New Canaan football coach Lou Marinelli
The CIAC football committee held its most recent meeting in January, where the major topic of discussion was a review of the just-completed season.
Toward the end, the Score Management Policy, better known as the 50-point rule, which mandates that coaches of teams that defeat an opponent by 50 or more points be suspended for the following game, was brought up. During a discussion that lasted somewhere between 20 to 30 minutes, options such as the use of a running clock, which is the policy in a number of states, and abolishing it during the playoffs were discussed.
According to two sources in the room, neither of whom would comment publicly, the rule was on the verge of being completely overturned when New Canaan coach Lou Marinelli, who is one of its staunchest defenders, made a compelling argument that caused the committee to at least table any further discussion until April.
“I know a lot of people are not in favor of it,” Marinelli said of what is perhaps the CIAC’s most controversial directives, one that brought national attention when it was first enacted in 2006. “But it is a reminder that in our business you never want to demoralize kids from another program. There’s no need to score 50 points in a game. That’s seven touchdowns.”
The rule was tested in its first season, when Bridgeport Central defeated Bassick, 56-0. Hilltoppers coach Dave Cadelina appealed and his suspension was overturned. Since that time, including two games this past season, every petition has been overturned. The rule has been enforced once, against East Hartford in 2007, which reportedly did not appeal.
Because New Canaan has been one of the state’s premier programs, with eight state titles and six straight appearances in championship games, and Marinelli one of the most respected coaches, it would almost seem paradoxical that he would be one of the biggest backers of a rule that is almost universally mocked annually.
Marinelli said he always looks back to the 2000 season, when his team was defeated in the Class M final by Bloomfield, 55-6.
“We had a great group of kids and a great team, and to see them get beaten like that was a little hard for me to take,” Marinelli said. “It’s one reason I’m a little more sensitive to the rule than others. I’ve been on the other side of it.”
Marinelli admitted he has had his players fumble during games to help control scores. When presented with how it is possible to defeat a team by more than 50 points and not run up a score if reserves were used early enough and only basic running plays were called, or how it is possible to run up a score by much less than 50 points by throwing long passes at the end of contests where the outcomes have long been decided, Marinelli acknowledged the difference but said he still thought the policy was a needed safeguard.
“It reminds all of us, all coaches, that you may have a superior team but there is no need to win a game by 72-0 or something like that,” Marinelli said. “You can put your second-teamers in way before it gets close to 50. It is a way to control things before they get out of hand.”
The committee is scheduled to hold its next meeting in April and Marinelli said it is possible the subject could be revisited.
“We will see what happens,” he said. “I might be in the minority but I think it’s a good rule and it has worked to keep scores down.”
(Become a fan of the Overtime blog Facebook page by clicking on the Facebook symbol at the bottom of this post. Follow me on Twitter by clicking on the Twitter symbol at the bottom of this post.)
WHY NOT BASEBALL… when bassick or harding is losing 20-0 in the 3rd, i don’t hear any cries for mercy… just a call to get pizza to help the “kids get over their one-sided” loss.
i believe the new londo coach used to run up the score to make this rule come into play……
run east-west, not north -south…. but look at what Bradshaw did in super bowl.. he was ordered to take a knee, but couldn’t control his desire(ingrained?) to score
Jeff, I would love to sit down and talk with you. Who knows maybe we could come up with something better than the CIAC haha! I’ll see Dave tonight and we’ll see if we can work it out.
It’s a pretty simple logic tree. Question 1 is: Is there a problem that dictates adopting an excessive points rule? Like it or not, CT and many other states have already answered “yes”. To end the rule, all we need do is prove said problem in reality does not exist. The problem is, as you and I have discovered, it’s not one problem but two.
Problem one is, as Coach Lou has argued, apparently convincingly, that the larger the blowout, the more demoralized kids become (and, by extension, demoralizing kids is a bad thing). I disagree, you disagree, and 78% of those polled by SPB disagree… which proves: nothing. The solution? Poll any kid ever on the losing side of a blowout if 100-0 would have been worse than 50-0. Then pick a threshold where if that percent of kids say yes then an excessive points rule would be enforced. Case closed.
Problem two for football, which doesn’t apply to baseball and basketball because they play so many games, is style points coupled with the risk of injury. For better or worse, high school football is a mere 48 minutes a week of actual football and six and a half days of posturing and analysis. It’s human nature for coaches (and kids and parents), given our fascination with polls and MaxPreps, to want your stars to build up their stats, and for your defense to keep the score as low as possible. In such cases, kids don’t get demoralized, they get angry and often physically hurt. If we agree this is a problem (which to me it is because it goes beyond the one or two rogue coaches who do so based on malice, not stats) a mercy rule like the one I proposed makes sense. Otherwise, it does not.
And just because I’ve proposed a different solution to what we have now doesn’t mean I think any solution is better than no solution. Rather, I think the 50 point rule and running clock are *worse* than no solution at all. As we agree on that point, I’ll leave it there!
I see what you are getting at Jeff, but I just feel that there is no room for that in High School football. Just let the kids play the game. Most coaches take out their starters if they know the game is over (even if you are on the losing side(just noticed my typos from before)). It is High School Varsity football, you can’t baby a kid and have a mercy rule. I understand that your side is just funtional and believe me I do respect your opinion. However, its not just a funtional debate, you know? Everything has to be taken into account. I don’t see baseball and basketball with mercy rules. I don’t think football needs one.
Crusade, you are missing the point. My suggestion is driven by function not psychology, and therefore has nothing to do with building character for the kids on the losing side. As a matter of fact, I’ll wager it’s the adults who dwell on the psychological effects of blowouts when in reality the kids forget about it two seconds after the game ends. Rather, it’s about giving incentive for the coach of the winning team to put in the kids who deserve playing time for their dedication more so than their talent.
There are two main reasons why a winning coach would not sub up 50+: 1) Positive: He wants his kids/team to build up/protect their stats for recruiting/ranking purposes, and 2) Negative: He has a grudge against the other team. A mercy rule where the game doesn’t end solves both those issues. If a wining coach doesn’t think his removed starters got a good enough workout in the game, work them a bit harder in practice.
As for resetting the scoreboard to 0-0, that was really symbolic of the game being over, not for dignity reasons. To reiterate, this is a functional not psychological solution to blowouts. If a sports psychologist insists that, after careful study, even when a game is declared over, that the scoreboard should not reset, fine by me.
Jeff Mitchell, please tell me you are kidding. Resetting the scoreboard? Com’on man!!! There shouldn’t be a rule at all. If you lose by 50 or 1, you know what a kid should do? Take it, and build off it. What are you teaching a kid but saying “oh you are loosing by a lot but its ok the scoreboard will be reset so it doesn’t look so bad. In my opinion loosing is good for people, it builds character. I have been on both sides of the beatings and I can honestly say it helped me out a lot. I would much rather lose 72-0 than 56-14, where my 14 points came from a few “turnovers.”
The answer is so ridiculously obvious: establish a mercy rule where the game itself does not end but the score and statistics do.
No team can be accused of running up a score when the score is frozen. No team will fear screwing up their defensive stats by using reserves, as the stats are frozen as well. The reserves who are put in, who log just as much practice time as everyone else, don’t get shortchanged by a running clock.
Lest anyone think this will become “joke time”, reset the scoreboard to 0-0 and I guarantee the kids playing will take it seriously. And there’s no reason kids who do well in “extra time” can’t be mentioned in the paper in that context, providing even more incentive for kids to excel.
Wouldn’t it be great to see CT and the CIAC take the lead on this? I guarantee every other state grappling with the same issues will follow, and be kicking themselves for not thinking of the idea first.