Worst rule in sports

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by WilyMoROCKS

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.

[TC81190]

The tuck rule.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by MWM

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]

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]

I can't believe this is a Cincinnati Reds board and no one's mentioned the DH rule yet . . .

[cincinnati chili]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

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]

Originally Posted by MWM

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

.

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]

Originally Posted by cincinnati chili

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]

Originally Posted by Redhook

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.

Originally Posted by George Anderson

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]

Originally Posted by Chip R

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]

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]

No jump balls in college hoops after the opening tip.

[RFS62]

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.