Rule Changes: What rule changes need to be made in your favorite sport?

[LoudClearVoice]

What is a rule or rules you would change in your favorite sport to make it better?

I'm talking about realistic stuff that could actually be changed.


It's obvious the possession arrow monstrosity needs to be changed in college hoops. I think we can all agree on that and not much more needs to be said.

I think right now, the biggest change I would make is with NFL Overtime. I'd make it similar to the college OT system. Each team would get the ball from the opposing team's 40 yard line and you must at least match what the other team does to stay alive. You keep going until there's a winner. In the playoffs, I'd change the system to the OT system in place now but not sudden death. You basically play normally but if one team kicks a FG, other team gets a chance (normal kickoff and everything though, not starting at the 40 like regular season OT under my plan).


Also, I'd change the "intent to blow the whistle" rule in the NHL. The play is dead because the ref "intended to blow the whistle?" That to me is ridiculous. If the whistle is not actually blown, the play should still be alive.

 

[Big Sexy]

There are two NFL rules that I would change.

The Calvin Johnson Rule- The whole two feet and full possession for a receiver even after you've hit the ground and started to get up in the end zone is a little much especially when as a runner going into the end zone you just need the nose of the football over the pylon and it's a td no matter what happens to the ball after. I don't care what anyone says that was a td for Calvin to win the game against the Bears in week 1.

The Tuck Rule- This rule should have been changed back in 2002 after it cost the Raiders a trip to the AFC title game. Charles Woodson stripped former Michigan teammate Tom Brady of the ball to lock up the game for the Raiders and it was overturned because of a rule that makes literally no sense. How it hasn't been changed yet is beyond me.

 

[Nas pins jay-z]

Mlb needs to adress the dh rule. It's not fair to al teams when they visit nl parks cause their pitchers aren't used to hitting. Nl teams are at a disadvantage visiting al parks because their counterparts have more potent lineups. I would make both leagues use the dh as it extends careers of capable hitters. Another rule change is instead of having the all-star game, which has turned into a joke, decide ws home advantage, have the league with the better interleague record get home field.

 

[INDYjon22]

Obviously MMA is my favorite sport, but seeing as this thread is here and not in the MMA section I will go ahead an post anyways. MMA still needs to work on a lot of things but the one thing that bothers me the most is the way in which grounded opponents and strikes are treated. I understand there is a need to protect the fighters from getting seriously hurt, and I have no problem with that, however the rules need to be fixed. Fighters are not allowed to knee or kick downed opponents, that means that they are either on the mat or have at least a knee or hand on the mat. That is where my problem comes about. Fighters should be able to throw knees if a hand or a knee is on the mat. They can still defend themselves and quiet frankly some fighters use it as a cheap tactic to avoid those strikes. If a fighter is completely on the mat then okay, don't throw a knee or kick even though PRIDE! allowed those rules and no one got seriously hurt, but take away the silly hand on mat and knee on mat rule. It just gives dirty and cheap fighters another tactic to use to get an unfair advantage on their opponents.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I think football (or Soccer for you Americans) needs to introduce goal-line technology, as far too many times there have been incidents of the ball crossing the line and it not being spotted. England suffered greatly due to this at the last World Cup as Frank Lampard's shot had clearly crossed the line just before half-time when England were losing 2-1 to Germany. Had this been given then England would have gone in at the interval on a high having pulled back 2 goals, and Germany would have been shellshocked. As it happened, England went in 2-1 down and disheartened and ended up losing 4-1.

It also affected my club team Bolton Wanderers during the 97-98 season, when we were relegated on goal difference and Everton stayed up. During that campaign, Bolton drew 0-0 with Everton after a header had clearly crossed the line, and denying us that goal cost us 3 points and led to relegation, and it took 4 years to regain our spot in the top flight.

Incidents like this happen all the time in football, and with the amount of money involved in the game now, it is important to get these decisions right, as clubs can be thrown into crisis by wrong decisions from the referee.

This is rumoured to be coming into use in the next few years, with a chip being placed inside the ball and sensors in between the goalposts which go off if the ball crosses the line. I think it would be a great addition to the game.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

Dam you Naitch!

It should have come in already as the tennis and cricket have had similar technology such as 'Hawkeye' on the go for the past few years and even adds extra excitement to proceedings. Its not without its downsides though as a common argument is that it would disrupt the flow of the games with the challenges. There's also the thing about the FA (maybe UEFA too? not sure) wanting the game to essentially be the same from a grass-roots level all the way to the top.

With all the corruption and controversy surrounding UEFA at the moment you'd figure the least they could do is follow through and implement this as soon as possible. It would be good if it was put into use for the 2012 Euros. (If all the stadiums/hotels are actually built in time of course)

 

[hatehabsforever]

While it isn't my favorite sport, I think there is a change necessary in MLB. I am referring to home plate collisions between the baserunner who is attempting to score, and the catcher who is trying to block the plate. As it stands right now, when there is a play at the plate, the runner has the option to absolutely hammer the catcher, with few restrictions if any. This is totally inconsistent with the rest of this non-contact sport, and how many baserunners and/or catchers need be injured, some quite seriously, before this is banned.

A baserunner sprinting down the first base line cannot clothesline the firstbaseman to disrupt the play. A guy headed from 1st to 2nd can try to break up a double play, but there are limitations as to what he can do in doing so. He cannot flatten the secondbaseman/shortstop and if he is too physical, the guy is called out due to interference. A baserunner rounding the bases during an infield pop up cannot do a drop toe hold on the infielder to keep him from catching the ball. Yet the guy running home can come in elbows up or shoulders first and just flatten the catcher, who is concentrating on catching the ball and applying the tag and as such is in a vulnerable position, equipment or not.

I get it, the catcher is trying to block the plate with his padded body, and the runner is trying go force his way in. I'm not suggesting no contact at all. But it should have to be some form of a slide, some true attempt to actually avoid the catcher and the tag, rather than an NFL worthy tackle. How many catchers need to sit on the sidelines on the disabled list, or have their careers ended prematurely, before this baseball inconsistency is changed.

I think it may also be time to institute no touch icing in the NHL, although I feel less strongly about that than the baseball scenario above.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

There are two NFL rules that I would change.

The Calvin Johnson Rule- The whole two feet and full possession for a receiver even after you've hit the ground and started to get up in the end zone is a little much especially when as a runner going into the end zone you just need the nose of the football over the pylon and it's a td no matter what happens to the ball after. I don't care what anyone says that was a td for Calvin to win the game against the Bears in week 1.

The Tuck Rule- This rule should have been changed back in 2002 after it cost the Raiders a trip to the AFC title game. Charles Woodson stripped former Michigan teammate Tom Brady of the ball to lock up the game for the Raiders and it was overturned because of a rule that makes literally no sense. How it hasn't been changed yet is beyond me.

I agree with you on both points. The Calvin Johnson Rule actually kind of makes sense if the catch occurs on the field, outside of the endzone. The rules should be different in the endzone. The instant you have possession of the ball in the endzone, it should be a touchdown, and then whatever happens afterwards doesn't matter because the play is over as soon as it's a TD. I think in other parts of the field, it's ok but as soon as you have possession and break the plane of the endzone, the play is dead.


As for the Tuck Rule, it's a ridiculous rule and actually, I think the entire league would be different without the Tuck rule. Would the Patriots have risen to power and became a dynasty if the Tuck rule was never called and Oakland won that game?

 

[RattleRockerJet97]

Well since the tuck rule only applied to 1 season, yes probably, except the Raiders or the Rams would have been champs. I dont believe it would have stopped Brady and the Pats....ugh.

I believe this new rule of Kickoffs being at the 35 now. I mean if the Kicker already has a boot, its automatically going to be a touchback, coupled with the fact that the ST defense already has a quicker headstart to the runner. Hell when it gets to the point where late in the season when the wind picks up, there wont be any kickoffs at all.

I also agree with the overtime rules. I believe both teams should get a shot, even if a TD is first scored. You gotta make it fair, even if its just a FG at first.

 

[Unsold Bacon]

I would love for the NFL Overtime be switched from the current sudden death system to a full 15 minute over time and the two teams keep going until the quarter is over. They can score all they want but the final winner will be the team who has more points at the end. If it's tied after the quarter, the game is declared a tie.

In an interesting stat the coin flip winners in OT win 60 % of the time. Not as big as a number as you might except.

Also I dont like Kickoffs at the 35 just due to the fact that there are already too many touckbacks for my liking.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

As Naitch also beat me to goalline technology, I'll go with a more stringent marking of referees in soccer.

All to often, what is regarded as a foul anywhere else on the pitch is ignored in the penalty area. Some referees are obviously intimidated to give the big decisions to the away / underdog team. Simulation and chat back is tolerated on occasion and punished the rest of the time. I like refs to use a degree of common sense but whilst fans still check to see who is officiating their match for fear of getting a certain guy (any non ManU supporter just LOVES to see Howard Webb's name).

I'm by no means a ref hater, I've done it on many an occasion myself but the first name on anybodies lips after a match should never be the official in charge.

 

[Davi323]

For NFL, I would adopt the one foot inbounds rule, for the simple logic of consistency. If one knee on the ground is all it takes to be "tackled", then one foot should be all it takes to be inbounds. Basically, the NFL needs to use the college rule about being inbounds.

For the NCAA, they need to change to the NFL rule of actually having to be touched before being considered tackled, so that if someone falls down, but isn't touched, they aren't down yet. Basically, the NCAA needs to use the NFL rule about being tackled.

This rule needs to be changed for both the NFL and NCAA Footballl: Overtime should be a standard extra quarter style OT, with a kickoff to start. none of the 25 yard line crap, but give each offense ONE possession. After that, its sudden death. I like the idea that each offense should get at least one chance, but I don't like the constant trading. After each team gets one possession, next score wins, period.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

As Naitch also beat me to goalline technology, I'll go with a more stringent marking of referees in soccer.

All to often, what is regarded as a foul anywhere else on the pitch is ignored in the penalty area. Some referees are obviously intimidated to give the big decisions to the away / underdog team. Simulation and chat back is tolerated on occasion and punished the rest of the time. I like refs to use a degree of common sense but whilst fans still check to see who is officiating their match for fear of getting a certain guy (any non ManU supporter just LOVES to see Howard Webb's name).

I'm by no means a ref hater, I've done it on many an occasion myself but the first name on anybodies lips after a match should never be the official in charge.

Kinda tying in to what you said about refs and talking about them after the match, I was in disbelief last season that Sir Alex and Ancelotti were both fined for praising the referee. Sir Alex has been guilty many times of either undermining the ref or seemingly playing mind games with them, but it just seemed like a new level of absurdity on the behalf of the FA.

I've only seen it a handful of times, but I would like to see more refs explain their controversial decisions after the game too. It would give everyone involved more clarity by creating a dialogue between the officials, the media and the FA. Given the recent UEFA scandals and controversy, it would be a step in the right direction to mend the bridges too.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I have to bump this thread because this is an issue I was discussing with some friends at a bar the other night:

NFL INSTANT REPLAY - Specifically the challenge system. There's so much wrong with it that I don't have the time or energy to talk about it all. However, the main thing that has to be changed is this: If a coach wins a challenge, he shouldn't use up a challenge. You should still only get 2 challenges BUT you only lose them (and a timeout) when you're unsuccessful. It doesn't make sense to me why you should lose the ability to challenge a play when you've been right on the previous ones.

 

[Trill Co$by]

I personally don't mind the OT ruling in NFL. It makes sense to me on both sides of the field. If the defense wants to win, then they need to CONTINUE playing the same level of defense that got them to the Overtime in the first place... if not better. I know that they've played a whole hour already (15 mins x 4 quarters) but that's where champions are divided from the casuals. If you can't stop the offense from scoring then that's your fault, not the NFL's.

As for rules that I think should be changed, I think that the pass interference rules need to be less strict in certain areas. For example, I personally believe that if a Wide Receiver makes the moronic decision to leap five feet in the air to catch a football and his defender hits him, then it should be counted as a clean hit. Don't give me that crap about keeping players safe. That wide receiver doesn't have to leap in the air, just run faster next time... or have a quarterback that can throw into tighter coverage better.

And also, Touchdown Celebrations should be brought back. Sure, it's not cool for people to be showboating for over 3 minutes, but the fact is, the defense was soft enough to where the offense can score so the offense has a right to celebrate. I'm just saying, if I were on the field and I scored a touchdown, my team would just have to be penalized because it wouldn't be every day that I make a touchdown... and if it was a game winning touchdown in a classic game, then forget about it.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

And also, Touchdown Celebrations should be brought back. Sure, it's not cool for people to be showboating for over 3 minutes, but the fact is, the defense was soft enough to where the offense can score so the offense has a right to celebrate. I'm just saying, if I were on the field and I scored a touchdown, my team would just have to be penalized because it wouldn't be every day that I make a touchdown... and if it was a game winning touchdown in a classic game, then forget about it.

I totally agree with you on this. TD Celebrations are a unique part of the game and most fans enjoy them. Even a little bit of taunting/teasing the other team, is ok, IMO. Most people laugh about it and it really can build a rivalry. It makes the opposing team furious and the opposing fans furious but that's part of the game. Anything more than a minute is excessive though so we don't need some choreographed celebration that is just wasting a bunch of time.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I'm not a big fan of the quarterback being able to spike the ball to stop the clock. To me, it seems inconsistent that if the refs think that the quarterback deliberately throws the ball away, with no receiver in the vicinity, a penalty is called for intentional grounding. But spiking the ball is essentially doing the same thing. It is basically throwing the ball incomplete, albeit next to your own feet, to stop the clock. If he spikes the ball, that's ok, but if he drops back and purposefully throws the ball away, they'll blow the whistle.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I'm not a big fan of the quarterback being able to spike the ball to stop the clock. To me, it seems inconsistent that if the refs think that the quarterback deliberately throws the ball away, with no receiver in the vicinity, a penalty is called for intentional grounding. But spiking the ball is essentially doing the same thing. It is basically throwing the ball incomplete, albeit next to your own feet, to stop the clock. If he spikes the ball, that's ok, but if he drops back and purposefully throws the ball away, they'll blow the whistle.

I've never really had an issue with spiking the ball to stop the clock. It serves its purpose and has led to many end of game dramatics.


Another rule I'd change is in the NHL regarding the jerseys. I would go back to home team wearing white and away team wearing dark. I've never liked it the way they're doing it now and I wish they'd go back. The only time they should change it is like for a big rivalry game or something (then they can go to an alternate jersey or whatever if they want).

 

[Davi323]

I'm not a big fan of the quarterback being able to spike the ball to stop the clock. To me, it seems inconsistent that if the refs think that the quarterback deliberately throws the ball away, with no receiver in the vicinity, a penalty is called for intentional grounding. But spiking the ball is essentially doing the same thing. It is basically throwing the ball incomplete, albeit next to your own feet, to stop the clock. If he spikes the ball, that's ok, but if he drops back and purposefully throws the ball away, they'll blow the whistle.

When the QB spikes the ball to stop the clock, there is always an eligible receiver in close vicinity, whether it's a TE, RB, FB or WR. Since intentional grounding is only called when there is no receiver in the area, spiking the ball would not qualify, even though the QB is still within the pocket and the ball does not go past the line of scrimmage. If the spike play was a 5 wide stretched formation with no RB in the backfield, then I would agree about the inconsistency, as there would be no eligible receiver nearby...however since most spike plays are run from formations where there is at least one RB near the QB, it wouldn't be called.

 

[Peoples_Champ]

I see goal line technology in soccer has already been covered. To be honest, I'm split on it because I like keeping margin of error in sports. It's like real life where sometimes you get screwed, there's nobody there to stop and rewatch what happened to you to make things right. Having an official make his own judgement call on the pitch makes things interesting for me and more dramatic as well. The reason why soccer is so beloved is because people all over the world can argue endlessly about England's goal in the 1966 World Cup final or Maradona's Hand of God goal in 1986. These moments live in infamy because goal line technology didn't exist.

Regardless, I can see the benefits of it, but I'm still split on the issue.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I'm not a big fan of the quarterback being able to spike the ball to stop the clock.

I'd apply that concept to basketball, too. This stuff with the last 2 minutes of an NBA game taking 20 minutes to play because of all the time-outs after each possession make the game hard to watch, and the tension hard to maintain.

I'd eliminate those time-outs and force the team with possession to work the full court to get off a shot. Both teams will be subject to the same rules so it's not as if one side is getting an unfair advantage.

I've encountered resistance to this idea in the past in that people tell me it takes an element of strategy out of the game, but you know what? I think it adds to the end-of-game mix and will force coaches to develop new strategies that were never needed before in regards to getting the ball upcourt and creating a shot that's dictated by the limited time available.

Naturally, since professional sports are often dictated by TV sponsors, this idea would never fly since the sponsors need the time-outs to sell their products and would vehemently fight against this idea.

But, as far as the game itself, I think the fans would enjoy it more.

 

[Davi323]

Thought of a few more:

Football
Expand instant replay to cover all potential scoring plays, not just actual scoring plays. If a reversal of a call would change the number of points on the board, it should be reviewable, not just the ones that are initially ruled as a scoring play. For example, the NFL currently does not allow incomplete passes to be reviewed. So, if a WR catches the ball in the endzone, but it is ruled incomplete because he was out of bounds, dove and the ref thought the ball hit the ground or something, it's not reviewable, since it's technically not a scoring play. I would like to see those types of plays be reviewable, since while it was ruled not to be a scoring play, the reversal of that call would make it be.

Hockey
(no IDR, nothing about the points system, although it is related to the OT/Shootout situation.) Just keep going 4-4 in OT until someone wins...or do what Red Wings GM Ken Holland suggests, after the first 5 going 4-4, play another 5 of 3-3. You play 3-3 hockey, someone is going to score. Shootouts are way too easy to get to, and they should be an absolute last resort. During the playoffs, teams will play full 20 minute periods of 5-5 hockey, but somehow 5 minutes of 4-4 is all that can be allotted for the regular season before going to the shootout? Lame.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

Thought of a few more:

Football
Expand instant replay to cover all potential scoring plays, not just actual scoring plays. If a reversal of a call would change the number of points on the board, it should be reviewable, not just the ones that are initially ruled as a scoring play. For example, the NFL currently does not allow incomplete passes to be reviewed. So, if a WR catches the ball in the endzone, but it is ruled incomplete because he was out of bounds, dove and the ref thought the ball hit the ground or something, it's not reviewable, since it's technically not a scoring play. I would like to see those types of plays be reviewable, since while it was ruled not to be a scoring play, the reversal of that call would make it be.

Hockey
(no IDR, nothing about the points system, although it is related to the OT/Shootout situation.) Just keep going 4-4 in OT until someone wins...or do what Red Wings GM Ken Holland suggests, after the first 5 going 4-4, play another 5 of 3-3. You play 3-3 hockey, someone is going to score. Shootouts are way too easy to get to, and they should be an absolute last resort. During the playoffs, teams will play full 20 minute periods of 5-5 hockey, but somehow 5 minutes of 4-4 is all that can be allotted for the regular season before going to the shootout? Lame.

Great suggestions and I agree with both. In particular, Kenny Holland's idea makes sense. If you go to 3-3, someone is going to score, probably pretty quickly. I like the shootouts better than I thought I would but they're still too gimmicky. Sure the purists are going to say that it's what they do in the European leagues and how is 3-3 not gimmicky? To me, it's a team game and the team should be involved in winning or losing in OT. It shouldn't come down to the goalie and one player.

I'd apply that concept to basketball, too. This stuff with the last 2 minutes of an NBA game taking 20 minutes to play because of all the time-outs after each possession make the game hard to watch, and the tension hard to maintain.

I'd eliminate those time-outs and force the team with possession to work the full court to get off a shot. Both teams will be subject to the same rules so it's not as if one side is getting an unfair advantage.

I've encountered resistance to this idea in the past in that people tell me it takes an element of strategy out of the game, but you know what? I think it adds to the end-of-game mix and will force coaches to develop new strategies that were never needed before in regards to getting the ball upcourt and creating a shot that's dictated by the limited time available.

Naturally, since professional sports are often dictated by TV sponsors, this idea would never fly since the sponsors need the time-outs to sell their products and would vehemently fight against this idea.

But, as far as the game itself, I think the fans would enjoy it more.

I hate it too but I don't really see how you can limit when a team can use their timeouts. A related issue I have with the rules (and it only happens at the end of games, making them excruciatingly long) is fouling on purpose as a strategy. I totally get it, that it's a strategy and can extend the game and help a team that is trailing win, but my question is, if you're purposely fouling someone, isn't that an intentional foul? You are intentionally breaking the rules to gain an advantage. So, shouldn't that be treated the same way as if a guy just totally shoves a guy doing a layup out of the way (flagrant 1 in college or whatever it is).

 

[Sinister Shadows]

I'm not a big fan of the quarterback being able to spike the ball to stop the clock. To me, it seems inconsistent that if the refs think that the quarterback deliberately throws the ball away, with no receiver in the vicinity, a penalty is called for intentional grounding. But spiking the ball is essentially doing the same thing. It is basically throwing the ball incomplete, albeit next to your own feet, to stop the clock. If he spikes the ball, that's ok, but if he drops back and purposefully throws the ball away, they'll blow the whistle.

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.


http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/intentionalgrounding


unless the defense lines up in the back field... spiking the ball to stop the clock is not Intentional Grounding.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.


http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/intentionalgrounding


unless the defense lines up in the back field... spiking the ball to stop the clock is not Intentional Grounding.

Don't bet me wrong, I hear what you are saying, and I understand the difference between spiking the ball to stop the clock, and intentional grounding. What I am simply saying, though, is that I disagree with the distinction. I know they are not exactly the same thing, but in my mind the distinction should be irrelevant. In either case, the ball is being "thrown" and the clock is being stopped. Granted, with the intentional grounding, it is to avoid loss of yardage, which is not the intention in spiking the ball. But there are other ways to stop the clock, and stopping the clock by deliberately throwing away a play is something which I personally don't agree with.