Canadian Youth Soccer League: Winning by More Than Five Counts as a Loss

[mikey23545]

Holy shit! ROFL

Canadian Youth Soccer League: Winning by More Than Five Counts as a Loss

A Canadian youth soccer league is taking heat after introducing a new rule that says any team that wins a game by more than five points will actually lose by default.

The rule, intended to foster sportsmanship, replaced the Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league’s former five-point mercy regulation, which said any points scored beyond a five-point differential would not be registered, the National Post reported.

But some players and parents say the new rule will only keep these children from reaching their full potential as players and coddle sore losers.

“They should be saying anything is possible. If we can get five goals really fast, well, so can the other team,” player Kevin Cappon, 17, told the Post. "People grow in adversity… I think you’ll see more leadership skills being used if a losing team tries to recuperate than if they never got into that situation at all.”

Coppon’s father, Bruce Cappon, agreed.

“Heaven forbid when these kids get into the real world. They won’t be prepared to deal with the competition out there,” he told the Post.

The league has 3,000 children ranging from four to 18 years old.

According to the new rules, coaches are encouraged to take measures like making players kick with their weaker foot, moving players out of their usual positions, or taking players off the field entirely if they have a strong team, the Post reported.

Club director Sean Cale told the Post the league is simply trying to make the game fair and that the new rule will eventually be replaced by a pre-season skill assessment to make fair teams, the Post reported.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/04/canadian-youth-soccer-league-win-points-lose-game/


Way to raise a nation of pussies, Canada...

[Saul Good]

If you're losing by five, kick it in your own goal!!! Hooray!!!

[JD10367]

Will they be applying this in the NFL soon? It could turn Detroit into a powerhouse.

[38yrsfan]

Strange outlook for competitive sports, score the most and lose - must be the Tiger Woods version.

Our youth league's policy was to remove a player for every goal over 5 and adding back uo when the score differential went back to 5 or less.

[ModSocks]

Will they be applying this in the NFL soon? It could turn Detroit into a powerhouse.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't pee on the lawn, my friend

[Gadzooks]

A lot of youth hockey leagues stop counting goals on the scoreboard after a 5 goal lead.
i.e. Team A has 463 goals, Team B has 1 goal - the score would be 6-1.
If Team B were to score another goal the score would be 7-2.
I think counting it as a loss is a bit rough since sometimes it can be hard not to score due to the disparity of talent amongst the teams, (some teams third stringers can easily beat others starters).

[Gonzo]

By buddies boy played in a soccer league that doesn't keep score. After their 1st game they were on the way home and he told his boy that his team lost.
His kid disagreed and said that it didn't matter because there was no score. He then told his kid that it did matter and he lost 6-1. He then told him that there were no ties in life and that there's always a score. The kid thought about it and quit the team the next day. He joined a different league that keeps score.
Awesome.
Posted via Mobile Device

[ottawa_chiefs_fan]

I live near Gloucester - they are a bunch of pussies - suburbanites at their finest - I am sure this was proffered and passed my the soccer moms association that didn't wany to see little jimmy embarrassed...well - good news - you just embarrassed yourself, biatches...

[CHENZ A!]

If you're losing by five, kick it in your own goal!!! Hooray!!!

LMAO
Posted via Mobile Device

[Valiant]

LMAO
Posted via Mobile Device

We had a team do that to us last night in softball.. We hit our two homers in the first inning, then the guy slapped it over trying to get an out.. Well we got the four base error instead..

[MOhillbilly]

By buddies boy played in a soccer league that doesn't keep score. After their 1st game they were on the way home and he told his boy that his team lost.
His kid disagreed and said that it didn't matter because there was no score. He then told his kid that it did matter and he lost 6-1. He then told him that there were no ties in life and that there's always a score. The kid thought about it and quit the team the next day. He joined a different league that keeps score.
Awesome.
Posted via Mobile Device

whats 2nd place? early and often.

[007]

Just stop letting coaches cherry pick their teams and games wouldn't be so unbalanced.

[RealSNR]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EXv13WdLiMA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EXv13WdLiMA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Rain Man]

If you're losing by five, kick it in your own goal!!! Hooray!!!

I had that thought, too, and perhaps it would make for a pretty entertaining game. The team that's ahead by five goals has to defend two goals. The other team will bring the ball in and immediately swarm its own goal, and if the ball gets cleared out, they then have to go defend the other goal. It actually could be kind of fun.

Another good rule change instead of the above would be to make the goal wider for every point a team is behind. Tie game? Two standard goals. One team is up 5-1? The winning team's goal is widened to triple it's normal size. Up 10-0? The goal is the entire width of the field. 15-0? The losing team gets a point for kicking it out of bounds in any direction.


An even better rule would go like this: the first 6 people to score a goal get to move over to the next field and play REAL football. That way, the better team would lose talent over the course of the game and it would even out the soccer game. You'd also encourage kids to score as quickly as possible so they could play football instead of soccer.

[RJ]

You know what would be an interesting an experiment? Take two random groups of kids about 7-8 years old and create two leagues, one keeping score and one not. Let the kids play in their leagues up until about 12 years old, then take the best players from each league and have an All-Star type game between them to see which league had produced the better athletes.

Personally, I don't think it would make any difference. The best players would still be the best players. Kids are motivated by more than the score and the best athletes will always rise to the top.

Also, I don't believe either side would end up better adjusted, more or less competitive, more or less ambitious, more or less aggressive or more or less of much of anything. In other words, ultimately it wouldn't much matter either way. Most kids just want to have fun and play with their friends. And most parents end up being disappointed when their kids lose interest in competitive sports after about 12 years old.

I think what would be really good for today's kids would be if they got to play some sports without any adults around. Now that's where a kid could really learn some life lessons.

[BigMeatballDave]

WTF? Probably the dumbest rule I've ever heard of.

[Rain Man]

You know what would be an interesting an experiment? Take two random groups of kids about 7-8 years old and create two leagues, one keeping score and one not. Let the kids play in their leagues up until about 12 years old, then take the best players from each league and have an All-Star type game between them to see which league had produced the better athletes.


I think the biggest obstacle to this is the argument over whether you keep score at the All-Star game.

[RJ]

I think the biggest obstacle to this is the argument over whether you keep score at the All-Star game.


See, I don't think there'd be any argument, cause the no-score keeping parents would want to see their kids beat the score keeping parents kids' asses, just to prove that they were right.

[RJ]

And to prove that we don't need organized sports to teach kids about winning and losing, I give you MO's "Did your dad" thread. Kids don't need to learn life's harsh realities at a little league baseball game. They have parents for that.

[Rain Man]

See, I don't think there'd be any argument, cause the no-score keeping parents would want to see their kids beat the score keeping parents kids' asses, just to prove that they were right.


Good point.

I wonder if the non-score parents would have 18 years of not yelling at the refs bottled up inside them, and they would go all ape-feces on the refs in this all-star game.

[RJ]

Good point.

I wonder if the non-score parents would have 18 years of not yelling at the refs bottled up inside them, and they would go all ape-feces on the refs in this all-star game.


I think the non-score keeping parents would show up with their faces painted and their hair dyed weird colors and they'd yell at the refs and the moms wouldn't even bring juice and cookies.

Now that I think about it, I'd pay for a ticket to that game.

[soopamanluva]

Just call the game if it's that big of a problem

[Valiant]

You know what would be an interesting an experiment? Take two random groups of kids about 7-8 years old and create two leagues, one keeping score and one not. Let the kids play in their leagues up until about 12 years old, then take the best players from each league and have an All-Star type game between them to see which league had produced the better athletes.

Personally, I don't think it would make any difference. The best players would still be the best players. Kids are motivated by more than the score and the best athletes will always rise to the top.

Also, I don't believe either side would end up better adjusted, more or less competitive, more or less ambitious, more or less aggressive or more or less of much of anything. In other words, ultimately it wouldn't much matter either way. Most kids just want to have fun and play with their friends. And most parents end up being disappointed when their kids lose interest in competitive sports after about 12 years old.

I think what would be really good for today's kids would be if they got to play some sports without any adults around. Now that's where a kid could really learn some life lessons.

I don't know, from my experience growing up we had two different leagues.. One where you were assigned a team and one where you auditioned for the team in Jr High level.. By high school almost all of the players were from the auditioned league.. (audition = tryouts)

Now you could break it down to the better players migrating to the auditioned league, but it is more of that.. The players, coached and parents all pushing themselves to get better.. You will never get that from teams that do not strive to get better in no score leagues or no loser leagues..

In addition, I am a big believer in literally having separate leagues for straight up suck teams.. I see kids try their hardest, playing teams fooling around getting wtf stomped.. No one enjoys that all..

And the one team can only sub in its worse players..

[Bugeater]

Just call the game if it's that big of a problem
That's what I'm thinking, there's no point in playing if you're not competing.

[Fairplay]

:deevee: In

[RJ]

I don't know, from my experience growing up we had two different leagues.. One where you were assigned a team and one where you auditioned for the team in Jr High level.. By high school almost all of the players were from the auditioned league.. (audition = tryouts)

Now you could break it down to the better players migrating to the auditioned league, but it is more of that.. The players, coached and parents all pushing themselves to get better.. You will never get that from teams that do not strive to get better in no score leagues or no loser leagues..

In addition, I am a big believer in literally having separate leagues for straight up suck teams.. I see kids try their hardest, playing teams fooling around getting wtf stomped.. No one enjoys that all..

And the one team can only sub in its worse players..


You might have a good idea there. Maybe there should be leagues for the kids who take the games seriously and really want to apply themselves toward improving their skills and then other leagues for the kids who really just want to have some fun or are there because their parents want them to do something besides play video games and watch television.

But I do think we overestimate the importance of team sports and game outcomes for young kids as far as character development. I don't believe a child who plays sports year round will necessarily have any advantage over a kid who likes to read books or play with dolls or do Cub Scout activities.

[healthpellets]

Repost much?

[loochy]

This is the perfect way to raise whiney wusses that won't cut it in the real world.

Isn't one of the major points of sports to gather with a team and OVERCOME a problem (in this case, the other team). Sports also teaches how to win or lose gracefully and prepares the kids how to handle things later in life. This losing for winning stuff is total crap in my opinion.