For as much as I enjoy sports, there are times I'll be watching a game, hear a call made by a referee, and think to myself, "Well, that rule's stupid. Who came up with that in the first place and why's it still around?" On that note, here are the top five rule changes I'd like to see in the four major sports (in random order):
5) Hockey: Offsides - I still think approximately 50% of hockey players don't yet understand this rule. What's the point of it really? If a team is offsides, does it significantly improve their odds of scoring a goal? Does it place the defense at a great disadvantage? Or is it just one of those pointless rules that's been around for so many years, no one thinks to say, "WTF is this rule anyway? Let's do away with it!"? I'm guessing it's that third and final option. If one team is always offsides, then they'll be at a disadvantage defensively when their opponent has the puck, so again, what's the point? Let's do away with it, and with that, receive less play stoppages as a result. (Runner-up: Icing - This would actually be a good strategy and good defense by a penalty killing team, yet they're penalized for this.)
4) Baseball: The retaliatory beanball - "It's just a part of the game; it's an unwritten rule." Okay then... Well, let's do away with that unwritten rule. Just because one player gets unintentionally hit with a pitch doesn't make it obligatory for a pitcher on his team to return the favor. This can result in season-ending injuries, not to mention lost games. Is it really worth it to place the potential tying or go-ahead run on first base with an intentional beanball just to satisfy one player's thirst for payback? How about teams focus more attention on winning games than on retaliatory beanballs? (Runner-up: Multiple types of balks - Know all the rules for balking? I'm not sure anyone does. Here's a condensed version of it - http://probaseballinsider.com/baseball-instruction/what-is-a-balk/. While a pitcher should still be penalized for acting like he's about to throw to the plate and then throwing to a base in an attempt to pick-off a runner, let's do away with those other balk rules. When rules involve "imaginary lines," chances are they're not solid rules.)
3) Football: Was it a catch? Was it a touchdown? - For as much trouble as Bill Clinton once had of defining the word "is," the NFL seems to have an even more difficult time defining the word "catch." "Well, he had possession of the ball, but didn't make a football move with possession, so it wasn't really a catch." So, it was a catch but it wasn't? Interesting. "He caught the ball in the end zone, but lost control of it after being hit by the defense and going to the ground." So, once again, it was a catch and a touchdown, but it wasn't? If a defender knocks the ball out of a receiver's hands before he hits the ground, then fine, the pass is incomplete. However, if the ground can't cause a fumble, why can the ground cause an incomplete pass? If the ball crosses the goalline on a run play, it's a touchdown regardless if the ball comes loose afterwards. Why is that then not the case on a pass play? If a receiver catches the ball and has possession once he crosses the goalline, why is the catch and touchdown negated if he doesn't "complete" the process of making the catch and maintaining control as he hits the ground? Just like the word "is" shouldn't be made more complicated than it is, neither should the word "catch" be. (Runner-up: Hits on the quarterback - Defenders can't hit the quarterback late, which is understandable. However, they now also can't hit quarterbacks at the knees, below the knees, above the shoulders, or in between their knees and shoulders if leading with their helmets. So perhaps some more specific guidelines would be helpful here, or attach a flag to a quarterback's belt and continue down that path.)
2) Basketball: Hack-a-Shaq/Jordan/Howard - What do I find to be duller than watching chess tournaments during a crazy weekend in Las Vegas? Watching NBA basketball when one team goes the Hack-a-Shaq route. Last night, the Houston Rockets sent Los Angeles Clippers center DeAndre Jordan to the foul line 28 times in the first half of last night's game (34 times total). What kind of coaching strategy is that anyway? A lazy one if you ask me. "So, guys, I don't really have a plan drawn up on how to beat these guys 5-on-5, so I say we just keep fouling their worst foul shooter and hope we're able to score enough to win. Yup, that's what we're going to do. Hopefully we still have five guys by game's end that haven't fouled out." If a team wants to go that route in the final two minutes of the game, then so be it; I think that should be legal. But for this to be a team's main strategy for the entire duration of a game shouldn't be allowed. Not only is such a strategy a disgrace to the integrity of the sport, but it's also awful from an entertainment perspective. When's the last time NBA fans said to one another, "You know what I hope to see today? One of the worst foul shooters in league history break the all-time record for foul shot attempts in a game!" I'll answer that one - never!
1) Basketball: Foul outs - I remember watching a Big East tournament game a few years back when Syracuse and Connecticut went to 7 overtimes. By the time the game ended, the two teams were down to rarely used bench players, water-boys, and even members of the coaching staffs (and audience). How can we truly determine which was the better team when that sort of scenario presents itself? In football, if an offensive lineman gets called for five or six penalties in a game, is he forced to head to the locker room for the remainder of the game? No. What about in hockey? No again. Fans don't go to these games to watch typical bench-warmers decide the outcome in an overtime session. They go to these games to see the best play the best and that isn't going to happen when starters foul out. So, I say, once a player reaches six fouls (five in college), force him to sit on the bench for two minutes before he's allowed to enter again. Then for every proceeding foul, he'll be forced to sit on the bench for an additional minute (or somewhere along those lines). This would still force coaches to strategize with regard to their foul situations, would penalize players for reaching a certain number of fouls, but would not necessarily leave such games up to typical bench players to decide.
5) Hockey: Offsides - I still think approximately 50% of hockey players don't yet understand this rule. What's the point of it really? If a team is offsides, does it significantly improve their odds of scoring a goal? Does it place the defense at a great disadvantage? Or is it just one of those pointless rules that's been around for so many years, no one thinks to say, "WTF is this rule anyway? Let's do away with it!"? I'm guessing it's that third and final option. If one team is always offsides, then they'll be at a disadvantage defensively when their opponent has the puck, so again, what's the point? Let's do away with it, and with that, receive less play stoppages as a result. (Runner-up: Icing - This would actually be a good strategy and good defense by a penalty killing team, yet they're penalized for this.)
4) Baseball: The retaliatory beanball - "It's just a part of the game; it's an unwritten rule." Okay then... Well, let's do away with that unwritten rule. Just because one player gets unintentionally hit with a pitch doesn't make it obligatory for a pitcher on his team to return the favor. This can result in season-ending injuries, not to mention lost games. Is it really worth it to place the potential tying or go-ahead run on first base with an intentional beanball just to satisfy one player's thirst for payback? How about teams focus more attention on winning games than on retaliatory beanballs? (Runner-up: Multiple types of balks - Know all the rules for balking? I'm not sure anyone does. Here's a condensed version of it - http://probaseballinsider.com/baseball-instruction/what-is-a-balk/. While a pitcher should still be penalized for acting like he's about to throw to the plate and then throwing to a base in an attempt to pick-off a runner, let's do away with those other balk rules. When rules involve "imaginary lines," chances are they're not solid rules.)
3) Football: Was it a catch? Was it a touchdown? - For as much trouble as Bill Clinton once had of defining the word "is," the NFL seems to have an even more difficult time defining the word "catch." "Well, he had possession of the ball, but didn't make a football move with possession, so it wasn't really a catch." So, it was a catch but it wasn't? Interesting. "He caught the ball in the end zone, but lost control of it after being hit by the defense and going to the ground." So, once again, it was a catch and a touchdown, but it wasn't? If a defender knocks the ball out of a receiver's hands before he hits the ground, then fine, the pass is incomplete. However, if the ground can't cause a fumble, why can the ground cause an incomplete pass? If the ball crosses the goalline on a run play, it's a touchdown regardless if the ball comes loose afterwards. Why is that then not the case on a pass play? If a receiver catches the ball and has possession once he crosses the goalline, why is the catch and touchdown negated if he doesn't "complete" the process of making the catch and maintaining control as he hits the ground? Just like the word "is" shouldn't be made more complicated than it is, neither should the word "catch" be. (Runner-up: Hits on the quarterback - Defenders can't hit the quarterback late, which is understandable. However, they now also can't hit quarterbacks at the knees, below the knees, above the shoulders, or in between their knees and shoulders if leading with their helmets. So perhaps some more specific guidelines would be helpful here, or attach a flag to a quarterback's belt and continue down that path.)
2) Basketball: Hack-a-Shaq/Jordan/Howard - What do I find to be duller than watching chess tournaments during a crazy weekend in Las Vegas? Watching NBA basketball when one team goes the Hack-a-Shaq route. Last night, the Houston Rockets sent Los Angeles Clippers center DeAndre Jordan to the foul line 28 times in the first half of last night's game (34 times total). What kind of coaching strategy is that anyway? A lazy one if you ask me. "So, guys, I don't really have a plan drawn up on how to beat these guys 5-on-5, so I say we just keep fouling their worst foul shooter and hope we're able to score enough to win. Yup, that's what we're going to do. Hopefully we still have five guys by game's end that haven't fouled out." If a team wants to go that route in the final two minutes of the game, then so be it; I think that should be legal. But for this to be a team's main strategy for the entire duration of a game shouldn't be allowed. Not only is such a strategy a disgrace to the integrity of the sport, but it's also awful from an entertainment perspective. When's the last time NBA fans said to one another, "You know what I hope to see today? One of the worst foul shooters in league history break the all-time record for foul shot attempts in a game!" I'll answer that one - never!
1) Basketball: Foul outs - I remember watching a Big East tournament game a few years back when Syracuse and Connecticut went to 7 overtimes. By the time the game ended, the two teams were down to rarely used bench players, water-boys, and even members of the coaching staffs (and audience). How can we truly determine which was the better team when that sort of scenario presents itself? In football, if an offensive lineman gets called for five or six penalties in a game, is he forced to head to the locker room for the remainder of the game? No. What about in hockey? No again. Fans don't go to these games to watch typical bench-warmers decide the outcome in an overtime session. They go to these games to see the best play the best and that isn't going to happen when starters foul out. So, I say, once a player reaches six fouls (five in college), force him to sit on the bench for two minutes before he's allowed to enter again. Then for every proceeding foul, he'll be forced to sit on the bench for an additional minute (or somewhere along those lines). This would still force coaches to strategize with regard to their foul situations, would penalize players for reaching a certain number of fouls, but would not necessarily leave such games up to typical bench players to decide.
Comments
Post a Comment