Here Today... Gone To Hell!

 I watch plenty of sports, and think there alot of rules that should be changed... Figured i'd start a thread to discuss rules you dont agree with, and what should be different about them!


NFL-- Kneeling the ball-- This is such bull shit because its such a cheap way to ruin a great game... Teams should be at least forced to run the ball, for the possibility of a fumble....

NHL- When there is a delayed penalty in a teams defensive zone, they should have to clear it out of the zone.... Not just gain possesion, would make for many more scoring chances

NHL- IN OT when a player is in the penalty box within the last 2 minutes, he should be the last player allowed in the shootout... The games is still going on, dont let him back in!


What do you think??

Also post your own discrepancies  : ok:

loaded night train, I can't comment on the nhl rule because I don't watch hockey.

but...I watch a ton of football.  Unfortunately, you can't get rid of kneeling.  A snap will take place one way or the other, and if he's not allowed to kneel, he'll just fall down.  Ya just can't change that.

However, (I like this thread by the way), I'd like to see a change in a football rule.  The ground causing a fumble rule.  I just don't like it.  If you're stupid enough to let go of the ball when hitting the ground, you deserve to lose team possession of the ball. 

Also, one more thing, (because I know some folks hate it), don't change the NFL sudden death overtime.  Throughout the history of the NFL, if a team wins the coin flip, they have a 50% chance to win the game.  Some people will tell you that if you lose the flip, you have a smaller chance of winning the game.  (as Dwight Schrute of The Office would say) "false, you still have 50-50 odds of winning the game."  As long as the odds stay in that 50-50 spread, I'm happy with the sudden death o.t.  If you lose the coin toss, and lose the game, blame your defense and/or special teams.  : ok:

So why not change it to say, if you're looking to 'kneel' to your advantage and you just fal down or QB gets sacked clock stops immediately??

As far as the overtime thing, I dunno... Its only fair to let both teams have the ball... If youhave have 2 offensive teams who have crappy defenses, how is that fair to the coin toss loser??

To state the obvious:

Baseball - No more DH.  : ok:

Now thats something you and i can both agree on.

I do get a kick out of DH apologists talking about how it favors the NL, because AL pitchers aren't used to batting.  :rofl:

Yeah, all NL teams would HATE to have David Ortiz coming off their bench to hit in a pinch. ::)

Thats a good one  :hihi:. Only time it favors the NL is in world series games played in NL parks.

I still don't think it favors the NL.  In an NL park, AL teams have two choices: 1.) put their DH in as a regular position player, to get him more at-bats or 2.) have that guy as your #1 or clutch opportunity choice when you need to hit in the pinch. 

The best way I can think to back this up is this: AL average payroll is 93.3 Million; NL average payroll is 74 million.  Even taking out Boston and NYY as anomalies, the AL average is still 6 million more than the NL.  People wonder why the AL has been dominating the All-Star game, and it seems pretty obvious to me.  More money draws more talent, and even though all the players are great, you'd still expect to find more of them in the AL.  Of course, that hardly matters for the World Series, when it's two real teams, rather than All-Stars, but the trend is there.       

For baseball, I'd like to see SOME sort of instant replay/challenge system implemented.  I'm not sure the form it could take...I like the NFL system where, if you use a challenge but lose it, you lose a time out. You'd have to find some sort of similar "penalty" and limited challenge # for MLB.

And I'd ONLY want to see it used in specific cases...stuff like home run/foul ball calls, traps, and MAYBE calls at the bags (safe/out/tag) calls.  NOT balls and strikes, and I'm even iffy on the judgement calls at the bags.  But reviewing trapped vs caught balls and whether or not a ball is a HR, foul, or GR double should be no branier implementations.

I could live with it for questions of fair v. foul balls, but I'm generally not for it.  Baseball is unlike any other sport in that the best teams still lose 40% of their games and the worst teams generally win 40% of their games.  It's truly a probabilistic sport, in every sense, unlike American football, where the best teams will win 75%+ and the worst teams will win 25%-.  In football, each game is 6.25% of your season, where as in baseball it's about 0.75%.  As such, the missed calls matter to varying degrees in each sport.  A bad call that costs a football game can really hurt a team; in baseball, it's part of the probability.  You may get screwed because of a call, but you've probably won games because of calls, too.  Further, baseball has a wonderfully human element about it that I love.  The way each umps strike zone can be slightly different, and the way this sport, somehow, has developed into one where the time it takes a batter to run to first is very close to the time it often takes for a fielder to catch the ball and throw it to first is uncanny.     

That said, I'd be for wider implementation in the playoffs, when the importance of each game is magnified.  If they do it, it should all be done from a booth: no challenges, no new rules to "punish" losing challenges (not sure what that would be, to be honest).     

I agree on the balls and strikes thing.  That's why I wouldn't want replay touching that piece of the game.  I think THAT'S the human element most fans point to when it comes to baseball....not the ump missing the fact that Manny trapped the ball on his sliding dive, rather than caught it.

But on the rest...the calls at the bags for example and trapped balls in the outfield ESPECIALLY...I just want them to get the call right.  Period.  I think saying "well, you get some calls for you, and some against you over the course of 162 games" is sort of a cop out.  I don't, ultimately, care what the net effect is....the point is that the call was blown and there's no reason for it.  There's technology available to help the umps out with that call, to make sure they get it right.  It shouldn't be about "umpire ego" either (and many times, it is).  Make sure they get the call right.  That should be the most important goal.

But what I DON'T want is EVERY close play at the bag reviewed....to see every infield hit where the runner legs out a slow grounder reviewed would be maddening.  Games take plenty long enough now....baseball DOESN'T need to add 40 minutes worth of replay to their 2.5 (3.5 if you're the Yanks, or playing them) hour games.  That's precisely why I'd think they'd need to add some sort of NFL-like "challenge" system...to prevent it from elongating games unnecessarily AND to prevent managerial abuse/tactical use (for example, when trying to get a pitcher warmed up in the bullpen for the next inning, etc).  The question is: What realistic constraints can you put on use to make sure they're used the way they're intended and not OVERUSED or abused?  That's the tough question, I think.


I think either you do it or you don't.  Limiting it's use JUST to the playoffs, or expanded use during the play offs, seems burdensome.  You'd have the umps trying to figure out, on the fly, the system.  And you typically have new ump crews pretty much every year for the playoffs.....so every year you'd be dealing with teaching (or re-teaching) a new ump crew about the replay system in the playoffs.  Easier, and logistically smoother, to just do it all season long.  Maybe you could expand the number of challenges per game (from 2 to 3, maybe) for the playoffs..I don't know.

I think it would be interesting getting rid of the DH. It would really force the managers in the AL to manage more. Deciding if they wanna pitch hit for a pitch or pull a double switch etc. I think more NL style baseball in the AL would be exciting.

On the replay subject i would like to only see it used in certain situations definitely not balls and strikes. I would only use it for fair/foul or for really close plays where its unclear if the player is safe or out.

I'm not sure how using it less, in a more limited fashion, increases the burden.  But what I DON'T want is for the umps on the field to be reviewing the plays.  On iffy calls (fair/foul homers) they often get together anyway.  If a guy in the booth (obviously a neutral MLB official or "booth umpire") could review the tape while they're together and send the correct (presumably) call to the crew chief's earpiece, then that'd be fine.  I have no problem with that.  After all, with four umps clustered in the infield, it can be difficult to react in time to get the angle necessary to make a correct fair/foul home run call.  What would really bother me is managers having X number of challenges, and trying to decide whether to use one on here or there, and what punishment is there if your challenge fails...  The rules of this game are already tedious sometimes, so why make them more so?

     

I don't get it.  If my belief that close calls sometimes going the wrong way is a part of the game is a "cop out," then why do you want to limit challenges either in their substance (No balls/strikes) or in the number of them?  If it's a "cop out," then surely it would be best to get all calls 100% correct, right? 

But using replay takes away from so many of the lores of the game.  Things that may seem "unfair," in some respects, but which baseball fans fully expect.  For example, when the ball beats a runner to a base by a fair amount, the call tends to go against the runner, without regard for whether he was or was not safe.  Or what about the "in the neighborhood" calls on double plays?  It's standard practice to grant the out at second, on a double play, if the 2B/SS comes "in the neighborhood" of tagging the bag on the way to throw to first.  Technically, it's a bad call.  But it's part of the game, and no one even argues it (and having rooted a team opposite a Tony LaRussa squad for some years, I can honestly say that if HE accepts those calls, then almost everyone does).

But I'm not a 100% purist.  I like the Wildcard, and I wouldn't mind booth initiated replay on fair/foul home run calls.  Just don't butcher the sport in some witch hunt for its inadequacies.

Howwwwww about.....losing a pinch hitter for ONE pitching change?

Changing the rules for different parts of the season is the burdensome part.  Changing the AMOUNT managers can use it (again, back to the challenge system) maybe.  But not it's use and WHEN it can be used.  Too confusing.  Too burdensome.  Too logistically impractical.

That's the system I'd see go into place....although it wouldn't be an MLB official....just another ump not on the field.  A "review ref", or something like that.


ANY rules regarding replay are going to have to incorporate new rules.  You have to balance, much like the NFL found, the usefulness of the tool of replay with it's effect on duration of the games AND on managerial abuse.  Thus why I think you'd need to institute some sort of "control" on it. OR you leave it up to "the booth" as to when it's used...which is fine, but you have to have some criteria for what is, and isn't, reveiwable and EVERYTHING that's deemed "reviewable" has to be reviewed. That's going to lengthen the games considerably. You can't simply say "when the umps ask for help" because that defeat the purpose of replay....getting the calls right...because it leaves too much up to "umpire ego".



See, that's my point.  It's not about "right way" and "wrong way"....which changes with who's perspective you're adopting.  It's about objectively making the right calls, and making sure a bad call doesn't effect the outcome of a game.

As for why you need to make limits on use: Because you have to balance the benefits with the disadvantages.  While the ultimate goal would be 100% accuracy, the acceptable outcome would be to get the "important" calls right.  The managers could decide what they think are important.  Again, nobody likely wants the booth reviewing a "caught stealing" play in the 8th inning of a 12-1 ballgame.  But you can't make booth review "arbitrary" or situational...it has to be consistently applied in every applicable situation, which makes it burdensome in some situations.  If you leave it up to managerial appeal, you limit how often it can be used, and up to their discretion as to if it's WORTH using at all.  You wouldn't see many managers arguing that close caught stealing example above, but if it was a 2-2 game in the 8th.....almost any manager would be trotting out of the dugout.

On using it for balls and strikes:  I, much like you, think the strike zone is a situational and personal "entity", and I think that is one of the sacrosanct pieces of the game.  Bang/bang calls at the bags, traps, and fair/foul calls aren't.   In addition, reviewing every ball and strike seems pointlessly burdensome and would REALLY elongate the game. ..far more than the benefits you'd get from doing so.  Also...even if you wanted to review them, leaving it to replay would be a bad decision, considering Quest-tech already performs that function ...even if MLB doesn't use it for anything other than informational/data purposes.


Which would come under the "what's reviewable and what's not" category.  I'd agree on the double play "in the neighborhood" calls NOT being reviewable.  That's one of the reasons I said "Maybe close calls at the bags".  There are some issues surrounding those calls, and which would be reviewable and which not, that make them problematic.  I'd LIKE to see them included in some fashion, but the challenges may preclude them from being reviewable. Maybe you do something like "only plays at home plate and tag plays (so not force outs) on 1st - 3rd" are reviewable".


I don't think you have to butcher the sport to make good use of replay.  The NFL has done it, hockey has done it (on goals)....I think MLB could do it, too.

i disagree with you on the NFL OT. about 30% of OT games throughout the history of the NFL end on the first possession. that percentage is 35% for the last 5 years, and 45% in 2006. that's too much, and the trend is increasing. i think its due to recent developments in the NFL that have made it more unfair:

1) kickoffs are further back in an attempt to give offenses better field position.
2) kickers are far more accurate with stronger legs than 30 years ago.   

so clearly it is more unfair than when the rule was created. after a team lays everything on the line for 60 minutes, they should be guaranteed an opportunity to possess the ball in OT.


another NFL rule i don't like it pass interference. it should be 15 yards as it is in college, not spot of the foul.

I think there needs to be some type of rule in baseball limiting time between pitches.? Watching a pitcher walk around for 5 minutes rubbing the ball and a batter step into and out of the batter's box like he's got Tourette's is about as enjoyable as hemorrhoids.

I'm not sure how this slipped my mind, but two other things need to be changed about MLB. 

#1.) Get it back to 15 AL and 15 NL teams, with 5/division.  That the NL Central has six teams, and the AL West has four is just silly.  Assuming they want to maintain the Cubs/Brewers rivalry (which wasn't much of one until this year), they won't move Milwaukee back to the AL (and the Cubs can't go, because of the White Sox).  I can't imagine the Cardinals going, and Cincy/Pittsburgh are far too far to the East to move.  So, I think the obvious choice to make a move is Houston.  They could move to the NL West, and take another NL West team and move that team to the AL West (Arizona and Colorado seem the likely candidates, as they haven't staked their ground for as long as the Dodgers, Giants, and Padres).  Or, you could move Houston directly to the AL West.  It kind of sucks for whichever team(s) has to move, but it needs to be done.

#2.) The opening game must, again, be in Cincinnati!  They took it away from the Queen City for purely monetary reasons, but anyone who enjoys baseball tradition knows it's bullshit.  And there's an easy solution that both sides of this debate SHOULD find reasonable. 

Option 1: If Cincy has a good team, and an NL team won the World Series, have the opening night game between those teams, in Cincy, before opening day.

Option 2: If Cincy stinks or an AL team won the World Series, have Cincy play an afternoon game against a divisional rival or good NL team, and have a night game between the World Series winner and another quality team.

 

Well if the guy was going to catch the ball and possibly get 60+ yards, but cant because he was interfered with... Why only give him 15 yards??? You'd see guys getting tackled all the time if that were the case

do you see that in college? no.

Well most college football players arent to bright... Lets face it they're not there for the education  :hihi:

One they'd get to the NFL the coaches smarten them up, in that regard any way...

if the DB is close enough to tackle the receiver, than they are close enough to make a play on the ball.

if it's obvious a WR is gonna make a catch and score, than the DB is probably no where near the play anyway.

too many bad calls are made regarding pass interference. and the penalty frequently sets up the offensive team in a great position to score. a common desperation tactic is to just air it up and hope for pass interference. it just seems cheap.

ironically, the NFL does have a rule against what you are describing. they call it as either "defensive holding" or "illegal contact". you usually see this done by LBs (and sometimes DBs as well) when they know they are about to be beat badly for a pass. and what's the penalty? 5 yards and an automatic 1st down.

I agree that it's often a very cheap penalty that, if judged fairly, could go against the offensive player as often as not.  For example, the call against whomever was covering Moss last weekend...yeah, it favors the offense too much.

^ don't worry, they made up for that with the highly questionable call that later took a touchdown away from Randy.

  Now, Sandman, you mentioned 30% of the overtime games end with one possession.  That's a very misleading statistic.  The important stat to remember is 50-50.  If you win the toss, you have a 50% chance of winning the game.  If you lose the toss, you have a 50% chance of winning.  It's freaking perfect.  If we ever get to the point the offensive side of the ball is given an overall advantage, etc., or vice-versa, then we'll have a problem...but since there is no problem, don't fix it.

  In fact, if we use the math we learned in high school, 20% of the time, overtime has at least 3 possessions.  70% of the games will be 2 or more possessions.  College overtime borders on ridiculous.  In my opinion of course.  :peace:

Sudden Death is exciting.   :yes:

highly questionable???? moss dropped the ball! it clearly was not in his control when he landed. that's why he didn't even flinch when it was overturned.

you're 50% figure is not correct when looking at the last five years. and that makes sense since the NFL has made it EASIER for offenses to score in recent years (to make the game more exciting). so now it is clearly a disadvantage.

imagine an AFC champ game in indy that ends up tied at 38. indy wins the toss and because there are much fewer touchbacks these days (since teams now kick from the 30), indy returns the ball to the 40. manning completes a 20 yard pass and vinatieri kicks a 57 yard FG to end the game. are you telling me there isn't a person in world that wouldn't want to see Brady touch the ball at least once in OT??? that would be an absolute disaster. and the rule would be changed the following year.

i agree, sudden death is exciting. but letting something as ridiculous as a coin toss determine who gets the ball first is insane. i wouldn't have as much a problem with it if they used a stat to determine the first possession. like who gained the most yards during the game, or who has the better record, etc.

I always thought some of the penalty stuff should be changed.

For Instance, If a team is on their own 1 yard line and its first and 10, lets say they get called for holding.

Its normally a 10 yard penalty but where they are already on the one, they basically get away with the penalty scott free. Same with personal fouls.

I think even though the ball stays on the one, they should move the chains and still make it 1st and 20 or 1st and 25 or with a false start 1st and 15.

Baseball should have a pitch clock like the NBA shot clock.

Well right casue the illegal contact is usually within the first 5-10 yards.... Down field a safety, holds a guys arm or tugs his jersey, when he's beat, why only a 15 yard penalty??

I'm not saying sometimes the calls dont suck, but the penalty is fair.....


What would the result of the violation be??

Easy Sandman!  I wasn't trying to be an ass!  Also, I wasn't referring to that first touchdown, I know that wasn't a catch. (it was gorgeous body control) but it wasn't a catch.  I was talking about Randy's "push-off" near the end of the game, which reminds me of the phantom push-off the Seahawk's receiver had in their super bowl game against the steelers.  that called back touchdown changed that game right from the get-go.

Also, may I say I really like D's idea to tack on yards if the call is holding and the ball is on their own 1 yard line.   :beer:

Sandman, if the trend continues, which I'd have to see all the numbers to confirm it has, just make the kickoff from 5 yards forward.  I say keep the sudden death aspect, just tweak.  "Last licks" is just so playground. 

Also, to use your Patriot-Colts analogy, what if it was a 2006 Bears team or 2000 or 2001 Ravens defense (teams with shite for offense) and they won the coin toss?  It works both ways. 

I always go back to the historical numbers...50-50.  At one point in my childhood, I think the winner of the toss actually lost more times than they won.  Just my $.02.   :peace:

I think in Overtime each team should get at least 1 possession. I think its bullshit that a team can battle for 60 minutes and not even get an opportunity in overtime.

In OT the defense is already worn down from playing an entire game.

I don't like the college OT putting the ball on the 25, thats dumb, but if a team scores on the opening possession, the other team should get a shot.


In baseball, the penalty would be an automatic ball.

So if the count is 2-1 and u don't get the pitch off, the count automatically goes to 3-1.


Also in College Football, they should only stop the clock on a first down inside 2 minutes of the 2nd and 4th quarters.

The reason games last forever is because they stop the clock for the chains to be set after every first down.

I dunno... Then you walk in the winning run or something.... Dont like the idea of that...

I can think of nothing more pleasing than the scenario you just described. 

NHL: The instigator rule must be abolished.

Yeah theres nothing dirty about fighting...

They should worry more about scum bags who go for head shots and break necks

Yeah that instigator rule is completely ridiculous. I miss the real good fights.

How about an automatic ball added to the count?  Seems a reasonable "penalty"?

Exactly...just don't violate the pitch count down.

The only abuse I'd see is automatic walks would no longer require actual pitches to be thrown...and though you RARELY see an intentional walk result in a wild pitch or passed ball, the opportunity is there and it does happen.

^ It might have been last year, a pitcher veged out... The batter got a base hit while being intentionaly walked... Like you said rarley happens but great when it does  :hihi:

ok, except indy fans and patriots haters, there isn't a person in the world that wouldn't want to see both QBs get a shot in OT.

and D made another great point - defenses are spent by the end of the game. one more advantage for offenses.

does it make any sense for baseball to go to a sudden death situation???

Sandman, no, baseball's never been played like that.  There is a built-in home field advantage.  Would you want to do the same with football and give each team possessions where the home team always gets the last chance?  I think that would be silly myself.  In an age where they are trying to cut down on the length of games, it would be league suicide.  Just imagine how many times you'd have to go to the booth to review crucial plays.  Here's an idea.  Have a great offense and a great defense.  Less worries that way.  I'd love to see the stats of offensive powerhouses, i.e. 2000 Rams, Manning's 48td year, etc., and '85 Bears, Ravens super bowl def., etc. and see how they fared in overtime games.   

If the "spent defenses" and the "offense having the overall advantage over the defense" arguments were true, the odds of the team who won the coin toss winning the game would be a lot higher than 50% eh?  But it's not.  It aint broke, don't fix it. 

Somebody mentioned 20% of games end on the 1st o.t. possession.  As I mentioned before, in the other 80% of games, about 62.5% of the time, the other team wins.  I love that aspect of the o.t.  There is a huge edge to the team that can stop the other team's advance down the field.  If a team has the ball first, and doesn't cash in, they only end up winning 37.5% of the time. 

Sudden Death O.T. rocks!   :beer:   

do you have a link to support this 50% figure? i find it hard to believe it is exactly 50%.

cause if your percentage is accurate, then the percentage of teams that LOSE the toss but WIN the game would be less than 50% because there is a percentage of games that end in ties. so it is not balanced.

I remember back in 98, Denver, in John Elway's last season went to Overtime.

The wind was blowing out of control to one side of the field. maybe like 30mph or some insane number.

Denver won the coin toss and instead of taking first ball, they deferred so they could take the wind.

They stop the team 3 and out and the team has to punt into that 30mph wind. Denver gets excellent field position with the wind at their back and win the game.


Still though, Id like to see each team get a guaranteed one possession.

I mean one special teams breakdown and the game is over. That isn't right considering how hard a team has fought for the entire game.

^ D, just ask the Eagles how a special teams breakdown on one play can cost you an entire game...and it doesn't even have to be in overtime!

I'll get back to you on the % numbers.  It was definitely a few years back where the outcome was split at 50-50 (or 51-49, 52-48) close enough.  I'll get back to ya'll!!!   :peace:

1st article from usatoday.com:  NEW YORK (AP) ? It may become harder for coin-toss winners to win an NFL overtime game next season.

The league's competition committee announced on Wednesday that it's recommendation moving the kickoff in overtime from the 30-yard-line, the spot in regulation, to the 35, a proposal to be considered at the league's owners' meetings next week.

Atlanta general manager Rich McKay, the competition committee's co-chairman, said the committee believed the kickoff spot was the major reason that 62% of teams winning the coin toss won overtime games last season, not necessarily on the first possession, but because of the field position they got. McKay said it stemmed from the change in 1998 that moved the kickoff back to the 30 and added the "K-ball," a kicking ball harder to kick deep.

Until then, winners and losers of the toss had won just about equally.

"This is something we resisted," McKay said. "But there was an advantage gained by the coin toss. We think we can cure those stats and make the coin toss less of a factor."


I bolded the important line...and I think it's neat they used my idea to move up the opening kickoff.

Now, the numbers:

I really like this article by the way.  It includes the statistics:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-6-2003-35001.asp

enjoy!   :peace:

I really don't have a problem with sudden death overtime...especially in sports where there's a constant flow between offense and defense (soccer, hockey, etc....but not basketball).  I think the way it's done really needs to be dictated by the sport.  Because there is no offensive/defensive separation in some sports, the sudden death is appropriate.  Because basketball is a high scoring sport, having a sudden death "first to score" rule would be silly.  So, I think the extra period of five minutes would be fine there, too. 

In football, the problem just seems a lot more complex.  You could guarantee each team a possession, but it either limits the game to a test of red-zone offenses (as in college) or will inevitably lead one team to better starting position.  If they want to implement the college model, then I think it could be improved by starting the offenses well outside of field goal range...perhaps at their own 40 yard line?   I'd be more in favor of putting some points floor in place that must be met.  While I don't have numbers, I'm betting an overwhelming number of overtime games are won by a field goal.  But what if the points floor was 6, meaning that to win a team had to score 6 overtime points?  This will keep some sudden death aspects (a team drives for a TD...game over), but would also make it more difficult for one team to win without the other receiving a possession.  It would also increase the number of real coaching decisions (other than "do we kick on 3rd down or 4th?").  Do you go for it, 4th and 1 from the 25?  Or do you kick it, and hope your defense/special teams can prevent the other team from scoring a TD?  It would be interesting, I think. 

But, then again, I like sudden death. 

kicking off from the 35 was considered by the GMs back in the spring. Peter King did a story on it. McKay is one that doesn't want to change it, but even he admits there is a problem.

that article you posted only goes up to 2001. the stats have really changed in the last 5 years.

i've watched NFL games end on the first possession and i feel cheated. i've never been disappointed by college OT. it's up there as one of the most exciting things in all of sports.

Sandman, listen, honestly, you aren't reading my posts...at least the whole post.  The post clearly breaks down O.T. results into 2 eras, beginning of football through 2001 or 2002, and then it talks about since the introduction of the k-ball in '01 or '02.  It even mentions the issue of 62-38 over the last 5 years in favor of the coin toss winner.  Before that it was as close to 50-50 as you can get.  The k-ball and offense-friendly rules have slightly tilted the playing field.  The system needs a tweaking, not a complete overhaul.

Oh yeah, and if you feel cheated...blame the defense.  Blame the bad special teams.  The good news is, you won't feel cheated 4 out of every 5 overtime games.  80% don't end on the possession of the coin toss winner.   :peace:

end of discussion. you agree.

don't try to say i wasn't reading your posts. you are picking and choosing stats that fit your argument. does it make sense to consider stats from 40 years ago when the game was drastically different with rules that were not as favorable to the offense? of course it doesn't. and after all your arguing, you even admit that you agree the rules needs to be changed.

Sandman, yep, we do agree.  Keep the sudden death, just move the kickoff up.

I just wanted to correct you when you said the article I posted only had info before 2001.  That was not true.  It had both.  In fact, it bolstered your argument for some sort of change.  I'm sure the rules committee will make a change if 60 or more % of games are won by the winner of the coin flip...

I'm guessing the reason they don't move immediately is the need for a long-term trend.  Over the past 5 years it sounded like 62%.   Before this past 5 years the darn thing was damn near 50-50, and for some time the kicking teams were winning more games.

BTW:  Sandman, you've gotta love this gritty McNabb performance on tv right now!  McNabb's 9 yard scramble for a first down with about 3 minutes left was huge.  This guy's a leader.   :peace:

PS, 97 yards in 1:53, Bears O vs. Eagles D...that's terrible.  What a kick in the nuts for Eagle fans.

again, looking at stats from prior to 1994 is a waste of time. the game has changed too much.

the only thing we agree on is that the rule is not working and it needs to be changed. there's many ways to change it and i'm not sure which one i like the best.

mcnabb gritty???  :rofl:

if you call 2-4 gritty, i guess we'll agree to disagree.

Sandman!  Pleeeease man!  I want to hear how McNabb was to blame for Griese leading an Elway-like 97 yard drive in 1:53!?!  The Eagles defense let the Eagles down, not McNabb. 

The record is 4-2 if the Eagles did the right thing and signed Allan Rossum or traded for Dante Hall so their special teams wouldn't blow their first game.  That was one loss.  Now, their defense clearly loses the game for them, and people still blame McNabb. 

As I've said before, I'm a Donovan fan from back in his days with my college team, the Orangemen.  I'll be happy as hell when he is the fuck outta Philly.  Pardon my French.  Donovan's a class act.  He won't say it, but I will.  Philadelphia doesn't deserve Donovan as their qb.  Stick Kolb or Feely in their next year and say hi to 5 or 6 wins.  Damn, that scramble Donovan had that went for first down late in the 4th quarter was total grit.  He's not even 80% back to running form coming back from an ACL.  I can't wait to see Donovan next year 100% healthy for a team that appreciates his heart. 
 :rant:   

That phrase is almost sacrilegious. 

if I didn't watch the game myself, I wouldn't say it.  :-[

But he did man... He did the whole drive without any contact from the side lines, and no timeouts.... I wish they would let more guys do that!!!

actually, if I'm not mistaken, he ran over toward the sideline to get a (or some) playcalls after a spiking of the ball.  It was hard to tell from the camera used at that time.  Nonetheless, it was a hell of a drive. 

Thanks to the Bears for getting the Eagles really pissed off before they play my Vikings who seem to be intent on starting Turd-varis Jackson who actually has a broken index finger on his throwing hand!?!?   :confused:


On topic:  rules.  NBA...try calling traveling violations!  I was actually in a basketball officials' camp with special guest NBA ref Joey Crawford.  He was taking questions and it seemed like nobody else had the balls to ask the obvious...so I did.  "Why don't NBA officials seem to call traveling violations?"  I don't think he was too happy.  ;D

If you ask me, raise the NBA rims to 10 1/2 feet.  Currently, it's ridiculous.  Just my 2 cents.  Oh yeah, and by the way, lower the women's to 9 1/2 feet.  In volleyball, the men's net is about a foot higher than women's.  Basketball should get with it. 

Andy Reid isn't too blame for Philly.


Donovan McNabb and management are.


McNabb cause he is an overrated, crybaby and Management for not spending money.

U cant raise the NBA rims.

These guys can't shoot for shit as it is, Imagine if the rims were higher...................... U would truly have a horrible game.

D, you make a good point.  The NBA is slowly killing itself.  They're just f'd.  Crooked refs.  Spoiled felons playing the game.  It's just not fun to follow anymore...at least for me.  :no:

The chicks' game really would be a lot more fun if they lowered the rims by 6 to 9 inches.  They play good defense.  They pass the ball.  Plus, the smaller ball gives them a better chance of putting the ball in the hoop, even though they already shoot a pretty good ball.

On mcnabb, D, don't make me pull up all the stats again!  ;)  The guy has done more in his career with shit receivers than anybody not named Tom Brady.  I just don't get the folks who want to judge him less than a year removed from ACL surgery.  This guy led a team to many NFC Championship games with Todd Pink"handbag"ston, and James Trash.  He even got them to a Super Bowl without T.O. (remember, TO wasn't there for 6 weeks prior to the Super Bowl, including the NFC Championship victory)

But, I'm glad a lot of folks are judging McNabb's career by what he's done lately.  It means my Vikes could actually get a 100% healthy McNabb next year and save some dough for a nice couple of wide receivers.  Add that to Adrian "the next Ladanian" Peterson, and get some help in the secondary, and we're unstoppable!!!   :peace: 

Im a Cowboy fan, so take that with a grain of salt.


I just hate how T.O. got all the blame and McNabb perpetrated a lot of it by saying basically they made it to the Superbowl without T.O.

T.O. was injured and Donovan basically said they didn't need him.

Bad mistake.

raising a basketball hoop would be rediculus in my opinion especialy if they had the womans lowerd...if they want to compete in a sport they should have exactly the same rules...so they should increase the size of the ball for them

^Sweet616,

volleyball has lower nets for women.
golf has tees closer to the greens for women.
basketball has smaller basketballs for women.
softball fields have shorter outfield fences.

Each game is different for women.  I have no problem with that.  I am a huge supporter of women participating in women's athletics.  I think it is empowering and just plain healthy.  However, you can't honestly expect them to play with the same size balls.  Women have less upper body muscle mass and smaller hands.  The game would border on unwatchable.  Give them 9 1/2 foot rims and you'd see a better product.   ;)

btw, D, Donovan only put that in TO's face after TO questioned Donovan's heart....like you said, bad mistake.
also, nobody could counter my point of what McNabb has done throughout his career with shit receivers.  Amazing numbers with garbage to throw to...or should I say T(h)rash?   :hihi:  Only Brady has done more with lesser receivers.

NFL - I'd like to change the sudden death rule in the NFL and make it like the college football overtime.

^^^
I vote against 4 hour+ long games.   : ok:

I will agree to tweak the system by moving the kickoff spot up 5-10 yards.  I'd like to see that % we talked about earlier down from 62% to 50% like it was pre-2002.  (winning % of team winning the coin flip)  Sudden death is the ultimate drama in my eyes.   :yes:

I generally agree.  I'm sure it's at least in part due to the recent rule changes that are pro-offense.

Speaking of which, they need to re-do rules about a "blow to the head."  There are blows to the head, either intentional or dangerous, and there are otherwise.  I've seen defensive ends rush a quarterback, arms up to disrupt his lanes, and had the QB turn his own head into the DE's arm/hand.  That's hardly a blow to the head in any malicious or dangerous sense.  It needs to be more of a judgment call...maybe like the facemask penalties.

same goes for the punters who have turned into actresses aiming their follow-through into the nearest defensive player's body.

I was just coming to post:

"Running into the kicker"... What a piece of shit call.... Rouging the kicker is one thing, but fuck man... You'd see alot more block attempts on punts, without this... Cant blame a guy for no being able to stop his momentum, after fighting through defenders....

^great minds think alike.   :)

those two pass interference calls against the patriots were ridiculous. i think a team should really have to earn a chunk of 40 yards.

i think there's a better solution than the college system. i would incorporate the system for calling face masks 5 vs 15 yads; namely, blatant pass interference plays where it is clear the player would have very likely caught the ball, the penalty should be spot of the foul.

BUT, if there is just some minor illegal contact, i think it should only be a 15 yard penalty.

those calls were weak and i don't think the "interference" had much to do with the colts receivers not catching those balls.

Now you're makin sense  : ok:

I'm not certain I like that change.  If someone manages to get open in the endzone (on, say, a 40 yard pass), a defender can simply try to interfere, take the 15 yards, and it's a good choice.  Seems like they're gettin' off light.

But, I DO think there need to be fewer and fairer calls.  Incidental contact often is called, and offensive interference is called very rarely, in proportion to defensive interference. 

If the contact gives no advantage (no pulling the receiver down, pushing the defender away, etc.), then I say it's "scrapping for posistion," and I'm okay with it, if it's called fairly.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3096923

Just to go back a bit to our conversation on baseball instant replay. Looks like they're going to explore adopting VERY limited use for fair/foul and HR calls.  I'd say it's a lock for approval at the December meetings, and a good decision overall.

but in your scenario, the system i suggested would call for the ball to be placed at the 1. that would be considered the more extreme category.

I misread your post...thought you were advocating a system for pass interference that was identical to face masks...thus, for serious offenses, 15 yards. 


Glad to see they'll have a replay official, rather than any sort of challenge system.  I can live with this.

It'd be about time... Baseball really needs something!

I wouldn't say its a lock. I read the article and it sounds like Selig still needs to be convinced before the owners can vote on it. Then the players would have to as well. I wouldn't expect it to be adopted for the 08 season, Maybe the playoffs but i don't expect adoption for a full season until 09 at least.

Yeah, that's all baseball needs....something to make a typical 3 hour game last 4 hours....wonderful.

We can put a man on the moon, but we can't get major league baseball to make home plates "high tech?"  How hard would it be to level the plate securely and install equipment on the plates' borders that could detect if one stinking lace grazed the strike zone?  The strike zone could return to knees to xyphoid process.  We could keep umps around for the things the plate couldn't do.

Anybody else think that would be cool?

Cool?  Yes. 

Good?  Nope.

hey, what the hell, just thought I'd think outside the box a bit.   ;D

Do you think the umpires union would have any of that?  :hihi:

I've honestly always thought something similar about football, in terms of spots.  A field w/ sensors and a ball that triggers them?  Probably not, but maybe someday.

Having just skimmed the first four pages of this thread, I'm not sure how this obvious "rule" change escaped us:

Uh...no more BCS!

Here's an interesting fact:

On November 10th, Ohio State, then #1 in the BCS, lost to Illinois, and subsequently fell to seventh in the BCS.  As the discussion began about which teams should be BCS #1 & #2 and, thus, have a shot at the national title, the fine folks in Division III began their 32 team playoff, of which four teams remain, in what has to be an obviously superior means of choosing a national champion.  As they say when a team is upset, "that's why you play the games."  So if settling it on the field is such a big part of our football mentality, why the Hell is the national championship decided by the opinions of coaches and sports writers (and computers!)? 

An eight team national championship would be all too easy to accomplish, and could preserve the bowl structure.  The four main bowl games (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange) are the national quarterfinals...simple enough.  Winners advance to the national semi-finals, and two advance to the national final.  Keep that in mind the next time some pro-BCS guy whines about maintaining the bowl system...it's so easy to do.  In fact, these bowls could maintain their traditional alignments.  Pac-10 and Big-10(11) champs in the Rose Bowl, a Big 12 team in the Orange Bowl, SEC champ in the Sugar Bowl...and so forth. 

There are only 11 conferences (and a few non-aligned programs).  If you give six spots to the champions of the "major" conferences, that leaves two for at-large bids.  Or, even better, you invite all eleven conference champs, and five at-large.  Either is far superior to this BCS nonsense.

2 things that make perfect sense and would be fantastic changes:

College Football playoff scenario similar to Freedom's suggestion, and,

a non-corrupt ranking system and fight schedule under 1 unified belt in boxing.  how cool would that be?

Both will never, ever, ever, ever happen because of greed.  Oh well.   :peace:

NFL. The limited amount of contact allowed on receivers. And the bullshit "calling a timout before a field goal", that shit is plain retarded.

No way... Its great stragety... If it works, it gives a team new life, and totally kills the momentum of the team who misses

hey I've got an idea, if 1 timeout ices the kicker...2 would ice him even more!  I'll go tell Joe Gibbs to do this.   :hihi: