Worst rule in sports

[Redhook]

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 There is a simple rule, one already in place, that would cure this outdated rule: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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[RollyInRaleigh]

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.

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]

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]

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??

[Yachtzee]

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

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.

[UKFlounder]

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.

[macro]

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.

[Highlifeman21]

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]

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.

[Redhook]

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.