POLITASPORTS

Major League Baseball made some much hyped, lightly lauded changes to the game. Two months into the season, many of the pundits vehemently against the rules when announced, are now signing their praises. The game of baseball is quicker; even as hits, stolen bases, and runs have increased. Innings weren’t long because teams were getting on base and scoring runs, they were dragging on nauseatingly because pitchers and batters were testing Mother Teresa’s patience. Lazy pick-off attempts, stepping out of the box to adjust their micro jewels, and waving off pitches they were always going to throw. The league knew a change was needed, and the runs and ratings prove it was correct. In light of the new MLB rules, I wanted to take the time to list rules I think will have a similar affect to several popular sports that are lagging behind the NFL behemoth. The NFL is untouchable. It is the most TV friendly and fun sport of any of the professional leagues in America. Their stadium experience could be improved, but when it comes to living rooms across the country, they got it figured out.

I will offer my ideas to improve the TV viewing experience for the casual fan. Obviously, those of us that love sports are already watching. I hope to offer changes drastic enough to draw new eyes, yet not so radical as to turn off current fans. These changes are for American sports. This is not new, think of international basketball, the game is slightly different to appeal to the global market, yet not so bizarre they change the game.

NHL Hockey:

The NHL tried some things in the late nineties for the TV audience that failed miserably. Who remembers the glowing puck? They’ve tinkered with the offsides rule, the three line pass rule, icing alterations. They changed overtime rules, playing four on four, and ending in shoot outs. I believe most of these slight alterations have helped the game. My proposal deals with one portion of every game: The Penalty Kill/Power Play. Currently if the team on the Power Play (the one with the man advantage) scores a goal the penalty ends. I agree, for a minor infraction a goal is a severe penalty, much more than being a man down for two full minutes. This is why they have a distinction from minor to major penalty. A major penalty does not end with a goal. A team continues to have a man advantage until the entire penalty is paid.

My Rule Change(s):

A minor penalty should end if the short handed (team serving the penalty playing a man down) scores. Nothing “Kills” a penalty like a short handed goal, except currently, it doesn’t. If both teams are serving a penalty (i.e. 4 on 4 or 3 on 3) this rule will not apply. It only ends a short handed situation. If a team is playing two men down, it only negates the first penalty, a second goal would be required to end both (much like catching a ball in dodgeball, the first player comes back in). I believe this would incentivize teams enough to try and score while shorthanded, thus opening the game up for the Power Play team as well to score.

Another addendum to the Power Play scoring would be during a delayed penalty. As it stands, if a team is called for a penalty, but the opposing team (the team about to have a Power Play) has control of the puck the refs delay stopping play. The team with the upcoming Power Play (man advantage) can use this time to create a scoring opportunity. If the team on which the penalty was called gains control of the puck, play is immediately ruled dead and the penalty enforced. So the team with the future P.P. will pull their goalie and create a 6 on 5 man advantage prior to the P.P. starting. However, as the rule is now, if the team scores during this empty net man advantage the penalty is not enforced. As I mentioned, I understand a goal ending a minor penalty, one goal in hockey is a severe punishment, but this is prior to that penalty beginning and should not eliminate what has yet to begin.

MLS Soccer:

Soccer is, of the major sports, the least watched here in America. Many factors account for the lack of television ratings, but I believe pace of play is a predominant reason. This is not a sport where a clock can be added (pitch, shot, or play). How then can we increase the action opportunities? I believe there are two minor tweaks that could easily be implemented that would encourage offensive action.

My Rule Change(s):

The NBA has a back court violation. This means once the offense has advanced the ball passed the mid court line, they can not regress to their defensive side voluntarily. Soccer should consider the same. They already have a line dividing the pitch, they too should restrict the offense from passing backwards into their end. They already do this with passes back to their own goalie, he can not handle a pass directly from a teammate with his hands, even in the box area. Preventing the offense from passing back into their zone will promote increased pressure towards the goal. I understand teams implore this as a tactic to spread out the defense, but really it just slows the game. Many of the best scoring chances come off set plays, in which the entirety of both teams are confined in minimal space. I don’t believe preventing the offense from passing back towards their own goal will cause the offense to be stagnated. And in fact will incentivize the defense to pressure more in the midfield to generate free kicks if the offense passes back. This will in turn free up attacking forwards.

My second change to soccer is with the offsides rules. Currently if any part of the body (other than arms and hands) is offside (closer to the goalie than the last defender prior to the ball being played) they are offside. So if the offensive and defensive players’ feet are both in line, but the offensive player is leaning past the defender’s shoulders, he is offside. This is where my change would take place. I would propose only one foot must remain onside. Much like in the NHL, only one of the players’ skates must be behind the blue line when the puck crosses and he is onside. If a player’s planted foot is in an onside position, even if his leading foot and body are “offside” he will be onside. The key here would be planted. The trailing (onside) foot must be on the turf, if it is raised, the planted foot would be his forward foot and he will be offside. I believe with VAR this would not be difficult to enforce and would most assuredly lead to more scoring chances.

NBA Basketball:

In the NBA enforcement of current rules is more important than additional rules. NBA officials need to once again call carrying and traveling infractions. Also, they need to be reminded that every time players collide it does not mean there is a foul. There can be “no calls” if both defender and offensive player made legal plays. Just because two bodies touch, does not warrant blocking or charging calls. However, I do have a couple very minor modifications.

My Rule Chage(s):

The long range shot and small ball have taken over the game. In the nineties the NBA re-introduced “zone” defense, with a caveat, the defense could have a three second lane violation as well as the offense. The NBA should just allow straight up zone defense.

My second change would be to have a bonus and double bonus. The one and one free throw is a vital part of basketball on every level but the pro game. Bring it back. Make teams pay for having poor shooters on the floor. And if the team has not already reached the double bonus by the final two minutes, then four fouls will be needed to reach the double bonus. As it is now 2 fouls in the final two minutes puts a team in the bonus.

I believe these are the most subtle changes that would shake up the sports in a positive way without fundamentally altering the games. The goal would be more action and faster game play. Let me know what you think.