Worst rule in sports

[SunDeck]

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]

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]

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*]

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]

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.

[RollyInRaleigh]

Bring back the bump and run.

[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.

[registerthis]

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.