Thank you for more accurately giving the name the rule I was trying to describe.
After all, I wouldn’t say the NBA agrees with me and has allowed zone defense.
I’d put it as “The NBA pretends to agree with me, and has theoretically allowed zone defense, but with a rule (the defensive 3 second rule) that makes it very difficult to actually run an effective zone defense.”
They’ve really made a mess of clock management in the NFL. Remember the old days when going out of bounds stopped the clock? Now, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.
MLB: Some are advocating getting rid of the infield fly rule. That would be fun.
Seriously? On what possible grounds? Basically every infield pop up with runners on would be at least a double play.
NFL: a coach should be able to challenge anything. All the other rules regarding challenges would remain the same, but there would no longer be “unchallengeable” plays.
And before anyone goes there, fuck that “it’s a judgment call” bullshit. Isn’t it the judgment calls that need to be reviewed the most? Maybe the referee will see a play differently than the field judge who made the call on that alleged block in the back. There’s only one way to find out.
I don’t understand the comparison. If I understand you correctly, you’re talking about when a throw to first base goes wide or high and the baseman has to leave the base to contain the ball, and the umpire calls the runner safe.
How is making an appropriate call “the same” as intentionally failing to make a call that the defense didn’t notice?
I don’t think counting let serves would give a large advantage to the server because they don’t happen all that often, but I don’t see any upside to counting them. A lot of lets are essentially unreturnable, so it’s a free point to the server - except instead of acing the returner, the server gets the point through dumb luck as the ball weakly dribbles over the net and dise in the middle of the serve box. I’m not seeing how this makes the game better.
I never said how much of an advantage the server would get, I’m not sure how common let serves are. I’m fairly sure I’ve seen 3 in the same game though.
Did this rule used to be different? I don’t remember it working differently than it does now (but that doesn’t mean much :D).
You said it would lead to more games going to the server. It would, but I’m saying I don’t think it would make a big difference.
It serves an absolutely crucial purpose: it forces the defense to making a choice between standing up at the blue line to prevent the opposition from skating the puck in, or leaving men deeper in the offensive zone to prevent the dump-and-chase from working. When the goalie is allowed to counter the dump-and-chase it’s too easy to defend in transition in hockey if you have a goalie skilled enough at handling the puck.
Couldn’t disagree more. No-touch icing slows the game down with unnecessary whistles. At least once per game in the NHL an icing is waved off, either because a forechecker got to it first or the forechecker forced the goalie to play it. No-touch icing won’t prevent all injuries of the type that it purports to prevent(dump and chase plays can be just as bad), 99% of injuries off of a race to an icing are due to an illegal foul anyway and serious injuries off an icing play happen maybe once every two seasons.
Well, that really slows things down, doesn’t it? 
And the fact that a free review is dependent on an officials call. If the officials ruled Lee Evans had caught the ball for a TD (hypothetically) then the Patriots get a free review, but the officials rule it is not a catch and Harbaugh would have to use a challenge (assuming not in the final two minutes, which this was, but you know, hypothetically…I’m trying to make a point!).
In the NHL, allowing a team who is trying to kill a power play can ice the puck always struck me as ridiculous.
Doubtful. Letting a pop-up drop and picking it up in time to execute two force outs is a risky and difficult play, especially if the runners know to watch for it, take a short lead while the ball is in the air, and take off as soon as the fielder backs away from the catch.
And that is the rule I would change - why does the offense get to skip bringing the ball up court because they had a timeout left? I’d drop this rule just for the speeding up advantage - I think coaches might call fewer end-of-game timeouts if they weren’t going to get a half-court inbound advantage.
The fielder isn’t going to back away from the catch, though, he’s just going to drop the ball as soon as it hits his glove. No body is going to be fast enough to move up the bases before the throws to third and second are complete.
If you’re talking about a high pop up in the infield, in most cases the bounce is going to be pretty predictable. I don’t think there’s that much risk involved for the fielder. And the runners can’t take much of a lead because they’d be doubled off if he caught the ball, so there’s not much chance they will be able to get anywhere close to the next base in the time it takes the infielder to grab the ball on one bounce.
As far as the infield fly rule goes there is one wrinkle I hadn’t considered until today. Why is a pop-up worthy of a better result than a weak groundout anyways? Both are failures by the batter, and I’m not sure I see why a double-play is an acceptable result for one but not the other.
I do agree that it would probably need to be maintained in case of a potential triple play, but I’m not sure many (any?) players would risk dropping a bases-loaded popup just for the potential of a double- or triple-play. And they would be rather hard to complete anyways, I’d think.
“Intent to whistle” has got to be the rule that introduces the most bias and stupidity into hockey. It’s absolutely amazing what types of goals get waived off because the referee ‘wanted’ to whistle even though he didn’t and the puck was never corralled by the goalie (looking at you, Eric “Forgot-to-Whistle” Furlat). And this season, the idiocy has been extended to allow goals where the puck crossed the line after the whistle…so, what, the zebra accidentally whistled, but planned to do it later on?
All goals should be reviewable in hockey - I don’t care that it might slow down the game, it’s not like there are frequent fire-wagon games anyways and there’s unlikely to be more than one or two per game anyways.
Also - I want a coach to be able to throw a challenge. Refereeing is crappy enough in the NHL and without the ability to challenge a bad call, this league will never improve.
I wish there were some way to revamp the over-the-glass delay of game penalty… I fully understand why it’s needed, but there are also clearly just bad luck passes that I don’t think should lead to a 2 minute penalty. I don’t want to leave it to the referee’s discretion, but I’d love to find a way to make this penalty make more sense.
Frankly, I just want better officiating all-round. There is way too much “at the discretion of the referee” in the rules.
The rule isn’t meant to detail how worthy a particular swing of the bat is, it’s to prevent the baserunners from getting hung out to dry.
Runners on first and second, no outs, high infield pop up. Shortstop can let it go into his glove and trickle out onto the ground. All he has to do is pick it up from the ground, throw to third, back to second, double play. No way can either runner beat the throw when they’re going 90 feet from a dead stop (or actually they’d have to reverse field since when the ball hit the glove they’ll be heading back to the bag).
Runners get sick of getting doubled up that way and proceed farther off base and then our shortstop makes a good catch and gets at least the guy at second, maybe the runner at first for a double or triple play.
That’s already an automatic out, under another rule. If you intentionally drop any pop-up or line drive in any force-out situation, the batter is out and the force is off.
But surely a baserunner is just as hung out to dry on a weak grounder to short, right?
I understand its purpose, and generally think it should be kept (if for no other reason than nostalgia - it’s nice to have some finer point to discuss). It is over 100 years old, after all, and there haven’t been any changes in the game that would out-date it.