Mercy Rules

At the start of the high school football season in 2014, a new rule was put into place on gridirons across Ohio. The “mercy rule” goes into effect when one team is ahead of the other by thirty points or more at the end of the first half. When that happens, officials start to use a running clock, only stopping for specific actions such as an officials’ time-out or stoppage of play after a score. If the losing team manages to close the gap to under thirty, then the normal clock management resumes, still allowing for the possibility of a miraculous comeback.

Having sat through more than my fair share of painful routs in the past, the mercy rule is a welcome change, shortening the drawn-out blood-letting and hopefully reducing the possibility of injury in a game that is beyond redemption. Since the Ohio High School Athletic Association officials determined about one third of the games were impacted by the rule in the first week of the season, it appears as though the mercy rule has its value.

There’s been a similar scenario in Little League for years. Known at times as the slaughter rule, the game is called if a team is ahead by ten runs or more after four innings. The mercy rule has also been in effect in backyards and sandlots for many years, because kids understand perhaps better than adults – when you’re getting beat badly, it’s time to cry “uncle” and live to play another day.

It’s certainly possible to take the mercy rule too far. A recent incident in a peewee football game in Georgia brought a $500 fine and a one week suspension for the coach when an eight-year-old boy scored on a pick-six, an interception he ran back for a touchdown. The penalty was enforced against the Lawrenceville Knights because they totaled more than thirty-two points against their scoreless opponent. How is a third-grader supposed to understand that he should have dropped the ball?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines mercy as “kind or forgiving treatment of someone who could be treated harshly,” or “kindness or help given to people who are in a very bad or desperate situation.” I’ve got to wonder: if the mercy rule can be put in place in the competitive world of sports, then why not consider its use in the broader context of life?

What would it look like if mercy was the guiding force in our families, the workplace, the classroom and the church? If my rule of thumb was to choose mercy rather than make sure the other person gets what he or she deserves, would I react differently the next time someone gets in the express lane at the supermarket with seventeen items?

I’m not suggesting we become marshmallowing parents, the sweet but gooey response that creates dependency and lack of responsibility. Nor should we create a classroom or workplace with no consequences for behavior. Yet it is possible to live in a structured and nurturing way where mercy becomes the natural choice long before the other person needs to cry “uncle.”

Mercy involves giving another the benefit of the doubt, or seeing through their eyes. Mercy also uses the tool from addiction treatment, the acronym HALT. Is the other person hungry, angry, lonely or tired? If so, could I help to alleviate that concern so together we can figure out what’s really going on?

In a football game, the weaker team may be less talented, less prepared, and less practiced, and so, because of both their actions and their inherent weakness, they deserve to lose. But, the mercy rule would whisper, they don’t deserve to be slaughtered, humiliated – in football or in life. Here’s how the Old Testament prophet Micah provided balance to the question. “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

Pope Francis says it this way: “A little bit of mercy makes the world less cold and more just.” I’m glad the mercy rule isn’t just for a frigid Friday night at the stadium, but one we can claim to live in community together.