Sports

Some of the rules of various mainstream sports are just dumb.

Free throws in basketball. So you get fouled - why are you forced to take a free throw? Why not give the fouled team the option to just keep the ball? This would cut out all of the ridiculous end of game stop the clock and force a free throw nonsense.

Golf - why do you get to have a different club for every situation. Let the golfers show their skill by being limited to five clubs. Or maybe use all the clubs you want but you have to carry (not cart) them yourself.

Tennis - the serve is an overwhelming advantage. Why do you get two chances at each serve? If the server only had one chance then much of the advantage would go away.

Soccer - how is it a contest if no one can score? Increase the goal size until scoring becomes a regular event. Then you will see who is consistently better at scoring. It's not about boredom, although this would help. It's about measuring skill. How have you measured skill if the vast majority of the drives end with nothing? One team could get 10 good shots at the goal, the other never able to cross midfield - score 0 to 0, a tie - huh? Same game but the goal is two feet wider - score maybe 5 to 0 - now the score reflects the game.

Hockey - I'm pretty sure that hockey is just soccer on ice with sticks. Same fix applies.

American football - if you throw the ball down the field and don't catch it, why should you get to keep the ball? Seems to me that a pass should be the same as a fumble. Go ahead and throw the ball - if no one catches it, it is up for grabs. That gets rid of a lot of judgment calls by the refs and it makes a lot more sense to me.

Baseball - I haven't figured out how to make baseball any less boring. But reducing the number of games in a season would make each game much more of an event.

Tie games - choosing winners in a tie game - what a mess. Long overtimes, endless overtimes, changes to the concept of the game. Two soccer teams play to a tie. Then the winner is chosen by kickoff? What does that have to do with the game?

My suggestion is that you start the game with the tiebreaker, integrated into the game.

For timed games (basketball, football, etc.), if you score first in a game, and that game ends with a tie score, you win. No overtime. Not only is it simple, the team that is behind knows exactly what it needs to do to win.

Golf - the first person to take the lead at the end of any hole owns the tie breaker.

This might even be interesting in chess - the first person to take a piece that is not followed on the next move by the opponent taking a piece owns the stalemate breaker (a new strategy would be to take the first piece even if it gives you a disadvantage, then play for the stalemate).

Baseball, the first team that has a lead at the end of an inning owns the tie breaker.

Maybe a lot of this wouldn't help anything, but to me, at least it would help the rules make sense.