On Rules Changes......

Rules changes are, it seems, being proposed left and right for some of our favorite sports, so I thought that I would opine on a few of them.  You know....

Before I do that, though, I want to mention one aspect of last week's MLB All-Star Game.   Much hue and cry was raised among baseball's hidebound traditionalists and the legion of Joe Buck Haters about the fact that throughout the game players were fitted with earpieces and mics and were interviewed while the game was in process. While I can understand that there could be a safety issue  - a batter in the batter's box facing live pitching should not be interviewed - I loved it.  Why can't "Yelli and Belli"  or Francisco Lindor talk and answer  questions while the pitcher takes his twenty to thirty seconds between pitches?  It was fun, it was entertaining, and, first and foremost, it was taking place during an exhibition game.  I don't believe you will ever see this during a game that matters.

Now for those rules changes.

Many of the rules changes in baseball are being proposed in order to speed up the pace of play of ball games.  Did you see where Sunday's Dodgers-Red Sox game took 5 hours 40 minutes to play.  Granted, it was twelve inning game, but even when pro-rated it for nine innings, that was a 4 hour and 25 minute game.  C'mon Man!  Something really DOES need to be done about this kind of stuff.

Some of these rules are now being tested in the independent Atlantic League with the blessing of MLB.  

1. Balls and strikes called electronically by using existing computer technology.  Early returns - this has been in place for only a week - are positive, and no visible change to the "flow" of a game has been seen.  One jackass coach did get thrown out of a game for arguing and automated call.  (Good!)  I like this.  It should be implemented sooner rather than later.
2. In extra innings, start the inning with a runner on second base.  Some variance on this rule would be to not do this until the 11th or 12th inning.  I believe that this was experimented with in Spring Training, and it was going to be the case in the All-Star Game if it was tied after nine innings.  A game like the All-Star Game is exactly where such a rule could be tried out, and I was sorry that the game didn't end in a tie.  I would like to see how it would have worked out.  I really don't see this rule ever actually happening, but how much crazier is it than having sudden death OT in football, shoot outs in hockey games, or soccer games decided on penalty kicks?
3. On a wild pitch for passed ball, a batter has the option, regardless of the pitch count, of running to first base, or "stealing" first base.  I don't just like this rule....I LOVE IT!!!!  Think of the strategic options.  Weak hitting but speedy batters can "steal" first base and help spark a rally.  Power hitting thumpers are going to hold their position in the box in hopes of jacking one into the gap or over the fence on the next pitch.  Why didn't someone think of this before?
4. Relief pitchers must face a minimum of three batters (barring injury) , or pitch until the end of the inning.  Hell yes, put this one in place today.  It will reduce all those tedious in inning pitching changes that can turn an on-pace-to-a-less-than-three-hour-game into a three and  forty minute slog before you can blink your eyes.  For those of you who like "strategy" this will add a whole different kind of strategy for a manager to consider.  It may well spell the end of the Pitch To One Batter Lefty Relief Specialist, but who cares other than the families of Zach Duke and Oliver Perez.  It will also force teams to stock up on better pitchers, ones who can pitch to both LH and RH batters.

In the NFL, talks have opened for a new collective bargaining agreement, and one thing that the money-grubbing owners have put on the table once again is an 18 game regular season.  This time there is a fascinating caveat:  All players are limited to playing in a maximum of 16 games.  This addresses the Player Safety concerns that the league Punjabs are so concerned about (sure they are).  Personally, I don't like the idea of an 18 game season, but just think of the strategic Pandora's Box this rule would open up.

What two games do you sit your star future Hall of Fame quarterback?  Or running back? Or sack-machine pass rusher?  If you're Bill Belichick, do you sit Tom Brady against, say the Bills, only to have the Bills get so insulted that they get fired up and kick ass?   If you're whoever the Arizona coach is, do you sit prized rookie Kyler Murray against a powerhouse defense like the Rams or Bears, and sacrifice the chance to win a game in order to protect your prized rookie QB?  And can you just imagine the talk show second guessing if after Ben Roethlisberger plays a mediocre game yet eeks out a win (think last year's Jacksonville game),   Mike Tomlin decides to  go with Mason Rudolph in the following game against a supposedly inferior opponent, and Rudolph lights up Heinz Field with a 450 yard, four TD, zero INT game in a lopsided Steelers win over some NFL bottom feeder?  I can hear the "it's time for Ben to hang up the cleats" calls right now.

Coaches would positively hate this rule, but it sure would be a lot of fun, don't you think?

Do I think an 18 game season is going to happen?  The answer almost every question in life is Money, and there will be a lot of money at stake if the NFL adds two regular season  games.  The NFLPA is adamantly opposed to this for now, but of the Lords of the Realm throw enough of that cash their way, get ready for an 18 game season in the not too distant future.