What one rule would you change if you had the power?

smileyman · 2012-05-26T07:13:14.106430+00:00

I'd make hits on defenseless receivers an offensive penalty. As is the defense can be put in a no-win situation. Either back off until the receiver is no longer "defenseless" or take a penalty. Not only does that disrupt the balance of the game, in some sense it actually provides incentive for the offense to create dangerous situations.

I think making it the job of the offense to not put a receiver in a situation where he's going to get creamed if he makes a play would address the complaints about watering down the game as well. With the burden on the defensive player you're basically making him make a split second decision of whether or not to hold up.

Flagrant hits to the head/spearing/etc would remain illegal, but there were plenty of flags given out for defensive backs making good, hard, football hits on receivers last year under 12.9.2. If hits on suicide passes are a problem eliminate the suicide pass, not the hit.

ac91 · 2012-05-26T06:32:10.954568+00:00

Leading the league in number of Tebows

patefacio · 2012-05-26T06:27:41.763953+00:00

So it's probably safe to say that people in the past almost certainly got less cancer than we get today, because they weren't living as long.

The recent rise of life expectancy is greatly skewed by the dramatic reduction in infant/child mortality rates. Even in the paleolithic era the life expectancy of a person living past 15 was 54 years.

Via wiki

Era	Life Expectancy at Birth (years)	Comment
Upper Paleolithic	33	At age 15, life expectancy an additional 39 years (total age 54).
Neolithic	20
Bronze Age and Iron Age	26
Classical Greece	28
Classical Rome	28	At age 15, life expectancy an additional 37 years (total age 52).
Pre-Columbian North America	25-30
Medieval Islamic Caliphate	35+
Medieval Britain	30	At age 21, life expectancy an additional 43 years (total age 64).
Early Modern Britain	25-40
Early 20th Century	31
Current world average	67.2	2010 est.

CorporateParrot · 2012-05-26T05:23:26.448292+00:00

The term "extinction event" only covers macroscopic organisms. It's extremely difficult to even reasonably estimate the diversity of microorganisms at the present, far less put together estimates of the number and trend of species for any of the extinction events that occurred millions of years in the past.

Via wiki

An extinction event (also known as: mass extinction; extinction-level event (ELE), or biotic crisis) is a sharp decrease in the diversity and abundance of macroscopic life. They occur when the rate of extinction increases with respect to the rate of speciation. Because the majority of diversity and biomass on Earth is microbial, and thus difficult to measure, recorded extinction events affect the easily observed, biologically complex component of the biosphere rather than the total diversity and abundance of life.

Alexander_D · 2012-05-25T18:09:58.967277+00:00

The limits of how bright an object has to be before the humans can make it out is important here, too. To capture the Hubble Deep Field image the telescope was specifically aimed at a seemingly blank patch of sky (so that a "bright" foreground star wouldn't drown out the distant galaxies they were trying to see.

What they found was that the "blank" spot was filled with thousands of galaxies, they are just too dim to be seen with the naked eye. If every point in the sky that you can see has light coming from it, but at the 30th magnitude, those points will be interpreted as black by the human brain. The fact that there are so many relatively bright spots (stars and galaxies with a higher apparent magnitudes) only exacerbates this.

Gozer_Destructor · 2012-05-25T17:41:02.613836+00:00

I also feel that since matter can't be created or destroyed, that It didn't add any gravity to the earth since formation

That is correct, the biomass of Earth would have just been the regular mass of earth were there no life. To put it another way, when an animal is born the mass of the Earth does not increase. The process of the conception and growth of an organism is just rearranging matter already on Earth in complex ways.

Slippyy · 2 days

Football helmets mean you see less of NFL stars' faces more than any other sport. Only hockey goalies are more obscured, but there's not a whole lot of them.

doggiedolphie · 3 days

My favorite r/Steelers post from last season

ILoveCannabis · 3 days

For cap reasons, though. We'd have kept them if wallace wasn't a free agent

ILoveCannabis · 4 days

Still, Steelers fans should be the last to say that players in their decline are no longer threats.

Raidenbobalay · 7 days

30 seconds after every single play is just too long and annoying. Two challenges per game takes care of the egregious calls without the constant interruption

Raidenbobalay · 7 days

The coaches decide.

And I'm fine with running out of challenges. I don't think we need to address every close play at first base and every ball right at the edge of the strike zone. What needs to be addressed is the egregious calls that happen just a few times a season and currently have no redress. If you really have that many game-changing or season-changing officiating mistakes in a game video review isn't the answer, firing the officiating crew is. You'll find very little support for reviewing every call at the bag just incase a later batter homers a runner in even among the most pro-video-review folks.

A two-challenge system would not eliminate bad calls from the game, but only completely computerized officiating would. Nobody wants that.

Who cares if it's "unfair" to put certain values on certain plays? That's what happens. To answer your question: Yes, if the Galarraga call had happened in the 4th it would be less high profile and less talked about. It was just a run of the mill bad call and is only high profile because of what it meant to the game. That's why there needs to be a system to challenge that sort of call. With two challenges you can do that without sterilizing the game.

Raidenbobalay · 7 days

It really depends on the call, though. The perfect game last year being blown? Review that, absolutely. Every single close play at first base? No way. If you're reviewing everything just take the umps out and measure the whole game. Give the managers a chance to fix a bad call when it matters, but leave the human element intact where you can

ikacer · 7 days

I don't see how you can put a rookie who hasn't played a single snap of professional football into that list.

Raidenbobalay · 7 days

The reason I prefer the NFL rules to the NCAA rules is that the NCAA rules slow the game down more than the NFL rules do (though with automatic review of touchdowns the gap is closing). I also think that problem would be magnified in the MLB. When watching NCAA football the play on the field is constantly being held up. Just for a few seconds, but dozens of times a game. And whether or not you think that's a problem, that sort of constant annoying delay is exactly what the detractors of video review are warning against. I think baseball would magnify that problem because a huge percentage of plays at the bag or tags are questionable. Less than a minute is still a long time if you're waiting after every close play.

I think the NFL system is better because it's sufficient without being overkill. How often do plays come up that really make you wish the MLB used video replay? I'd say a couple every few weeks across the whole league. Two challenges a game is plenty to cover those cases.

I really don't see how that would slow the game down more than the fucking field officials running over to a tiny monitor in the middle of the game.

There's no reason why challenge-based review couldn't be done off-field. Even if it is on field, it will slow it down less because it happens less often. Before the new rules most teams in the NFL used less than ten challenges per year. It helps correct the worst mistakes without invading every play of the game.

Raidenbobalay · 7 days

I think two challenges a game, NFL style, would be perfectly sufficient to take care of the truly egregious calls without negatively impacting the game.

cubemstr · 9 days

Got to be steelers-ravens. I can't think of another in the nfl right now where both teams are perennial contenders and which is so equally matched.

Packers-bears has history, but nobody would think of putting the bears before the packers. Right now the rivalry just isn't as compelling.

triplea20x · 13 days

it may have saved us from an uglier exit later, but we'll be seeing that OT pass replayed until we die

kukukele · 14 days

That's an RES feature, not a reedit feature

clydeftones · 16 days

Oh, gotcha. Field goals and punts already do this, though they are bounded by the hashmarks

clydeftones · 16 days

You would see guys who break it big take a knee at the one so they don't need a hail mary for the PAT

Mistform · 17 days

NE was 24th in YPA and GB was 26th

Lozlesndstuff · 17 days

Longer boot and worse load performance is why, as you've stated. If you can do HDD+SSD do it, you get the full benefits of both. If not a hybrid is probably best if you're okay paying the premium over an HDD.

If your laptop has an optical drive you may be able to replace it with a second hard drive, in which case you can do HDD+SSD. I have a Macbook Pro and that's what I did. I'd never used the optical drive, haven't wanted to since, and am quite happy with my setup.

ReaganSmashK · 17 days

Don't forget the Curse of Flutie

euneirophrenia

TROPHY CASE

euneirophrenia

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login