Resolved: Rules changes in all four major U.S. sports that completely fix their flaws

The Game Room
, , ,
1

Okay, maybe not completely. And the scoring decision changes I wouldn’t actually want made since it would booger up a century of stats. But if I had a time machine!…

Anyways, here goes:

  1. MLB: “Run scored” should be a scorer’s decision.

That is, who the run scored is assigned to. Now, in most instances it’s a no-brainer. A player hits a solo home run? He gets the RBI and the run scored.

But consider this situation: Player A is on first. Player B hits into a fielder’s choice with Player A out at second. Player C hits a bomb. The scorer should assign the run scored to Player A, not that pretender, Player B.

Now for a trickier scenario. Player A is on first, Player B hits into a FC with Player A out at second, same as before. Player C hits a gapper that scores Player B. Next guy up makes the third out.

Now, suppose Player A is a fat load who runs like a Zamboni. The scorer could rightly assign the run to Player B. But if A and B both have speed that would have scored the run, then A gets the run scored.

  1. MLB: Wins should also be assigned to a pitcher by the scorer, AND there should be “team wins.”

We can leave alone the rule that a starter who goes five full innings and leaves with a lead that the team never relinquishes gets the win. Fair enough.

Everything else is up to the scorer, based on which pitcher was most responsible for securing the win. Might be a starter who only went four innings. Might be a reliever who came in with the bases loaded. Or it might be a “team win” if no one pitcher is the key contributor.

  1. NHL: Assists should be a scorer’s decision.

I know that over the course of seasons and careers, the best players get the most assists. But the “whichever two guys last touched the puck before the goal scorer get an assist” approach is ridiculous. Goalies get assists, for Pete’s sake, and I’m not talking about a Ron Hextall-type pass to the blue line for a breakaway.

It should be like in basketball—if a pass creates a successful scoring opportunity, that one guy gets an assist. I could be persuaded to allow two assists, but the second assist would have to be integral to the creation of the scoring opportunity, not just a defenseman who passes the puck in his own end on a routine transfer.

  1. NFL: A fumble that goes out of bounds in the end zone stays with the offense (assuming it wasn’t fourth down), on the one yard line.

I see no reason why this scenario should have the current outcome. If the fumble had occurred in exactly the same way, but the play had started a couple of yards shorter, it would still be the offense’s ball. Why would a fumble that happen to bounce into and out of the end zone have a such a severe outcome?

  1. NBA: If a timeout is called immediately after a basket, the inbounding team has to inbound under the net after the timeout, not at half court.

How does the current rule make any sense? The only benefit a timeout should provide is the opportunity for some super-smart strategery. That’s it. Not half a court of real estate with no time off the clock.

That’s it (for now). Any comments or suggestions of your own?

2

#5 makes sense. I don’t see the need for the scoring changes since they don’t affect the game. They might improve stats a little but I think the meaning of ‘wins’ for pitchers is already eroded and perhaps obsolete in the future.

3

Runs in baseball is another stat that seems almost obsolete. In my youth it seemed that runs scored were a big thing, now RBIs get much more attention.

4

MLB: Multiball mode.

NFL: Lightning round, with actual lightning.

NBA: Catching the golden snitch is worth 150 points and automatically ends the game.

NHL: If the game is still tied after a shootout, overtime is contested under Mortal Kombat rules.

5

Nope, that makes no sense. The endzone is unique territory that is treated differently than the rest of the field. If the team cannot gain control of the ball in the endzone, a touchback is entirely appropriate.
       Personally, I would like to see football scoring get more interesting: 4 points to have control of the ball in the endzone, 2 more points to place the ball on the turf (cf rugby) and then, the ball is placed 15 yards straight back from the touch down placement for the conversion snap (IOW, no conversion for a 4-point TD). Also, something like the Canadian single would be a nice addition.

I do not much care for NBA, but if I did, I would like a rule that would disallow a score if any offensive player touches the rim (or freethrows if a defensive player does).

6

Completely agreed. And, an offensive fumble through the end zone is a fairly rare occurrence, as well; changing that rule would have very little impact on the game.

What the NFL really needs to fix is its kickoff rules…again. They have tinkered with them repeatedly – particularly in recent years, with the recognition that kickoffs have the single highest incidence rate of injury (including concussions) of any type of play in the game. As a result, right now, about 60% of NFL kickoffs are touchbacks: safer, but also (in the eyes of the fans) boring.

If they want to change the rules on kickoffs to something interesting, but less likely to result in many high-speed player collisions, they should adopt something like what the XFL does:

  • Kicker kicks off from his own 35 yard line
  • The other ten members of the kicking team line up at the opponent’s 35 yard line
  • All members of the return team (other than the returner) line up at their own 30 yard line (i.e., five yards away from the kicking team)
  • No one other than the kicker and the returner may move from their set positions until the ball is fielded.

This change would need to come with a change (or replacement) to the onside kick rules: the most common proposal I’ve seen is that, instead of kicking off, the team which just scored, and which wishes to retain possession of the ball (and, would thus, traditionally look to execute an onside kick) would have the ball for a scrimmage play, which is treated as a 4th-and-15, from their own 25 yard line (the USFL has been doing a 4th-and-12 from the kicking team’s own 33). Convert this, and the “kicking” team retains possession; fail to do so, and you turn it over to the other team.

Even if they didn’t adopt the general change to kickoffs, the NFL should adopt the alternate for the onside kick; due to changes* in how they make players on the kicking team line up for kickoffs, it’s become extremely difficult to convert onside kicks in recent years – in 2022, the conversion rate was only 3.5% (while, historically, it was about 12%).

*- Players on the kicking team (other than the kicker) can no longer take a running start up to the kickoff line, and teams have to line up five players on each side of the kicker (cannot load up one side of the line).

7

NFL: A play is whistled dead at the spot of the ball when the fourth lateral is completed.

(I think the “Unlimited laterals - hope for a miracle” play - in college football, the “Stanford Band” play - is an abomination.)

8

As with the “fumble through the endzone,” the multiple-lateral play is something that only happens a few times a year (i.e., at the very end of the game, when the team with the ball is down by a touchdown or less), and changing the rules on it won’t have a substantial impact on the game, other than eliminating a particular play that @3AxisCtrl hates. :wink:

9

It’s no longer inbounded at half-court, it’s inbounded at the 28’ mark in the forecourt. And it’s done this way so the inbounding team has a better chance to score. Because in the NBA, it’s all about scoring.

I assume you mean on a shot attempt? Because that’s already on the books, one of the ways that offensive goaltending can be called. If a defensive player does so, it’s goaltending and a made basket is awarded.

I would change the defensive holding penalty in the NFL to ten yards, and replay the down. Currently it’s five yards but an automatic first down.

10

I assume that it’d be “replay the down” if the yardage penalty didn’t result in a first down for the offense, yes?

11

That’s blernsball.

12

Both of these are great. Add excitement and / or reduce injury.

13

I didn’t say anything about the giant spider, now did I?

14

The only reason this is contentious at all is because of the dichotomy between an end zone fumble out of bounds and a fumble out of bounds on the 1 yard line.

I would contend that the issue (if there is one) is on the other side of the equation. When the offense loses a fumble out of bounds it should go to the defense in all cases. A fumble out of the end zone puts the ball on the 20.

The offense has enough advantages. If the defense forces a fumble and no one recovers reward the defense for it.

15

I really like this one. I’ve always felt the half court rule to be nonsensical. However the league will never do this because this rule is essential for creating drama at the end of games. This glitch is what makes he final 30 seconds of a half take an hour and makes it so that comebacks from 8-10 points possible. This is an entertainment over common sense rule which I can understand even if it feels wrong.

16

That’s actually not bad. In addition to being consistent, it assigns a punishment for making a specific type of fumble that is otherwise pain free.

17

An NFL rule I’ve toyed with has a lot of flaws and probably wouldn’t be implemented if there were no flaws. It was originally prompted by the increase in significant injuries in games and the contribution of a rested player going against a player that has been in every play, but I also think their would be some other advantages.

2 part rule: 1) Substitutions follow MLB template: Once substituted out, a player can’t come back into the game. 2) This applies across both offense and defense (i.e. players are expected to play both ways).

On the plus side, it would emphasize athletes over specialists. Because all the players play every play in the game, stamina is prized and the full tilt rested hit against a tired player is going to be rare. With reduced rosters, the NFL can move more to the NBA star system.

Of course, the giant flaw is what to do about injuries. Not injuries that knock a player out of the game for good, but injuries that keep a player out for a play or two. I haven’t really thought of good mitigations, though:

Give teams the option of playing 10 on 11 rather than substituting (flaw: encourages big hits to knock players out).

Allow teams to have a DS (designated substitute), They can be subbed in for any player and then taken out for that same player throughout the game. Only one DS per team (doesn’t have to be pre-designated, just becomes the DS for the game when first subbed in).

Maybe allow teams to “reset” at the start of the second half )or maybe each quarter)

But what really dooms this idea is that scoring would definitely go down and just about every record in the record book would be safe. Not a likely change.

18

Limited substitution football used to be the way it was played. The NFL went to completely unlimited substitution only in 1950.

College ball had a series of rule changes allowing some subs in some cases, but I don’t recall all of the details. I know they were unlimited substitution from 1941-1952. They had various rules from then until 1964. These rules were like if you were removed in a quarter, you had to remain out for the rest of that quarter or a limitation on the number of subs at one time. In 1964 they went to unlimited substitution again.

Arena football only lets you sub for the quarterback on defense and the kicker when you want to try a field goal and maybe one other, I forget.

19

Keep in mind it’s both end zones that have a severe outcome. If you’re on your own one yard line, and fumble it backwards out of your own end zone, that’s a safety and you lose possession. You always lose possession of the ball if you fumble it out of either end zone. So there is at least a consistency there.

It wouldn’t need to; you could just choose to do either your modified kickoff idea (which I like) or choose to do a traditional onside kick. Much like after a touchdown nowadays, you can choose to kick a PAT from the 15 or line up at the 2 to go for two.

You’d lose the surprise onside kick, but we already lost the surprise 2-pointer. I mean, I suppose you’re technically still allowed to do a fake kick two-point attempt from the 15, but nobody ever does. […] Wait, are you allowed to fake a pat kick and go for two from the 15? I don’t actually know.

20

In NFL, I’d get rid of the fair catch rule. In CFL, the ball must be returned; there is no fair catch rule. Makes the game much more exciting.

Similarly, if a team doesn’t get the ball on a kickoff, and it goes through the end zone, it doesn’t go to the receiving/offensive team on its 25 yard line. No more kick receivers saying, “Oh what the hell, we’ll have good field position anyway at the 25.” No, in that case, the offensive team starts on its Zero yard line. There’s an incentive for the receiving team to actually, y’know, receive.