General Discussions > No Glove No Love

Insane sports theories/ideas

(1/3) > >>

Wolfman:
Inspired by the convo in the Women\'s World Cup thread.  Here are a couple of my long-time ones and one new one.

The Hockey Double-Goalie Theory
A hockey goal is 6 feet wide by 4 feet high.  If you stack two very large men (6\'2, 300 or bigger) on top of each other, they could block up the entire opening.  It would be impossible to score.  Then you would just play 4-on-5 needing one "shorthanded" goal over the entire game to win and no chance of losing.  This "shorthanded" goal would be easier to get than you might think because you could play extremely aggressive offense because there is no need rush back to defend at all.  If a team did this for a whole season, they would probably win 2/3 of their games and tie 1/3 of their games 0-0, which would easily land them the #1 seed in the postseason tournament and they would not be beatable in a playoff game.  There is a rule that only one player can wear goalie pads, but there is no rule against the double goalie and they would not both have to wear goalie pads.

The Baseball Armored Defense Theory
On defense, you have your regular pitcher, catcher, and first baseman.  You then take the other 6 fielders and get them into heavy, heavy armor and have them stand 1-2 feet from home plate.  Three guys shoulder-to-shoulder on the left and three on the right with about a 2-foot gap in the middle for the pitch to go down.  Any hit will either
1. go straight into the armored defense such that any of them can pick the ball up and lob to first base for the out.
2.  A straight popup that the defense can catch
3. A hit right up the middle can be fielded by the pitcher.

There is no rule against this.  

The Baseball Catcherless Theory
If there are less than two strikes in the count and nobody on base, then why do you have a catcher?  There is no reason to.  Have the catcher play short field.  Third strikes have to be caught and every pitch must be caught when runners are on base.  But if neither of those conditions are met, then no need for a catcher.

How To Eliminate Kicking From Football
OK, this is a new one I\'m doing right now inspired by wildcoyote\'s dislike for kickers.  Obviously this theory is ridiculous, but just for fun, let\'s say you wanted to start a football league but without kicking.  How would you have to modify the game?

1.  Field goals - completely eliminated.  End zone or bust.
2.  Extra points - completely eliminated.  Two-point conversions only.
3.  Kickoffs and punts - Run the same play, except have a guy throw the ball.  The best arms can throw the ball 60-70 yards so it works out about the same.  For punts, teams would have to declare before the play that the throw was to be ruled as a punt and not as a completion attempt.  All other rules for punts vs. throws could then be in place.  To keep fake punts in the game, once a team declares "punt" then any throw that ends up complete to a receiver less than ten yards past the line of scrimmage may be considered a completion, while any throw that goes more than ten yards past the line of scrimmage must be ruled a punt.

Teams would probably have a long-throwing specialist so the QB didn\'t risk blowing out his arm on all of the deep throws and didn\'t risk injury on specials teams defense.  

There.  Kicking is eliminated!

The Basketball No Foulouts Theory
No fouling out in basketball.  It\'s asinine.  Every personal foul after the fifth on the same player may be considered a technical, but no ejection for personal fouls.  In every other sport you have to do something totally egregious to get ejected.  Basketball is the only sport where you get ejected for routine gameplay infractions

Unlimited Subs in Soccer
Soccer is plagued by players walking and stalling to recover because there are only 3 subs allowed per game per team so most players have to play the whole game.  There would be way more action with unlimited subs and you could have legit sudden-death overtime and none of these silly shootouts.  Unlimited subs on your own throw-ins and corners, and on either side\'s goal kick.  20-man roster.

Drew_Kingsley:

--- Quote from: Wolfman;271187 ---The Basketball No Foulouts Theory
No fouling out in basketball.  It\'s asinine.  Every personal foul after the fifth on the same player may be considered a technical, but no ejection for personal fouls.  In every other sport you have to do something totally egregious to get ejected.  Basketball is the only sport where you get ejected for routine gameplay infractions.
--- End quote ---

Whether knowingly or not, the one is actually based on a real rule (sort of).

Currently, if a player fouls out and there is no legal substitute remaining, that player may remain in the game. However, any foul committed by said player will entail one additional free throw (i.e. a non-shooting foul earns one shot, a two-shot foul earns three shots, etc.)

Also, if a team is down to five active players, and one player is injured or ejected, the last player to foul out may return (with the same penalties listed above).

I know this is true in the NBA and NCAA, though I couldn\'t tell you the last time it happened. Probably at one of those D-III or junior colleges that only has six active players to begin with.

wildcoyote:
Wolfman, to continue our debate from the other thread, the hockey goalie is not equivalent to the NFL kicker. Sure, the goalie has a drastically different skill set from the other 5 players, and has a rep for being softer than the others, but he\'s on the ice for the entire game, and that counts for a lot in my book.

And I don\'t hate kickers. It\'s more that I like players who can contribute to all facets of the game. I like that Welker made a field goal with Miami. I\'m not a Pats fan, but I liked seeing Mike Vrabel catch TDs, Dan Klecko as a blocking fullback, or Troy Brown playing defense.

You were right that personal experience influences my thinking. I played rugby in college and consider it the perfect sport.  You see some tremendous kicking in high level rugby.  The NFL players are certainly athletic enough to do the same, but they dont spend any time on it because they don\'t have to.

They never will, but if American football changed the rule, you\'d see NFL WR\'s, QBs, or even DT\'s drilling 45 yard field goals on the reg.

Drew_Kingsley:
This one isn\'t really all that "insane"... in fact, college teams do it regularly.

Suppose Doc Halladay pitches on Sunday, so he is slated to throw his bullpen session on Wednesday. Why not let him throw his 30 pitches in a game?

I know that if a pitcher is returning from injury or working out something in his mechanics, he probably shouldn\'t be facing live hitting on his side-day. But if it\'s just a seasoned vet getting his work under normal circumstances, let him throw a frame or two!

zuke583:

--- Quote from: Drew_Kingsley;271201 ---This one isn\'t really all that "insane"... in fact, college teams do it regularly.

Suppose Doc Halladay pitches on Sunday, so he is slated to throw his bullpen session on Wednesday. Why not let him throw his 30 pitches in a game?

I know that if a pitcher is returning from injury or working out something in his mechanics, he probably shouldn\'t be facing live hitting on his side-day. But if it\'s just a seasoned vet getting his work under normal circumstances, let him throw a frame or two!
--- End quote ---


i think there are a lot of interesting things that could be done with baseball, specifically the pitching rotations. i\'d like to see more pitchers pitch shorter outings (think a bullpen with a bunch of guys that can do 3 innings). i think your best pitchers should be finishing games and not starting them. "live" bullpen sessions would fit into this category.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page