contest is shortened?

There either is a running clock or the game is called after a certain point spread.

The issue has come to the forefront again after recent games have gone viral. One such game occurred in San Bernardino, Calif., where the Arroyo Valley High School girls' basketball team played the Bloomington High School team Jan. 5. Valley defeated winless Bloomington, 161-2.

Last spring, the Ohio High School Athletic Association announced football games would be played in the second half with a running clock whenever one team had a lead of 30 or more points. If the margin dropped below 30 points, the clock would run as usual.

No one likes to witness those kinds of drubbings. No one likes to participate in those kinds of one-sided games.

I tend to look at the pros and cons of 'mercy rules” based on the age of the participants. I don't believe any scores should be kept for the youngest athletes, maybe not until the age of 11 or 12. My 7-year-old grandson already is fixated on whether he's winning or not, even in bowling.

I always thought cutting a game short was to lessen the embarrassment of the losing team. The fact the game had to be shortened is embarrassment enough, isn't it? Does anyone want to sit through three more innings of a boring baseball or softball game where the outcome already has been decided?

However, I have come to learn another purpose of 'mercy rules” is to prevent physical injury to the kids on the losing team. Why are they losing so badly? Are they physically immature compared to their opponent? Are they stuck in a league where perhaps their enrollment numbers don't match up with the other schools in the league? Is there too wide a spread in recreation club team ages? Should first-graders play with third-graders?

Sportsmanship should play a huge role in the instances of one-sided competition. I hope we've all been present where a coach 'calls off the dogs” - substitutes reserves for starters, tells a player to hold the ball for the last 20 seconds rather than going for the dunk, pass the ball around more, use up the clock, call off the full-court press, take a knee.

Seems only right, right?

If scores are kept, there's always going to be a winner and a loser. The closer the competition, the more challenged the players are, which is good for the learning process. But the competition should be as fair as possible.

'Mercy rules” should be used when it's important to promote participant safety or at younger ages, if in fact scoring is kept. I do believe more mature athletes can handle the disappointments of loss, even if the losses pile up in the column more than the wins. Sports can simulate life in general and kids need to learn how to handle disappointments in a mature way.

In the Valley-Bloomington game, the coaches tried to implement a running clock in the third quarter, but the high school rules state the running clock can't be used until the fourth quarter. If the coaches and the referees agree upon the use of a running clock in the third quarter, should they have been allowed to do so?

l Let us know what you think by contacting Justis at njustis@cfu.net