If you could add any new rule to a sport or game you enjoy, what rule and why?
-
This post did not contain any content.
MMMMMMMULTIBALLLLLLL
Any sport, doesn't really matter. Periodically during the game more balls start getting added into the playing field to spice things up, a la pinball tables.
Tennis, Football, Volleyball, Baseball, Basketball etc etc
-
It works in american sports bc there is no promotion or relegation. Can't work in a sport with it. I know the big bash has no more teams than the few that participate and cricket economic model is even worse.
American sports play under one federation. Who do you want enforcing the rules? Uefa? Fifa? The national fa? The national league? Other national sporting authorities? Other European sporting authorities? Other global sporting authorities?
Who's laws do they follow? National? Continental? International? Regional? How do you create an even field when some teams are getting UCL money and dominating local leagues?
Do you make man city give their UCL winnings tk Southampton? How do you account for the Italian tax system?
Again its not possible in football. Not that no financial law is possible, just that the salary cap won't work. Bc the revenue of teams can never be the same.
Barca can spend 40% of their revenue on sporting expenses and so can Cadiz. They just have different revenues.
How do Cadiz get the big revenue? Either outside investment like psg etc or long term European football (nearly impossible and only viable for a couple of clubs in every league).
So the uneven nature will exist so long as:
- Teams play in more than one competition.
- Promotion and relegation exist.
For the old money thing. All profit and the money of capitalists is exploited and the surplus value of labour of the workers. All investors are the same. They can't have money now if they aren't exploiting someone now.
But let's drop this argument, it never goesnto a natural conclusion.
Who do you want enforcing the rules?
The EPL would enforce it for the EPL. La Liga would enforce it for La Liga, etc.
The unusual stratification of soccer leagues lends itself some difficulty in obtaining consistency, but that is not a good enough reason not to try. Especially for EPL, which really is professional (non-international) soccer for most of the world. People in Vietnam or Namibia know about and often pick a side in the Liverpool–ManU feud. Far fewer could tell you about Bundesliga teams.
Relegation also causes difficulty, but again, shouldn't be insurmountable. A sort of "grandfather" clause to allow players in teams that get relegated to not have to immediately take a big pay cut (assuming lower leagues would have a lower salary cap), similar to how BBL allows international players exemptions and A-league already allows each team one player who can simply ignore the salary cap entirely.
I'm not pretending it's simple. Just that the problems a salary cap is designed to fix are huge problems with the integrity of the sport, and the difficulty of implementing it is far outweighed by the benefit that would be obtained.
-
Thunderdome rules for MMA. Keep going until there is a sub or knock out. No rounds and no time limit.
Let them fight to the death.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Fencing: Allow shields.
-
BBL has some rules regarding players expected to miss a significant amount of time due to international tours. I don't know the details of them, and maybe some tweaking of those rules would help. I don't think it's an obstacle so terrible the idea of salary caps should be thrown out.
NRL has a similar problem, on a lesser scale. Three weeks every year is State of Origin, where many teams lose their best players to an inter-state competition. And there's the occasional international test, but that's much less common (and less commonly during the league season).
NRL does not have a draft in the style of American sports. Instead, players usually graduate up from playing in lesser state and regional leagues through the junior system.
AFL does have a draft, with a bunch of carve-outs like the "father-son" rule, and priority access to local players especially for teams in places where AFL is less popular.
Say youre a bbl team that loses Hazelwood plus head for example. (Dont remember who plays where, just an example)
Who the hell can replace them.
A player from the same category. But your international spots are probably already picked and the other decent local players are gone too. The drop off from your ream would be insane.
Also depends on who becomes available.
-
It makes absolutely no sense.
It does seem strange, but there's some possible rationale behind it. If the rule is not currently being enforced, it could be because refs feel the level of the rule breaking is not proportionate with the level of the punishment. Decreasing the punishment, as well as increasing the severity of the rule breaking required to incur it might induce refs to be more inclined to enforce the punishment.
We've seen something similar recently in another type of football. A few years ago, the NRL changed the punishment for minor ruck infringements and defensive offsides in their defensive half from a penalty—which requires the ref to stop the game entirely* and gives an immediate opportunity for a goal kick worth 2 points—to a reset of the tackle count. If that would have been the fifth tackle of their possession (and thus the next one is their last), a ruck infringement resets it to the first. It used to be the case that teams would get away unpunished with all but the most egregious of offences. Now it gets used quite a lot, because the minor offences are met with a comparatively minor punishment.
* as a side note, this should be a goal of all rules and enforcement in all football sports apart from maybe gridiron. And in other similar field sports. Keep the game flowing where possible. It's a huge problem with rugby union at the top level IMO. That sport is supposed to flow quite freely, but the level of refereeing results in extremely frequent stoppages, which makes for very poor viewing. My experience has been that the game works much better at a lower level where refs let things flow more.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It does seem strange, but there’s some possible rationale behind it. If the rule is not currently being enforced, it could be because refs feel the level of the rule breaking is not proportionate with the level of the punishment. Decreasing the punishment, as well as increasing the severity of the rule breaking required to incur it might induce refs to be more inclined to enforce the punishment.
This is the only plausible explanation. The refs don't want to turn the game on a keeper wasting a couple of seconds. That said, various timekeeping tasks especially, but Association football in general has always had a sort of impressionistic philosophy for officials, tasking them with keeping the game moving and more or less fair, but I don't think that system has held up super well in the era of high tech and higher stakes, though I do fear they risk losing something magical about it. American football is the absolute inverse, with a dense and legalistic rulebook and false precision that comes of pretending that (among other impossible tasks) the officials really see where the point of a ball lands under a literal ton of human flesh. That said, there is not the same level of resistance to objective standards and enforcement and rule evolution that you can see on the soccer side.
-
Ever watch the street soccer 1v1 deals where they're just trying to dribble past a defender?
That's a mini game I'd love to watch as a tie breaker!
MLS in America actually tried that many years ago (weird the phrase is even relevant to MLS, but here we are). On replays it actually looks quite reasonable, but being an Americanism, I don't think you'll get any support for it, which is a shame because penalty kicks are barely soccer at all.
-
It works in american sports bc there is no promotion or relegation. Can't work in a sport with it. I know the big bash has no more teams than the few that participate and cricket economic model is even worse.
American sports play under one federation. Who do you want enforcing the rules? Uefa? Fifa? The national fa? The national league? Other national sporting authorities? Other European sporting authorities? Other global sporting authorities?
Who's laws do they follow? National? Continental? International? Regional? How do you create an even field when some teams are getting UCL money and dominating local leagues?
Do you make man city give their UCL winnings tk Southampton? How do you account for the Italian tax system?
Again its not possible in football. Not that no financial law is possible, just that the salary cap won't work. Bc the revenue of teams can never be the same.
Barca can spend 40% of their revenue on sporting expenses and so can Cadiz. They just have different revenues.
How do Cadiz get the big revenue? Either outside investment like psg etc or long term European football (nearly impossible and only viable for a couple of clubs in every league).
So the uneven nature will exist so long as:
- Teams play in more than one competition.
- Promotion and relegation exist.
For the old money thing. All profit and the money of capitalists is exploited and the surplus value of labour of the workers. All investors are the same. They can't have money now if they aren't exploiting someone now.
But let's drop this argument, it never goesnto a natural conclusion.
It works in american sports bc there is no promotion or relegation. Can’t work in a sport with it. I know the big bash has no more teams than the few that participate and cricket economic model is even worse.
That's certainly part of it. It is also relevant that American leagues are a legal cartels that can control player movement subject only to collective bargaining with the players unions, as this removes the unbalancing effect of external compensation. They are also generally the highest level of their sport (though sometimes by default because only Americans care), meaning the threat of losing players to outside entities is minimal, though until they accepted significant revenue sharing (generally runs close to 50% of revenues), the emergence of competitors was always possible.
The weird outlier in the US is MLS, which must compete in the global market. They benefit from (1) having a squishy-AF salary caps, and (2) playing in the middle depths of the global market for professional footballers, meaning that skillful organizations can replace talent more or less like-for-like. As an aside, MLS franchises are much better at doing this than they used to be, and there are as many players passing through on their way up as down.
-
Fencing: Allow shields.
HEMA: I'm right here!
-
- MCC law for no balls.
21.5.1 the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his/her stated mode of delivery.
21.5.2 the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised
-
on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in 21.5.1, and -
behind the popping crease.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23098100/
Theres a lot of research on it. Even the intro to the first link should give you a basic overview if you're not interested about going in depth.
Basically, bowlers try to maximize stride length without overstepping. This often leads to forcefully “planting” the front foot close to the popping crease.
Also try to land just behind the crease for maximum reach and pace which leads to overstriding, causing hyperextension of the knee. Pcl knee injuries follow.
When bowlers shorten their stride or change delivery angle to avoid overstepping they also risk injury.
- Well first of all I'd like to just scrap Odis, they no longer serve a purpose in the sport. T20s have replaced them. (I dont want to get into the history of it all in an already long reply)
But if they did stay. Field restrictions and powerplays are ridiculous. Ball changes are ridiculous.
We use two new balls in ODI cricket now, and that makes people angry. But we actually used two balls in 50 over cricket always. Because leather won’t dye white correctly as it does with red, the balls are lighter in colour for their natural state. But to make them bright white they have their colour sprayed on.
White balls start harder and swing more than red ones, and after five or so overs are softer and stop swinging. Then as they degrade quicker, they pick up dirt and grass as well. So they stop doing anything at all, you can’t see them, or hit them as far. They are simply not fit for purpose.
Before what would happen is that at one stage in an ODI, the umpires would look at the sad, grey piece of sponge and decide to replace it. Later on they just unofficially changed it around the 35/36 over mark with a ball that was used, but not abused.
So at the end of 2011, the ICC made a decision that still annoys many ODI fans. They abandoned the one new ball and one soiled ball strategy and went with two new balls. Which they had done before.
Now i believe they are changing it back.
I instead want the pink ball used in Odis. Also move Odis to 40 overs.
A. I just talked about balls so let me say they are the most important part of cricket alongside pitches. Maybe second. OK you want pitches to be influenced by local knowledge and culture. But why tf are balls not standardised. We have no clue what is going on with cricket balls.
In 2017 or so kookaburra reinforced their balls seam which made the ball seam more and for longer bringing down batting averages and completely changing the sport, the way people bowled and batted and swlcted players. Some players lost their careers due to it. Kookaburra just did it on their own, no questions no research no accountability.
The ICC need to have their own ball development and research company. We have the same antiquated balls for no reason. We can change the material and have a non leather ball! Why hasn't SG and the BCCI focused on that?!?! We could change anything here and create smth that isn't destroyed in 35 overs. Something that has better bounce. The sky is the limit.
B. Reform the stupid chaotic calendar with dedicated windows. Have distinct international windows each year, alongside divisional structures for all three formats. Have relegation systems. Scheduling windows for ‘Core International Cricket’ – which should be implemented to cover one match per format against all other teams within consistent divisional championships.
C. Have a pathway to test status. Noone knows what they gotta do to get status.
D. Revenue sharing model needs to be changed. A centralised Global Growth and Development Fund – to be established, underpinned by pooled rights model applicable only to Core International Cricket, to fund Core International Cricket and other global initiatives
ICC revenue distribution – occurring within minimum and maximum parameters
Stronger regulation and accountability – on how distributed money is spent in all countries
Player revenue sharing parameters – to be applied in all sanctioned cricket.70% of the game's revenues are generated across just three months of the year, that 83% of all revenue is shared by three countries, and that revenues generated by bilateral cricket outside the big three constitutes less than 4%. Total player payments across cricket, it says, represent approximately 10% of all cricket revenue.
WCA projects a more optimal calendar (with windows and greater context) could result in an additional USD 246 million revenue for the game annually. It calls for the establishment of minimum and maximum distribution parameters of ICC revenues, giving as an example, "a minimum 2% and maximum 10% for the top 24 countries, and a minimum 10% distribution collectively for countries 25+." That would see the BCCI's share being cut from 38.5% in the current model to 10%.
Players, it says, should also receive a minimum percentage of revenue generated in all sanctioned cricket, across internationals, T20 leagues and ICC events. Another recommendation is the creation of a global growth and development fund, which would go towards sustaining the base level of Core International Cricket for the top 24+ countries. This fund would be built from a percentage of ICC events revenue, T20 leagues and pooled media rights from Core International Cricket - a concept that has been aired before at the ICC but always dismissed.
The issue is the bcci.
E. Archives and access to games. Have an ICC channel where people can subscribe and watch all games from the past. Live stream current games in countries where rights are undervalued or unsold atleast. And access to ICC events. The ICC allows no cricket to be shown and hinders growth. I lobe the way American sports allow you to watch the game atleast. Look at what they did to poor robelinda.
F. Eliminate stupid NOC requirements. Players shouldn't have to need permission from the board to do their job, especially players who aren't even centrally contracted.
G. Global cricket needs to come together with clear leadership to reflect the sport’s changing landscape and prevent fragmentation. The way the shady ass sport is run is terrible.
H. Figure out the league stuff. Player non payments, spot fixing etc. A lot happens beyond the test nations leagues. So not as worried bout the cpl or IPL but a random game in Singapore or Canada is sus.
I. Do smth about sports betting. Also a governments issue so I don't even know where to begin. Atleast work with betting companies to get some insight.
J. Have people be responsible for things. Noone has direct power over anything and noone takes responsibility over anything.
No one is actually in charge of the sport as a genuine custodian of the global game as a whole. Regional interests dominate and lead to short-term decisions. There is no independent leadership. The game is run by the most powerful boards, without any representation from leagues, franchises, players or women.
I say trash the ICC and create smth from scratch. Practically impossible ofc.
- From what I can see, that first link is addressing the front foot. But your original comment, and what I was confused about, is why the back foot placement needing to be inside the return crease is an issue.
Well first of all I'd like to just scrap Odis, they no longer serve a purpose in the sport. T20s have replaced them.
Ha. Interesting. Personally, I mostly only care for tests anyway. The ODI World Cup is far superior to the T20 World Cup though. I'd keep ODIs around for that reason if no other.
I actually wouldn't mind banning T20i entirely. If T20 has to exist, let it stay domestic.
Your stuff about scheduling and pathways reminded me of something. ICC already has rules for full membership and test-playing status. One of those rules is that a country must have a women's team to qualify. They need to enforce this rule. It's ridiculous that the Taliban gets to sports-wash via the ICC just because the government they overthrew was making genuine progress.
Agree strongly that BCCI's influence over the ICC is detrimental to the game, and your ideas around revenue sharing and other management stuff are good ones.
Eliminate stupid NOC requirements
As long as it is never allowed for players to choose to play a T20 rather than a test match.
-
- MCC law for no balls.
21.5.1 the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his/her stated mode of delivery.
21.5.2 the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised
-
on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in 21.5.1, and -
behind the popping crease.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23098100/
Theres a lot of research on it. Even the intro to the first link should give you a basic overview if you're not interested about going in depth.
Basically, bowlers try to maximize stride length without overstepping. This often leads to forcefully “planting” the front foot close to the popping crease.
Also try to land just behind the crease for maximum reach and pace which leads to overstriding, causing hyperextension of the knee. Pcl knee injuries follow.
When bowlers shorten their stride or change delivery angle to avoid overstepping they also risk injury.
- Well first of all I'd like to just scrap Odis, they no longer serve a purpose in the sport. T20s have replaced them. (I dont want to get into the history of it all in an already long reply)
But if they did stay. Field restrictions and powerplays are ridiculous. Ball changes are ridiculous.
We use two new balls in ODI cricket now, and that makes people angry. But we actually used two balls in 50 over cricket always. Because leather won’t dye white correctly as it does with red, the balls are lighter in colour for their natural state. But to make them bright white they have their colour sprayed on.
White balls start harder and swing more than red ones, and after five or so overs are softer and stop swinging. Then as they degrade quicker, they pick up dirt and grass as well. So they stop doing anything at all, you can’t see them, or hit them as far. They are simply not fit for purpose.
Before what would happen is that at one stage in an ODI, the umpires would look at the sad, grey piece of sponge and decide to replace it. Later on they just unofficially changed it around the 35/36 over mark with a ball that was used, but not abused.
So at the end of 2011, the ICC made a decision that still annoys many ODI fans. They abandoned the one new ball and one soiled ball strategy and went with two new balls. Which they had done before.
Now i believe they are changing it back.
I instead want the pink ball used in Odis. Also move Odis to 40 overs.
A. I just talked about balls so let me say they are the most important part of cricket alongside pitches. Maybe second. OK you want pitches to be influenced by local knowledge and culture. But why tf are balls not standardised. We have no clue what is going on with cricket balls.
In 2017 or so kookaburra reinforced their balls seam which made the ball seam more and for longer bringing down batting averages and completely changing the sport, the way people bowled and batted and swlcted players. Some players lost their careers due to it. Kookaburra just did it on their own, no questions no research no accountability.
The ICC need to have their own ball development and research company. We have the same antiquated balls for no reason. We can change the material and have a non leather ball! Why hasn't SG and the BCCI focused on that?!?! We could change anything here and create smth that isn't destroyed in 35 overs. Something that has better bounce. The sky is the limit.
B. Reform the stupid chaotic calendar with dedicated windows. Have distinct international windows each year, alongside divisional structures for all three formats. Have relegation systems. Scheduling windows for ‘Core International Cricket’ – which should be implemented to cover one match per format against all other teams within consistent divisional championships.
C. Have a pathway to test status. Noone knows what they gotta do to get status.
D. Revenue sharing model needs to be changed. A centralised Global Growth and Development Fund – to be established, underpinned by pooled rights model applicable only to Core International Cricket, to fund Core International Cricket and other global initiatives
ICC revenue distribution – occurring within minimum and maximum parameters
Stronger regulation and accountability – on how distributed money is spent in all countries
Player revenue sharing parameters – to be applied in all sanctioned cricket.70% of the game's revenues are generated across just three months of the year, that 83% of all revenue is shared by three countries, and that revenues generated by bilateral cricket outside the big three constitutes less than 4%. Total player payments across cricket, it says, represent approximately 10% of all cricket revenue.
WCA projects a more optimal calendar (with windows and greater context) could result in an additional USD 246 million revenue for the game annually. It calls for the establishment of minimum and maximum distribution parameters of ICC revenues, giving as an example, "a minimum 2% and maximum 10% for the top 24 countries, and a minimum 10% distribution collectively for countries 25+." That would see the BCCI's share being cut from 38.5% in the current model to 10%.
Players, it says, should also receive a minimum percentage of revenue generated in all sanctioned cricket, across internationals, T20 leagues and ICC events. Another recommendation is the creation of a global growth and development fund, which would go towards sustaining the base level of Core International Cricket for the top 24+ countries. This fund would be built from a percentage of ICC events revenue, T20 leagues and pooled media rights from Core International Cricket - a concept that has been aired before at the ICC but always dismissed.
The issue is the bcci.
E. Archives and access to games. Have an ICC channel where people can subscribe and watch all games from the past. Live stream current games in countries where rights are undervalued or unsold atleast. And access to ICC events. The ICC allows no cricket to be shown and hinders growth. I lobe the way American sports allow you to watch the game atleast. Look at what they did to poor robelinda.
F. Eliminate stupid NOC requirements. Players shouldn't have to need permission from the board to do their job, especially players who aren't even centrally contracted.
G. Global cricket needs to come together with clear leadership to reflect the sport’s changing landscape and prevent fragmentation. The way the shady ass sport is run is terrible.
H. Figure out the league stuff. Player non payments, spot fixing etc. A lot happens beyond the test nations leagues. So not as worried bout the cpl or IPL but a random game in Singapore or Canada is sus.
I. Do smth about sports betting. Also a governments issue so I don't even know where to begin. Atleast work with betting companies to get some insight.
J. Have people be responsible for things. Noone has direct power over anything and noone takes responsibility over anything.
No one is actually in charge of the sport as a genuine custodian of the global game as a whole. Regional interests dominate and lead to short-term decisions. There is no independent leadership. The game is run by the most powerful boards, without any representation from leagues, franchises, players or women.
I say trash the ICC and create smth from scratch. Practically impossible ofc.
Banning betting itself is likely impossible, but a good start would be to ban teams or grounds from being sponsored by betting companies, and ban players from being involved with betting companies' advertising campaigns.
-
HEMA: I'm right here!
True, but I don't think I've ever seen a HEMA tournament that allowed non-buckler shields.
We study rodella as one of the offhands at my school, but if you're competitively-minded you're not going to get much chance to actually use it.
-
MMMMMMMULTIBALLLLLLL
Any sport, doesn't really matter. Periodically during the game more balls start getting added into the playing field to spice things up, a la pinball tables.
Tennis, Football, Volleyball, Baseball, Basketball etc etc
Can I interest you in twelve ball?
-
Banning betting itself is likely impossible, but a good start would be to ban teams or grounds from being sponsored by betting companies, and ban players from being involved with betting companies' advertising campaigns.
Banning is certainly possible. Just that it would make no differance. Never has banning something stopped it. It would just hide it.
If betting is allowed, you can see trends in the market to find smth sus to find fixing. If if isn't, what happens behind the scenes is anyone's guess. We do it want anymore fixing controversies in cricket. No other sport is as susceptible or as commonly accused of being fixed by the fans themselves as cricket is.
I mean there was a fake league made with actors as players for illegal betting purposes in India! The league was in Indonesia or somewhere (bit actually was in India too). Players were given scripts ball by ball. Cricket is insane.
Also even if you ban em, they will come up as smth else. As a sports app or smth, same company but acting like they aren't a betting company.
So say cricinfo sponsors a team saying we just show news and scores but there heavily advertises their betting app. (This is an example, not literally true) although other companies have done so.
The athletic have gone in depth about this, would suggest checking it out.
Or again, Jarrod Kimber.
I agree its nearly impossible. But even I'd it were done it would survive.
-
MLS in America actually tried that many years ago (weird the phrase is even relevant to MLS, but here we are). On replays it actually looks quite reasonable, but being an Americanism, I don't think you'll get any support for it, which is a shame because penalty kicks are barely soccer at all.
That's basically the system hockey
uses, and it's pretty good. Personally, while I far prefer it to the current soccer shootouts, it still has the feeling of being a "minigame" to me; a little too divorced from the main game to be ideal. -
Who do you want enforcing the rules?
The EPL would enforce it for the EPL. La Liga would enforce it for La Liga, etc.
The unusual stratification of soccer leagues lends itself some difficulty in obtaining consistency, but that is not a good enough reason not to try. Especially for EPL, which really is professional (non-international) soccer for most of the world. People in Vietnam or Namibia know about and often pick a side in the Liverpool–ManU feud. Far fewer could tell you about Bundesliga teams.
Relegation also causes difficulty, but again, shouldn't be insurmountable. A sort of "grandfather" clause to allow players in teams that get relegated to not have to immediately take a big pay cut (assuming lower leagues would have a lower salary cap), similar to how BBL allows international players exemptions and A-league already allows each team one player who can simply ignore the salary cap entirely.
I'm not pretending it's simple. Just that the problems a salary cap is designed to fix are huge problems with the integrity of the sport, and the difficulty of implementing it is far outweighed by the benefit that would be obtained.
Currently salary caps are based on percentage of revenue and the way to enforce em varies.
I think its as good as it gets. An objective cap is just a way of making sure players leave your league for another.
-
Banning is certainly possible. Just that it would make no differance. Never has banning something stopped it. It would just hide it.
If betting is allowed, you can see trends in the market to find smth sus to find fixing. If if isn't, what happens behind the scenes is anyone's guess. We do it want anymore fixing controversies in cricket. No other sport is as susceptible or as commonly accused of being fixed by the fans themselves as cricket is.
I mean there was a fake league made with actors as players for illegal betting purposes in India! The league was in Indonesia or somewhere (bit actually was in India too). Players were given scripts ball by ball. Cricket is insane.
Also even if you ban em, they will come up as smth else. As a sports app or smth, same company but acting like they aren't a betting company.
So say cricinfo sponsors a team saying we just show news and scores but there heavily advertises their betting app. (This is an example, not literally true) although other companies have done so.
The athletic have gone in depth about this, would suggest checking it out.
Or again, Jarrod Kimber.
I agree its nearly impossible. But even I'd it were done it would survive.
Yeah I don't really want to ban gambling itself. It's completely impractical, but even if you could do it successfully, I don't want to police people's vices. What I have a problem with is how normalised it is and how much it has become a part of the culture of sport. Children should not be exposed to the idea that gambling is completely normal just because they want to watch their favourite pros playing their favourite game.
-
This post did not contain any content.
American football:
Universal:
- No TV timeouts. The game is already insanely stop-start. Get your shit together, TV broadcasters, and make it work as-is.
- No "wounded duck" pass interference penalties on poorly thrown balls. Defenders in pass coverage should be entitled to their existing vector of motion.
- Players leaving for injury must be out for 4 plays or more, maybe the length of the existing drive. Something though. One play is not sufficient to dissuade simulation for tactical advantage.
Stuff to try in college or the spring league:
- No radio communication. American football can be too regimented sometimes, and old men treating young men like chess pieces is part of that.
- Limited substitutions per play if there is no is no change in phase. You come out, fine, but you're not going back in until the next time your team is on offense/defense/special teams. This will also enhance numbers 1 and 3.
- Even shorter play clock. Keep it moving. Adjust when the clock runs if you want to keep the number of snaps consistent.
- Remove kicking entirely. They're vestigial minigames at this point that could be replaced with throwing the ball. Workshop it in the offseason to see how small the goalposts need to be to replicate current play balance.
- College only: Admit they're professionals, make them employees with enforceable (and purchasable) contracts, and route enough money into the non-revenue sports to keep them viable. It is what it is; don't let the creeping in of sensible labor practices destroy the sport. Use the inevitable anti-trust exemption you'll get to mandate some sort of nexus between the players and the schools (lifetime tuition waiver? part-time enrollment?), but stop acting like the already snobbish and laughable "amateurism" of the NCAA is even a viable concept.
Stuff to bring in that would make the game weird to modern eyes but might help reduce head injuries:
- Mandate wide splits on the lines, two-point stances, and a wider neutral zone so that players are not exploding into each other head-to-head. A snap should look like a sumo match, not two horny rams on a hillside.
- To allow for number 1, make "1 yard to go" the minimum for a given offensive snap.
- Remove most/all of kicking again, though with the idea of reducing high combined-velocity impacts rather than just because it's anachronistic. Treat an incomplete pass on fourth down like it was a punt. Give up on the idea of kickoff returns. Field goals could stay, but subject to the same scrimmage rules as other plays.
- Consider whether every play from scrimmage should require the Offensive Line's first step should be backwards or lateral. They already are on many passing plays, but making it mandatory would further encourage upright play that's often ineffective technique today. The running game will be severely affected, but it is what it is and "every run play looks like a draw play" is a small price if we want to save American football over the long term.
- Revamp tackling rules. Make it rugby style and penalize hits above the shoulder harshly. Consider whether big hits resulting in heads thumping against turf are common enough to be banned altogether.
- Consider removing helmets so players have a sense of preservation over their own heads, but if not that, then go with something much lighter and more ice-hockey style so the helmet is not as tempting as a weapon and doesn't encourage a false sense of invulnerability. It was for all the wrong reasons, but the "Extreme Football League" (nee "Lingerie Football League") uses this type of headgear.
-
Sports in general need to make it illegal to dive to draw an undeserved penalty (or actually enforce the existing rules)
This is the nub of it - lack of enforcement of existing rules. People are always clamouring for this new rule or that new rule, when in fact there's already one in place.
Eg football
At present, if a goalie has the ball in hand then they have 6 seconds to release it, or it's meant to be an indirect free kick to the opposition inside the goalie's team's 18 yard box. Very dangerous situation to defend, so you'd think it'd be a deterrent. However I can count on 2 fingers the number of times I've actually seen it enforced.
So now there's a change to the rules coming - if they have it in hand for 8 seconds, it's a corner to the other team.
So, it's a less punishing punishment, and they have 2 extra seconds' leeway. It makes absolutely no sense.
It makes absolutely no sense.
You think the referee's job is to have the game be fair and follow the rules. This is wrong. The referee's job is to make the game entertaining and as dramatic as possible for the fans.
Once you accept that, a lot of these situations make a lot more sense.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
I'd completely remove the icing rule from hockey. I don't really understand the point of stopping the game just because the puck went back to the other side of the rink. It's not like it stops the defending team from dumping the puck out and purposely starting a face off.
