What rules should be changed???

[Loaded NightraiN]

 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 

[Axl4Prez2004]

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. 

[Loaded NightraiN]

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.

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??

[freedom78]

To state the obvious:

Baseball - No more DH. 

[tim_m]

To state the obvious:

Baseball - No more DH. 

Now thats something you and i can both agree on.

[freedom78]

To state the obvious:

Baseball - No more DH. 

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. 

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

[tim_m]

To state the obvious:

Baseball - No more DH. 

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. 

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

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

[freedom78]

To state the obvious:

Baseball - No more DH. 

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. 

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

Thats a good one  . 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.       

[pilferk]

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.

[freedom78]

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).     

[pilferk]

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.     

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.

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 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.

[tim_m]

To state the obvious:

Baseball - No more DH. 

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. 

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

Thats a good one  . 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.       

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.

[tim_m]

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.

[freedom78]

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 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'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 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.     

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 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.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

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.

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

[pilferk]

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.

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.

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?

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".

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? 

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.

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).

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".

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.

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.

[sandman]

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.?

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.

[GeorgeSteele]

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.

[freedom78]

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.

 

[Loaded NightraiN]

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.

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