A couple of rule changes that I think would be good

Dr. Giganto · 10-19-2006, 04:43 PM

Recent posts have got me thinking about two sports, and a great rule change that each can make.

In football, I LOVE the arena league's rule where the clock stops on a play that results in a loss of yardage. If the NFL instituted this rule, teams couldn't just kneel on the ball at the ends of games, they would have to try to advance it until the clock hits all zeros. And, to avoid people just QB sneaking all the time, I would say that you have to advance the ball either at least one yard or at least two yards to keep the clock running.

Then, in boxing, I absolutely hate that so many fights come down to a judges decision. So, I say this: After the 7th round, you go "sudden death", meaning that any knockdown in the 8th round or later automatically ends the fight. There are way too many bullshit decisions, and we need a more objective way of determining a winner.

Thoughts? Any other ideas you can think of to make your sport better?

Slim · 10-19-2006, 05:06 PM

I like the first one, but then again, I like the spike rule because it comes in handy. Sometimes you dont have a timeout and you need to stop the clock to get one last play in.

I agree witht he boxing rule, but then again, wouldnt that cause a lot mroe injuries? But then again, it is boxing...

What about The Challenge rule. Do you think they should also allow you to challenge a penalty call? Recently a lot of calls are being made about protecting the qb, liek saying it was helment to helment when it wasnt, it just looked that way, if they put that under review, they could see that the cal was wrong and then change it. Naw I mean?

Brandon · 10-19-2006, 05:09 PM

Well, I'll start with college football. I hate the rule where they don't need to be touched to be down. A guy catches the ball, slips to one knee and he's down. It's crap.

In the NFL, I would do what they do with college after a 1st down, the clock won't start until the ball is set.

Also in the NFL, I wnat both teams to get a possession in overtime before it turns to sudden death.

I'll think of more..

Dr. Giganto · 10-19-2006, 05:21 PM

I agree whole-heartedly about the NFL OT thing. Both teams should get possession at least once. Also, that way, you wouldnt see the team that gets the ball first play ultra-conservative and kick an anti-clactic 40-yard field goal. The team that gets the ball first would need to continue driving the ball.

I think baseball should implement a challenge system as well. Considering how much time managers waste arguing calls anyway, give them two challenges, let the ump take a look, and if he makes a mistake, he can reverse the call.

I would also like it if baseball started moving away from umpires calling balls and strikes. If they could come up with some sort of computerized system that automatically calls balls and strikes, that would make the game much better.

Brandon · 10-19-2006, 05:26 PM

They need to do something with the NBA also. The NBA has arguably the most talent they've ever had, they have some really good or great teams, but nobody likes to watch it because they can't score a 100 points. Maybe change the shot clock to 18 seconds?

They need to speed up the game like the Suns do it.

Slim · 10-19-2006, 05:26 PM

See, I dont like that at all. Baseball is Americas Past Time. DOnt change it up with computers and such. Have it be all human. I like that about it. ITs fun seeing the managers and players yell at the umps. Thats part of baseball. And its also fun to ehar the ump say Strike 3! and the player to be like what?

Please, leave baseball the way it is!

Plus baseball is already long enough, having challenges would just make it even longer.

Dr. Giganto · 10-19-2006, 05:43 PM

Well, I pretty much disagree with the "it's part of the game" thing. Judgement errors should NOT be a part of the game. And, if technology gets got enough to take those errors out of a game, we should use it.

If a pitcher throws at the knees right on the corner, and it's called a ball, how is that good for the game? Because there's actually a fat guy back there saying it's not a strike (even though it actually is)? Or, what about the fact that every umpire seems to have a different strike zone.

When you stick with tradition for traditions sake, you end up with stupid traditions like the college bowl games. The governing bodies of sports leagues should constantly be trying to improve the games, and eliminating errors on the part of referees/umpires is a major part of that.

As for the challenge thing, my idea was that it would actually make the game shorter, because referees wouldn't be able to argue with the umps except to make a challenge.

Slim · 10-19-2006, 05:48 PM

Im sorry I just dont agree at all. They have been discussing this and the managers dotn want to do it either. If you want technology to become involved in sports then im afraid what 30 years will be like. Will it even be the same?

It is a part of baseball, and I hope it always will be a part of baseball.

Slim · 10-19-2006, 05:53 PM

besides, umps are pretty accurate. They get a bad rep.

Slim · 10-19-2006, 05:58 PM

another thing, if there was a ''machine'' to say if it is a strike or ball. Then the hitters would know what to look for. When an ump is calling you can never be so sure, so sometimes you got to swin away especcialy on 3-2. But with a machine doing all the work, you could see a lot easier if it was a ball or strike.

A couple of rule changes that I think would be good

This is a discussion on A couple of rule changes that I think would be good within the North American Sports forums, part of the Sports Forums category; Recent posts have got me thinking about two sports, and a great rule change that each can make. In football, ...