Bringing the “mercy rule” to sports events

Think back to your time in Little League. It was cold outside, your team was up (or down) by 15 runs, and everyone wanted to get home. What happened? The friendly “slaughter rule” came to save the day and ended things right there.

My question is, why isn’t there a slaughter rule in professional sports? But wait, before your brain short-circuits thinking of the 2004 Red Sox and hundreds of other comeback stories, let me qualify this argument.

One thing that I continue to notice is that games that get far out of hand take forever to end. Quarterbacks have to take snaps and kneel on the ground, even if their team is up by two, three, or four scores, when the other team is out of timeouts. Hockey teams that are up by four goals still need to play out those last 90 seconds, even if the other team has given up and isn’t even pulling their goalie.

Now I’m aware that in sports “anything can happen,” and indeed, it is this notion that makes sports so much fun to watch. But at the same time, there are plenty of instances where games are clearly over and the television network continues to take commercial breaks or won’t switch to other, more exciting games.

This is particularly annoying when a network has a contractual obligation to show the entirety of a certain team’s game even though the game is long over. While you might ask why I don’t just turn the game off or flip to another channel, several factors entice me to keep watching. For instance, the game might have fantasy-team implications or I might want to watch my team celebrate on the field—a true bonus for the fan after a long game.

So why is it that networks have to cut to a commercial before the end of a game that has an obvious outcome; and how can we prevent this from happening? I propose adding a “forfeit” button, in pure video-game fashion, to all sports. In a distracted society that increasingly finds less and less time for everything, this idea could save us a lot of time. When a football team is up by 14 points with two minutes left, and the opposing team has no timeouts, the game should just be over—no commercials, no sitting on the ball, no bogus huddles before the next play (which is undoubtedly another “kneel”)—just GAME OVER.

I don’t think that this rule would in any way inhibit a losing team’s ability to stage a comeback. I’m not talking about ending games in the third quarter, but rather about being spared the free throw shots when the team that’s down by 20 is just fouling their opponents for no apparent reason.

Another major consideration is that the fans that are attending the game paid good money to see the whole contest, but let’s consider this argument a bit more closely. If I’m at a game and my team is down by 25 points, I’m probably not there in the final minutes anyway. And if I’m on the winning side, do I really need to watch my bench players come in for the end of the game? Let’s just end it and start celebrating!

I’m sure coaches and players would appreciate ending games early as well. How many times have players been hurt in the final minutes, after a game is obviously over?

Ah, but aren’t the final minutes a really good opportunity for coaches to test new or inexperienced players in the context of a real game? On second thought, I think not. Let the new players get tested in the minor leagues—not on my time. And how is coming in at the end of a 30-point blowout against the opponent’s third-string players a real test anyhow?

In short, the endings of games that are simply one-sided affairs take too long. Allowing a losing team to just forfeit could provide interesting benefits for everyone involved. Why waste another bullpen arm or risk injury for a meaningless part of the game?

One thing’s for sure­­: implementing a forfeit button would certainly allow many of our athletes to get back to their schoolwork a lot more quickly.

Jacob Shapiro is a List College senior majoring in history and Talmud. sports@columbiaspectator.com