If you could add any new rule to a sport or game you enjoy, what rule and why?

MMMMMMMULTIBALLLLLLL

Any sport, doesn't really matter. Periodically during the game more balls start getting added into the playing field to spice things up, a la pinball tables.

Tennis, Football, Volleyball, Baseball, Basketball etc etc

imagining the absolute chaos that would result if an announcer shouted out "MULTIPUCK!" and extra pucks rained down on an NHL game
I'm for this.
- I'm all in for crazy hockey. Boosters, bumpers, multipuck, moving goals, tilting ice, pucks made of different materials, sticks made of different materials, boxing gloves appear at centre ice giving the player who grabs them 30 second free pass for roughing.
- Isn't that kinda what happens when the overtime keeps being extended?
  edit: Never mind, apparently that's a myth
Can I interest you in twelve ball?

Soccer: yellow card for faking injuries (you can easily see players close to death that jumps us and run if no whistle is blown) and for protesting with the referee. Also, microphoned referee so that the whole audience can hear what they say (it will result in LOTS of red cards until respect is shown)

Basketball: intentional foul is two free throws and ball, three in the last 2 minutes

Football: proper helmets

Yellow card for faking injuries
Make it red, and add a multi-match ban for repeat offenders. This is a culture problem in the sport that should have been dealt with years ago. I can only imagine how effective it would be to just send off a player for simulating. No questions asked. I would love to see the look on their face when they flop down and are immediately escorted off the pitch.
Is a yellow for simulation just a Premier League & UEFA thing then? I assumed most top flight leagues did this now
Miked up refs should have been a thing for years, it very obviously will reduce corruption. In rugby, anytime the ref is making a decision it's all over the PA, plus you can get a little earpiece in the stadium to hear every single word they say
Soccer: yellow card for faking injuries
Yellow card for simulation is already a rule. It's just not applied all that consistently, possibly because it's very hard to be sure that someone definitely wasn't fouled and also was deliberately feigning anything, as opposed to genuinely being hurt or at least being knocked over by a nonetheless fair challenge.
Microphoned ref is becoming a thing now, but I absolutely hate it. Just like VAR it slows the game down horrendously and is not needed. Refs have the tools they need to run the game (including hand gestures and red cards, as you said). They don't need to explain every last thing verbally.
- I've maintained that for VAR, if they can't figure out if there's a mistake in the call within 30s then just uphold the prior decision. I can't think of many situations where this would be enough of an issue
I'd go even further and say red card for taking a dive. Pretending to be struck/hit by another player in an attempt to get an advantage = cheating. Cheaters shouldn't be allowed to play.
It got a little better after they started with video ref'ing, but 90's Italian football still left its disgusting mark on the sport.
I think a simple matter that if you roll around on the ground "in pain," you get removed for medical attention and for the rest of the game for monitoring. If you're injured, you're injuried. If you're being a whiny baby, you don't deserve to be in the game. If you're faking, you deserve to be ejected. But in all cases it comes to the same conclusion.
Oh, and this doesn't automatically mean a foul. It's not like a person can't get hurt when no foul occurs. I hurt myself stepping out of bed in the morning.
yellow card for faking injuries…and for protesting with the referee.
Huge yes. I support the others saying it could even be a red card. The astonishingly bad sportsmanship from soccer players compared to other sports is a big reason it will never be taken seriously in countries like Australia. Diving is nothing short of cheating, and it's developed to such an extent that even children are frequently imitating the stars they see on TV and doing it in local club games.
In Australian football, which is played on cricket ovals ranging in size, but ~150 m long is a good ballpark figure, it takes very little talkback to the umpires (tbh, I've seen the rule overused in cases where it really didn't seem appropriate) before they'll march you 50 m. The opposing team gets not just a free kick, but a free kick from 50 metres closer to their offensive goal than where the original infringement took place.
Football: proper helmets
Assuming you mean gridiron football, I don't know exactly what you mean (how are the current helmets not "proper"?), but I would say exactly the opposite. The illusion of safety the helmet gives is part of what leads to concussions and CTE.
I'd do away with the helmet entirely. Go bald, or with a simple scrum cap, like in rugby union and rugby league. Techniques will have to adapt somewhat, but that's how all sports have to adapt to technological changes.
- You're essentially saying "ban gridiron football" because every aspect of the game would have to change if they weren't wearing those pads. And it almost was banned in 1905 because college players were dying. That's when the forward pass was introduced, diverging sharply from rugby.

As someone who is forced to watch baseball by their fanatical wife: the MLB should adopt most of the rules that the Savannah Bananas use, including a fan catching a foul ball counts as an out, trick plays, inning timer, etc.

Also stilts.

All sports: ban gambling sponsorships. Ban teams from wearing gambling company logos or otherwise promoting gambling companies. Ban leagues and networks from incorporating gambling sponsorships into the programming.

I would also say ban gambling advertising entirely, but that's a government law, not a sports one. With the sports rule change, gambling companies could still buy ad spots during as breaks. Just no commentators going "and now over to Lad Brokes so the punters can know the odds in this game".

I'd happily go a step further and just ban advertising altogether.

For any pro sport known for rowdy, destructive fans - the clubs get to pay for the police and insurance expenses.

Oh, this would bankrupt the clubs, I hear you say? Oh no. Anyway...!

American Football: no time outs.

Play it just like soccer. Ref's calls are final, and the clock doesn't stop unless their is an injury.

It would make the game much more fun to watch, cut the runtime by two thirds, and force teams to hire athletes who can maintain vigorous activity for half an hour without dying.

But when could they run the commercials?
- Think about cricket fans 😭😭. We're dying here

All sports have an alternative league where performance enhancing drugs are mandatory to participate. That's way more fun.

I wouldn't go with "mandatory" but no doping tests would be quite something!

Baseball. No sponsorships on uniforms.

I guess we could extend that to most sports. I know soccer is much more lax in that regard.

All professional teams that are televised must be broadcast free of charge to their local area. No local blackout restrictions. (Fuck you, Marquee Sports. Put the Cubs back on WGN.)

Beer must be under $10, in stadiums. It's $16 for even shitty domestic beer at Wrigley. It's damn robbery.

The social contract with soccer has always been that in exchange for shirt sponsors, you get zero commercial breaks except halftime. While American football gets a bad rap for its native flow (which is indeed quite slow and staccato, admittedly), the fact that they literally have "TV timeouts" is what's most egregious.
And I say that as an American who, while also a soccer fan, just can't quit gridiron.
The beer is priced high to keep from having to deal with a critical mass of drunken idiots. No one gets wasted on $16 beer.
- I know, but even $8 for a Budweiser is a lot. $16 is egregious.

American Football: Every time a player suffers a traumatic brain injury the owner takes a punch to the head from a professional heavyweight boxer.

Football

All the players are blindfolded

(I don't enjoy football, but I'd certainly watch it if it involved people running at each other full speed blindfolded)

Edit: American Football, but I'm honestly open to testing this on other sports too

I saw a YouTube video of a game where they played soccer in 3rd person. Everyone wore VR goggles that gave them a birds eye view of the field and it was very amusing to see.
Probably not to play, though.
I don't know if you're talking soccer, Aussie rules, gridiron, rugby (league or union), Gaelic football, or something else. But this is amusing whichever you pick.
Important: unlike variants of sports designed to be accessible to blind and low-vision players, this football is completely regular. Regular size, regular colour, no rattles or anything to make it easier to find the ball.

American football:

Universal:

No TV timeouts. The game is already insanely stop-start. Get your shit together, TV broadcasters, and make it work as-is.
No "wounded duck" pass interference penalties on poorly thrown balls. Defenders in pass coverage should be entitled to their existing vector of motion.
Players leaving for injury must be out for 4 plays or more, maybe the length of the existing drive. Something though. One play is not sufficient to dissuade simulation for tactical advantage.

Stuff to try in college or the spring league:

No radio communication. American football can be too regimented sometimes, and old men treating young men like chess pieces is part of that.
Limited substitutions per play if there is no is no change in phase. You come out, fine, but you're not going back in until the next time your team is on offense/defense/special teams. This will also enhance numbers 1 and 3.
Even shorter play clock. Keep it moving. Adjust when the clock runs if you want to keep the number of snaps consistent.
Remove kicking entirely. They're vestigial minigames at this point that could be replaced with throwing the ball. Workshop it in the offseason to see how small the goalposts need to be to replicate current play balance.
College only: Admit they're professionals, make them employees with enforceable (and purchasable) contracts, and route enough money into the non-revenue sports to keep them viable. It is what it is; don't let the creeping in of sensible labor practices destroy the sport. Use the inevitable anti-trust exemption you'll get to mandate some sort of nexus between the players and the schools (lifetime tuition waiver? part-time enrollment?), but stop acting like the already snobbish and laughable "amateurism" of the NCAA is even a viable concept.

Stuff to bring in that would make the game weird to modern eyes but might help reduce head injuries:

Mandate wide splits on the lines, two-point stances, and a wider neutral zone so that players are not exploding into each other head-to-head. A snap should look like a sumo match, not two horny rams on a hillside.
To allow for number 1, make "1 yard to go" the minimum for a given offensive snap.
Remove most/all of kicking again, though with the idea of reducing high combined-velocity impacts rather than just because it's anachronistic. Treat an incomplete pass on fourth down like it was a punt. Give up on the idea of kickoff returns. Field goals could stay, but subject to the same scrimmage rules as other plays.
Consider whether every play from scrimmage should require the Offensive Line's first step should be backwards or lateral. They already are on many passing plays, but making it mandatory would further encourage upright play that's often ineffective technique today. The running game will be severely affected, but it is what it is and "every run play looks like a draw play" is a small price if we want to save American football over the long term.
Revamp tackling rules. Make it rugby style and penalize hits above the shoulder harshly. Consider whether big hits resulting in heads thumping against turf are common enough to be banned altogether.
Consider removing helmets so players have a sense of preservation over their own heads, but if not that, then go with something much lighter and more ice-hockey style so the helmet is not as tempting as a weapon and doesn't encourage a false sense of invulnerability. It was for all the wrong reasons, but the "Extreme Football League" (nee "Lingerie Football League") uses this type of headgear.

College football: when you win the coin toss, you have 2 choices: kick or receive. No more deferrals.

Yellow card for faking an injury in soocer

Badminton:

screaming and shouting and other obviously bad manners meant to psychologically disturb the opponent. Looking at you, Carolina Marín. God I hate her.
Taking unnecessarily long to serve the shuttle, swaying left and right for a long time before serving. Looking at you, Viktor Axelsen! For shame! 🫵

1 is such a huge problem with tennis, too. Absolutely ban the obnoxious grunts and yells.
- Other than maria sharapova, let her do what she's doing
- It has no place in sports. So unsportsmanlike.

Cricket:

Remove the backfoot no ball. It does not benefit the sport but puts a lot of stress on bowlers bodies, knees in particular. The most commonly injured body part for bowlers. They land with 6x the impact of their bodyweight on one knee 6 times an over, like 20 overs a day. No good.
So much I would change in Odis that i dont even have the energy to wrote it all.
A shit ton of administrative changes.
Mankads to no longer be stigmatised (they are legal already)
Allow some level of ball tampering, by which I mean not using anything but allowing some controlled substances.
Add substitutions

Remove the backdoor no ball. It does not benefit the sport but puts a lot of stress on bowlers bodies, knees in particular. The most commonly injured body part for bowlers. They land with 6x the impact of their bodyweight on one knee 6 times an over, like 20 overs a day. No good.
I can get behind any rule that exists to protect the players. Sports are inherently physical but they shouldn't endanger the athletes.
One of the reasons why I have a hard time getting behind boxing/certain martial arts as sports, it just feels like slightly more sanitized gladiatorial combat.
- I think fighting sports have their place in society. We've had them forever across so many cultures that i can't really dislike em.
  We just enjoy violence I guess. Better it be controlled than not.
Wait, how does the back foot no ball cause players stress? I thought that rule mostly impacts spin bowling, but it's fast bowlers who are at greatest risk of knee injury.
Come on. You can't leave us hanging like that! At least name a few of the changes you'd suggest.
See above
Strongly agree. Batsmen are able to get an advantage by proceeding up the pitch early. Mankadding is required to even the playing field. Imagine in baseball if sneaking a base was allowed, but not pitchers getting you out for it!
Strong disagree. There's enough evolution of the ball over the course of a test as it is. We don't need artificial substances any more than triathletes need to start allowing steroids.
Strong disagree, with the exception that maybe they could make allowances for genuine injuries, if there's a safeguard preventing abuse of that. Creating a good team composition with a balance of the right kinds of players for the match is a core part of cricket. Allowing substitutions to cricket would be like if rugby started doing the gridiron thing of swapping out defensive and offensive teams.
As far as format rules go: I'd ban anything shorter than ODI. T20 and the IPL in particular are ruining cricket, with too many young players learning that style and becoming worse cricketers unable to adapt to the truest form of the game. The way the media went on and on about Sam Konstas because of his showboaty shitty T20 play style. Never mind that Webster, who debuted in the same series as an all-rounder to Konstas' specialist batsman averaged significantly more.
The only other rule that immediately comes to mind is one I've been told is being addressed. The ridiculous boundary catch rule. You shouldn't be allowed to jump from outside the boundary to keep the ball alive. Spectacular jumps from inside the boundary, throwing it back over the rope from outside before landing, either to another player or to yourself if you're able to get back in the field of play, are awesome. Hopping while continuously outside the field of play is not. Thankfully, I've heard they're fixing this soon, if they haven't already.
- MCC law for no balls.
  21.5.1 the bowler’s back foot must land within and not touching the return crease appertaining to his/her stated mode of delivery.
  21.5.2 the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised
  
  on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in 21.5.1, and
  
  behind the popping crease.
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23098100/
  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bruce-Elliott-2/publication/313730263_Biomechanical_and_physical_factors_influencing_fast_bowling/links/59a8fb1aaca27202ed60a15c/Biomechanical-and-physical-factors-influencing-fast-bowling.pdf
  Theres a lot of research on it. Even the intro to the first link should give you a basic overview if you're not interested about going in depth.
  Basically, bowlers try to maximize stride length without overstepping. This often leads to forcefully “planting” the front foot close to the popping crease.
  Also try to land just behind the crease for maximum reach and pace which leads to overstriding, causing hyperextension of the knee. Pcl knee injuries follow.
  When bowlers shorten their stride or change delivery angle to avoid overstepping they also risk injury.
  Well first of all I'd like to just scrap Odis, they no longer serve a purpose in the sport. T20s have replaced them. (I dont want to get into the history of it all in an already long reply)
  But if they did stay. Field restrictions and powerplays are ridiculous. Ball changes are ridiculous.
  We use two new balls in ODI cricket now, and that makes people angry. But we actually used two balls in 50 over cricket always. Because leather won’t dye white correctly as it does with red, the balls are lighter in colour for their natural state. But to make them bright white they have their colour sprayed on.
  White balls start harder and swing more than red ones, and after five or so overs are softer and stop swinging. Then as they degrade quicker, they pick up dirt and grass as well. So they stop doing anything at all, you can’t see them, or hit them as far. They are simply not fit for purpose.
  Before what would happen is that at one stage in an ODI, the umpires would look at the sad, grey piece of sponge and decide to replace it. Later on they just unofficially changed it around the 35/36 over mark with a ball that was used, but not abused.
  So at the end of 2011, the ICC made a decision that still annoys many ODI fans. They abandoned the one new ball and one soiled ball strategy and went with two new balls. Which they had done before.
  Now i believe they are changing it back.
  I instead want the pink ball used in Odis. Also move Odis to 40 overs.
  3.
  A. I just talked about balls so let me say they are the most important part of cricket alongside pitches. Maybe second. OK you want pitches to be influenced by local knowledge and culture. But why tf are balls not standardised. We have no clue what is going on with cricket balls.
  In 2017 or so kookaburra reinforced their balls seam which made the ball seam more and for longer bringing down batting averages and completely changing the sport, the way people bowled and batted and swlcted players. Some players lost their careers due to it. Kookaburra just did it on their own, no questions no research no accountability.
  The ICC need to have their own ball development and research company. We have the same antiquated balls for no reason. We can change the material and have a non leather ball! Why hasn't SG and the BCCI focused on that?!?! We could change anything here and create smth that isn't destroyed in 35 overs. Something that has better bounce. The sky is the limit.
  B. Reform the stupid chaotic calendar with dedicated windows. Have distinct international windows each year, alongside divisional structures for all three formats. Have relegation systems. Scheduling windows for ‘Core International Cricket’ – which should be implemented to cover one match per format against all other teams within consistent divisional championships.
  C. Have a pathway to test status. Noone knows what they gotta do to get status.
  D. Revenue sharing model needs to be changed. A centralised Global Growth and Development Fund – to be established, underpinned by pooled rights model applicable only to Core International Cricket, to fund Core International Cricket and other global initiatives ICC revenue distribution – occurring within minimum and maximum parameters Stronger regulation and accountability – on how distributed money is spent in all countries Player revenue sharing parameters – to be applied in all sanctioned cricket.
  70% of the game's revenues are generated across just three months of the year, that 83% of all revenue is shared by three countries, and that revenues generated by bilateral cricket outside the big three constitutes less than 4%. Total player payments across cricket, it says, represent approximately 10% of all cricket revenue.
  WCA projects a more optimal calendar (with windows and greater context) could result in an additional USD 246 million revenue for the game annually. It calls for the establishment of minimum and maximum distribution parameters of ICC revenues, giving as an example, "a minimum 2% and maximum 10% for the top 24 countries, and a minimum 10% distribution collectively for countries 25+." That would see the BCCI's share being cut from 38.5% in the current model to 10%.
  Players, it says, should also receive a minimum percentage of revenue generated in all sanctioned cricket, across internationals, T20 leagues and ICC events. Another recommendation is the creation of a global growth and development fund, which would go towards sustaining the base level of Core International Cricket for the top 24+ countries. This fund would be built from a percentage of ICC events revenue, T20 leagues and pooled media rights from Core International Cricket - a concept that has been aired before at the ICC but always dismissed.
  The issue is the bcci.
  E. Archives and access to games. Have an ICC channel where people can subscribe and watch all games from the past. Live stream current games in countries where rights are undervalued or unsold atleast. And access to ICC events. The ICC allows no cricket to be shown and hinders growth. I lobe the way American sports allow you to watch the game atleast. Look at what they did to poor robelinda.
  F. Eliminate stupid NOC requirements. Players shouldn't have to need permission from the board to do their job, especially players who aren't even centrally contracted.
  G. Global cricket needs to come together with clear leadership to reflect the sport’s changing landscape and prevent fragmentation. The way the shady ass sport is run is terrible.
  H. Figure out the league stuff. Player non payments, spot fixing etc. A lot happens beyond the test nations leagues. So not as worried bout the cpl or IPL but a random game in Singapore or Canada is sus.
  I. Do smth about sports betting. Also a governments issue so I don't even know where to begin. Atleast work with betting companies to get some insight.
  J. Have people be responsible for things. Noone has direct power over anything and noone takes responsibility over anything.
  No one is actually in charge of the sport as a genuine custodian of the global game as a whole. Regional interests dominate and lead to short-term decisions. There is no independent leadership. The game is run by the most powerful boards, without any representation from leagues, franchises, players or women.
  I say trash the ICC and create smth from scratch. Practically impossible ofc.

Something I'd like to see on every hard cap league is a cap relief calculation for team drafted players, going up the later that player was drafted. Maybe 5% per found, maybe 7.5%?

So many times teams are basically forced to move on from role players that are fan favorites because it's literally impossible to pay a team of veterans under the cap unless you have no star players and I think it would be genuinely interesting to provide a benefit on the cap side to keeping drafted players in house past their first or second deals. Part of why it's so hard to be a fan is knowing that anyone but the absolute TOP stars are just consistently going to be moving on in a few seasons.

At the same time that would just make luck the deciding factor. Noone knows if a draftee will be good. So whoever gets lucky and drafts that good player or two gets to ride that wave as long as they can play.

I'd completely remove the icing rule from hockey. I don't really understand the point of stopping the game just because the puck went back to the other side of the rink. It's not like it stops the defending team from dumping the puck out and purposely starting a face off.

Football:

A lot of financial and psr rules.
Add rolling subs like basketball.
Wenger style offside rule. If any part of the attacking players body is behind the last defender, its onside.
Be stricter against defensive players brutally slashing wingers.
Stop pthe stupid carding over showboating.

Re 1, are you suggesting salary cap? Because I seriously find it insane that there's no salary cap on soccer. It makes the highest levels of the sport a complete joke. Only 5 teams have won the EPL since 2004, and if you go to 6 teams you get to 1995. That's not a healthy competitive environment.
IMO offside should use running photo finish rules. The forward most part of one player's torso needs to be behind the forward most part of the other player's torso. It's the most simple and intuitive method, IMO.
- A salary cap can't work in sports. I simply dont see how that could ever work. For example look at the IPL (Indian cricket) where players are paid off the books using sponsors etc.
  I know the competition is an issue in football but what has solved it is actually the clubs that aren't restricted lol. PSG, Man City, Chelsea are 3 oof the clubs that have won the UCL recently.
  I think multi club models should be banned, I think you should be forced to have 20% of the ownership be in the hands of socios or fans. Germany does 51%.
  Ofc loopholes will always be found in any rule, just ask Chelsea. So I'm not convinced any rule would improve the economics or competition.
  Look at laliga who put preemptive salary caps over revenue percentage. Barca avoid any repercussions. Meanwhile almeria, an ambitious club, a club owned by one of the richest mem in Spain is relegated bc they couldn't invest asuchbas they would've liked (although I smell smth shady there too).
  Next issue is that different competitions are held by different associations so spanish fa rules for laliga meanwhile uefa rules for the UCL. There is no centralisation as there is in american sports. And then the cwc now with Fifa rules. Plus who makes these rules is another problem.
  There are voting blocks created and a lot of politics by dinosaurs (the world cup hosting rights are a good example of what always happens).
  Then theres balloon payments I'm the EPL, relegated clubs get more money than other championship teams for a while. Fairness questions are ridiculous bc fairness is impossible.
  People dislike oil money but is it worse than other sources? Worse than old money?
  As for competition, teams in the UCL will always make more money, either you do the ESL and remove the leagues do all the mammoths fcacd each other on equal grounds or you accept it as is.
  Sorry for the rambling I typed while eating and my brain and hands were a mess.
On point 3, that doesn't solve the issue, it just moves it a yard or so back. The linesmen and women will still have to make the exact same judgement about what was in line with what.
- The purpose is not to make the call easier, although by research from the Chinese second division it does (I'm not sure if om correct here, this is by memory)
  The actual purpose is to increase goals per match. Sitting deep would become less practical for getafe like teams.

I would add that at any given time during a football game a fan can throw a new football on the field and two balls may be in-play at that time.

why?

I'm not super into sports so I don't know what the best specific rule to deal with this would be, but there needs to be more accountability for bad calls from referees.

Soccer: don't use penalty shootouts to break ties. Penalities are a weird little minigame that don't really represent the most important skills of soccer, which are things like field position and control of the ball.

I'm open to suggestions on what should be done to break ties, but I like the idea of golden point where, if a goal is not scores after a certain amount of time, the number of players on the field starts gradually decreasing. So after 5 minutes of golden point, you drop to 10 vs 10, after 10 minutes it's 9 vs 9, down to a minimum of like 5 vs 5. Fewer players will tend to benefit the attacking team, making scoring more likely as it goes on.

Also soccer, as well as rugby union: just use the fucking clock. When the clock we see on the TV screen reaches 90 (or 80), that's it. Game over. Adjustments due to stoppage time etc. should be made at that time and transparent for everyone to see, by pausing the clock then and there, and resuming it when play resumes. Not added on at the end.

Edit: actually, it seems like rugby union might have already adopted this? I'm not too sure, because I'm a rugby league fan myself, which has always done it the right way (or at least always in my lifetime).

Ever watch the street soccer 1v1 deals where they're just trying to dribble past a defender?
That's a mini game I'd love to watch as a tie breaker!
- MLS in America actually tried that many years ago (weird the phrase is even relevant to MLS, but here we are). On replays it actually looks quite reasonable, but being an Americanism, I don't think you'll get any support for it, which is a shame because penalty kicks are barely soccer at all.
Cage match after full time is the only appropriate answer. Lower it right in the middle of the pitch. Indoor soccer with it smaller fields, walls has always been more fast-paced than outdoor, add in ceilings and a first-to-score or first to 3 would be a good sport on its own let alone as a final.
https://youtu.be/XG0aCa9-bLI
Penalities are a weird little minigame that don't really represent the most important skills of soccer, which are things like field position and control of the ball.
Disagree - the most important skill in football ⚽ is scoring more goals than the opposition. I love penalty shootouts, they're incredibly tense, and they require nerves of steel and a lot of skill. People sometimes say they're a lottery, but that's nonsense IMO.
Also disagree on the stopped clock model. Football ⚽ is the most popular and widely played sport in the world, and it hasn't needed stopped clocks to get there. Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.
There's far too much tinkering with the game as it is, what with VAR and miked up referees and such. The game was fine for decades, and loved by billions of people. I wish they'd just leave it alone.
- "scoring more goals" is not a skill. It's an outcome.
  Your first argument against stopped clocks is utter nonsense. It's an argument from tradition. "We've always done it this way, so we should continue to do so" is bullshit reasoning. Defend it if you genuinely think it's better, but explain the actual reasons it's better. "Because we always have" is not a valid argument.
  Stopped clocks would just lead to commercial breaks.
  This is, in principle, a better argument. It presents itself as an actual disadvantage of the changed rule.
  The problem is that it doesn't make any sense. It wouldn't change the game itself at all. The refs in soccer already stop their stopwatches. They just don't communicate this back to production. And then when the game is supposed to be over (because the clock reads "90"), the ref says "actually we're doing another 12 minutes". The amount of time played would be the same. The amount of time spent with the game stopped due to injuries, corners, etc. would be the same. The only difference is that the number you see on the screen would be the correct time, not made up nonsense.

I'd remove the size constraint on darts, so you could choose to use a lawn dart on your last turn, for example, to score 6352 points.

playoff hockey: have referees on the ice that call penalties for rule infractions. playoffs are violent garbage.

Fencing: Allow shields.

HEMA: I'm right here!
- True, but I don't think I've ever seen a HEMA tournament that allowed non-buckler shields.
  We study rodella as one of the offhands at my school, but if you're competitively-minded you're not going to get much chance to actually use it.

Baseball: There is now a gun under second base.

Sports in general need to make it illegal to dive to draw an undeserved penalty (or actually enforce the existing rules)
\ Or
\ They need to decrease the penalty for fighting so it doesn't result in an ejection.

One or the other.

Sports in general need to make it illegal to dive to draw an undeserved penalty (or actually enforce the existing rules)
This is the nub of it - lack of enforcement of existing rules. People are always clamouring for this new rule or that new rule, when in fact there's already one in place.
Eg football ⚽
At present, if a goalie has the ball in hand then they have 6 seconds to release it, or it's meant to be an indirect free kick to the opposition inside the goalie's team's 18 yard box. Very dangerous situation to defend, so you'd think it'd be a deterrent. However I can count on 2 fingers the number of times I've actually seen it enforced.
So now there's a change to the rules coming - if they have it in hand for 8 seconds, it's a corner to the other team.
So, it's a less punishing punishment, and they have 2 extra seconds' leeway. It makes absolutely no sense.
- It makes absolutely no sense.
  It does seem strange, but there's some possible rationale behind it. If the rule is not currently being enforced, it could be because refs feel the level of the rule breaking is not proportionate with the level of the punishment. Decreasing the punishment, as well as increasing the severity of the rule breaking required to incur it might induce refs to be more inclined to enforce the punishment.
  We've seen something similar recently in another type of football. A few years ago, the NRL changed the punishment for minor ruck infringements and defensive offsides in their defensive half from a penalty—which requires the ref to stop the game entirely and gives an immediate opportunity for a goal kick worth 2 points—to a reset of the tackle count. If that would have been the fifth tackle of their possession (and thus the next one is their last), a ruck infringement resets it to the first. It used to be the case that teams would get away unpunished with all but the most egregious of offences. Now it gets used quite a lot, because the minor offences are met with a comparatively minor punishment.
  as a side note, this should be a goal of all rules and enforcement in all football sports apart from maybe gridiron. And in other similar field sports. Keep the game flowing where possible. It's a huge problem with rugby union at the top level IMO. That sport is supposed to flow quite freely, but the level of refereeing results in extremely frequent stoppages, which makes for very poor viewing. My experience has been that the game works much better at a lower level where refs let things flow more.
- It makes absolutely no sense.
  You think the referee's job is to have the game be fair and follow the rules. This is wrong. The referee's job is to make the game entertaining and as dramatic as possible for the fans.
  Once you accept that, a lot of these situations make a lot more sense.

Basketball. Same everything, except you have to dribble the ball with your forehead.

Read that as Baseball and was very concerned

American football

I would remove defensive pass interference from the game. It’s been abused by offenses, they just throw it up to the guy way down field and if anyone touches him, first down there.

I would also get rid of the QB slide rule so many abuse for extra yards. You have the ball? You can get hit.

I’ll agree on the defensive pass interference, as long as we have it where if it’s over the top egregious holding then that isn’t allowed.
Otherwise the pass game would be dead

NHL Hockey: Goaltenders eligible for contact if handling the puck outside the crease, and outside the trapezoid. Same as any other players.

I would implement two salary rules for baseball:

A hard salary floor and cap. Super cheap teams like the current Rockies that are all but guaranteed to lose is a detriment to the competitiveness of the entire league, as are pay-to-win juggernauts
No deferred money contracts. They’re bad for competitiveness (see the current Dodgers) and a bummer for fan bases when the time comes to pay out the deferred money and the team can’t afford a viable roster.

In basketball, you must always have two limbs touching the ground when you have the ball, unless you are standing, shooting, or jumping. Why? I don't like basketball and think it would be funny as he'll.

Baseball: make steroids mandatory

NHL Hockey: Goaltenders eligible for contact if handling the puck outside the crease, and outside the trapezoid. Same as any other players.

Thunderdome rules for MMA. Keep going until there is a sub or knock out. No rounds and no time limit.

Let them fight to the death.

Backcourt violation in Football (also known as Soccer).

Baseball: no more home runs. If it goes out of the park it's a foul. It will force a much more dynamic infield game and get rid of boring ass pop flys.

Edit: exception for grand slams because that shit is pretty exciting.

I say a home run is an out. Really put the pressure on them. I would also make it easier to hit, there are a variety of ways to do that. Might have to allow an extra outfielder though. But the idea is to make it less of a pitcher vs hitter game. Make fielding matter, cause that skill ahs really gone down the tubes the last few decades.
Maybe something like you get as many bases as you have runners on base, plus one. Leave it in the game as a universal positive, but make it anticlimactic unless you've got guys playing small ball first.
Baseball in general just seems like it's as close to a "solved game" as you're going to get in an athletic contest. Analytics were just too powerful for a game so focused on discrete events with limited active participants.