h a l f b a k e r yReplace "light" with "sausages" and this may work...
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Inspired by March Madness:
No one wants to watch the end of a lop sided basketball game where one team is blowing the other team out by twenty points--(except, possibly, for the fans of the winning team). It would be more interesting if the losing team had a small chance of winning, no matter
what the score. Kind of like sudden death kick-offs in soccer.
A rule could be added to allow a losing team to shoot-the-moon. The losing team would win the game if they make an extremely long shot from a predesignated spot-- a shot of, say, 100 feet, or from the full length of the basektball court. For example, a two-foot diameter circle could be painted on the floor beneath each hoop. If a team shoots the ball the full length of the court into their basket at the other end, they win!
The concept could be applied to other sports. Football: A five gallon bucket attached to the top of one goal post arm. Kick a 30+ yard field goal into the bucket, and win! Baseball: If a runner could steal home from second base, running across the pitcher's mound, they win! Football (soccer): If a player can kick the ball into a small fishnet suspended 40 feet above the field, they win!
[One embodiment suggested by engineer1] To make it more fair, if a losing team scores a shoot-the-moon shot, then the winning team goes into a penalty shoot out, akin to soccer. For example, the five players (basketball) in the game at the time get to take their own shoot-the-moon shot without interference from the other team. If one of them makes it, then *they* win!!
[Another embodiment suggested by phundug & RooneDitoff] Since it may not be fair for a team to play poorly then win at the end with one lucky shot, in this embodiment a shoot-the-moon shot either ties the score up or else adds a bunch of points (e.g., 10 points) to the losing team's score.
[link]
|
| |
I love your description on your profile page. Rings authentic, it does. |
|
| |
Why not? Once a team is getting flogged the element
of death is gone from the game, this idea gives
the team that's losing a chance to come back from
the 'brink' ,albeit a slim chance. Errr not that the
team I suport gets thrashed every weak or anything. |
|
| |
// If a team shoots the ball the full length of the court into their basket at the other end, they win! // |
|
| |
What would be the point of playing the game then? No. |
|
| |
A modification that meant this could only be implemented a fixed number of times in a season for example once, would prevet a bad team having one good player loosing every match till the last second when the star Shoot the moon player walks into position. |
|
| |
2nd modification would be to allow the team beaten by the moon shot to have a go as well similar to a penalty shoot out in soccer. |
|
| |
Oh no... the DoD has discovered the bakery. How long before we see supersonic penguins, anthrax pinatas, and Dial-a-Smite as WMD's? |
|
| |
I've been out of DoD for nearly a decade. Don't miss it. Sickened by the fraud, waste, abuse, and general laziness of the industry. |
|
| |
I noticed that when I interviewed for a DoD contractor that made computer chips for jets. Incredibly backward and slow process with no impetus to improve manufacturing technology. How backward must everyone be, if the US is supposedly so high-tech in the arena? |
|
| |
boolean - per *bad slice*
A) Straighten your shoulders. (Put a club shaft from shoulder-to-shoulder & see where you've *been* aiming)
B) Stick your rear out a little (It frees hips to pivot properly - as always, careful with the back, so don't overdo pont B) |
|
| |
As for idea itself, I think there *has* to be an additional ^risk/penalty,^ aside from possibly losing the game - for the team taking the shoot-the-moon shot *and* a future ^reward^ for the leading team which said "take your chances." |
|
| |
[thumbwax] re: slice, I'll give A and B a whirl. Basic strategy for this season, though, is to live with slice and work on improving short game. I give up way too many cheap strokes. |
|
| |
oppsoing team may insist that shooter "assume the position" with shorts dropped for the best media coverage (uncoverage?) of the week. |
|
| |
Instead of making the long shot an instant win, how about making it a 10 (or 5 or 15) point shot from some area of the court. It would be an extension (perhaps a hyperextension, ouch!) of the 3 point shot. Limit the number of attempts per game if that's a concern. |
|
| |
I'd feel cheated if my team had played 40 minutes of brilliant, inspiried, dominating basketball only to have the other team win by a fluke shot. Not that my team is in any danger of playing more than 1 or 2 minutes of brilliant anything, but if it did happen I'd be upset. |
|
| |
boolean - per *bad slice*
A) Take up Bridge
B) ...there isn't anything else. |
|
| |
// If a team shoots the ball the full length of the court into their basket at the other end, they win! // |
|
| |
They shouldn't *win*, but it could instantly tie the score, or something. Or maybe that shot could be worth 15 points. |
|
| |
The annos of engineer1, phundug and RooneDitoff included good suggestions which would make the game more fair, so as not to let a losing team win by making one lucky shot. I have incorporated these suggestions into my idea, above. Many thanks. |
|
| |
I'd suggest that the best thing would be to have it (1) drop the winning margin by some substantial percentage (e.g. 50%), and (2) allow the team making the shot the option of asking for an overtime period if there has not already been one. |
|
| |
Horrible, horrible idea. If your team has not been able to compete with a superior team for the last 60 minutes, there's no reason that you should get a second chance at the end of the game. Get a better coach, get better players, practice harder. What's next, teams have to let everybody play so that nobody gets their feelings hurt? |
|
| |
//Horrible, horrible idea. If your team has not been able to compete with a superior team for the last 60 minutes, there's no reason that you should get a second chance at the end of the game. Get a better coach, get better players, practice harder. What's next, teams have to let everybody play so that nobody gets their feelings hurt?// |
|
| |
The rules should not be set up so that a team which has been playing well consistently could get beaten by a fluke, but I see nothing wrong with having rules set up in such a way that a team which has been whomped early on could recover if the team that had been whomping them gets overly lazy and apathetic. |
|
| |
As a hypothetical, imagine changing the rules of the game of basketball so that the game would end at the first basket scored after fourth period clock expired which would put the team scoring it in the lead. |
|
| |
So if the clock expires when a team is ahead 100-80, the 100-point team would win if they got even a single basket before the other team got ten. Although it would be exceptionally unlikely that the 80-point team would win under such rules, one could argue that if the 100-point team was unable to score even a single basket before the other team scored ten, they deserved to lose. |
|
| |
Note, btw, that the rule would get rid of conventional overtime. |
|
| |
BTW, even if you don't like the idea of allowing a team which which is losing when the time expires to recover, what would you think of eliminating overtime and having play continue uninterrupted if the score is tied when the clock expires? |
|
| |