Yellow card for faking an injury in soocer
Basketball: sooo boring but if you made it like street hoops…
Just bringing back the 90’s rules would make the game a lot better since it would bring back better defense.
American Football: Every time a player suffers a traumatic brain injury the owner takes a punch to the head from a professional heavyweight boxer.
NHL Hockey: Goaltenders eligible for contact if handling the puck outside the crease, and outside the trapezoid. Same as any other players.
As someone who is forced to watch baseball by their fanatical wife: the MLB should adopt most of the rules that the Savannah Bananas use, including a fan catching a foul ball counts as an out, trick plays, inning timer, etc.
Also stilts.
Thunderdome rules for MMA. Keep going until there is a sub or knock out. No rounds and no time limit.
Baseball: Strictly timed innings. Take the average time of innings in the last season or two, set that as the time. Inning ends when the time ends. I don’t care if it’s mid-play, I don’t care if the ball’s in the air. And no extra innings. Tie game at the end of the 9th inning counts as a mutual loss.
Warhammer 40K: If it’s on the table, play it. I don’t care if it’s a Battletech model, or a can of coke. It’s a model, it gets a move, shoot, and melee.
Baseball: Strictly timed innings.
The Savanna Bananas added a game timer, and it is great.
I think Warhammer could be improved with the addition of a cat. You either get a large piece of on unnavigable terrain, or a natural disaster that wreaks havoc… Possibly both in various degrees.
Better yet - each army’s player may nominate or provide not more than one cat, to be placed on the board according to Deep Strike rules.
Wouldn’t your rule incentivise slower play from the fielding team? I don’t follow baseball, but I imagine the longer an innings goes (in terms of number of plays), the more points the batting team can score. If you can artificially reduce the number of plays because there’s a time limit and you just slow-play it, you gain an advantage.
Cricket addresses its timing issues through a few means, but one is finding the bowling team if over rates drop too low. This has its own problems (the assumption behind that rule is that low over rates are the fault of the bowling team, but this is not always true, especially with batsmen who have weird habits like regularly changing gloves, and with the use of player reviews), and I think it’s better addressed at more fundamental levels, but I think it probably looks at it from a better place. Identify the culprit and do something that penalises them, rather than their opponent.
Oh, the time might cause slower fielding play, but combined with the “ties are a mutual loss”, you’d have an ongoing scramble to get one over. It makes the whole game more defensive under the time limit.
Sports in general need to make it illegal to dive to draw an undeserved penalty (or actually enforce the existing rules)
Or
They need to decrease the penalty for fighting so it doesn’t result in an ejection.One or the other.
Sports in general need to make it illegal to dive to draw an undeserved penalty (or actually enforce the existing rules)
This is the nub of it - lack of enforcement of existing rules. People are always clamouring for this new rule or that new rule, when in fact there’s already one in place.
Eg football ⚽
At present, if a goalie has the ball in hand then they have 6 seconds to release it, or it’s meant to be an indirect free kick to the opposition inside the goalie’s team’s 18 yard box. Very dangerous situation to defend, so you’d think it’d be a deterrent. However I can count on 2 fingers the number of times I’ve actually seen it enforced.
So now there’s a change to the rules coming - if they have it in hand for 8 seconds, it’s a corner to the other team.
So, it’s a less punishing punishment, and they have 2 extra seconds’ leeway. It makes absolutely no sense.
It makes absolutely no sense.
You think the referee’s job is to have the game be fair and follow the rules. This is wrong. The referee’s job is to make the game entertaining and as dramatic as possible for the fans.
Once you accept that, a lot of these situations make a lot more sense.
It makes absolutely no sense.
It does seem strange, but there’s some possible rationale behind it. If the rule is not currently being enforced, it could be because refs feel the level of the rule breaking is not proportionate with the level of the punishment. Decreasing the punishment, as well as increasing the severity of the rule breaking required to incur it might induce refs to be more inclined to enforce the punishment.
We’ve seen something similar recently in another type of football. A few years ago, the NRL changed the punishment for minor ruck infringements and defensive offsides in their defensive half from a penalty—which requires the ref to stop the game entirely* and gives an immediate opportunity for a goal kick worth 2 points—to a reset of the tackle count. If that would have been the fifth tackle of their possession (and thus the next one is their last), a ruck infringement resets it to the first. It used to be the case that teams would get away unpunished with all but the most egregious of offences. Now it gets used quite a lot, because the minor offences are met with a comparatively minor punishment.
* as a side note, this should be a goal of all rules and enforcement in all football sports apart from maybe gridiron. And in other similar field sports. Keep the game flowing where possible. It’s a huge problem with rugby union at the top level IMO. That sport is supposed to flow quite freely, but the level of refereeing results in extremely frequent stoppages, which makes for very poor viewing. My experience has been that the game works much better at a lower level where refs let things flow more.
It does seem strange, but there’s some possible rationale behind it. If the rule is not currently being enforced, it could be because refs feel the level of the rule breaking is not proportionate with the level of the punishment. Decreasing the punishment, as well as increasing the severity of the rule breaking required to incur it might induce refs to be more inclined to enforce the punishment.
This is the only plausible explanation. The refs don’t want to turn the game on a keeper wasting a couple of seconds. That said, various timekeeping tasks especially, but Association football in general has always had a sort of impressionistic philosophy for officials, tasking them with keeping the game moving and more or less fair, but I don’t think that system has held up super well in the era high tech and higher stakes, though I do fear they risk losing somehting magical about it. American football is the absolute inverse, with a dense and legalistic rulebook and false precision that comes of pretending that (among other impossible tasks) the officials really see where the point of a ball lands under a literal ton of human flesh. That said, there is not the same level of resistance to objective standards and enforcement and rule evolution that you can see on the soccer side.
I would add that at any given time during a football game a fan can throw a new football on the field and two balls may be in-play at that time.
why?
Soccer: don’t use penalty shootouts to break ties. Penalities are a weird little minigame that don’t really represent the most important skills of soccer, which are things like field position and control of the ball.
I’m open to suggestions on what should be done to break ties, but I like the idea of golden point where, if a goal is not scores after a certain amount of time, the number of players on the field starts gradually decreasing. So after 5 minutes of golden point, you drop to 10 vs 10, after 10 minutes it’s 9 vs 9, down to a minimum of like 5 vs 5. Fewer players will tend to benefit the attacking team, making scoring more likely as it goes on.
Also soccer, as well as rugby union: just use the fucking clock. When the clock we see on the TV screen reaches 90 (or 80), that’s it. Game over. Adjustments due to stoppage time etc. should be made at that time and transparent for everyone to see, by pausing the clock then and there, and resuming it when play resumes. Not added on at the end.
Edit: actually, it seems like rugby union might have already adopted this? I’m not too sure, because I’m a rugby league fan myself, which has always done it the right way (or at least always in my lifetime).
Cage match after full time is the only appropriate answer. Lower it right in the middle of the pitch. Indoor soccer with it smaller fields, walls has always been more fast-paced than outdoor, add in ceilings and a first-to-score or first to 3 would be a good sport on its own let alone as a final.
Ever watch the street soccer 1v1 deals where they’re just trying to dribble past a defender?
That’s a mini game I’d love to watch as a tie breaker!
MLS in America actually tried that many years ago (weird the phrase is even relevant to MLS, but here we are). On replays it actually looks quite reasonable, but being an Americanism, I don’t think you’ll get any support for it, which is a shame because penalty kicks are barely soccer at all.
That’s basically the system hockey 🏑 uses, and it’s pretty good. Personally, while I far prefer it to the current soccer shootouts, it still has the feeling of being a “minigame” to me; a little too divorced from the main game to be ideal.
Penalities are a weird little minigame that don’t really represent the most important skills of soccer, which are things like field position and control of the ball.
Disagree - the most important skill in football ⚽ is scoring more goals than the opposition. I love penalty shootouts, they’re incredibly tense, and they require nerves of steel and a lot of skill. People sometimes say they’re a lottery, but that’s nonsense IMO.
Also disagree on the stopped clock model. Football ⚽ is the most popular and widely played sport in the world, and it hasn’t needed stopped clocks to get there. Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.
There’s far too much tinkering with the game as it is, what with VAR and miked up referees and such. The game was fine for decades, and loved by billions of people. I wish they’d just leave it alone.
“scoring more goals” is not a skill. It’s an outcome.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense. It’s an argument from tradition. “We’ve always done it this way, so we should continue to do so” is bullshit reasoning. Defend it if you genuinely think it’s better, but explain the actual reasons it’s better. “Because we always have” is not a valid argument.
Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.
This is, in principle, a better argument. It presents itself as an actual disadvantage of the changed rule.
The problem is that it doesn’t make any sense. It wouldn’t change the game itself at all. The refs in soccer already stop their stopwatches. They just don’t communicate this back to production. And then when the game is supposed to be over (because the clock reads “90”), the ref says “actually we’re doing another 12 minutes”. The amount of time played would be the same. The amount of time spent with the game stopped due to injuries, corners, etc. would be the same. The only difference is that the number you see on the screen would be the correct time, not made up nonsense.
“scoring more goals” is not a skill. It’s an outcome.
That’s fair. But the game is not decided on skills, it’s decided on goals.
Unless you want a label of judges along the touchline holding up 9.8 9.7 9.9, etc for a keepie uppie competition, I think penalties is the best way so far devised.
Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense.
Is it? Maybe in your opinion.
Yes, it’s an argument from tradition, and that’s a fundamental part of football culture. Tradition is at the heart of everything that has made, and still makes, the sport great.
I don’t feel any need to defend it beyond that, particularly not to someone who is talking like a belligerent prick for no apparent reason. I’d have been happy to have a discussion, but apparently you just came to abuse anyone with a different point of view. So bite me.
I’m not super into sports so I don’t know what the best specific rule to deal with this would be, but there needs to be more accountability for bad calls from referees.
All sports have an alternative league where performance enhancing drugs are mandatory to participate. That’s way more fun.
I wouldn’t go with “mandatory” but no doping tests would be quite something!
Baseball. No sponsorships on uniforms.
I guess we could extend that to most sports. I know soccer is much more lax in that regard.
All professional teams that are televised must be broadcast free of charge to their local area. No local blackout restrictions. (Fuck you, Marquee Sports. Put the Cubs back on WGN.)
Beer must be under $10, in stadiums. It’s $16 for even shitty domestic beer at Wrigley. It’s damn robbery.
The social contract with soccer has always been that in exchange for shirt sponsors, you get zero commercial breaks except halftime. While American football gets a bad rap for its native flow (which is indeed quite slow and staccato, admittedly), the fact that they literally have “TV timeouts” is what’s most egregious.
And I say that as an American who, while also a soccer fan, just can’t quit gridiron.
The beer is priced high to keep from having to deal with a critical mass of drunken idiots. No one gets wasted on $16 beer.
I know, but even $8 for a Budweiser is a lot. $16 is egregious.
Backcourt violation in Football (also known as Soccer).
American football
I would remove defensive pass interference from the game. It’s been abused by offenses, they just throw it up to the guy way down field and if anyone touches him, first down there.
I would also get rid of the QB slide rule so many abuse for extra yards. You have the ball? You can get hit.
