Most team sports have invented ways of quickly resolving a tied score at the end of regulation play.
Football once accepted ties as a legitimate way to end a game, but no more. "Sudden death" overtime (first team to score wins) was seen as favoring the team that first gets the ball in overtime, so now we have a very different way to resolve the game: each team gets the ball in the other team's territory, and has one series of offensive plays to score by any means. The other team then gets a chance to match or improve. Almost certain to score at least a field goal. Very different from the game in regulation time.
Hockey has invented an overtime where one skater is matched against the goalie --no defence men to help. Teams take turns. First to score when the other team fails is the winner. Again very different from the regular game, when placement of defensive skaters is very important.
Basketball overtime is much like the rules for regular play, except that star players may have been ejected for reaching the limit for personal fouls. Likely that overtime is played with a different cast of characters, so "bench strength" is important.
But baseball seems to keep on playing inning after inning. If you thought a nine inning game would be over in 3 hours, you may find an extra-inning game go on for another 8 or ten or more innings before one team emerges as the victor, several hours later. Extra innings are especially likely in a low-scoring game.
Extra innings can ruin your planning for that day. Do you stay to the end or leave before it's over?
Should baseball modify its rules to increase scoring in extra innings --or find some other way to bring the game to a swift conclusion? Or should baseball stay loyal to its rules and just keep on playing " 'til it's over"?
Football once accepted ties as a legitimate way to end a game, but no more. "Sudden death" overtime (first team to score wins) was seen as favoring the team that first gets the ball in overtime, so now we have a very different way to resolve the game: each team gets the ball in the other team's territory, and has one series of offensive plays to score by any means. The other team then gets a chance to match or improve. Almost certain to score at least a field goal. Very different from the game in regulation time.
Hockey has invented an overtime where one skater is matched against the goalie --no defence men to help. Teams take turns. First to score when the other team fails is the winner. Again very different from the regular game, when placement of defensive skaters is very important.
Basketball overtime is much like the rules for regular play, except that star players may have been ejected for reaching the limit for personal fouls. Likely that overtime is played with a different cast of characters, so "bench strength" is important.
But baseball seems to keep on playing inning after inning. If you thought a nine inning game would be over in 3 hours, you may find an extra-inning game go on for another 8 or ten or more innings before one team emerges as the victor, several hours later. Extra innings are especially likely in a low-scoring game.
Extra innings can ruin your planning for that day. Do you stay to the end or leave before it's over?
Should baseball modify its rules to increase scoring in extra innings --or find some other way to bring the game to a swift conclusion? Or should baseball stay loyal to its rules and just keep on playing " 'til it's over"?
Comment