Radical ideas to improve the appeal of 13 different sports
By Ryan O'Connell, 15 Jul 2011 Ryan O'Connell is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, Cricket, football, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Tennis, V8 Supercar
Related coverage
- Tennis news
- Football news
- Rugby Union news
- Cricket news
- Rugby League news
- AFL news
- Toyota Premiership news
- 2013 Wallabies squad news
What if you were tasked with the job of making a sport more appealing beyond the fans they already have? There may be more holes in some of these suggestions than Swiss cheese, and no need to make any changes. But dreams are free; you might as well use them.
The criterion is making the individual sport more popular globally. Purists, prepare to be appalled.
AFL
Goals kicked outside the 50 metre arc become worth 8 points, rewarding the long bombers. Also, decreasing the amount of players on the field by two, or even four, may help prevent what non-AFL fans commonly refer to as ‘bogs’, when a scrum of players collapse on the ball and hold up play.
This will have the added benefit of making the game even faster, due to the increased open spaces.
Football
The idea of wider goal posts has been raised before, but I’m not too keen on that one. The theme here is radical ideas, not obvious ones, so I’m meant to ignore goal-line technology, which is blatantly obvious. So I have a serious question for football fans: what effect would allowing one player to be offside have?
UFC
Make it ‘To the death’.
Tennis
My independent research (of five people) indicates that the fans want rallies, not booming serves that make the game predictable and boring.
Consideration was given to making service underarm . . . but then the player receiving would pounce on the weak serve and return with such force that it would be equally boring.
So how about a serve speed ceiling? Let’s say, 185kph for women, and 210kph for men. If you go over the ceiling, you forfeit that point. Stay under the ceiling, and it’s play on.
Cricket
Personally, I wouldn’t touch Test Matches, and Twenty/20 is already a radical suggestion in itself, so we’ll concentrate on the 50 over game.
The major knock on this form of the game is that it’s boring from overs 15 to 40 in the innings. So how about, instead of getting out, you’re simply docked 10 runs? Boundaries are worth double? One free hit per over? Legalise streakers? Bring back Gilly?
Or something a little simpler … the field restrictions apply all the way through the innings.
Cycling
Allow riders to take performance-enhancing drugs. Everyone suspects them of being juiced-up anyway (fairly or not), so just remove any doubt at all. Trust me, no one will think more or less of the riders than they already do.
Baseball
The major complaint about baseball is that it’s long and boring.
Once you understand the game and its nuances, the length doesn’t actually bother you – but since the mandate is appealing to the masses, the answer is simple: reduce the innings from 9 to 5, and make the game a lot punchier.
Golf
‘Speed Golf’. All the normal rules of golf apply, but you get bonuses for completing a hole within an allotted time. The players’ quandary then becomes: do you take your time and still carefully consider your shots, risking losing your bonus?
Or play through fast and accept that whilst the shots may not be as accurate, you’ll make up for it via bonus points? It might also help shed the perception that golf is not an athletic sport.
Rugby League
How about an extra point for tries that are scored earlier in the tackle count? For example, a try scored on the fifth tackle remains worth 4 points, but a try scored on the fourth tackle is worth 5 points. A try scored on the third tackle is worth 6 points. Second tackle, 7 points. First tackle, 8 points.
Such a scoring system would certainly encourage enterprising and brave play.
Boxing
Give the pugilists footy jerseys to wear. Take away their gloves. Make the fight only last 30 seconds. I have no idea why, but a bit of biffo in a rugby league match is twenty times more exciting than boxing.
Rugby Union
Ever watched a game of rugby where both teams are determined to throw the ball around and play ‘running rugby’? It’s truly a sight to behold.
Over the last couple of years, rugby has implemented rules to encourage this type of play, and has made great strides in its objective, but I’d go further.
How? No more penalty kicks – instead, offending teams will be penalised 1 point for every penalty inside their half, and the attacking team keeps the ball.
Or perhaps, when a penalty occurs, the attacking team gets a kick at goal, plus the ball back where the infringement occurred. And reduce drop goals from 3 points to 1. This should further encourage teams to play attractive rugby, a la the Queensland Reds.
Basketball
The biggest criticism of basketball is that it’s only for tall people. So what if you put restrictions on the amount of tall people you can have on the court at any one time? Of the five players on the court: two can be any height, one must be under 6’7”, one must be under 6’4”, and one under 5’10”.
It would open the game right up, and make it more appealing to a larger (and shorter) audience.
V8s
The driver’s helmets should be miked up, ensuring everyone can hear the sledging, blow ups and road rage comments.
And borrowing from Mario Kart, random obstacles should be placed on the track. Or beer cans thrown at the cars. Empty ones, of course. Full ones would just be silly.
Ryan is an ex-representative basketballer who shot too much, and a (very) medium pace bowler. He's been with The Roar as an expert since February 2011, has written for the Seven Network and NBA Down Under, and been a regular on ABC radio. Ryan tweets from @RyanOak.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Other Sports articles
- Nadal, Serena affirm favouritism for French Open (15)
- Can boxing great Pacquiao return to his former self? (14)
- Durant is a superhero, but not super enough (13)
- Has sports journalism lost its way? (12)
- Will Mayweather vs Pacquiao happen? (11)
- French Open preview: Men’s draw most open in years. (10)
- Cheap Seats Podcast: episode four (9)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- AFL, Cricket, football, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Tennis, V8 Supercar

July 15th 2011 @ 8:59am
Moose said | July 15th 2011 @ 8:59am | Report comment
You’re being to kind on basketball Ryano. How about just play the last two minutes. It takes half an hour anyway.
July 15th 2011 @ 9:26am
Happy Hooker said | July 15th 2011 @ 9:26am | Report comment
… and the game starts with the scores at 90 all.
July 15th 2011 @ 3:07pm
Ryan O'Connell said | July 15th 2011 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
Rightio, you two cheeky buggers!
I guess you’d like the mens Olympic 100m final to start at 90m? Twenty20 to just be one over each? Tennis to be first to 15 love? Golf to be one hole?
July 15th 2011 @ 3:08pm
amazonfan said | July 15th 2011 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
How about Twenty20 to be zero overs each? That way, it doesn’t exist!
July 15th 2011 @ 3:13pm
Ryan O'Connell said | July 15th 2011 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Not a fan of Twenty20 amazonfan?
July 15th 2011 @ 4:47pm
amazonfan said | July 15th 2011 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
No.
I mean, I don’t hate it or anything, but I would rather Australia win one Ashes series than a million Twenty20 World Cups. It’s not all that different to beach cricket; entertaining, but ultimately meaningless.
July 29th 2011 @ 9:50am
Happy Hooker said | July 29th 2011 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Now you’re thinking!
Our points above, together the nickname given to basketball “I score, you score” illustrate the issue. Because when a team scores the other team gets the ball back, at any decent skill level, the teams are artificially kept close together. One team may be a fair bit better than the other, but they are not able to readily convert that into points. Some may argue that this is basketball’s strength, but I want the best teams to show how good they are, not be artificially restrained. In netball teams get alternate centre passes, this could be translated to basketball, so that after points are scored, teams take it in turns to restart with possession in the centre.
July 15th 2011 @ 9:07am
Brett McKay said | July 15th 2011 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Gold, Gold, Gold for Australian sports fans!! Brilliant Ryano, love it all…
Now, if we may be serious for a moment:
- ODIs: your field restrictions all the way through is a very, very good idea. I still maintain, ten years on, that the best method of field restrictions was used in the domestic comp just before the introduction of powerplays. First 15 overs allowed 2 men out, but overs 16-30 only allowed 3 men out. It was simple, and effective, as it meant teams who got off to a flyer could keep going, and teams that lost early wickets could still make up for lost ground. And bowlers had to (SHOCK) bowl to their field!!
- AFL: I’ve always loved the ‘supergoal’ idea, I think anything that rewards a feat beyond the norm (like the 3pt shot in b’ball) is a good idea.
- League: in kiddies modifed rules, they used to get five point tries if the ball went through x sets of hands in the leadup. It encouraged kids to pass the ball, and helped them develop some ball-playing skills. Get this in the NRL NOW!
- V8s: just for a second, think back to that classic Mark Skaife-Russell Ingall dust-up years ago where Skaife got punted into a wall and waited with his car for Ingall to come around again so he could abuse him (by waving his arms and pointing in a supposedly-agressive manner). Now imagine how much better that would have been if we could have heard inside their helmets!?! Outstanding!! And sorry, Neil Crompton, your services are no longer required….
July 15th 2011 @ 9:58am
Ryan O'Connell said | July 15th 2011 @ 9:58am | Report comment
I thought for sure you’d have an opinion on the rugby suggestions, Brett!
July 15th 2011 @ 10:18am
Brett McKay said | July 15th 2011 @ 10:18am | Report comment
fair point Ryan, but I have to admit I kind of glaze out when the biannual “shave points off penalties” argument comes up now. I’ve even in the past suggested adding points to tries as a better option than reducing penalties, but I think the rugby is played these days, the way teams are so professionally prepared in their defensive patterns, they’ll still find a way to infringe.
So I’ve come to realise that the most radical solution isn’t actually that radical at all: yellow card the first infringement in a defensive team’s own 22, and the problem stops on the spot.
Coincidentally, I draw the same conclusion when it comes to slow over rates in cricket. Forget fines, impose run penalties at the end of the day’s play. One team will end up losing a Test – or worse, a series – because of a over-rate penalty, and the problem will no longer be an issue..
July 15th 2011 @ 3:08pm
Ryan O'Connell said | July 15th 2011 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
I actually like my idea (suprise suprise) that the penalty kick remains, but the attacking team get the ball back from exactly where the infringement was.
You can’t tell me that wouldn’t prevent ‘spoiling’?
July 15th 2011 @ 8:20pm
Brett McKay said | July 15th 2011 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
that is true mate, I will give you that. However it might also result in the attacking team just camping in the opposition 22, but not really attacking the lone, but rather just waiting for infringements and kicking penalty goals all game. Don’t think anyone wants to watch 80 minutes of pick & drive and endless goal-kicking..
July 18th 2011 @ 11:10am
tobyb said | July 18th 2011 @ 11:10am | Report comment
I’ve devised a cunning plan for penalties. They can only be drop goals for offences outside the 22 taken in the same time frame as a kick for touch (if successful, followed by a 22 drop out), and a 5m scrum for offences inside the 22. This will gift a good attacking side, but allow a gifted defensive side to even out the dubious penalties. Also more yellow cards for professional fouls (possibly with a place kick/penalty try variant), with a call upstairs if necessary to clarify.
July 15th 2011 @ 9:11am
Steggz said | July 15th 2011 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Further to the Mario Kart idea for V8′s, if they drive over certain spaces on the track they can pick up items like banana peels or speed-increasing mushrooms
July 15th 2011 @ 9:14am
Gruff said | July 15th 2011 @ 9:14am | Report comment
V8′s “And borrowing from Mario Kart, random obstacles should be placed on the track. Or beer cans thrown at the cars.”
That is pure gold!
July 15th 2011 @ 6:25pm
Sam said | July 15th 2011 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
I would watch that!
July 16th 2011 @ 5:18pm
Lachlan said | July 16th 2011 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
i second that
July 15th 2011 @ 9:29am
Fivehole said | July 15th 2011 @ 9:29am | Report comment
League – 3 points for a try off a kick, 5 for a try not off a kick
Boxing – caught clinching once its a warning – twice and you are DQ’d. Make em punch on!
July 15th 2011 @ 9:32am
Reegs82 said | July 15th 2011 @ 9:32am | Report comment
A pretty simple one and not so radical, but one that really frustrates me in cricket. In the game of cricket a six is obviously the hardest shot to hit and traditionally you had to clear the fence to score one. In todays game the ropes are sometimes pulled in 15 or so metres so why not keep the 6 to be hit over the fence and if you clear the ropes 5 runs will be scored. This rule would also work accross all forms of the game.
July 15th 2011 @ 11:13am
amazonfan said | July 15th 2011 @ 11:13am | Report comment
I think the rule has been changed because of the varying sizes of cricket grounds.
July 15th 2011 @ 11:18am
Brett McKay said | July 15th 2011 @ 11:18am | Report comment
there’s also a safety element to it, Amazon, to prevent injuries to fieldsmen sliding into the fence (eg. Ponting in the late-90s, Brad Young early-00s)
July 15th 2011 @ 11:19am
amazonfan said | July 15th 2011 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Oh, okay, I didn’t think of that. However that certainly makes sense.
July 15th 2011 @ 11:45am
Brett McKay said | July 15th 2011 @ 11:45am | Report comment
you are quite correct in bringing up ground size standardisation though, and the net effect is it looks bad on Australian grounds because they’re bigger than most others in international cricket.
The ‘Gabba, for eg, is Australia’s biggest Test ground (in terms of playing area, obviously) and it looks as though the ropes are in a good 10-15m. I’ve seen 6s hit there that haven’t actually made the fence, but the same shot on some grounds in NZ and England (again, for eg) would have gone several rows back…
July 17th 2011 @ 3:22pm
Timmuh said | July 17th 2011 @ 3:22pm | Report comment
It wasn’t so much ground standardisation as rule standardisation; and, yes, a safety issue too. The fence was only widely used in Australia. Other nations did use the fence on some grounds, but nowhere near as extensively.
The ropes have been brought in further in Australia lessening the difference and standardising grounds somewhat, but even our roped grounds are larger than most other nations; probably partly as a result of the use of grounds for Australian Football.
July 15th 2011 @ 10:12am
Kasey said | July 15th 2011 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Not so radical Idea, I hate it when people bring up goal-line technology as a ‘fix’ for football. Football doesn’t need fixing. At most it needs a fine tuning. Would goal line technology haveprevented the infamous Hand of Frog incident at the France v Ireland WCqualifier in 2009? No it would not, because the handball occurred in the lead up to the goal being scored. What I feel would resolve 90% of goal-line problems has alreay been trialed by UEFA and appears to work. Its the addition of 2 more Assistant Referee; 1 behind each of the goals to adjudicate on incidents in the 18 yard box and provide that extra pair of eyes for close decisions of did the ball cross the goal line or not? An extra AR would have been more likely:
- to see the Henry handball,
- to see that the ball was 1m over the line after Frank lampard’s effort between England and Germany in Bloemfontein 2010
- to have detected that there was minimal contact between Fabian Grosso and Lucas Niell in the Penalty box at the 2006 World cup and might have convinced the Ref to not award a pen to the Italians.
there are so many instances where if he ref didn’t see something, he or she is not going to go even know to stop the game and go to an Instant Replay situation. An extra pair of human eyes focussed soely on the 18yard box and the goal frame would solve to problems IMO. Plusses inclyde: It would allow poorer countries to increase the correct decision count without a massvely extra expense It would also keep true to the belief amongst football fans that the game should essentialy be he same at all levels from park football to the World Cup.
In fact its so simple, I wonder what I’m missing as to why FIFA haven’t implemented it.
July 15th 2011 @ 3:14pm
Ryan O'Connell said | July 15th 2011 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
Hey Kasey, it wasn’t meant to be a ‘fix’ for football, just an idea. But upon reading your reply, perhaps assistant ref’s is a better idea to improve the game.
July 16th 2011 @ 9:57am
Kasey said | July 16th 2011 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Ryan, I’ve re-read my post and it comes off rather narky. I apologise for the tone. In the spirit of your OP, I’d like to suggest that penalties be abolished as a method for determining the result in a football game that requires a result on the night and instead extra time in football be played under the following rules:
2 x 15 minute halves. at the 5 minute mark of each ET half each team has to permanently remove a player from the field and again at the 10 minute mark. This would result in only 7 players on each team left by the end of extra time. With one sure to be the keeper, that leaves a 6 on 6 contest for the game. No golden goal, the result at the end of the 30 minutes determines the winner. Surely this is better/fairer than penalties. The English might even have a chance of getting somewhere in a World Cup(Assuming they don’t lose the Germany 4-0 in the first place;) I notice that even the English women’s team went out of he Women’s football World Cup on Penalties to France..oops:)
July 18th 2011 @ 2:55pm
Kasey said | July 18th 2011 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
I’ve just brought this topic up in my office and one of the lads had a brilliant idea. A drawn game still goes to extra time, but instead of my 2nd response idea of taking one player off every 5 minutes until there are only 7 on the pitch at the for the last 5 minutes of Extra Time, we do this:
At the beginning of extra time, the two teams meet in the centre circle and the captain of team A gets to choose an outfield player from team B who must replace the keeper for the 30minutes of extra time. Team B can sub off the keeper for a regular outfield player provided they haven’t used their 3 subs yet. Team B then chooses Team A’s keeper from the Team A outfielders. At the very least it would cut down on cynical fouling around the 18yard perimeter. A Lionel Messi-type would have a field day if Team A had selected team B’s version of Carlos Hernandez to go in goals:) provided he hadn’t been chosen by the opposing captain to be the goal keeper. Or he ‘could’ run up for the free-kick, but would then be horribly out of position if the ball went straight into the wall:)
July 15th 2011 @ 12:12pm
jmo said | July 15th 2011 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
“Ever watched a game of rugby where both teams are determined to throw the ball around and play ‘running rugby’? It’s truly a sight to behold.”
The same could be said for football. The most exciting football occurs when one of the teams is behind on the scoreboard, throws caution to the wind and is chasing goals. For example the last 15 minutes of extra time in the A-league grand final.
It’s my opinion that the skill level of the players is inconsequential, it is the attitude that counts – as long as the teams are running for the doctor it is a match worth watching.
Most dyed-in-the-wool football supporters are probably happy enough to sit through a trench warfare match for 90 minutes that ends up 0-0 or 1-0, but this kind of football will bore the pants off a marble statue – and a mainstream audience. Attacking football should be encouraged with both teams chasing goals with an element of urgency for the entire match. To get to the point: A bonus point is earned if a team scores 4 goals (similar to the super-rugby bonus point system). Eg. a 4-4 draw will earn both teams 2 points.
July 15th 2011 @ 3:12pm
Ryan O'Connell said | July 15th 2011 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
Like it, jmo
July 15th 2011 @ 6:31pm
Sam said | July 15th 2011 @ 6:31pm | Report comment
Attacking style of play is more exciting no matter what the sport. Look at 2005 NRL season (considered to be the most attacking focused of recent years), had the highest average crowds. The QLD Reds crowds have skyrocketed in the last 2yrs on the back of attacking rugby (it helps that they are winning heaps now, but thats also on the back of attacking rugby). Just two examples, but it applies everywhere. People like to see points scored.
July 15th 2011 @ 12:17pm
DumpStar said | July 15th 2011 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
I sort of like the League option, though I would probably have it something like 6 points for a try from tackles zero to three. Four points for tries on the 4th and 5th tackles. Still would give the same effect of teams really trying their hand earlier in the tackle count, especially when they are behind by 8 points or more.
July 15th 2011 @ 12:41pm
Luc said | July 15th 2011 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
If you want a radical idea for soccer: gaelic football goalposts and scoring.