Agree with 1 and both 4s.
I also would like to see 6 fouls in the college game.
Agree with 1 and both 4s.
I also would like to see 6 fouls in the college game.
I don't want anything that encourages or enables teams to commit more fouls. If your players can't go without committing a foul every six minutes (average starter PT is around 30 minutes), then it's good that they're out of the game. Our team has shown this year that it's possible to play solid D without fouling.
Allow defenders in basketball to physically block people from driving past them.
Easy: intent to blow in hockey is the worst rule in all of sports and should be dropped immediately in favor of the objective "when the whistle actually went" rule. Second worst rule in sports is the puck-out-of-play rule in hockey, where it is a 2-minute minor. The rule should be the same as icing - face-off in your own zone & you can't make any changes. Since I'm on hockey, for good measure get rid of the stupid trapezoid in the NHL & let goalies handle the puck wherever they like.
Where have you been all my life
and had an intent to blow...
I miss her
I like these kinds of discussions. So I'll take yours in order:
1. I like this. I don't care about the Bo Ryan issue; I prefer the college game in many ways, but I think there are a number of NBA rules that are superior, and the shot clock is one of them. A reduction would be good.
2. Not sure I'm a fan of the 3-point line move. I like that they've bumped it back a bit, but I don't know that it's necessary at the college level.
3. Intriguing idea. Not sure if it's necessary, though--having the alternate jump ball seems a bit random, but it's still a good play for defense and a not-so-good play for offense regardless of the result. If you're on defense and you don't have the arrow, getting a jump is still good since it switches the arrow without jeopardizing your own team's possession.
I think making the call always benefit the defense would have unintended consequences.
4. I like how the pros handle fouls as well. Obviously, they use quarters and limit fouls to 5. I also prefer having the extra foul available (granted, both games have a "1 foul per 8 minutes" proportion) because it eliminates the chance that a bad call or two could eliminate a key player for 10-15 minutes of the first half. On the other hand, having a 1-and-1 does make the penalty for excessive fouls gradually more severe, which seems nice.
5. I don't think limiting a holding penalty to 5 yards would be sufficient. We'd see a lot more holding in that case; the average sack may be only a bit over 5 yards, but the sacks prevented by holding tend to be on the long end of it. Tackling a defender from behind would be an easy play on any 7-step drop.
6. Isn't this basically just a "Super Bowl" rule? Not sure the impact warrants a change in the rules. What I would support would be more discretion for the offended team to adjust time in late-game situations when a team with the lead commits a penalty on a play that has used up time.
#6 was defnitely inspired by the SB. Small change, but it's not like it would take a lot of resources to initiate.
What do you think the unintended consequences would be of the jump ball rule?
I understand where you're coming from, but I was so impressed with what they did that I figured it's not worth addressing. It was a rare situation and they took advantage. OTOH, if you were to give every team the option of a re-play with the same clock after a penalty by the leading team in any circumstance...
You were impressed by intentional manipulation of the rules?
EDIT: I get the sense that someone is just downvoting every comment I make. Come on now. No reason for that. We're having a perfectly reasonable discussion.
What do you mean manipulation? They aren't changing rules. I think you mean "taking advantage", and why wouldn't they? Every team every play is getting the greatest advantage they can within the rules to win. You take advantage of what the rules allow in terms of play call, formations, trick plays, personnel on the field, etc.
Also, an average loss of 5.4 on a sack is exactly why a holding penalty should be 10 yards. If it was 5, they'd hold so much more because it'd be advantageous. What would an offense rather have? 2nd and 15 or 16 after a sack or 1st and 15 after a holding penalty?
And 6. I also think that they should let at least one penalty to be reviewed, that is close enough to the play that might make a difference in crucial downs. Blatant pass interference or such that reffs miss.
that allows a suspension for a match penalty to be extended until the other party can return. Normally I would say penalizing based on injury is not a good practice, but in a situation where the officials on the ice determined that it was a legitimate attempt to injure an opponent and the leauge agrees (does the NHLPA have a voice in the review process or is it only Shanahan?), there should be a provision for keeping the offending player off the ice longer for causing a more severe injury.
Also, along the lines of a match penalty, there needs to be a football penalty more damaging to the offending team than fifteen yards. From a purely game-theory standpoint, Michigan opponents would have benefited from intentionally injuring Denard these past few years, and that doesn't make sense.
This counts as two:
Another rule: Widen the hoop 3-4 inches in college basketball.
Better rule: add trampolines to college basketball
If the student section had just collectively exhaled...
I think that the NCAA refs should call intentional fouls on the fouls at the end of the game. Mostly I think this because they aer intentionall fouls.
Indiana won today because their guy smacked the shit out of Glen Robinson while he was going in for a dunk to put us up 6 with less than a minute to go.
I don't think you should be able to break the rules to benefit your self.
This^^^ A thousand times, this^^^
Agreed. Intentionally committing fouls or penalties should not be advantageous or part of a strategy.
A Relegation/Promotion System in college and pro sports. Think about having the top 2 or 3 MAC teams moving up to the BIG 10 while the lower 2-3 teams in the BIG 10 move down.
It would be interesting having the top AAA teams in the Major League while teams like the Houston Astros would move down a league.
People have been writing articles suggesting this for decades, but it will never work and will never happen. The culture and business of professional sports in America bears little resemblance to that of England or other European countries. In those countries, every city, town, and village has its own soccer team; there are no competing leagues. The play under the same governing body under the same rules.
In our country, we have franchises based in big cities with strong regional support. People who live in Michigan support the Tigers, but also the Red Wings and Pistons and Lions to varying extents. Those are their teams. If baseball were like English Soccer, every suburb would have its own pro or semi-pro team. The Tigers, if they were even Detroit's only team, would probably be the most successful, but Grand Rapids and Flint would field decent clubs too, and Lansing would be perpetually getting relegated and promoted. It would all be run by a "Great Lakes Baseball League" federation that included teams from Ohio ("Can Toledo rise above mid-table? Will the Indians be satisfied with another Champion's League berth? Will Columbus ever get promoted out of the second division with all the hooligans in their stadium?"), Indiana ("Scrappy Gary beats rival Fort Wayne again. Indianapolis always mid-table. South Bend celebrates another year of third division by inviting Manti Te'o to address its thousands of fake fans."), Illinois ("The Cubs Stink"), Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ontario.
The sports are just organized differently and fans are conditioned differently. I don't think a lot of Lansing Lugnuts fans secretly long to face off against the arrogant Detroit Tigers; they like both. And the like college football and the NBA and the NHL. In England, you have soccer and a bunch of third-tier sports that don't have nearly the same following. It's just not the same.
The NFL needs to fix pass interference. There are times a defender totally mauls a guy that would otherwise make an easy catch, but just as often (or more often) a mild bit of contact on a barely catchable ball results in a PI call that advances the football 20-30 yards on a play that may well have been incomplete anyway. I much prefer the college 15-yard rule, with only the narrow exception that a flagrant takedown in the end zone should get a spot on the two.
I hate how in the NFL PI on the defense immediately assumes that the receiver would've caught the ball, but on the offense (in the very rare case that it's called) it results in a 15 yard penalty AND THE DOWN BEING REPLAYED. Shouldn't the equivalent be an automatic turnover?
In a more general sense, though - what's wrong with a little bit of contact past five yards? I'm not saying some should be allowed to tackle someone, or grab ahold of them. But if a defensive player puts his hand on a receiver and pushes him a bit and the pass is incomplete because of it, I feel like that receiver ought to get in the weight room and suck it up.
Or even better, what's wrong with face-guarding? Why is that almost an automatic penalty in the NFL? Or, if a DB has position on an underthrown ball and the receiver runs into him, why the hell is that a penalty on the defense?
In general, I think pass interference is one of the least consistent, least sensible, least "football" rule in football. This is, of course, coming from a former DB.
I always found it annoying that offensive players can face mask in football (by stiff arming)
I also hate the jump ball in college... i'd be okay with giving the "tie" to the defender, but i'd also be okay with making them actually jump for it.
In baseball, they really should let the players play the game (w/r/t warning both sides without at least letting the other team retaliate once.)
I think that's all i got.
make the shot clock 25 seconds. Dont need any more than that.
I think that the decrease in offensive efficiency under a 25-second clock would be great enough to lead to a net decrease in scoring, even with the added possessions. At the college level, I just don't see there being enough guys who can consistently generate quality shots out of nothing to make the short clock work.
Women's college teams and high school teams, do just fine with 25 seconds
I promise you no player would bat an eye.
1. Agree 1000%
2. I don't think this is a problem in cbb. 3-point %'s seem where they should be (no longer sky-high, not too low), and I don't think enough players are ready to take that extra step back.
3. Definitely the most interesting rule change in my opinion. It is always frustrating when you work so hard to get a jump ball, and yet have no chance of getting the ball back. Would be interesting to hear stephenrjking elaborate on bad unintended consequences of this rule change.
4. I do think this should be changed, and I think the NBA does a better job of it...not sure how to articulate the differences, but definitely start there.
5. I hated the 1-and-1 today, but the possibility of choking/being captain clutch is an exciting part of the game that I don't think needs tinkering.
6. Not sure holding needs to be changed penalty-wise, I just wish they'd be more consistent ala the block/charge call in cbb.
7. Meh obscure rules are obscure.
8. Sounds good to me. Or better yet, forc refs to call an intentional foul even if it means the team they are rooting to win will suredly lose.
Excessive celebration penalties in cfb. Some of the best plays of all time would have been called back because of this rule (see: Hello Heisman). I personally don't care when other teams celebrate against Michigan, because I know we can dish it back. It makes cfb more fun to watch when kids can use their creativity and emotions.
Also, LSU's punter had a sick td run a couple years back that was nullified because he "taunted" a player. He's a punter, let him taunt players if he found a way to score a td, he deserves it!
While I think there should be an excessive celebration penalty, the rule they have is way too strict. I would say flag anything that is clearly orchestrated (no line dancing) or clearly intended to show up an opponent, or that delays the game. Let everything else go.
Coaches will never let it happen, but they need to reduce the number of time outs in basketball. I like the old school days of three total for a whole game, but I would be happy with two in the first half and three in the second. Having five timeouts in each half is ridiculous. You can tell the players even get sick of their coaches constantly calling end of game time outs instead of just letting them play.
We could've used an extra timeout today...
Hmmmm...many comments could be made as to why Beilein didn't have a time out to take, or why one was needed. I think I'll just let it go and go to bed.
In soccer, make it more difficult to convert on a penalty kick. This might sound counterintuitive but soccer refs know if they calls a penalty in the box they're basically giving a team a goal, so they tend to swallow their whistles. Make PKs more of a 50-50 thing and you'll probably see more open play in front of the goal.
You would actually be surprised at the amount of penalty kicks stopped. Last I remember it was something like 65% success 35% fail. Yeah that's a lot especially with how powerful a goal is in soccer but it's far from a guarantee
1) Change the block/charge in college to favor the offense.
2) Call hand checking in college basketball to go along with a 30 second shot clock.
3) Illegal contact in the NFL should not be an automatic first down.
4) This is the one I am most adamant about: excessive celebration penalties should be only a 5 yard penalty. 15 yards for a 100% interpretive call is excessive.
5) The rule on what is a catch needs to be simplified in football.
Agree with you on #5. The rule they have now violates common sense and cannot be applied consistently without instant replay.
Here's the NFL rule on what constitutes a "catch":
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
So, the famous example of getting hosed by this one is likely the Calvin Johnson "should have been a TD, damnit" against the Bears. My biggest problem with this rule is that determining how long is long enough to engage in the necessary second act is 100% subjective by the rule's wording and, on TD catches, what is the "second act" if you've maintained possession for a couple seconds? It is worth noting that there is also a rule which states that if a player catches the ball in the end zone and the ball comes loose due to contact by a defender before the receiver is down by contact, that this is a catch (therefore a TD) and a dead ball.
I wish the NFL rulebook would make up its mind sometimes. I agree that there needs to be a somewhat more accessible definition of "catch".
Maybe it's revisionist history on my part, but I seem to remember a time when a catch was much more stringent and if the ball touched the ground at all, it was incomplete. Now we have all these stupid replays trying to determine whether the ground aided the catch and Jim Harbaughs going apeshit after something that totally should have been incomplete.
Makes no sense. I have never understood how an offensive player tipping in a basket was made illegal if the ball is in a virtually impossible to determine from most angles imaginary cylinder. Defensive goaltending makes sense.
I definitely agree, especially given the inherent disadvantage the offense has in rebounding. If a player can get to the hoop and tip the ball in while it's still on the rim, it should count.
I agree 100%. The offense shot it, they should have the ability to control its path.
But is the defense allowed to take the ball at that point where the offense would now be allowed to put it back in while it's still in the cylinder? The only time I can think of defensive goaltending being called is when the ball is coming down in the first place. I agree that should stay, but if you allow easier putbacks for the offense without the defense also being allowed to snatch it (I don't think they are allowed), that would be a ridiculously unfair advantage for the offense. If I understand what the rules are now and what you're proposing, the offense is the only side allowed to touch the ball around the rim, so the defense just stands there looking on as the offense is able to get easy put-back after easy put-back.
I say make all free throws resulting from non shooting fouls optional. Would rather keep the ball with a fresh shot clock than send a shooter to the line? Coach's call. Just like in football when a coach can accept or decline a penalty. The team being fouled should receive the decided advantage. I think this would result in the better team winning more often*. Would also eliminate hack-a-Shaq strategy and keep the final two minutes of games from dragging out into 30 minute foul fests.
*Not necessarily saying we were better tonight.
Exactly. It's mind-boggling to me that the team being fouled could actually be at a statistical disadvantage given their offensive efficiency and free throw shooting. Obviously I'm biased because of what happened today, but I don't think an ending like we saw today is really in the spirit of college basketball. Fouls should be penalties, not rewards.
From a large-sample perspective, the fact that "teams being fouled could actually be at a statistical disadvantage" does seem counter to what I want to watch as a fan and what a sport should promote.
However, choking is a huge part of sports and I think it is exactly in the spirit of college basketball. Being put on the big stage and either shining or failing is central to the spirit of sports.
True, but in my mind choking is when you deviate substantially from expected performance. It isn't performing as expected based on median FT shooting percentage.
This sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure it would work in practice. If the coach is going to decline the foul, they'll just have to inbound the ball again, and get fouled again over and over until the defensive team finally denied the inbound play and got the ball back. I supposed it could work though when a team is in a one and one situation. They could just decline until they are in double bonus. If you're going to do that though, you might as well just get rid of the one and one rule altogether.
I suppose there would have to be some stipulation about scrub thuggery, but in most cases if a team keeps fouling, their good players are going to foul out.
Make the fouls hurt more, you broke the rules, the penalty should hurt. How about when you are in the bonus you get a free throw and the ball, in the doulbe bonus you get two FT and the ball.
For shooting fouls before the bonus you could give the coach the choice of freethrows or the ball. That way you can't force a 17% free throw shooter to the line with hack a Shaq. It also avoids the need to put good free throw shooters in at the end of the game, often creating a size disadvantage, let the best players play and win the game on their merits.
I'd be in favor of college basketball adopting just about any NBA rule they could.
Three point line, shot clock, game length, handchecking, timeouts, etc. Too many college games are borderline unwatchable and the rules are a big part of it.
The last thing I'd want to see is to see the college game look like the NBA game. I like the differences and I like the college game much better.
Seconded on this big time. I can't even watch the NBA anymore.
How about this then: I'm in favor of any rule that eliminates the Wisconsin style of basketball as a practical game strategy. Increasing the number of possessions, allowing guards to not be constantly fouled on the perimeter, ending manipulation of block/charge by defenses, etc.
It's the same thing really.
Whatever that rule was that cost the Lions that Touchdown on Thanksgiving.
Here's something I've always wanted to do in hockey: Eliminate the red line, move the blue lines about 10 feet closer to the goal lines (so that they're not far from the faceoff circles), and add a second set of blue lines about a third of the distance from the existing blue line to the existing red lines.
Then write the offsides rule so that the puck must cross over the lines closer to the ends in order to enter the zone, and in order to be cleared, must cross over the lines further from the ends. In this way you make both the neutral zone and the offensive zone bigger; in effect making the rink bigger without actually having to change its physical size.
In truth, the rule is already written this way, so it wouldn't be as revolutionary a change as it sounds. The puck must cross the whole blue line in order to enter the zone and then cross the whole blue line again to leave the zone. So the blue line is either in the neutral zone or the offensive zone depending on where the puck is. This would just increase the amount of rink that that applies to.
and this is probably getting lost on my end, but what does adding two more blue lines have to do with the goals in the following paragraphs? You would then have five zones instead of three, and it seems like it would be common to get tripped up by the new blue line on a breakout. Or, if you're not going to call offisides with the new blue lines, why not just eliminate them and go with two blue lines for your plan?
Adding to your "already written this way" paragraph, the entire puck has to cross the entire line, so that's another 2.99 inches in rink space as you define it.
This would be easier to show than tell. Here's a normal rink for reference:
Here's what I'd change it to:
There still are only three zones. The ice might look divided up into five, but if you think of it in terms of the present rules, the two areas between the new blue lines would really just function as really thick old blue lines. When the puck is in the neutral zone, then the neutral zone is the area between the outer blue lines:
Thus making a much larger neutral zone than before. Offenses could get closer to the net before they're offsides. Once the offense gets the puck over the outer blue line, then the defense must clear it past the inner one. The offensive zone is much larger than before, so more room for the offense to operate:
I'm not sure what you mean by "tripped up by the new blue line" or the other stuff, so I can't address it all that well, but there you go as best I can.
I mean crossing the middle two blue lines would constitute offsides into the new zone easily. A pass from one of the current offsides dots to a player immediately past the current center ice faceoff circle would be illegal, no? A team would have to gain possession of both blue lines on the attacking end with the current offsides rules. Given the current use of a blueline, every player would be stuck in the middle zone before having to clear the new inner blue line and then also clear the one outer line near the attacking zone.
With the diagrams I can see what the intent is, but why not leave it at two blue lines and make them ~20' in diameter each while removing the red line?
No - for all intents and purposes the middle two blue lines would not exist while the puck is in the neutral zone. (And then when the zone is gained, the outer two blue lines would not exist. The lineman would station himself at the one that matters.) Yes, it might require a tweaking of the way the offsides rule is written, but in this idea of mine, the offense would not have to gain both blue lines. Just the one closest to the goal lines. A pass from center ice across the first blue line would be legal.
If you wanted to just make 20'-thick blue lines, it would serve the same purpose so I wouldn't argue against it. I just thought that would look kind of strange.
I can see what you're going for here, but I think it would just be smarter for the NHL to move to the larger rink. There are too many other benefits (like fewer injuries) that come along with the larger international rink.
I'd keep it exactly the way it is. My pet peeve is Dick Vitale complaining about how unfair the jump ball rule is. Well, if a short guy ties up a tall guy, and they jump it up, the tall guy will win the tap. That's unfair to the short guy. Why should he be penalized for being short? The way the rule works now, if you tie a guy up, your team gets the ball half the time. That makes sense because you didn't gain possession, you only shared the possession.
Yeah, I'll admit that is probably the least persuasive of the proposed rule changes.
But, make any player on the floor eligible to take the jump. I've wanted alternate possession gone since they introduced it.
Change the one and one rule. in the last 2 minutes of the game, all fouls after a team's seventh for the half that is deemed to be intentional (that is, to extend the game, put the other team on the line intentionally - so any foul committed by a team trailing with the intention of putting the other team on the line) is automatically a two shot foul. I've hated that for a long time - gives the trailing team too much of an advantage.
Every charge while dribbling should be a ruled a defensive foul. I'm sorry, throwing your body in front of a dribbling ball carrier is not defense. It's a bailout. Move your feet.
Thus encouraging dribble-drivers to lower their heads and slam their shoulders into a defender who has obvious position rather than go up for a shot and risk it being blocked.
I think he's referring to stationary defenders, not on-ball defenders.
So am I. Let's say a point guard crosses over his man and sees nothing but the center between himself and the rim. The center has obvious position. If there's no such thing as a charge, the obvious thing to do is fling yourself at the center's chest as hard as possible and throw up a foul-me shot. Because why actually try to score if there's the chance of getting it blocked when you can just put the guy in foul trouble and get your free-throws?
Likewise, once centers figure this out, they'll just jump up and hack the guy first to try and prevent it from being a shooting foul.
We had this discussion before. The charge-block decision isn't ideal but it's better than all the alternatives. Getting rid of charging fouls is dumb and offers no incentive whatsover to defend or play offense correctly.
I'd like them to actually start calling diving in the NHL. It's not necessarily a rule change per se, but it would be tremendously beneficial.
I'd like to see them call diving separate from calling penalties. I HATE when they call both a hooking and a diving penalty. (Or interference or whatever.) It's stupid. HOW CAN IT BE A DIVE IF IT WAS ACTUALLY A PENALTY AND HOW CAN IT BE A PENALTY IF THE GUY TOOK A DIVE???? SO DUMB.
For example, you can have a slash and an embellishment on the same play. If Ovechkin hits Crosby's calf with his stick in a slashing motion and Crosby leaves his feet to flop, two rules have been violated and both should be called.
In MLB, get rid of the designated hitter.
In college baseball, eliminate aluminum bats. No one ever talks about the "ping" of a bat hitting a home run.
and not a major sport, but the designated hitter in softball being called the designated player is one of my biggest pet peeves in sports. Is the SS not a designated player? Isn't the pitcher a designated player? Call it what it is, the player designated to hit for the player who sucks at hitting but is good at their defensive position. In short: designated hitter.
"In MLB, get rid of the designated hitter."
You are wrong and you should apologize.
In all seriousness, DH arguments seem to be like political arguments. There are two sides, they both think that the other side could not be more wrong, and they cannot fathom how the other side came to the conclusions that they did.
I would actually drop overtime for non-playoff games in all sports, and count a tie as half a win. The games are long enough as it is. For playoff games:
football - the college system would be ok if they started from the 45 instead of the 25, put more emphasis on offense and defense and less on the kickers. The NFL system is better than what they had, but I would prefer to see the game end only when one team has both the lead and the ball.
baseball - keep as is.
basketball - keep as is but reduce the number of timeouts.
hockey - drop the shootouts, just play until someone scores. Maybe do alternating power plays or something if no one scores after a full 20 minute period.
soccer - this is the hardest one. I would get rid of penalty kicks, make overtime sudden death, and allow 25 players to suit up for each team with unlimited substitution (including of players who had previously come off) after each 15 minutes in overtime. If no one scores after 60 extra minutes, maybe have them go down to 8 on 8 but with the same substitution rules.
1) Intent to blow gone. Either you blew it or you didn't. Puck in before whistle sounds = goal.
2) Trapezoid gone. It's dumb.
3) Hybrid icing at the NHL level.
4) Over the glass is like icing, not a minor.
5) Pitch clock in baseball. You get 20 seconds or it's a ball. Suck it, unbearably slow pitchers.
6) Remove the one and one entirely.
7) More radically call all intentional fouls at the end of games intentional. If you're down 8 with 60 seconds left, that's your fault, regardless of whether the other team knocks down those free throws.
8) Reduce the number of timeouts by at least two in basketball. Probably down to three total.
9) Either remove the kickoff or don't, stop fiddling with the rules.
10) Treat illegal man downfield the same on punts as on any other play. Return the punt return.
11) Pass interference as a spot foul in college.
12) Remove the illegal contact rule in the NFL. Passing is too easy there.
There are probably more, but that does for a start.
snowcrash, I think it's natural to hate ties. One of the largest downfalls of soccer is when a game ends 0-0 no overtime or tiebreak. It's hard to convince people to keep watching games when they see one like that. I would protest wholeheartedly if they brought back ties in college football.
I was thinking about this and it's almost never an issue but how about a pass interference call in college football that becomes a spot foul if you make no effort to play the ball. This would have to be blatant just tackling the guy going for a catch.
I think the tie issue is not as black and white as you see it. Every soccer fan I know is entirely fine with ties. I think casual soccer fans dislike them because they haven't watched enough soccer to appreciate them or understand the consequences that would happen without them.
Disliking ties is a seperate issue from being a sophisticated fan in soccer or any other sport.
I totally agree about making the penalty harsher on teams that foul in basketball. It'd be nice not to drag out games for so long. It's the worst part about basketball IMO. The game's all about flow and then the end of a game often turns into a foul/timeout fest that takes absurdly long and totally saps my interest in it unless it's Michigan playing. And the fact that you can even foul out of a game is ridiculous. You could allow 6 fouls as someone suggested but why do they need to foul out of the game at all? Just make it so committing a foul isn't worth it when fouls add up more. I don't like listening to Bill Walton usually but he made a great point railing against this one time. Essentially ejecting a player from a game because he picks up too many fouls, especially considering at least one of those is going to be some questionable ticky-tack foul. How dumb would it be for an offensive lineman to get kicked out of a game for having 2 or 3 holding penalties or even to miss half a game and give up sacks when he's in because he already has 1 or 2 holding penalties and God forbid he might do it again. There's no need for some absurd rule like that in football (or any other sport!) because very few penalties are worth committing (e.g., situational pass interference calls).
I hate how long it takes to watch the end of a game. I wish they had one timeout, and there was a heck of a lot less incentive to foul at the end of the game.
In soccer, there should be five balls going at once, each with a number written clearly on the side. Then a sixth "powerball" can be dropped into the mix. If a lucky fan matches all of the numbers printed on his ticket, then he gets to play goalkeeper for five minutes on the team of his choosing. Also there are tanks or something.
Raise the rim height up to 11ft. Shit a lot of those guys can damn near hit their head on the rim when they dunk.
...I would change the red card rule. If the team committing the foul gets scored on, I would allow them to put a player back into the game to get back to full strength.
Bring soccer's "advantage" rule into basketball. ie. if someone commits a reach in or something dumb in the last 30 seconds, but the offensive team maintains possession of the ball, let the team maintain play. Or perhaps give the team the option to use their bonus 1 and 1 free throws or just take an inbound pass.
They should not allow a charge to be called on a guy if someone steps in his path after he has left his feet. It is dangerous and rewards a cheap defensive play.
If the coach is on the field/court during play, it's an automatic technical (basketball) foul or 5 yard penalty (football).
I watched the referee have to push Crean out of his way yesterday because Crean was on the court when play was in the IU end of the court.
I think Izzo is the worst offender of this.
This bugs the shit out of me.
Izzo looks like he might actually cry sometimes. Booo IZhoooo.
rule change, because it is weary of being yelled at.
In football (college and pro), STOP rewarding the offense with a cheap pass interference call when the ball is underthrown, causing the receiver to stop or adjust back to the ball. The DB is in full stride trying to cover, and in my mind the offensive guy is causing the contact. Why reward the poor throw?
I hate this call even when it benefits my team, and I've been screaming about it for years. Last year I FINALLY heard an announcer express my viewpoint, and it was Herbie on ESPN.
Instant replay in baseball for almost everything but balls and strikes. We have the technology to get the call right EVERY TIME but they aren't using it because of "baseball purists." It's ridiculous.
10. One player on each soccer team may be allowed to ride a motorcycle during the game.
9. All time clocks must have audible metronome sounds.
8. Calling a time out requires at least one player on that team to sit in a corner of the stadium or arena until the time out ends.
7. One player per team may be allowed to use performance enhancing drugs, provided that the drugs are classified as hallucinogens and were ingested at least 30 minutes before the game began.
6. A relief pitcher may enter the game only while driving a Zamboni from the bullpen area to the mound.
5. No crying in baseball.
4. Shoelaces and skate laces must be untied at all times.
3. Penalty kicks involve players from each team alternately kicking a player on the other team until a coroner has to be called.
2. Only taunt allowed: Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries!
1. Free admission to the first 10,000 fans.
Just remembered what I want to make happen with soccer: No offsides once the ball is inside the box or past the line that demarcates it (so it wouldn't be called near the corners either.) I mean come on. The offside trap is a fine tactic but when the ball has advanced that far, play defense. Outside of the ever-present flop there's nothing I hate more about soccer than seeing a good quality scoring chance ruined because the defenders aren't defending, instead they're playing offside-gotcha games.