There are certain teams that often draw my ire, by virtue of habitual losing or maybe just maddening inconsistency. This week, Dartmouth's softball team will not be the target of any criticism on my part. After sweeping the Brown Bears in four games over two days, Dartmouth is now 6-6 in conference play.
On day one, Dartmouth managed to win the nightcap against Brown in a 13-0 five-inning romp. While softball doubleheaders are typically seven innings each, this one lasted only five. Why, you might ask? Because of a little section in the NCAA softball rulebook, Section 16.a.4, otherwise known as the "mercy rule." More on that later, but for now, we focus on the stellar performance of the Big Green. Dartmouth pitcher Angela Megaw '08 had a complete game shutout, which in and of itself is not profoundly notable. After all, her opposition on the night had a complete game, albeit allowing 13 runs.
However, the real impressive aspect of Megaw's performance came the next day. With Dartmouth leading 3-2 in the bottom of the seventh inning against Brown, the Dartmouth hurler entered the game in relief of Stephanie Trudeau '09 with two runners on base and two outs. Megaw ended the game on a groundout, getting her first career save. Sixteen minutes later, Megaw took the hill in game two for Dartmouth, again pitching a complete game for her second win in two days in addition to her save.
With this week's installment of Dartmouth's Underreported Story of the Week out of the way, we return to the troubling Section 16.a.4. One of the reasons that umpires are allowed to end a game after five innings is tucked away on page 78 of the 2007 NCAA Softball Rules. It says that a game can be called, "If a team is ahead by eight or more runs after five innings."
I have no doubt that NCAA softball players are fine athletes and are as capable of handling losing as any other type of athlete. Why, then, is there a mercy rule in college softball?
One of the oft-forgotten and unfortunate lessons children learn from sports is the pain of losing. Losing by large margins is painful, and sometimes embarrassing, but it is something that is done even at the youngest of ages. I never had a mercy rule in Little League, so why is it necessary that collegiate softball players have one? Maybe the logic is to speed up the game (the only reasonable explanation that I can think of), but I am not buying it.
Recently, a high school coach at Woodinville High School in Washington has come under fire for his team's 64-0 victory over Franklin High School. That is not a misprint. They really did score 64 runs while shutting out their opponent, and did so in just five innings. Woodinville coach Jim Weir says he lost count of the score, and I certainly believe him given his team averaged almost 13 runs per inning.
I understand there are very good reasons behind a mercy rule. Unlike many other sports, softball does not lend itself well to easing up when one team takes a big lead. In basketball, teams can both substitute in the weaker players on the roster and slow down the tempo of the game.
A similar strategy is easily implemented in football. Sure, softball coaches can substitute for a worse pitcher or bring in backup position players, but if the opposing pitcher is bad and your team is hitting well, there is really nothing you can do but sit back and take your swings. And in Jim Weir's defense, in Franklin High School's first four games of the season, they lost 30-0, 24-0 and 13-0 (the fourth game of course being the 64-0 debacle).
The NCAA is not known for being the brightest administrative body in the world - I am still waiting for the inevitable and much-needed college football playoff - and I have to wonder what the rationale is for a mercy rule in women's softball. After all, just a day after the softball team beat Brown using the mercy rule, the baseball team lost to Brown by a 20-2 margin. They were losing 14-2 after five innings, but continued on to play the last two frames.
Why is it that the NCAA is not treating female athletes at an equal standard to males? It may not be intentional, but it certainly seems patriarchal to me.
