If you could add any new rule to a sport or game you enjoy, what rule and why?
-
Soccer: yellow card for faking injuries (you can easily see players close to death that jumps us and run if no whistle is blown) and for protesting with the referee. Also, microphoned referee so that the whole audience can hear what they say (it will result in LOTS of red cards until respect is shown)
Basketball: intentional foul is two free throws and ball, three in the last 2 minutes
Football: proper helmets
Soccer: yellow card for faking injuries
Yellow card for simulation is already a rule. It's just not applied all that consistently, possibly because it's very hard to be sure that someone definitely wasn't fouled and also was deliberately feigning anything, as opposed to genuinely being hurt or at least being knocked over by a nonetheless fair challenge.
Microphoned ref is becoming a thing now, but I absolutely hate it. Just like VAR it slows the game down horrendously and is not needed. Refs have the tools they need to run the game (including hand gestures and red cards, as you said). They don't need to explain every last thing verbally.
-
Soccer: don't use penalty shootouts to break ties. Penalities are a weird little minigame that don't really represent the most important skills of soccer, which are things like field position and control of the ball.
I'm open to suggestions on what should be done to break ties, but I like the idea of golden point where, if a goal is not scores after a certain amount of time, the number of players on the field starts gradually decreasing. So after 5 minutes of golden point, you drop to 10 vs 10, after 10 minutes it's 9 vs 9, down to a minimum of like 5 vs 5. Fewer players will tend to benefit the attacking team, making scoring more likely as it goes on.
Also soccer, as well as rugby union: just use the fucking clock. When the clock we see on the TV screen reaches 90 (or 80), that's it. Game over. Adjustments due to stoppage time etc. should be made at that time and transparent for everyone to see, by pausing the clock then and there, and resuming it when play resumes. Not added on at the end.
Edit: actually, it seems like rugby union might have already adopted this? I'm not too sure, because I'm a rugby league fan myself, which has always done it the right way (or at least always in my lifetime).
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Penalities are a weird little minigame that don't really represent the most important skills of soccer, which are things like field position and control of the ball.
Disagree - the most important skill in football
is scoring more goals than the opposition. I love penalty shootouts, they're incredibly tense, and they require nerves of steel and a lot of skill. People sometimes say they're a lottery, but that's nonsense IMO.Also disagree on the stopped clock model. Football
is the most popular and widely played sport in the world, and it hasn't needed stopped clocks to get there. Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.There's far too much tinkering with the game as it is, what with VAR and miked up referees and such. The game was fine for decades, and loved by billions of people. I wish they'd just leave it alone.
-
1 is such a huge problem with tennis, too. Absolutely ban the obnoxious grunts and yells.
It has no place in sports. So unsportsmanlike.
-
Football:
- A lot of financial and psr rules.
- Add rolling subs like basketball.
- Wenger style offside rule. If any part of the attacking players body is behind the last defender, its onside.
- Be stricter against defensive players brutally slashing wingers.
- Stop pthe stupid carding over showboating.
On point 3, that doesn't solve the issue, it just moves it a yard or so back. The linesmen and women will still have to make the exact same judgement about what was in line with what.
-
On point 3, that doesn't solve the issue, it just moves it a yard or so back. The linesmen and women will still have to make the exact same judgement about what was in line with what.
The purpose is not to make the call easier, although by research from the Chinese second division it does (I'm not sure if om correct here, this is by memory)
The actual purpose is to increase goals per match. Sitting deep would become less practical for getafe like teams.
-
The purpose is not to make the call easier, although by research from the Chinese second division it does (I'm not sure if om correct here, this is by memory)
The actual purpose is to increase goals per match. Sitting deep would become less practical for getafe like teams.
Oh, I see what you mean - sorry, misunderstood which issue was being solved!
I'm still not sure about such a change, but fair enough, my argument wasn't really pertinent.
-
Penalities are a weird little minigame that don't really represent the most important skills of soccer, which are things like field position and control of the ball.
Disagree - the most important skill in football
is scoring more goals than the opposition. I love penalty shootouts, they're incredibly tense, and they require nerves of steel and a lot of skill. People sometimes say they're a lottery, but that's nonsense IMO.Also disagree on the stopped clock model. Football
is the most popular and widely played sport in the world, and it hasn't needed stopped clocks to get there. Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.There's far too much tinkering with the game as it is, what with VAR and miked up referees and such. The game was fine for decades, and loved by billions of people. I wish they'd just leave it alone.
"scoring more goals" is not a skill. It's an outcome.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense. It's an argument from tradition. "We've always done it this way, so we should continue to do so" is bullshit reasoning. Defend it if you genuinely think it's better, but explain the actual reasons it's better. "Because we always have" is not a valid argument.
Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.
This is, in principle, a better argument. It presents itself as an actual disadvantage of the changed rule.
The problem is that it doesn't make any sense. It wouldn't change the game itself at all. The refs in soccer already stop their stopwatches. They just don't communicate this back to production. And then when the game is supposed to be over (because the clock reads "90"), the ref says "actually we're doing another 12 minutes". The amount of time played would be the same. The amount of time spent with the game stopped due to injuries, corners, etc. would be the same. The only difference is that the number you see on the screen would be the correct time, not made up nonsense.
-
This post did not contain any content.
American Football: Every time a player suffers a traumatic brain injury the owner takes a punch to the head from a professional heavyweight boxer.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Basketball: sooo boring but if you made it like street hoops…
-
This post did not contain any content.
Baseball. No sponsorships on uniforms.
I guess we could extend that to most sports. I know soccer is much more lax in that regard.
All professional teams that are televised must be broadcast free of charge to their local area. No local blackout restrictions. (Fuck you, Marquee Sports. Put the Cubs back on WGN.)
Beer must be under $10, in stadiums. It's $16 for even shitty domestic beer at Wrigley. It's damn robbery.
-
A salary cap can't work in sports. I simply dont see how that could ever work. For example look at the IPL (Indian cricket) where players are paid off the books using sponsors etc.
I know the competition is an issue in football but what has solved it is actually the clubs that aren't restricted lol. PSG, Man City, Chelsea are 3 oof the clubs that have won the UCL recently.
I think multi club models should be banned, I think you should be forced to have 20% of the ownership be in the hands of socios or fans. Germany does 51%.
Ofc loopholes will always be found in any rule, just ask Chelsea. So I'm not convinced any rule would improve the economics or competition.
Look at laliga who put preemptive salary caps over revenue percentage. Barca avoid any repercussions. Meanwhile almeria, an ambitious club, a club owned by one of the richest mem in Spain is relegated bc they couldn't invest asuchbas they would've liked (although I smell smth shady there too).
Next issue is that different competitions are held by different associations so spanish fa rules for laliga meanwhile uefa rules for the UCL. There is no centralisation as there is in american sports. And then the cwc now with Fifa rules. Plus who makes these rules is another problem.
There are voting blocks created and a lot of politics by dinosaurs (the world cup hosting rights are a good example of what always happens).
Then theres balloon payments I'm the EPL, relegated clubs get more money than other championship teams for a while. Fairness questions are ridiculous bc fairness is impossible.
People dislike oil money but is it worse than other sources? Worse than old money?
As for competition, teams in the UCL will always make more money, either you do the ESL and remove the leagues do all the mammoths fcacd each other on equal grounds or you accept it as is.
Sorry for the rambling I typed while eating and my brain and hands were a mess.
A salary cap can't work in sports
Uhh, wrong? Like, provably, obviously wrong, from all the sports that do successfully implement it. There isn't a single Australian league of note without a salary cap, including the soccer A League and T20 cricket Big Bash. American sports also largely have salary caps.
You're not wrong that there are problems and loopholes that need to be carefully addressed, but that is not a reason not to do it at all. It's a reason to look to examples elsewhere and learn from their successes and mistakes, and improve upon them.
It's a matter of fairness and good competition. A team with huge pockets being able to win half the time is grossly unfair and against the spirit of sport. And it's not fun as a fan or spectator when the same few teams win over and over again.
People dislike oil money but is it worse than other sources? Worse than old money?
I don't think this is necessarily relevant to a salary cap discussion. Maybe a team gets its funding from Old Money. Maybe it gets them from oil. But with a salary cap, the impact of either of those is much less, since a much higher percentage of funding will be directly from revenue generated by the team itself, and the league more generally.
Fwiw though my answer is yes. Old Money did crimes decades and centuries ago. And that's obviously less bad than ongoing crimes today. By analogy: if you had to pick, which is better: to put someone in gaol for a murder they committed 40 years ago, or prevent someone else from being able to commit murder later this year? For me the answer is obvious.
-
This post did not contain any content.
All sports: ban gambling sponsorships. Ban teams from wearing gambling company logos or otherwise promoting gambling companies. Ban leagues and networks from incorporating gambling sponsorships into the programming.
I would also say ban gambling advertising entirely, but that's a government law, not a sports one. With the sports rule change, gambling companies could still buy ad spots during as breaks. Just no commentators going "and now over to Lad Brokes so the punters can know the odds in this game".
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Baseball: no more home runs. If it goes out of the park it's a foul. It will force a much more dynamic infield game and get rid of boring ass pop flys.
Edit: exception for grand slams because that shit is pretty exciting.
-
Baseball: Strictly timed innings. Take the average time of innings in the last season or two, set that as the time. Inning ends when the time ends. I don't care if it's mid-play, I don't care if the ball's in the air. And no extra innings. Tie game at the end of the 9th inning counts as a mutual loss.
Warhammer 40K: If it's on the table, play it. I don't care if it's a Battletech model, or a can of coke. It's a model, it gets a move, shoot, and melee.
Wouldn't your rule incentivise slower play from the fielding team? I don't follow baseball, but I imagine the longer an innings goes (in terms of number of plays), the more points the batting team can score. If you can artificially reduce the number of plays because there's a time limit and you just slow-play it, you gain an advantage.
Cricket addresses its timing issues through a few means, but one is finding the bowling team if over rates drop too low. This has its own problems (the assumption behind that rule is that low over rates are the fault of the bowling team, but this is not always true, especially with batsmen who have weird habits like regularly changing gloves, and with the use of player reviews), and I think it's better addressed at more fundamental levels, but I think it probably looks at it from a better place. Identify the culprit and do something that penalises them, rather than their opponent.
-
Football
All the players are blindfolded
(I don't enjoy football, but I'd certainly watch it if it involved people running at each other full speed blindfolded)
Edit: American Football, but I'm honestly open to testing this on other sports too
I don't know if you're talking soccer, Aussie rules, gridiron, rugby (league or union), Gaelic football, or something else. But this is amusing whichever you pick.
Important: unlike variants of sports designed to be accessible to blind and low-vision players, this football is completely regular. Regular size, regular colour, no rattles or anything to make it easier to find the ball.
-
A salary cap can't work in sports. I simply dont see how that could ever work. For example look at the IPL (Indian cricket) where players are paid off the books using sponsors etc.
I know the competition is an issue in football but what has solved it is actually the clubs that aren't restricted lol. PSG, Man City, Chelsea are 3 oof the clubs that have won the UCL recently.
I think multi club models should be banned, I think you should be forced to have 20% of the ownership be in the hands of socios or fans. Germany does 51%.
Ofc loopholes will always be found in any rule, just ask Chelsea. So I'm not convinced any rule would improve the economics or competition.
Look at laliga who put preemptive salary caps over revenue percentage. Barca avoid any repercussions. Meanwhile almeria, an ambitious club, a club owned by one of the richest mem in Spain is relegated bc they couldn't invest asuchbas they would've liked (although I smell smth shady there too).
Next issue is that different competitions are held by different associations so spanish fa rules for laliga meanwhile uefa rules for the UCL. There is no centralisation as there is in american sports. And then the cwc now with Fifa rules. Plus who makes these rules is another problem.
There are voting blocks created and a lot of politics by dinosaurs (the world cup hosting rights are a good example of what always happens).
Then theres balloon payments I'm the EPL, relegated clubs get more money than other championship teams for a while. Fairness questions are ridiculous bc fairness is impossible.
People dislike oil money but is it worse than other sources? Worse than old money?
As for competition, teams in the UCL will always make more money, either you do the ESL and remove the leagues do all the mammoths fcacd each other on equal grounds or you accept it as is.
Sorry for the rambling I typed while eating and my brain and hands were a mess.
For example, in the NRL, since 2004, there have been 11 or 12 winners (depending on whether you count the Eels winning after the Storm were found to have broken the salary cap, and had their Premiership taken from them retroactively). In the AFL it's 10. BBL has only existed since 2011, and it already surpasses EPL's 2004 total with 6 unique winners, despite also only having 9 teams compared to EPL's 20.
-
"scoring more goals" is not a skill. It's an outcome.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense. It's an argument from tradition. "We've always done it this way, so we should continue to do so" is bullshit reasoning. Defend it if you genuinely think it's better, but explain the actual reasons it's better. "Because we always have" is not a valid argument.
Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.
This is, in principle, a better argument. It presents itself as an actual disadvantage of the changed rule.
The problem is that it doesn't make any sense. It wouldn't change the game itself at all. The refs in soccer already stop their stopwatches. They just don't communicate this back to production. And then when the game is supposed to be over (because the clock reads "90"), the ref says "actually we're doing another 12 minutes". The amount of time played would be the same. The amount of time spent with the game stopped due to injuries, corners, etc. would be the same. The only difference is that the number you see on the screen would be the correct time, not made up nonsense.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]"scoring more goals" is not a skill. It's an outcome.
That's fair. But the game is not decided on skills, it's decided on goals.
Unless you want a label of judges along the touchline holding up 9.8 9.7 9.9, etc for a keepie uppie competition, I think penalties is the best way so far devised.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense.
Is it? Maybe in your opinion.
Yes, it's an argument from tradition, and that's a fundamental part of football culture. Tradition is at the heart of everything that has made, and still makes, the sport great.
I don't feel any need to defend it beyond that, particularly not to someone who is talking like a belligerent prick for no apparent reason. I'd have been happy to have a discussion, but apparently you just came to abuse anyone with a different point of view. So bite me.
-
Baseball. No sponsorships on uniforms.
I guess we could extend that to most sports. I know soccer is much more lax in that regard.
All professional teams that are televised must be broadcast free of charge to their local area. No local blackout restrictions. (Fuck you, Marquee Sports. Put the Cubs back on WGN.)
Beer must be under $10, in stadiums. It's $16 for even shitty domestic beer at Wrigley. It's damn robbery.
The beer is priced high to keep from having to deal with a critical mass of drunken idiots. No one gets wasted on $16 beer.
-
Soccer: don't use penalty shootouts to break ties. Penalities are a weird little minigame that don't really represent the most important skills of soccer, which are things like field position and control of the ball.
I'm open to suggestions on what should be done to break ties, but I like the idea of golden point where, if a goal is not scores after a certain amount of time, the number of players on the field starts gradually decreasing. So after 5 minutes of golden point, you drop to 10 vs 10, after 10 minutes it's 9 vs 9, down to a minimum of like 5 vs 5. Fewer players will tend to benefit the attacking team, making scoring more likely as it goes on.
Also soccer, as well as rugby union: just use the fucking clock. When the clock we see on the TV screen reaches 90 (or 80), that's it. Game over. Adjustments due to stoppage time etc. should be made at that time and transparent for everyone to see, by pausing the clock then and there, and resuming it when play resumes. Not added on at the end.
Edit: actually, it seems like rugby union might have already adopted this? I'm not too sure, because I'm a rugby league fan myself, which has always done it the right way (or at least always in my lifetime).
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!
-
Football
All the players are blindfolded
(I don't enjoy football, but I'd certainly watch it if it involved people running at each other full speed blindfolded)
Edit: American Football, but I'm honestly open to testing this on other sports too
I saw a YouTube video of a game where they played soccer in 3rd person. Everyone wore VR goggles that gave them a birds eye view of the field and it was very amusing to see.
Probably not to play, though.
