Worst rule in sports

[RollyInRaleigh]

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.

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

[Chip R]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Roy Tucker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.