A single mandated rules set is also one that will be guaranteed to keep people away from events. I can give you an example. I like the TDQ for passing. I no longer use the TTQB....and I don't want to use it again. A standardized set might well choose to take away the tool I like and that will almost certainly keep me away from tournaments/rule sets that choose to keep me from using it.
Here in Los Angeles, we have very few limitations on equipment. 4.0 g standard weight. Boiled bases have not been allowed in the college league (but I am starting to think this shouldn't be the case....I think tweaking out here has come a long way and can compensate for those that don't have original frosties to boil) . We also don't allow grossly odd anatomy on your players....like the arms that can stretch out to 3 times normal...or the receiver who is twice as tall as the TTQB.....you know. We allow any number of boat bases, cover corners, frankenstein bases, ITZ dials etc. If you look at our stats/scores, nothing terribly unusual is happening to our games. I fear that a standardized set will outlaw many of the things we have come to embrace. It sucks the fun out of the game and many of the limitations people impose are simply because they are afraid of tools/tricks that might give someone else an edge. I think this stifles innovation and hurts the game.
So....for any universal ruleset to work for me....it would have to be very inclusive....and I fear that won't happen.
Then....there are those folks that like the multi-stop systems. They will be totally left in the cold and are likely to remain that way for quite some time. I wouldn't mind seeing some of their concepts implemented in our rules out here.....but I would be against too many stops. As it stands now, defenders can adjust to a run that goes over 10 yds in our league....but folks rarely stop the board for it. If you could also adjust unengaged blockers, that might be cool....adjusting the runner would probably break the system though.
|