Weird things you noticed in sports

[sc49erfan15]

Calling a scheduling agreement (specifically in college sports) where teams play two games, one at each's home arena, a "home and home." It just seems odd to me. I get that it's "one at my home, one at your home," but "home and away" makes more sense to me - "one at home, one away."

Or, even simpler, a "1 for 1" - we already call similar imbalanced scheduling agreements a "2 for 1" or a "3 for 2."

[chcarlson23]

Calling a scheduling agreement (specifically in college sports) where teams play two games, one at each's home arena, a "home and home." It just seems odd to me. I get that it's "one at my home, one at your home," but "home and away" makes more sense to me - "one at home, one away."

Or, even simpler, a "1 for 1" - we already call similar imbalanced scheduling agreements a "2 for 1" or a "3 for 2."

A home and away makes sense for YOUR team, because usually when you're talking about your favorite team you might say things like "WE'RE GOING TO WIN!" So it's weird that way, but if you happen to be talking about 2 different teams, it does make sense to say that they played a home and home series...

[2001mark]

Home & home is fine, means each side gets to play a game of the series each at home. Home & away only speaks to one team.

For example...

Toronto & Buffalo are playing a home & home next month.

Not, Toronto is playing a home & away next month with Buffalo. Very not.

[Stampman]

Calling a scheduling agreement (specifically in college sports) where teams play two games, one at each's home arena, a "home and home." It just seems odd to me. I get that it's "one at my home, one at your home," but "home and away" makes more sense to me - "one at home, one away."

Or, even simpler, a "1 for 1" - we already call similar imbalanced scheduling agreements a "2 for 1" or a "3 for 2."

A home and away makes sense for YOUR team, because usually when you're talking about your favorite team you might say things like "WE'RE GOING TO WIN!" So it's weird that way, but if you happen to be talking about 2 different teams, it does make sense to say that they played a home and home series...

precisely!

[raysox]

I've been watching Cricket recently, and they don't have a rule where the game stops when there is no possible way the team that bats second wins. So hypothetically a team that is more than 6 points down with one pitch left has to take it to make it an even 20 overs.

The sports been around since like 1600 and that's never been written into the rules

[Jaffa]

I've been watching Cricket recently, and they don't have a rule where the game stops when there is no possible way the team that bats second wins. So hypothetically a team that is more than 6 points down with one pitch left has to take it to make it an even 20 overs.

The sports been around since like 1600 and that's never been written into the rules

I suppose the team who can't win could just declare if they really wanted too? Might be seen as being a bit ungentlemanly, though.

[sc49erfan15]

Home & home is fine, means each side gets to play a game of the series each at home. Home & away only speaks to one team.

For example...

Toronto & Buffalo are playing a home & home next month.

Not, Toronto is playing a home & away next month with Buffalo. Very not.

They both sound equally odd to me.

[Breakwood]

I've been watching Cricket recently, and they don't have a rule where the game stops when there is no possible way the team that bats second wins. So hypothetically a team that is more than 6 points down with one pitch left has to take it to make it an even 20 overs.

The sports been around since like 1600 and that's never been written into the rules

I suppose the team who can't win could just declare if they really wanted too? Might be seen as being a bit ungentlemanly, though.

It's possible for that final bowl to be called a no ball or wide giving the batting team a run and another bowl. This could theoretically go on many many times allowing the batting team to win.

[goalieboy82]

Basketball has their own issues when it comes to officiating and parody, definitely. But basketball's biggest flaw is the fact that the final two minutes of any game are strategically set up to bring the entire thing to a screeching halt. It definitely makes the end of games exciting, but it sort of marginalizes the rest of the game a bit IMO.

Yup, the officiating has definitely become a parody of itself.

The last 2 minutes of close NBA games lasting 30 minutes really is a problem. I'm not sure it makes it more exciting. Longer doesn't necessarily mean better. Teams have way too many timeouts. I'd like to see actual basketball being played instead of the inevitable foul/free throw-fest.

I just watched the Clippers beat the T-Wolves and it was truly awful. I think the last minute and change took 20 minutes...at least 15...if I had to guess I'd say 18. And there was not really any question at the time of who was going to win the game. We had:

• Timeouts
• One out-of-bounds reply
• BOTH team fouling. This was because the Clips continuously had a three-point lead. So they fouled the Wolves. Part of the "problem" was that both teams made every single free throw down the stretch, keeping the lead bouncing between three-and-one.
• Getting DeAndre Jordan on the floor for defense and off the floor for offense.

But it was awful. Absolutely awful. And not just because the Wolves found yet another way to lose but it was nothing but dead time....the problem is, there is not much that I'd have told the teams/players to do differently. Doc was smart to foul with a 3-point lead. And to do all the switching he did. Teams in pro and college ball get too many time outs but for the most part, this stuff is hard to change in certain games/situations.

i say the last 5 minutes of most games seem to take 20 minutes. a part of me wishes they would have if a team is ahead by x-amount of points at 5 minutes left in a game, the clock keeps running so people can get out of there at a good time.

[Viper]

There's an oddity occasionally seen in the NFL, most recently with the Packers' Hail Mary win in Detroit, where a team that's scored a TD on the final play of the 4th quarter, with no time left on the clock, is obliged to run a PAT conversion try even if the PAT has no bearing on the game's outcome. (This only applies to the end of regulation time; in OT they do skip the PAT after a game-winning TD.) IIRC there was a game several years ago that ended with a meaningless TD on the final play of regulation, after which both teams went to their locker rooms and started undressing, only to have the officials order them to get dressed again and return to the field to run a meaningless PAT about 20 minutes after the game supposedly ended, in front of nearly empty stands. (In the Packers' case, they simply took a knee instead.)

Speaking of PATs, another NFL oddity that's just emerged this year is that, with PATs moved out to the 15-yard line, it's become far more commonplace for FGs (worth 3 pts) to be shorter than XPs (worth 1 pt). This could be fixed (and goal-to-go risk-taking encouraged) by moving all FG tries from inside the 15 out to the 15; shorter FGs would only be allowed after a defensive penalty on a FG try.

[Viper]

Hockey as a TON of off the ice problems, but the biggest issue is the absolute inability to find a truly fair way to end tie games. You can end in a tie, go to a shootout, make teams play endless overtimes till their legs fall off, or even flip a coin. None of it is really going to fix the fundamental issue that hockey has when it comes to ending games where the score is even. There really isn't a naturally efficient way to do that, unlike just about every other sport.

NHL - should re-adopt tie games. 21st century fans are fickle for time, & more accepting of traditional rules like soccer ties. Besides, the NHL's playoff sudden death OT re-validates them. The fact that it's not unusual for a random hockey playoff game to last 5 periods moots their regular season rules. Not even soccer does that- they're the ones who go to shootouts even if it's the World Cup Final.

I'd be all for bringing back ties, on the condition of adopting a new points structure that incentivizes regulation wins, in part by making a tie as good as a loss for both teams. Basically it would be the opposite of the Bettman loser point - instead of putting an extra point on the line in OT, take a point away. 2 points for a regulation win, only 1 point for an OT win, and zippo for either a tie or a loss.

[2001mark]

Hockey as a TON of off the ice problems, but the biggest issue is the absolute inability to find a truly fair way to end tie games. You can end in a tie, go to a shootout, make teams play endless overtimes till their legs fall off, or even flip a coin. None of it is really going to fix the fundamental issue that hockey has when it comes to ending games where the score is even. There really isn't a naturally efficient way to do that, unlike just about every other sport.

NHL - should re-adopt tie games. 21st century fans are fickle for time, & more accepting of traditional rules like soccer ties. Besides, the NHL's playoff sudden death OT re-validates them. The fact that it's not unusual for a random hockey playoff game to last 5 periods moots their regular season rules. Not even soccer does that- they're the ones who go to shootouts even if it's the World Cup Final.

I'd be all for bringing back ties, on the condition of adopting a new points structure that incentivizes regulation wins, in part by making a tie as good as a loss for both teams. Basically it would be the opposite of the Bettman loser point - instead of putting an extra point on the line in OT, take a point away. 2 points for a regulation win, only 1 point for an OT win, and zippo for either a tie or a loss.

Owners & players both would never ever vote for that.

[raysox]

I've been watching Cricket recently, and they don't have a rule where the game stops when there is no possible way the team that bats second wins. So hypothetically a team that is more than 6 points down with one pitch left has to take it to make it an even 20 overs.

The sports been around since like 1600 and that's never been written into the rules

I suppose the team who can't win could just declare if they really wanted too? Might be seen as being a bit ungentlemanly, though.

It's possible for that final bowl to be called a no ball or wide giving the batting team a run and another bowl. This could theoretically go on many many times allowing the batting team to win.

Ah I guess that's true. Hypothetically, I thought if a team was down 10 with a ball left, and they were given a free ball, the following 6 would count as it, and the game would be over.

Unless that 6 was hit on a dead ball, which is another weird rule.

[Graham_Clayton]

The scoring system in tennis is unusual - the first point for a player in a game is "15", and the second point is "30". Logically the third point should be "45", but instead it is "40". Another weird part is when players are tied at 40-40. Instead of 40-all, the term "deuce" is used.

[chcarlson23]

Hockey as a TON of off the ice problems, but the biggest issue is the absolute inability to find a truly fair way to end tie games. You can end in a tie, go to a shootout, make teams play endless overtimes till their legs fall off, or even flip a coin. None of it is really going to fix the fundamental issue that hockey has when it comes to ending games where the score is even. There really isn't a naturally efficient way to do that, unlike just about every other sport.

NHL - should re-adopt tie games. 21st century fans are fickle for time, & more accepting of traditional rules like soccer ties. Besides, the NHL's playoff sudden death OT re-validates them. The fact that it's not unusual for a random hockey playoff game to last 5 periods moots their regular season rules. Not even soccer does that- they're the ones who go to shootouts even if it's the World Cup Final.

I'd be all for bringing back ties, on the condition of adopting a new points structure that incentivizes regulation wins, in part by making a tie as good as a loss for both teams. Basically it would be the opposite of the Bettman loser point - instead of putting an extra point on the line in OT, take a point away. 2 points for a regulation win, only 1 point for an OT win, and zippo for either a tie or a loss.

Owners & players both would never ever vote for that.

I think how it should be is 2 points for a win, in regulation or OT. No points for a loss, regulation or OT, and 1 point for a tie... And it would be 10 or 20 mins. of OT, before the tie.

[monkeypower]

The scoring system in tennis is unusual - the first point for a player in a game is "15", and the second point is "30". Logically the third point should be "45", but instead it is "40". Another weird part is when players are tied at 40-40. Instead of 40-all, the term "deuce" is used.

I've read it comes from the French game tennis is based on or got its roots from.

The courts were 90 feet, so each player got 45 feet to their side. When they got a point they were able to move 15 feet closer to the net, then on their second point another 15 to 30 and then on their third point another 10 feet closer to 40. It was only 10 on the third point in order to keep a gap between the player and the net.

One theory for Love is English speaking places mispronouncing l’oeuf, which the French would use for zero as 0 looks like an egg.

[HedleyLamarr]

There's an oddity occasionally seen in the NFL, most recently with the Packers' Hail Mary win in Detroit, where a team that's scored a TD on the final play of the 4th quarter, with no time left on the clock, is obliged to run a PAT conversion try even if the PAT has no bearing on the game's outcome. (This only applies to the end of regulation time; in OT they do skip the PAT after a game-winning TD.) IIRC there was a game several years ago that ended with a meaningless TD on the final play of regulation, after which both teams went to their locker rooms and started undressing, only to have the officials order them to get dressed again and return to the field to run a meaningless PAT about 20 minutes after the game supposedly ended, in front of nearly empty stands. (In the Packers' case, they simply took a knee instead.)

While it doesn't change the outcome of that singular game, there is a point differential tiebreaker when it comes to determining playoff teams. The NFL tries to make things fair...to everyone....by contesting the entirety of the game.

[Sykotyk]

There's an oddity occasionally seen in the NFL, most recently with the Packers' Hail Mary win in Detroit, where a team that's scored a TD on the final play of the 4th quarter, with no time left on the clock, is obliged to run a PAT conversion try even if the PAT has no bearing on the game's outcome. (This only applies to the end of regulation time; in OT they do skip the PAT after a game-winning TD.) IIRC there was a game several years ago that ended with a meaningless TD on the final play of regulation, after which both teams went to their locker rooms and started undressing, only to have the officials order them to get dressed again and return to the field to run a meaningless PAT about 20 minutes after the game supposedly ended, in front of nearly empty stands. (In the Packers' case, they simply took a knee instead.)

While it doesn't change the outcome of that singular game, there is a point differential tiebreaker when it comes to determining playoff teams. The NFL tries to make things fair...to everyone....by contesting the entirety of the game.

But point differential for playoffs still counts overtime games ended with touchdowns. Why can a TD at 0:00 of the 4th Quarter require the PAT, but a TD scored 12 seconds into OT not require the PAT?

I've always wondered why American Football couldn't use soccer-style scoring style. Especially for college/high school football and the multiple overtimes. Instead of a 20-20 game ending 56-54 in 5OT, why not just say the game ended 20-20 with Team A winning in OT. A RB getting two TDs in OT shouldn't be credited on the season for two TDs, as well.

I like in soccer, you list a game as 2:2 (3:2 a.e.t.). Or 1:1 (5-2 pk), etc. You're stating, in the score, what the regulation final was, rather than implying a fluke OT scoring streak was part of the game's overall scoring.

[HedleyLamarr]

Because regulation timing rules for the NFL require the PAT attempt after every touchdown.

In overtime, it's Sudden Death (well, Sudden Death-ish in the case of a field goal). Game's over at that point.

[The_Admiral]

Home & home is fine, means each side gets to play a game of the series each at home. Home & away only speaks to one team.

For example...

Toronto & Buffalo are playing a home & home next month.

Not, Toronto is playing a home & away next month with Buffalo. Very not.

They both sound equally odd to me.

Why not call it a "here-and-there"? boom, fixed hockey