Not sure it would improve the sport but it would make it funnier.

On kickoffs in the NFL, if you catch the ball in the endzone and 1 of your feet touches out of bounds before you kneel, it's a safety.

For whatever reason I can't stand seeing idiots field these kicks 9 yards deep and backpeddle out of the endzone and they get it at the 20. I also can't stand these clowns returning kicks anyway so it will punish them for attempting to catch a ball >5 yards deep.

But a kickoff out of the EZ to the 21 counts for 21 return yards!!!

"Complete the catch" rule in football. This rule needs to GTFO, makes no logical sense. I.E. Dez Bryant's catch today.

In hockey, a penalty at the end of the period should extend the period for the length of the penalty. Alternately this could be done only at the end of the 3rd or OT. Seems like it is currently a huge freeroll to take a penalty at the end of the game.

I like this a lot at the end of OT.

Penalty carrying over from 3p to OT is an advantage in itself as it's easier to score 4v3 than 5v4.....I'm pretty sure anyway.

Oh I guess you mean when the game isn't tied at the end of the 3rd. Not sure how I feel about that actually.

I'm not going to get into it too much because there's been enough discussion in the game thread, but the rule does make sense. I thought it was dumb at first, too (despite the correct ruling).

Without the rule in place, there would've been a TON more argument and confusion about whether or not it was a catch. Did he get both feet down? Did he make a football move? Was he taking steps? Did he have full control of the ball? So on and so forth.

With the rule in place, it is simple. If the receiver is falling to the ground, loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground, it's incomplete. All of that was crystal clear in both replay and real-time, so it was an easy incomplete pass call.

Some games actually play their playoffs in this manner. They also allow a partial carryover from games during the season.

Isn't the ball live if it hits the endzone? So catching it is what they should be doing.

What about rugby? What is the concussion rate in that game?

Anecdotally the concussion rate is quite high. From what I've read it seems that the study and acknowledgement of the seriousness of concussions in rugby lags far behind the NFL (which is saying something). I presume this is in part because rugby is played worldwide and not simply under the jurisdiction of a single body.

In any case, rugby isn't american football. In my mind the most obvious source of danger from eliminating the helmet in american football is the forward pass. Everyone starts from a standstill, receiver sprints forward, receiver turns his head to look for ball, receiver gets lit up by defensive back. Even if the defensive back is doing his best not to hit the receiver in the head, passing it so prevalent it will eventually happen. It is a short line from a guy getting hit on the head with no helmet to a guy dying on a the field.

FWIW I think the NFL understands this and this is why the no helmet idea will never happen. Fans (and to a lesser extent lawmakers) don't really care if players develop mental issues 10-30 years after retirement. If guys started having their heads cracked open and dying on the field that would be an issue.

So if you're losing, punch people in the face to get the game extended?

This is the biggest reason I dont watch much basketball. It moves along at a clip most of the game and then it slows to the speed of New Delphi traffic. The intentional fouls are the most annoying. Run ten seconds off if the defense fouls in the last two minutes.

rules to prevent strategy in timed sports are anti-sport.

that is why baseball is so great and any attempt to "fix" it's pace of play should be laughed out of existence.

Since when is baseball a timed sport

Saying my position is "anti-sport" is about as substance-less a criticism as saying someone is "anti-freedom".

Why don't we make baseball 18 innings so that they can use even more strategy?

I'm not sure what this means exactly.

Sports with a clock often need rules specific to the clock, as certain angle-shoots that aren't really relevant for most of the game suddenly become relevant at the end of it.

For example in football the idea of a run off if the offense commits a penalty with the clock running in the final minute or so.

Committing an infraction on purpose for an advantage is obviously something that needs to be minimized as much as possible in sports, and that's what those rules seek to do.

Every sport on the planet basically does this accept for basketball which has been so broken for so long people now accept the broken ass ending as part of the sport.

This would be weird as phrased, but a tweak to it might work: Any penalty call that would extend beyond the end of the game if no scoring occurs (thus, beyond the end of regulation if committed by a team that is ahead, or beyond the end of regular-season overtime if the game is already in overtime) may, at the option of the team that would benefit from the power play, be taken as a penalty shot instead. (As with other penalty shots, if the shot is missed the penalty is considered fully served.)

There would be no effect on offsetting penalty calls, which would be enforced as they now are.

There would also be no effect when a team that is behind late in the game commits a penalty. Note that if it's really late the net will usually be empty, and the existing rules for penalty shots provide that any penalty resulting in a penalty shot when the net is empty is an awarded goal. I can see an argument for applying the change to this situation also, but I doubt it would be terribly helpful (in particular because such penalties are almost never called).

In the case of multiple penalties that extend beyond the end of the game only by virtue of the second penalty (for example, a double minor with three minutes remaining), the team has the option of taking a penalty shot in lieu of the second penalty. This election would have to be made before the first penalty is served, but if elected, the penalty shot would be taken at the first stoppage of play following the expiration of the first penalty. (Yes, this is a bit weird, but I don't think there's a better way.)

I'm not sure what to do with multiple penalties, the first one of which would extend beyond the end of the game. (For example, a double minor with one minute remaining.) Consistency suggests that that would be the option for two penalty shots, or a power play plus one penalty shot, but two penalty shots feels wrong. Maybe if the first penalty shot is successful, the second penalty is served normally.

In principle I like it, despite the ugly complexity, because you're right that a penalty with a few seconds remaining isn't adequately penalized. In practice I don't think it would matter much because muggings go unpenalized in the last few seconds pretty regularly, and no doubt that would continue under the revised rules.

This would be interesting but it would also create a weird shift at exactly 2:00 left in the game. If you commit a minor penalty with 1:59 it is suddenly much worse than at 2:00 which is a bit weird. I don't particularly hate that but I could see people complaining about it.

One obvious tweak to what I originally said would be that a team that is penalized can decide whether to extend the game or not (so a team that is leading would choose to not extend the game). Another possibility would be to only extend the game if the team is down by 1 goal - I'd kind of prefer it to be that the game is still extended even if you're down several goals (and then if you score on your power play, you still get the remainder of the extra time to attempt to score more even strength goals to make a comeback in the game), but only extending the game when down 1 would be OK as well.

Re-read my post maybe.

I'd say just let the refs use some judgement. If the referee feels a foul is committed for the purpose of extending the game, 3 shots and the ball back for the offense.

That rule is in place already, it's just rarely enforced like that.

I am a lifelong hockey fan and really get ticked when I see a fight where one guy has a visor and the other doesn't. There were two or three of these situations in the Pittsburgh/Flyers game Tuesday night.

I think there should be a rule where if a player starts a fight, and has a visor, and does not remove his helmet, he should get an additional 2 minute penalty in addition to 5 for fighting.

Anyone who has played hockey know that this situation sucks, and breaking or cutting your hand on a visor is very likely. I have no problem if a guy with a visor gets jumped and has no time to take it off. That happens. But for many fights there is often time after the gloves are dropped for each player to lose his helmet if it has a visor.

Last night a Pittsburgh guy had no visor but still took his helmet off. He waved for the other guy to take his helmet and visor off, but he didn't. That kind of an edge in a fight is cowardly.

cite?

MLB

At the start of every inning, if one team is losing, they will get 4 outs for their batting half of that inning.