Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:

darth_vedder wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:15 yard pass interference instead of a spot foul in college football

This is easily top five of my most hated rules--maybe even #1.

Really? I like the college rule better. Spot fouls suck, and some BS ticky tacky call can be too much of a game changer. Like a 35 or 40 yard interference call. 15 yards is fair, and you get a new set of downs. To me, this is better.

I don't like seeing DBs committing pass interference to break up a big play, knowing that they can they can turn a 35 or 40 yard play into a 15 yard play by committing a penalty.

Joesanity wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:The insane number of times out given to a team in college basketball (those, combined with the TV times out, just slow the game down to a crawl and makes coaches completely over coach)

People complain about the end of NBA games taking forever (never really feels like it to me), but the last two minutes of college basketball games are virtually unwatchable.

Grantland wrote:Kill the Timeouts

Currently, each coach has five timeouts to use in the course of a televised game. If one of those timeouts isn't used before halftime, it will disappear into the ether, leaving each coach with four timeouts for the second half. In theory, these timeouts are designed to be parceled out over 40 minutes. In practice, it's become exceedingly rare to see a team with less than four timeouts in their pocket at the 10-minute mark of the second half, and with anything under three timeouts with four minutes remaining.

Why? Because they don't need to use timeouts early in the game. There are four media timeouts each half, spaced apart at four-minute intervals, to satisfy the corporate interests without whom we wouldn't have televised sports. These natural breaks usually give a coach all the time he needs in the first 30 minutes of the game to strategize, rest his players, and stem the little bouts of momentum that might emerge.

In other words, the coaches are prepared to work without timeouts for long stretches. So why should they have four in hand for the end of the game? Think about this — with, let's say, 4:30 left in a close game, it's not uncommon to see both coaches with four timeouts remaining. You've got the media timeout coming at the first whistle under the 4-minute mark, which means that in 270 seconds of action, there are nine timeouts to be spent. That's a timeout for every 30 seconds. Considering that the shot clock is at 35 seconds, that's one T.O. for each possession, which, as we discussed before, coaches will gladly use.

And the result is brutal. Constant stoppages, media timeouts, and the inevitable referee review when the timekeeper forgets to stop the clock or the guard possibly had his foot on the line when he rose for a jumper, create an interminable end-game. ESPN has the common courtesy to stay on-site for most of these late timeouts, so you at least get to see the huddles and hear some analysis. But when CBS picks up the action in March, the advertising deal is a little different; they go to commercial on every (or nearly every) break, even the 30-second timeouts, forcing you to watch the same annoying commercials you've seen on repeat for the past month until you find yourself in a state of frayed anxiety, ready for a serious bout of rage or a total nervous breakdown.

It ruins the end of the game. And maybe you think that I'm only considering the most extreme situation, with eight timeouts still on the board. Well, let's turn to last week's Kansas–Oklahoma State game. At the moment the whistle was blown for the final media break, there were five timeouts remaining between the two teams. I went back to the video on ESPN3, and discovered the following:

1. The last three minutes and change of game action, from the media timeout to the end of regulation, took 17 minutes and 41 seconds. If the rest of the game was played at that pace, it would have lasted roughly 2 hours and 56 minutes. And only three timeouts were used. This was, incredibly, something of a best-case scenario.

2. The first five-minute overtime session — absurdly, teams are given another timeout to start OT — lasted 24 minutes and eight seconds. Again, if a regulation game 40 minutes long was played at this pace, it would take 3 hours and 13 minutes.

And this wasn't even an egregious example. I just plucked it from thin air. It's an indisputable fact — the end of college basketball games, when the energy and excitement should be cresting, is a terrible bore. Give a coach a chance to use a timeout, and he'll use it. (It also seems to create teams that are clueless in their execution without a timeout; see Oklahoma State's last possession in double overtime, for example.)

So why give a coach that chance? Why allow him to control the game? Kill the timeouts. Give each team two to use per half. You don't use your two in the first half? Fine. They don't carry over. You have two to use in the second half. You get no extras if the game goes to overtime. This is a spectator sport, and the spectators came to see the players.

Green Habit wrote:I'm not necessarily saying that I want this change, but sometimes I think it'd be fun to have field goals from 50 yards or further count for 4 points. Could add some intriguing tactical decisions.

Chris_H_2 wrote:The All Star Game in baseball determining home field in the World Series

This really could be the dumbest rule in all of professional sports.

Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:infield fly rule called on one that is hit 100 feet into the outfield

@SkitchP wrote:I agree that the All Star rule is stupid... But it's no worse than it was before, being the AL/NL alternating.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I agree that the All Star rule is stupid... But it's no worse than it was before, being the AL/NL alternating.

But at least before people didn't have to pretend that it was anything but an exhibition.

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I agree that the All Star rule is stupid... But it's no worse than it was before, being the AL/NL alternating.

But at least before people didn't have to pretend that it was anything but an exhibition.

I dont think it hurts the all star game at all. I think it's just.... silly.

warehouse wrote:it almost feels pointless to bitch about rules after seeing the mlb all star rule brought up. it is by far the worst thing in pro sports. i was about to rant about how qb's cant get hit, but the mlb rule is far, far worse.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I agree that the All Star rule is stupid... But it's no worse than it was before, being the AL/NL alternating.

But at least before people didn't have to pretend that it was anything but an exhibition.

I dont think it hurts the all star game at all. I think it's just.... silly.

I guess I was more referring to how MLB promotes the game. It's absolutely absurd to characterize an all-star game as a game "that counts." It was just a ridiculous over reaction to the blowback MLB received after the tie game in Milwaukee.

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I agree that the All Star rule is stupid... But it's no worse than it was before, being the AL/NL alternating.

But at least before people didn't have to pretend that it was anything but an exhibition.

I dont think it hurts the all star game at all. I think it's just.... silly.

I guess I was more referring to how MLB promotes the game. It's absolutely absurd to characterize an all-star game as a game "that counts." It was just a ridiculous over reaction to the blowback MLB received after the tie game in Milwaukee.

No question it's absurd, but it doesn't bother me as much as most people, because frankly, it's kinda pointless.

numbers wrote: People act like it was earned on the field before they came up with this rule.

numbers wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I agree that the All Star rule is stupid... But it's no worse than it was before, being the AL/NL alternating.

But at least before people didn't have to pretend that it was anything but an exhibition.

I dont think it hurts the all star game at all. I think it's just.... silly.

I guess I was more referring to how MLB promotes the game. It's absolutely absurd to characterize an all-star game as a game "that counts." It was just a ridiculous over reaction to the blowback MLB received after the tie game in Milwaukee.

No question it's absurd, but it doesn't bother me as much as most people, because frankly, it's kinda pointless.

My thought has always been, why not? It was decided by just alternating them before, what's so bad about having the all star game decide it? People act like it was earned on the field before they came up with this rule. I f'ing love the MLB All Star Game and watch it every year, I dont give a damn if most people dont like it anymore. It was always the only all star game that meant anything, it shouldnt be lumped in with the Pro Bowl and others.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

numbers wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I agree that the All Star rule is stupid... But it's no worse than it was before, being the AL/NL alternating.

But at least before people didn't have to pretend that it was anything but an exhibition.

I dont think it hurts the all star game at all. I think it's just.... silly.

I guess I was more referring to how MLB promotes the game. It's absolutely absurd to characterize an all-star game as a game "that counts." It was just a ridiculous over reaction to the blowback MLB received after the tie game in Milwaukee.

No question it's absurd, but it doesn't bother me as much as most people, because frankly, it's kinda pointless.

My thought has always been, why not? It was decided by just alternating them before, what's so bad about having the all star game decide it? People act like it was earned on the field before they came up with this rule. I f'ing love the MLB All Star Game and watch it every year, I dont give a damn if most people dont like it anymore. It was always the only all star game that meant anything, it shouldnt be lumped in with the Pro Bowl and others.

Come on now, 1st grade logic here, 2 wrongs don't make a right

Basketball and Hockey decide homecourt/ice based on a long season. The beauty of baseball is the long season - which is twice those - and you should be rewarded for grinding it out over 162.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

warehouse wrote:it almost feels pointless to bitch about rules after seeing the mlb all star rule brought up. it is by far the worst thing in pro sports. i was about to rant about how qb's cant get hit, but the mlb rule is far, far worse.

All for the QB protection rules... Take it from a Bears fan, backup QB play is dreadful to watch.

There already aren't enough starting-caliber QBs out there.