Oh I have another NFL rule…this new crap where the defense can “draw” the offense offsides…THE OL KNOWS THE SNAP COUNT!!! How can a DL getting antsy and jumping offside entice you to jump? To make it worse, a defender can jump across the neutral zone, providing they don’t touch anyone, no one reacts, and they get back before the snap…so why is it a violation if an OL freaks out and moves? It should either be a violation EVERY time they get into the neutral zone, or ONLY if they get caught in there on the snap, or make contact.
Some potential rule changes in baseball:
Only one intentional walk can be offered per game per team. A batter can refuse an intentional walk. At that point, the count is set to 0-2.
If a batter gets struck with the pitched ball on any body part covered in armor excluding the head, the pitch is a ball. A pitcher who strikes a batter on the head is ejected, no matter the intention.
Pitchers should be charged a percentage of all baserunners they allow to advance should the baserunners score.
Catchers who block the plate while not in possession of the ball will be ejected.
Raise the pitcher’s mound.
A pitch that strikes the bat of the batter behind or above the batter is non-pitch and a dead ball. If you throw the ball toward someone’s head, you shouldn’t be able to benefit from it.
If the catcher catches a foul tip on any strike, the batter is out.
Eliminating pickoff moves isn’t going to do anything to speed up the game. If anything, it’s going to lengthen games, because now it’ll be harder to retire baserunners and therefore scoring will go up. When scoring goes up, innings last longer since more men bat.
And the object of hitting is to hit the ball in fair territory without it being caught. If doing that means a hitter has to foul a few off, so be it. It’s not like he’s intentionally fouling off batting practice fastballs. Sometimes a foul ball is the best you can do without striking out.
As far as the 9th inning goes, it’s simple: if the home team leads after the road team bats in the 9th, the game is over. They don’t bat in the bottom of the 9th because they don’t have to - they’ve already won. There’s no need for them to bat again.
A ground rule double isn’t always “almost a home run.” A ball that lands fair and then hooks into the stands along one of the foul lines is still a GR double, just as a ball that hits a speaker or a roof support in a dome is usually a GR double. It’s a double because that’s a fair balance between letting the batter runner advance and not overly penalizing the fielding team for the ball going out of play.
I think the IRL system would be a better compromise, really: it rewards winning and everyone from 25th on back gets the same number of points, so there’s no benefit to sending the car back out there looking like a Featherlite Modified.
OK, so I’m seeing a few people say that hate interleague play. Can I ask why? Is it just the DH rule, and that because of it, it’s unfair to whatever team is visiting? Or is it just a,
“It’s always been two leagues, they only play each other if both get in the world series! That’s the way it’s always been, and always shall be, dag-nabbit!” mentality?
I’m not a big fan of interleague play mainly because the stakes are so low and I’m not an NL fan. I don’t follow the NL, so the teams aren’t as interesting to me. The rivalries are hype rather than substance, and the weird scheduling means some teams get to feast on a lousy division unilaterally. Last year, for example, the Indians won a bajillion games against the NL west because of the massive suck that was the NL west. It’s fun to watch your team win, sure, but if the Indians had made the wildcard it would have been because they got to play the NL west instead of the NL east. There’s always going to be some inequities in scheduling, but I’d prefer to see a team have to play the teams they are in competition with.
Oh god yes. I seriously doubt this could happen during the game, but I’d like to see a review board watching game footage and handing out suspensions and fines for that crap.
What’s your opinion on the unbalanced schedule? I like it, because I think scheduling should favor your own division, but some complain that it’s not as fair, since the Wild Card usually comes from the strongest division.
New basketball rule: Substitutions on the fly, like in hockey.
Baseball player-managers: Frank Robinson was player-manager of the Cleveland Indians in the '70s. Pete Rose was player-manager of the Cincinatti Reds in the '80s. Two off the top of my head. Certainly not enough to force managers to wear uniforms, but I would bet that most managers, given the choice, would continue to wear uniforms.
Add me to the list of people that hate interleague play and like the DH in the AL but don’t want it in the NL.
I like that it engenders rivalries within the divisions, but I agree that it’s not really fair when it comes to the wildcard. Still, I think the pros outweigh the cons and there isn’t a truly fair way to schedule unless you get rid of divisions entirely.
I would be okay with adding teams and a division to each league to get four, having very unbalanced schedules, and doing away with the wildcard, but I don’t see that happening.
In the NFL, I’d advocate two major changes in the administration of the league, plus remedy a pet peeve of mine. The first is not an idea original to me, but rather one I heard on Mike & Mike and also read here at around the same time.
-
Veteran Cap Exemption
Under the VCE, players who have been on a team’s roster for 5 years will have 10% of their cap impact waived, increasing by 2% per year thereafter, to a maximum of 20%. This will mean that teams who draft wisely – or who bring free agents in for the long haul – will no longer be penalized for their good scouting. As the players grow into superstars, the VCE will allow them to stay on the team that developed them by lessening the cap burden of their contracts, thereby reducing unfortunate “cap casualties.” -
The coin toss should be changed to reflect how videogames work. Whichever team kicks to start the first half receives to start the second.
-
Divisional Weather Scheduling Initiative
The DWSE will serve to promote home field advantage for teams that are located in areas with naturally recurring weather patterns. These scheduling preferences will be in effect for divisional matchups where the opponent’s home field does not have similar weather. The minor competitive imbalance this will introduce is a small price to pay for the increased fan appeal of the games.
One of the primary goals of this initiative is to discourage teams from building a dome, as dome stadiums present no natural weather advantage, and thus will not receive any scheduling bonuses. This is because domes are an affront to the institution of football.
The ramifications of the DWSE:[ul]
[li]The Cardinals*, Cowboys and Dolphins will play all three home divisional games during the month of September, with the opposing team languishing in the scorching hot sunny side of the stadium, as the Giants did last year in Dallas. (*Subject to their new stadium still being vulnerable to scorching heat.)[/li][li]The Bills, Jets and Patriots will all host their home game against the Dolphins in the month of December.[/li][li]The Giants and Eagles will host their home game against the Cowboys in the month of December.[/li][li]The Packers and Bears will host their home games against the Lions and Vikings in the month of December.[/li][li]The Texans and Jaguars will host their home games against the Colts in the month of September.[/li][li]The Bucs and Panthers will host their home games against the Falcons and Saints in the month of September.[/li][li]The Steelers, Browns and Bengals will host their home game against the Ravens in the month of December.[/li][li]The Broncos and Chiefs will host their home games against the Chargers and Raiders in the month of December.[/ul]We can’t have regional matchups every year, (Giants Jets, Raiders 49ers, Redskins Ravens, etc…) so this would be the next best thing.[/li]
Responding to the other ideas presented; there are so many I have thoughts about that I trust you’ll forgive me for not quoting or attributing:
-
Field goals should be 3 points no matter what, as evidenced by both sides of the debate having defensible positions. (Farther should be worth more because it’s harder to make; no, closer should be worth more because the offense performed better…) Also, I’m not sure if NFLE awards more points for longer FGs, but I’m positive that the XFL did. That’s reason enough not to adopt it.
-
“Innings” in football would introduce the same needless headaches that the flawed “allow both teams to have the ball in overtime” idea has. Defensive players aren’t known for their great ball protection skills, meaning it is not all that rare for an interception return to be fumbled back to the original offense. Was that an inning / possession for the defense?
-
Safeties should remain the lowest value timed score (two points) because it is the only score that results in you getting the ball. Rarity is not necessarily tied to difficulty, nor is difficulty necessarily tied to point value. (Long field goals aren’t worth more, defensive TDs aren’t worth more than offensive TDs despite being much rarer.) Safeties allow you to mount a 10-point swing without the other team touching the ball; that’s advantage enough.
-
Intentional grounding is a loss of down plus a 10 yard penalty or the spot where the ball was thrown from, whichever is worse. It is exactly like a simulated sack that protects the passer’s body. But it is nonsensical to use this as evidence against the rule, as without it the passer can simply throw the ball away to avoid all sacks without loss of any yards. How would that be better?
-
The 3-tiered pass interference and the ±1 PAT attempt sound good to me.
-
Ironman football is inherently less interesting in partly the same way that boxing without rounds is less interesting. (Exhausted guys are less fun to watch.) The other part is that specialization enhances the quality of play on the field. Field goals are one of the primary reasons that football so rarely ends in a tie. Removing them altogether would increase the likelihood of overtime and ties, and anything that does either is counterproductive, IMO, so keep field goals in the game. However, I see no problem with widening the hash marks.
-
RFID / GPS chips in the balls, the 8 corners of the field, and in the down marker chain (just the side that makes the official mark) would be awesome on many levels.
-
I was under the impression that the “drawn offside” deal was to not penalize a guy who thought he needed to physically protect his QB from a cheap shot. In other words, the “cross the line without touching anyone and get back before the snap” move differs from “cross the line and kill your QB” how, exactly? They seem indistinguishable from the OL’s point of view at the time when they react. Thus, the “drawn offsides” rule. I think it’s just in there to discourage faking a dick move, which is in itself a dick move. I don’t remember the last time I saw it called, though I remember for a while it was called a lot. Is it still on the books, I wonder? (Any NFL refs or league officials in the house?)
In Tennis, it’s true that nobody tries to hit a let, but bear in mind that a let is basically a courtesy rewarding luck. Basically, if your serve touches the net, that’s a fault, unless by some miracle it happens to land in-bounds after hitting the net. You want to take that away so that all net touches are faults? I like the let exception for still landing it “in” depsite hitting the net. I don’t think there is any distinction made between “clipping” the net and just hitting the net halfway down stopping the ball dead. A touch is a touch, unless it happens to land in.
Also, I think I heard in a somewhat recent tournament that some form of play…team?..doubles?..lets were to be played as live. Scary!
Bring it on!
Allow rugby players to take weaponry onto the pitch. We’re halfway there already.
Replace the football (it is not soccer! Go find your own name for your bastardised American sport! I suggest runny-throwy-sometimes-kicky ball.) with an round explosive that has a 1% chance of detonating whenever kicked. This will have the dual effects of increading turnover in football games, and making Rooney’s foot-problems look relatively minor.
Instead of boring old cricket, play Brockian Ultra-Cricket.
Make marathon running an interesting spectator sport by allowing the crowd to carry rifles and take pot-shots at the contestants. The winner is the first to cross the finishing line alive.
Basketball - Putting the ball through the hoop is worth only one point if any part of the player’s body physically comes in contact with the hoop.
My two cents:
American runny-throwy-sometimes-kicky ball: I like the idea of two-way players; it’s one of the great things about basketball. But I agree that ironman football wouldn’t be fun to watch. So my proposed solution (or, the rule I will institute when I become the world-emperor), is to only allow two or three substitutions per down. That way, you can bring off the QB, bring in a kicker, change out guys to rest them, even sub in a nickel back if you want, but most guys will have to be able to play both offense and defense.
I like Ellis Dees suggestions; in fact I think most pro sports would be well served by rules that encourage players to stay with one team for most of their career.
I hve a very simple and modest rule regarding the awarding and placement of NHL franchises:
No ice? No hockey.
I think the argument is that the penalty should be more severe, not that it should be eliminated. If the QB is getting sacked, the grounding penalty does not give a disincentive to throwing the ball away, since the result of a grounding penalty is the same as the sack. So the penalty should maybe be loss of down + the ball moves to the spot of the foul + 10 yards.
Ok :). A lot of people don’t like when players agree to an early draw in a position that is not played out. I am one of these people. It seems to me to be the same as if you had a football game 10-7 at halftime, and the teams just agreed to call it a tie. “We have a slight advantage but we don’t want to risk losing.”
My solution to this is that when a player offers a draw, the offer remains open for several moves, and the opponent can then claim the draw anywhere over these moves. In dead drawn positions, this rule wouldn’t change anything; the players would just agree to the draw as usual. However, the rule would discourage draws in complicated positions, because offering the draw has a big risk - your opponent can try an attack in the unclear position and claim the draw if it doesn’t work out.
Wouldn’t that put an end to heading the ball?
Global warming is going to screw up this theory. According to Al Gore’s new movie you won’t be able to play hockey at the north pole pretty soon. 
Most teams don’t use the DH that way. DHs are frequently position players returning from injuries or very good power guys who would otherwise be playing 1b, such as Cleveland’s Hafner. Hafner is not an old broken down player by any stretch of the imagination.