PDA

View Full Version : Worst rule in sports



Redhook
01-19-2008, 10:48 AM
What is your least favorite rule in sports?

I've been studying the Rules of Golf for my PGA testing, and it just reconfirmed my detest for the out-of-bounds rule. I think it's an unfair rule and I'm actually thinking about writing a letter to the USGA about it (which I know won't do any good). Here are the reasons why I have such a distaste for the rule:

1) It slows down play - If you didn't know there was out-of-bounds and you find your ball out you have to go all the way back to the previous spot you played from.

2) It's more penal than whiffing the ball - You could literally whiff the ball, but are penalized less than if you hit the ball 340 yards and are out-of-bounds by a foot. Not fair.

3) It's more penal than hitting the ball into the middle of a lake - You can blast your ball in the lake, lose the ball, but you get to drop your ball where it last crossed. Yet, when you hit one out-of-bounds by a foot and find your ball, you have to go all the way back to where you last played. Ridiculous.

4) It goes against how the game was meant to be played - I grew up hearing "play the ball as it lies". Yet, with so many developments around courses this often is not the case. I don't have a huge problem with out-of-bounds bordering a course, but I can't stand in-course out-of-bounds.

Out-of-bounds is a not a fair rule and it slows down play. Two very bad combinations. There is a simple rule, one already in place, that would cure this outdated rule:

I would like to see all out-of-bounds treated the same way as "environmentally sensitive areas". Some of you may have played courses that have these areas. They're marked by red stakes with a green top. What they mean is you treat them like a normal lateral water hazard without the option of playing the ball as it lies. You cannot play out of these areas. It's a great rule to protect the environment and golfers in certain situations. And the rule is fair.

I believe the out-of-bounds rule should be played exactly the same way as environmentally sensitive areas. If you ball is out you take a drop 2 club lengths away from where it last crossed. It's fair and it would speed up play. It would also make the game more natural and fun, IMO.

Other rules I don't like:

1) The clock stopping after first downs in college football. Do the games really need to be 4 hours long?
2) The ground rule double rule with runners on. I think umpires need to be more lenient letting the runners score because many times they have stop at third when they easily would've scored.
3) Calling timeout while flying through the air. I believe this rule has been changed but I always thought it was ridiculous.
4) The 10-yard holding penalty in football. I think it should be 5 yards. 10 yards is pretty harsh since the refs could probably call holding on every play in football. 10 yards decimates a drive.
5) The new fad of icing the kicker at the last second. They need to set a rule in place that you can't call a timeout once everyone lines up or something along those lines.

Highlifeman21
01-19-2008, 11:02 AM
but I can't stand in-course out-of-bounds

I'd have to check my decisions book, and cross-reference with the RofG, but I'm almost 100% positive that in-course OB isn't a properly allowable way to mark a course. Basically, you're not allowed to have OB within the course, but rather on the boundaries of the course.

I remember Fairfield having to change the way they marked their course after numerous Junior Golfers challenged the setup during the Junior Met one year. I don't remember the hole numbers (I wanna say back 9), but there was OB between an uphill dogleg left par 5, and then a downhill dogleg right par 4 with water in front of the green. The OB was nowhere near a boundary, and the reasoning they had it was that if players on either hole hit it into the OB, they wouldn't conflict play on the other hole. Worst reasoning ever. But I remember them removing the OB stakes after the 1st Round, and they certainly weren't there for the 2nd Round. The time frame was between 1995 and 1998.

Redhook
01-19-2008, 11:13 AM
I'd have to check my decisions book, and cross-reference with the RofG, but I'm almost 100% positive that in-course OB isn't a properly allowable way to mark a course. Basically, you're not allowed to have OB within the course, but rather on the boundaries of the course.

You might be right, I really don't know. If you are right, then it makes certain holes even worse. Four Bridges CC, for example, has in course out-of-bounds to protect golfers from getting killed on the #3 green from the #5 tee box. It's a very poorly designed hole and that's why they put the in-course out-of-bounds in.

I was also referring to any developments within a golf course. I can't stand it. There's nothing worse than standing on a tee box with out-of-bounds bordering both sides of the holes due to houses. Beckett Ridge and Wetherington are good examples of this. It's hard to play those courses without knocking a shot off a house.

Highlifeman21
01-19-2008, 11:24 AM
You might be right, I really don't know. If you are right, then it makes certain holes even worse. Four Bridges CC, for example, has in course out-of-bounds to protect golfers from getting killed on the #3 green from the #5 tee box. It's a very poorly designed hole and that's why they put the in-course out-of-bounds in.

I was also referring to any developments within a golf course. I can't stand it. There's nothing worse than standing on a tee box with out-of-bounds bordering both sides of the holes due to houses. Beckett Ridge and Wetherington are good examples of this. It's hard to play those courses without knocking a shot off a house.


They have developments on both sides of holes @ Blue Ash as well. Makes some of those holes a pain on the back 9. Unfortunately, OB due to a development is a reality, and can't be changed due to poor course design. I guess I tried to use tight courses due to housing developments as a way to practice better course management, but I share your frustration when you're sitting on a tee box, and maybe you're fighting a rope hook, or maybe you're fighting the blocks (which is fun and can happen at the same time) so you have NO idea if your ball is going left or right, and you've got houses on both sides. Awesome feeling.

Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 11:26 AM
Worst rule in sports is roughing the passer. Not so much the rule but not having a minor version of the penalty like facemask

macro
01-19-2008, 11:34 AM
I hate the basketball rule that requires teams to take free throws when fouled. It encourages the team that's trailing in the score to intentionally commit an infraction, and they often benefit from it.

Give the fouled team the choice of taking the ball out of bounds again. I know some will argue that free throws are part of the game and part of the skill set, but I would conter that the foul-fests make a mockery of the game and the way it was meant to be played.

You rarely see the three-second violation called in basketball anymore, but the fact that they used the free throw lane for the boundry used to bug me. A semicircle around the basket would make a lot more sense.

Highlifeman21
01-19-2008, 11:41 AM
Roughing the Kicker on a punt is one of my least favorite rules.

You can't penalize a team for attempting to block a kick and being unsuccessful. Maybe if you hit the punter after his follow through, or if he lands back on the ground after kicking, but if a guy goes to block a kick and misses the ball and immediately runs into the punter after he kicks the ball you shouldn't penalize the D. I know that was a huge run-on, but I don't know how to articulate how to improve this rule, unfortunately.

Bottomline, there should be a small window of opportunity to make contact with the punter after the ball's been kicked, b/c right now there is none. Ball's off his foot, you hit him, flag. And that sucks.

Bip Roberts
01-19-2008, 11:55 AM
Roughing the Kicker on a punt is one of my least favorite rules.

You can't penalize a team for attempting to block a kick and being unsuccessful. Maybe if you hit the punter after his follow through, or if he lands back on the ground after kicking, but if a guy goes to block a kick and misses the ball and immediately runs into the punter after he kicks the ball you shouldn't penalize the D. I know that was a huge run-on, but I don't know how to articulate how to improve this rule, unfortunately.

Bottomline, there should be a small window of opportunity to make contact with the punter after the ball's been kicked, b/c right now there is none. Ball's off his foot, you hit him, flag. And that sucks.
It might be ticky tack but it prevents people from just flat out going at the kickers legs and causing injuries. Now maybe if they made it so it didnt give the kicking team a 1st down that might fix it a little. Like after the kick roughing the kicker 15 yard penalty at the end of the return.

MWM
01-19-2008, 12:21 PM
Golf has tons of bad rules that need to be updated. On the tour, being DQ'ed for signing an incorrect scorecad, ala Sergio. Do you really need to DQ someone because someone else who kept his score made amistake and the golfer didn't pick up on it?

Making a player play a ball out of a divot on the fairway. How does it serve the game of golf to penalize a player for hitting the shot they're supposed to hit? And this rule was a significant factor in deciding a US Open when Tom Lehman lost to Steve Jones.

Not being able to tap down spike marks. This rule makes no sense whatsoever. Players playing in the morning have a distinct advantage on the greens over players playing late. Just seems silly to me not to allow golfers to have as smooth a putting surface as possible. Does it really serve golf to have things like spike marks impact the scores on the course?

And why does the PGA insist on long pants having to be worn regardless of the temperature? Again, how does it serve the game of golf to have the pros in long pants when it's 95 degrees outside with tons of humidity.

Dom Heffner
01-19-2008, 01:13 PM
I hate the stroke limit on Putt-Putt courses. It cost me a game when I was a kid because my cousin got like 30 strokes taken off his score because it took him that many tries to make the hole with the windmill.

Sure, he beat me the rest of the way, but nothing can change the fact that it took him that many tries on the one hole. I remember his face lighting up with glee when he read the rule on the score card. "Wait, there's a 6 stroke limit on these holes!!!!!!!"

I got hosed, I tell ya.

:)

jmac
01-19-2008, 01:44 PM
One I don't like is the NFL guys can do "almost" anything and it is okay after a touchdown but the kids who are playing the game without a paycheck cant have too much celebrating or they get penalized. Almost backwards IMO.

*BaseClogger*
01-19-2008, 01:59 PM
Does anybody else prefer the college football rules to the pro's?

RANDY IN INDY
01-19-2008, 02:08 PM
I hate the basketball rule that requires teams to take free throws when fouled. It encourages the team that's trailing in the score to intentionally commit an infraction, and they often benefit from it.

Give the fouled team the choice of taking the ball out of bounds again. I know some will argue that free throws are part of the game and part of the skill set, but I would conter that the foul-fests make a mockery of the game and the way it was meant to be played.

You rarely see the three-second violation called in basketball anymore, but the fact that they used the free throw lane for the boundry used to bug me. A semicircle around the basket would make a lot more sense.

:beerme: I can hardly watch basketball these days. Another pet peeve of mine is the possession arrow. Awful. Great defense results so many times in giving the ball back to the offense. I have never been a great proponent of the three point shot, either, particularly where it is at the collegiate level. That shot is too easy. Dunking? I don't know what the big deal is. It has become all about "showboating," the individual, and not the "team." Hard for me to watch these days.

Got a question. Anyone know what the deal is about free throws and why the defensive players are not lining up on the lower block anymore?

cincinnati chili
01-19-2008, 02:24 PM
basketball these days. Another pet peeve of mine is the possession arrow. Awful.

I agree. A couple others:

- I refuse to watch any "shootouts" in hockey or soccer. I'd rather see the games end in a tie or better yet rock, paper, scissors.

- The balk rule in baseball. It's too arbitrary, and the allowance of the slidestep has taken away the stolen base. The rules need to better define a "full stop" and also prevent the slide step.

WMR
01-19-2008, 02:29 PM
I agree. A couple others:

- I refuse to watch any "shootouts" in hockey or soccer. I'd rather see the games end in a tie or better yet rock, paper, scissors.

- The balk rule in baseball. It's too arbitrary, and the allowance of the slidestep has taken away the stolen base. The rules need to better define a "full stop" and also prevent the slide step.

You'd really turn off an FA Cup Final that went to penalties??

:eek:

Yachtzee
01-19-2008, 02:58 PM
You'd really turn off an FA Cup Final that went to penalties??

:eek:

I think penalties are necessary in matches where you need a winner, but I don't think they should be used otherwise. I think that was a big misstep early on with the MLS when they chose to end games with shootouts instead of ties. But when you have a final or a knockout round where someone has to win and someone has to lose, at some point you have to finish it.

TC81190
01-19-2008, 03:01 PM
The tuck rule.

Highlifeman21
01-19-2008, 03:02 PM
Golf has tons of bad rules that need to be updated. On the tour, being DQ'ed for signing an incorrect scorecad, ala Sergio. Do you really need to DQ someone because someone else who kept his score made amistake and the golfer didn't pick up on it?

Making a player play a ball out of a divot on the fairway. How does it serve the game of golf to penalize a player for hitting the shot they're supposed to hit? And this rule was a significant factor in deciding a US Open when Tom Lehman lost to Steve Jones.

Not being able to tap down spike marks. This rule makes no sense whatsoever. Players playing in the morning have a distinct advantage on the greens over players playing late. Just seems silly to me not to allow golfers to have as smooth a putting surface as possible. Does it really serve golf to have things like spike marks impact the scores on the course?

And why does the PGA insist on long pants having to be worn regardless of the temperature? Again, how does it serve the game of golf to have the pros in long pants when it's 95 degrees outside with tons of humidity.

This is an appearance/dress code issue that I actually stand behind fully. The pants actually serve as a level of professionalism, whereas unfortunately golfing in shorts doesn't always accomplish the same goal. I know it's judging a book by its cover, but golfers in shorts just aren't taken as seriously, or given the same respect as golfers in pants. I know plenty of great amateurs who always golf in shorts, but anytime they have an important event the majority of them choose pants. Bottomline, pants look professional, shorts not so much.

George Anderson
01-19-2008, 04:11 PM
I know next to nothing about Nascar but from what I understand you can have your point total deducted for using foul language during an interview. I think thats incredibly assinine to have a championship in a major sport decided if someone has a potty mouth or not.

camisadelgolf
01-19-2008, 04:55 PM
I can't believe this is a Cincinnati Reds board and no one's mentioned the DH rule yet . . .

cincinnati chili
01-19-2008, 08:07 PM
I think penalties are necessary in matches where you need a winner, but I don't think they should be used otherwise. I think that was a big misstep early on with the MLS when they chose to end games with shootouts instead of ties. But when you have a final or a knockout round where someone has to win and someone has to lose, at some point you have to finish it.

If I'm commissioner of a league (or a fan), I disagree. If players are really going to die of exhaustion unless they stop playing, Have the game end in a tie, and sell tickets to another game the next day.

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that because baseball is the only sport I really have time to watch anymore, and it has no clock.

I just hate the arbitrariness of hockey and soccer being decided by something so unrelated to the typical merits of gameplay. To a lesser extent, I feel the same way about football games being decided by kickers.

Redhook
01-19-2008, 08:25 PM
Golf has tons of bad rules that need to be updated. On the tour, being DQ'ed for signing an incorrect scorecad, ala Sergio. Do you really need to DQ someone because someone else who kept his score made amistake and the golfer didn't pick up on it?

That is an outdated rule on the PGA Tour. I agree. However, it is necessary on most of the other days, my old stomping grounds.


Making a player play a ball out of a divot on the fairway. How does it serve the game of golf to penalize a player for hitting the shot they're supposed to hit? And this rule was a significant factor in deciding a US Open when Tom Lehman lost to Steve Jones.

I also agree with this. I think the player should be able to drop the ball similar to a plugged lie drop.

Wasn't it the US Open where Payne Stewart lost to Lee Janzen at Olympia because he had a ball in a divot on the back 9 and made bogey? You might be right about Lehman as well, but I really recall the Payne Steward divot.


Not being able to tap down spike marks. This rule makes no sense whatsoever. Players playing in the morning have a distinct advantage on the greens over players playing late. Just seems silly to me not to allow golfers to have as smooth a putting surface as possible. Does it really serve golf to have things like spike marks impact the scores on the course?

Kind of a silly rule but at least it doesn't slow down the pace of play.


And why does the PGA insist on long pants having to be worn regardless of the temperature? Again, how does it serve the game of golf to have the pros in long pants when it's 95 degrees outside with tons of humidity.

I agree with Highlifeman on this one. I like pants on the PGA tour and they should remain. It's much more professional and they players don't carry their own bags. It's not that bad. What's bad is that the caddies used to have to wear pants too. Now, they can wear shorts. They changed that rule after a caddy passed out due to heat exhaustion.

Also, when I played the Hooters Tour I had to wear pants AND carry my own bag. Now that was not right. Especially playing in Savannah and near Tulsa in the middle of the summer. No lie. I'm really surprised no one has been seriously hurt out there.

Redhook
01-19-2008, 08:28 PM
Roughing the Kicker on a punt is one of my least favorite rules.

You can't penalize a team for attempting to block a kick and being unsuccessful. Maybe if you hit the punter after his follow through, or if he lands back on the ground after kicking, but if a guy goes to block a kick and misses the ball and immediately runs into the punter after he kicks the ball you shouldn't penalize the D. I know that was a huge run-on, but I don't know how to articulate how to improve this rule, unfortunately.

Bottomline, there should be a small window of opportunity to make contact with the punter after the ball's been kicked, b/c right now there is none. Ball's off his foot, you hit him, flag. And that sucks.

I don't like it either. If you block the punt and obliterate the kicker there is no penalty. Yet, if you miss the ball by an inch and brush the punter you get penalized. They need to change this to intent to hurt the kicker if they're going to penalize players/teams.

UKFlounder
01-19-2008, 08:39 PM
I hate the basketball rule that requires teams to take free throws when fouled. It encourages the team that's trailing in the score to intentionally commit an infraction, and they often benefit from it.

Give the fouled team the choice of taking the ball out of bounds again. I know some will argue that free throws are part of the game and part of the skill set, but I would conter that the foul-fests make a mockery of the game and the way it was meant to be played.

.

They tried it a few years ago and it was worse than the free-throw fest. I think it was a Xavier-Louisville game (in Alaska?) perhaps when Gillen was still around.

Insted of a team getting fouled and going to the foul line, XU got fouled and chose to inbound it.

As soon as the ball was in play, they were fouled again.

They inbounded the ball. Another foul.

Inbound again. Fouled again.

On one of the inbound attempts, they had to throw the ball towards their own goal in order to get it in. At that point, the coach decided to try the free throws instead of inbounding it under his own goal.

In other words, instead of getting bored with seeing so many free throws, it was simply an "inbounds" fest. I guess they could mandate that the offense could choose to inbound the ball at midcourt to avoid what happened in the above scenario, but I don't believe that would stop the fouling; instead of simply hoping the offense misses free throws, the defense will be hoping for an errant pass, an offensive foul, a 5 second call, etc.

Yachtzee
01-19-2008, 08:50 PM
If I'm commissioner of a league (or a fan), I disagree. If players are really going to die of exhaustion unless they stop playing, Have the game end in a tie, and sell tickets to another game the next day.

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that because baseball is the only sport I really have time to watch anymore, and it has no clock.

I just hate the arbitrariness of hockey and soccer being decided by something so unrelated to the typical merits of gameplay. To a lesser extent, I feel the same way about football games being decided by kickers.

I think the problem is that, in some instances, you have to end the game on the day it's played. It stinks to have a World Cup Final decided on penalties, but what's the alternative? Playing a game the next day might not be feasible, not after you've had guys running around the pitch for 90 minutes the day before. That'd almost be like asking a pitcher who'd just thrown 9 innings the day before to start another game. So you're going to have to give the teams at least a day or two off before a replay.

A replay is very difficult to handle both logistically and public relations-wise, especially when you have fans who traveled around the world for this event and have to leave to go home and go back to work at some point. Is it worse to have a game decided on penalties, or is it worse to leave the game undecided with many fans having to leave because they extend their trip for replay? And what happens if the replay ends in a tie? I think in those occasions where the winner of a single game is required, deciding the game on penalties is probably the best choice out of a lot of bad alternatives.

Chip R
01-19-2008, 09:39 PM
I don't like it either. If you block the punt and obliterate the kicker there is no penalty. Yet, if you miss the ball by an inch and brush the punter you get penalized. They need to change this to intent to hurt the kicker if they're going to penalize players/teams.


I don't think rules that rely on an official's subjective judgement are a good idea. That's why I'd like to see all face mask penalties set at 10 yards - intentional or accidental.


I know next to nothing about Nascar but from what I understand you can have your point total deducted for using foul language during an interview. I think thats incredibly assinine to have a championship in a major sport decided if someone has a potty mouth or not.


I have to agree with that.

Redhook
01-20-2008, 07:03 AM
I don't think rules that rely on an official's subjective judgement are a good idea. That's why I'd like to see all face mask penalties set at 10 yards - intentional or accidental.

I don't necessarily think they're a good idea either, but they're all over the place in football: roughing the passer, intentional or accidental facemasking, pass interference, etc. I think that the punter penalty should be viewed similar to having a late hit on a quarterback.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way to have a football game without officials using their own judgement to some degree.

oneupper
01-20-2008, 07:42 AM
DH...of course.

The College Football OT as it is played now. Ridiculous.

If it were up to me, I'd just give the ball (or receiving/kicking option) to the visiting team.
If the home team hasn't been able to win in regulation, they don't deserve an extra advantage. This also has the advantage that everyone knows who "wins" the toss.
So home team plays to win at the end, while visitors can try for the tie. (Heck, I'd do this in the pros, too).

If not possible...for crissakes...start these guys further back. The 25 yard line? That's already field goal range...start them back at midfield AT LEAST. It's no wonder that triple and cuadruple OTs are becoming the norm.

15fan
01-20-2008, 09:35 AM
No jump balls in college hoops after the opening tip.

RFS62
01-20-2008, 09:59 AM
I don't understand the dismay with the out of bounds rule. Play a provisional if you think you're possibly out.

And if you know there's out of bounds on a hole, it's no different than any other hazard, in that you want to avoid it. Yeah, the penalty is bigger, but it's not like it's a surprise.

RANDY IN INDY
01-20-2008, 10:10 AM
I don't understand the dismay with the out of bounds rule. Play a provisional if you think you're possibly out.

And if you know there's out of bounds on a hole, it's no different than any other hazard, in that you want to avoid it. Yeah, the penalty is bigger, but it's not like it's a surprise.

:beerme:

The bigger heads on the drivers have made the ones, on a lot of folks heads, smaller.

Chip R
01-20-2008, 11:29 AM
I don't necessarily think they're a good idea either, but they're all over the place in football: roughing the passer, intentional or accidental facemasking, pass interference, etc. I think that the punter penalty should be viewed similar to having a late hit on a quarterback.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way to have a football game without officials using their own judgement to some degree.


I understand but I'm saying you don't want to create any more situations where the official has to exercise judgement. We're talking judging intent and it's extremely difficult to do that.

Highlifeman21
01-20-2008, 01:55 PM
I don't understand the dismay with the out of bounds rule. Play a provisional if you think you're possibly out.

And if you know there's out of bounds on a hole, it's no different than any other hazard, in that you want to avoid it. Yeah, the penalty is bigger, but it's not like it's a surprise.

Honestly, the OB rule only applies to more advanced players that don't understand the rule. I'd say 95% of recreational golfers don't play OB per the rules, they'll just go up to the spot where their ball went OB and drop and play it like a lateral hazard. The problem happens when you have lazy good players that don't play stroke & distance 100% of the time, and then they'll play in a tourney and have to play stroke & distance. You really only have 5% of of recreational golfers that will play the RofG to the letter of the law 100% of the time. It's those golfers that have a competitive advantage in amateur tourneys b/c they know, understand and can accurately enforce the RofG.

My dislike for OB lies primarily with how courses are marked. For my tastes, housing developments, property fences, roads and parking lots that are adjacent to holes should be OB. Those are really the only boundary types that should be OB, IMO. Sometimes I've been surprised when I'm playing a course blind for the 1st time ever and there's goofy hazards and goofy OB. Sure, I guess I could have played a provisional, but it never would have occured to me.

While I was playing the practice rounds at the course I passed my PAT, there were a good amount of par 4s that had OB in doglegs literally 2 club lengths off the cart path that IMO shouldn't have been there, and I was surprised to see them where they were since the OB was in normal rough, and nowhere near where they were putting in houses. Hard to explain, but I'm very confident you would have thought the OB was marked goofy at this track.

Hollcat
01-21-2008, 02:44 AM
I hate that in football a team can take a knee and run out the final minute and a half of the game. My rule would be that the clock stops in the final two minutes if the offense doesn't gain yardage.
I also hate when the ballcarrier puts a stiffarm to the facemask of the defender and there is no call. For some reason it's a safety issue if the defense accidently puts their hand on the facemask even when they don't grab it but the ballcarrier can grab the defenders mask and give him a good shove and spin his head around and that's OK.
In basketball I don't like the defense getting called for fouls when the offense initiated the contact. It you put your hands up or leave you feet it's automatically a foul. I know the actual rule isn't written like this but nearly all officials call it this way.

SunDeck
01-21-2008, 09:06 AM
And why does the PGA insist on long pants having to be worn regardless of the temperature? Again, how does it serve the game of golf to have the pros in long pants when it's 95 degrees outside with tons of humidity.

I, for one, am thankful that I don't have to see John Daly in shorts.
:eek:

Roy Tucker
01-21-2008, 09:43 AM
It's not exactly a rule, but I hate in basketball when a defender plants himself in the path of an offensive player and draws an offensive foul.

I understand the need for offensive fouls and don't mind them when they are in the flow of the game. But when a guy plants himself in the lane, crosses his arms on his chest like a dying person, and then lets themselves get plowed over, it just seems ... cheap.

Are there other sports where a player intentionally creates a situation where his/her opponent is drawn into a foul?

bucksfan2
01-21-2008, 09:45 AM
I don't mind the OB rule in golf. It really only applies to tournaments and if a player who has been given the opportunity to play a practice round or two doesn't know where OB is then its his fault. Besides you are told to hit a provisional ball in situations in which you are unclear as to where you ball ended.

The two favorite dumb rules applied to me in tournaments. I was playing at Sharron Woods one round and I was over by a tree. It was my 4-5th hole and I knew the rules and I was taking my club back to measure where I would make contact with the branch. After I finished the round a rules guy came up to me and asked me if I was in the said spot on this particular hole. He then said, from across the fairway, that he saw a leaf come down and I was penalized two shots. I tried to fight it and my playing partners tried to fight it but he leevied the penality on me. Unfortunatly after the 71st hole of the tourny I had cut the leaders lead to 2 strokes, the very exact stroke amount I was penalized.

Another tourny I was playing in I hit a iron off the tee that landed into the hill and rolled about 5 yards back. I went up and steped in the ball mark just out of courtsey to the course. Unfortunatly there was a rules official that was driving by at that point that penalized me on the next hole. The whole group tried to fight the penality saying that it had no effect on my stance, swing, or lie but he still penalized me.

These were two examples of improving you lie that were very judgemental. In both situations I did not effect my shot, swing, or stance at all yet was still penalized. Stupid rules.

OesterPoster
01-21-2008, 09:52 AM
There are several in football I don't like.

1.) The discrepancy between offensive and defensive penalties in the NFL. If a defender gets called for pass interference, it's a spot foul (which could be 50 yards). If the receiver gets called for a push-off, it's 10 yards.

2.) The "half the distance to the goal" penalty is total BS. Use the entire yardage of the penalty. I've seen too many times where a guy gets a personal foul inside the 20 yard line, and the penalty ends up being 4 yards or 8 yards or whatever half-the-distance is. If it's a personal foul, then march off the entire 15 yards. If it puts the ball at the one yard line, then so be it.

3.) Offsetting personal fouls. I hate it. Pick a side and penalize.

SunDeck
01-21-2008, 10:21 AM
It's not exactly a rule, but I hate in basketball when a defender plants himself in the path of an offensive player and draws an offensive foul.

I understand the need for offensive fouls and don't mind them when they are in the flow of the game. But when a guy plants himself in the lane, crosses his arms on his chest like a dying person, and then lets themselves get plowed over, it just seems ... cheap.

Are there other sports where a player intentionally creates a situation where his/her opponent is drawn into a foul?

Not that I am a basketball expert but I think that rule goes to one of the fundamental principles of the game, that you are allowed to occupy a space on the court and that someone else can't just push you out of that space.
If a player is going to drive the lane for a basket, he has to have a clear path; the fact that someone can step in and plant his feet simply means the path was not clear.

How would you change that rule without allowing players to bowl each other over? Would you require that the defensive player's feet be planted for a certain amount of time?

Roy Tucker
01-21-2008, 10:29 AM
Not that I am a basketball expert but I think that rule goes to one of the fundamental principles of the game, that you are allowed to occupy a space on the court and that someone else can't just push you out of that space.
If a player is going to drive the lane for a basket, he has to have a clear path; the fact that someone can step in and plant his feet simply means the path was not clear.

How would you change that rule without allowing players to bowl each other over? Would you require that the defensive player's feet be planted for a certain amount of time?

Sure, I'm good with players occupying space and can't get pushed out and all that. And I'm OK with offensive fouls. You can't let an offensive player just throw themselves into a defender (short of Dwayne Wade that is).

I don't realistically see the rule getting changed, but its the deliberate intent of the defender putting themselves into the path and then just standing still that gets me. If they are attempting to actively play defense, moving their feet, jockeying for position, that's one thing. But just being a statue seems at odds with the active nature of the sport.

I suppose I'd say the defender has to be actively defending the offensive player. Standing still doesn't count. If you get plowed over standing still, well that's just tough luck. But a referee would have to judge intent of a defender and it would be a hard call to make. So I don't think it will get changed.

bucksfan2
01-21-2008, 11:02 AM
Sure, I'm good with players occupying space and can't get pushed out and all that. And I'm OK with offensive fouls. You can't let an offensive player just throw themselves into a defender (short of Dwayne Wade that is).

I don't realistically see the rule getting changed, but its the deliberate intent of the defender putting themselves into the path and then just standing still that gets me. If they are attempting to actively play defense, moving their feet, jockeying for position, that's one thing. But just being a statue seems at odds with the active nature of the sport.

I suppose I'd say the defender has to be actively defending the offensive player. Standing still doesn't count. If you get plowed over standing still, well that's just tough luck. But a referee would have to judge intent of a defender and it would be a hard call to make. So I don't think it will get changed.

Here is a way to solve the flopping problem. If a player falls down you automatically call a foul. If it isn't a charge then it is a block. I get sick and tired of seing a player flop (Duke) and a foul doesn't get called. If it isn't a charge then call it a block to rid basketball of flops.

RedsManRick
01-21-2008, 11:24 AM
Frankly, I'd rather see stricter rules against the offense in basketball. The beauty of the game is in the ball being moved around the court, not guys simply running towards the basket with the ball. While certainly it isn't this simple, the very basic concept should be that whoever initiates the contact caused the foul.

I can't stand the constant attempts to drive to the basket and force up a shot just because the guy is likely to be fouled. That style of play is wholly unappealing to me. The athleticism of a guy like Kobe, Wade, Iverson, or LeBron is impressive, but it's a game of 5 on 5, not 1 on whoever has fouls to give. Sure, if a guy takes a shot in his space and is interfered with, it's clearly a foul. But this running down the lane and jumping in to guys with the body while scooping or flipping up a shot is just stupid.

In the NFL, I have no problems with rules like roughing designed to protect players whose responsibilities naturally leave them prone. My biggest complaint is holding. Firstly, it shouldn't be 10 yards, it should be 5. Secondly, call it consistently. If you have to call it every freaking play, then do it. If that seems absurd, then change the definition of the foul. But the way it stands now, the calls seem arbitrary and because of the yardage, have too significant an effect on game outcome.

For baseball, two things. First the balk. Clarify it or get rid of it. Secondly, the strike zone. I know that it's incredibly hard to call such a precise thing as a tiny ball moving through an invisible, partially obstructed, 3-D zone at 90+ mph. I think umps do as well as could possibly be expected. But frankly, when it comes to balls and strikes, we don't them anymore. Umps should not be part of the game. They are human and thus subject to bias, despite their best efforts to the contrary. The strike zone should not vary by umpire, by game, or anything else. Sure, you can use an ump to manage the flow of the game, call plays at the plate, etc. However, we now have the technology (if not in it's current form, it could easily be brought up to snuff with a bit more commitment) to make the game better through the automation of ball and strike calls, without any visible impact or change to the flow of the game. Regarding the varying height of batters, there are lots of ways to account for this, including having the umpire set it manually with a remote device or having the uniforms containing some element allowing the camera devices to adjust automatically. Maybe it's not a rule per se', but it's silly to me that we should choose a more subjective route. We've continually updated all the other conditions in which the game is played, with better field conditions, stadiums, ball and bat integrity controls. Why not this one?

MWM
01-21-2008, 11:51 AM
My biggest complaint is holding. Firstly, it shouldn't be 10 yards, it should be 5. Secondly, call it consistently. If you have to call it every freaking play, then do it. If that seems absurd, then change the definition of the foul. But the way it stands now, the calls seem arbitrary and because of the yardage, have too significant an effect on game outcome.


I agree. I'd say the same thing about pass interference. PI has become a lot like driving to the basket hoping to draw a foul. QBs throw the ball up hoping the get a call, and lot of times they do. And PI should be like a facemask. For a bad one, it should be 15 yards, for minor infractions, it should be 5 yards. But right now, PI is right there with holding as the two penalties that play a significant role in a lot of games.

And defensive holding is one that is becoming a great equalizer for the refs. It's another foul that could be called almost every play but is selectively enforced. And why the automatic first down? It can be third and 20 with an incomplete pass, and a defensive holding will give the offense 5 yards and an automatice first down. I can't remember the games this year, but I know at least a couple of times this year I was watching a game where a defensive holding call was a key play late in the game. If you're going to call it, call it all the time or get rid of the rule.

bucksfan2
01-21-2008, 11:55 AM
Frankly, I'd rather see stricter rules against the offense in basketball. The beauty of the game is in the ball being moved around the court, not guys simply running towards the basket with the ball. While certainly it isn't this simple, the very basic concept should be that whoever initiates the contact caused the foul.

I can't stand the constant attempts to drive to the basket and force up a shot just because the guy is likely to be fouled. That style of play is wholly unappealing to me. The athleticism of a guy like Kobe, Wade, Iverson, or LeBron is impressive, but it's a game of 5 on 5, not 1 on whoever has fouls to give. Sure, if a guy takes a shot in his space and is interfered with, it's clearly a foul. But this running down the lane and jumping in to guys with the body while scooping or flipping up a shot is just stupid.

In the NFL, I have no problems with rules like roughing designed to protect players whose responsibilities naturally leave them prone. My biggest complaint is holding. Firstly, it shouldn't be 10 yards, it should be 5. Secondly, call it consistently. If you have to call it every freaking play, then do it. If that seems absurd, then change the definition of the foul. But the way it stands now, the calls seem arbitrary and because of the yardage, have too significant an effect on game outcome.

For baseball, two things. First the balk. Clarify it or get rid of it. Secondly, the strike zone. I know that it's incredibly hard to call such a precise thing as a tiny ball moving through an invisible, partially obstructed, 3-D zone at 90+ mph. I think umps do as well as could possibly be expected. But frankly, when it comes to balls and strikes, we don't them anymore. Umps should not be part of the game. They are human and thus subject to bias, despite their best efforts to the contrary. The strike zone should not vary by umpire, by game, or anything else. Sure, you can use an ump to manage the flow of the game, call plays at the plate, etc. However, we now have the technology (if not in it's current form, it could easily be brought up to snuff with a bit more commitment) to make the game better through the automation of ball and strike calls, without any visible impact or change to the flow of the game. Regarding the varying height of batters, there are lots of ways to account for this, including having the umpire set it manually with a remote device or having the uniforms containing some element allowing the camera devices to adjust automatically. Maybe it's not a rule per se', but it's silly to me that we should choose a more subjective route. We've continually updated all the other conditions in which the game is played, with better field conditions, stadiums, ball and bat integrity controls. Why not this one?


Completly disagree with this. I think human error makes sports even more enjoyable. I don't want a game umpired by robots and I don't want a game that is called perfectly.

MWM
01-21-2008, 11:58 AM
I'll never get how "mistakes" that wrongly change the outcomes of games is seen as more enjoyable. It makes no sense to me. My guess is tunes would change it a subjectively bad call kept that person's team from a big win.

SunDeck
01-21-2008, 03:19 PM
I like the fact that umpires vary in their viewpoint of the strike zone, as long as they are consistent about it. It reminds me of the fact that the game is played and officiated by people.

Sure, it's a shame if a poor call ruins a team's chance at winning, but I am reminded of something a coach said to me a long time ago after one of those situations:



If we needed the ump's call to win the game, then we didn't deserve to win. Bad calls happen, and they happen both ways. But you know what? Wind happens too, and so does the sun in my eyes and there isn't a *&%$^ thing I can do to change that.

Chip R
01-21-2008, 04:07 PM
Sure, I'm good with players occupying space and can't get pushed out and all that. And I'm OK with offensive fouls. You can't let an offensive player just throw themselves into a defender (short of Dwayne Wade that is).

I don't realistically see the rule getting changed, but its the deliberate intent of the defender putting themselves into the path and then just standing still that gets me. If they are attempting to actively play defense, moving their feet, jockeying for position, that's one thing. But just being a statue seems at odds with the active nature of the sport.

I suppose I'd say the defender has to be actively defending the offensive player. Standing still doesn't count. If you get plowed over standing still, well that's just tough luck. But a referee would have to judge intent of a defender and it would be a hard call to make. So I don't think it will get changed.


I think the much maligned NBA has a good rule as far as charging/blocking goes. They have a semi-circle at the bottom of the lane and even if the defender has position he will get called for blocking.

RichRed
01-21-2008, 05:31 PM
When a receiver catches the ball and comes down out of bounds but it's ruled a reception because the receiver would have been in-bounds if the defender hadn't pushed him. It's the stupidest rule on the planet.

First of all, how do you know he would've come down in bounds? Maybe his foot would've landed out of bounds by 2 inches. The last thing we need is for officials to be making more judgment calls.

Secondly, who cares if he would've been in bounds? He wasn't! How do you reward the offense for something that theoretically might have happened and punish the defense for doing their job?

It's dumb, I tell ya.

*BaseClogger*
01-22-2008, 12:53 AM
is baseball adding replay to review things like if a home run went over the fence? If not, there is a complaint I have. It's not like there is no down time in baseball to check a replay... what's another two minutes for the umpires to review the call? The games are at least 3 hours anyways...

Caveat Emperor
01-22-2008, 08:51 AM
And why the automatic first down? It can be third and 20 with an incomplete pass, and a defensive holding will give the offense 5 yards and an automatice first down.

Because if it wasn't an automatic first down, it'd make sense to go for the takedown any time you thought you were beat on third & long. Give the 5 yards, better luck on 3rd & 15.

I agree with the principle, however, that the NFL's rules now skew way too heavily towards protecting pass-first offensive schemes. Defenders don't have enough freedom to play physically with wideouts (many don't even try any more) due to heavy holding and PI enforcement, linemen don't have the freedom to attack the quarterback in the pocket (or out of the pocket) due to league mandates on calling roughing on any blow to the QB outside of the mid-torso, etc.

If I were designing an NFL offense from scratch, I'd sell the farm for 5 pass blocking linemen and an accurate QB. I'd never leave the 3 WR / 1 TE / 1 RB set, and I'd operate at least 60-70% of the time form the shotgun. Until they change the rules, that's the most effective system to operate in the NFL right now.

RANDY IN INDY
01-22-2008, 10:41 AM
Bring back the bump and run.

macro
01-22-2008, 10:54 AM
They tried it a few years ago and it was worse than the free-throw fest. I think it was a Xavier-Louisville game (in Alaska?) perhaps when Gillen was still around.

Insted of a team getting fouled and going to the foul line, XU got fouled and chose to inbound it.

As soon as the ball was in play, they were fouled again.

They inbounded the ball. Another foul.

Inbound again. Fouled again.

On one of the inbound attempts, they had to throw the ball towards their own goal in order to get it in. At that point, the coach decided to try the free throws instead of inbounding it under his own goal.

In other words, instead of getting bored with seeing so many free throws, it was simply an "inbounds" fest. I guess they could mandate that the offense could choose to inbound the ball at midcourt to avoid what happened in the above scenario, but I don't believe that would stop the fouling; instead of simply hoping the offense misses free throws, the defense will be hoping for an errant pass, an offensive foul, a 5 second call, etc.

In that case, for the second and subsequent fouls on a given possession, give the fouled team one free throw and let them keep possession.

registerthis
01-22-2008, 02:24 PM
Completly disagree with this. I think human error makes sports even more enjoyable.

I don't see how. What is enjoyable about watching errors that could ostensibly be corrected affect the outcome of games? Who wants to see an amazing reception along the sidelines ruled incomplete because the referee didn't see the receiver's foot land in bounds? Who prefers a baseball game that features an arbitrary and inaccurately called strike zone that adversely affects the outcome of a game versus one that does not?

Referees, judges and umpires are necessary components of sports contests, but they should never enter the equation as to who wins or loses. The fact that they have in the past should not mean that they should continue to do so in the future.

On an unrelated note, regarding hockey shootouts: that is one recent rule chante that I absolutely love. IMO, it makes an already exciting game that much more exciting. After seeing it in action for several seasons now, I have no desire to go back to the tie games of yore.