OT: Contradictory Rules in Sports

[PharMorNightStocker]

I can handle stupid rules, but I hate rules that contradict the other rules in the game. I'll give you three off the top of my head:

1) All spikes should be intentional grounding.
2) There should be no such thing as a field goal in college football... the holder is down as soon as he catches the ball (this is especially exacerbated during a fake).
3) If a forward fumble out of bounds is brought back to the spot of the fumble, why is the ball going through the end zone treated differently? This, of course, is what inspired this thread.

I also hate how rules are different at different times in the game (e.g. the review process or the clock stopping when the player goes out of bounds or the ball goes through the hoop), but at least those don't run in direct contradiction with the rules of the game. Oh, and I hate the infield fly rule... Let it factor into strategy! I know I'm forgetting some... What else do ya got?

 

[mlvnsmly]

How's this for contradictory? If Mahomes tested positive for covid today, which for him would amount to no more than the sniffles, he'd be out next week. But because he only suffered a life altering concussion, you can bet your ass he'll be in there against the Bills.

 

[TFBaum]

The one rule I hate in all of sport is the basketball fouling to gain an advantage. You should have the option of either shooting the foul shot or taking it out of bounds. I hate basketball.

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

The one rule I hate in all of sport is the basketball fouling to gain an advantage. You should have the option of either shooting the foul shot or taking it out of bounds. I hate basketball.

I get what you're saying. But I don't mind it just because it remains consistent with the rules of the game. Kind of like intentionally walking a guy in baseball or letting a guy score in football... To me, it's just strategy.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The one rule I hate in all of sport is the basketball fouling to gain an advantage. You should have the option of either shooting the foul shot or taking it out of bounds.

If the refs would simply call intentional fouls intentional fouls there would be no problem. If a guy runs up and grabs another player without making a play for the ball in the first 38+ minutes of the game it's an intentional foul. Two shots and the ball. Guy does the exact same thing in the last minute of the game, it's a regular foul. Exact same act, exact same intent, officiated completely differently.

 

[bwh05]

I can handle stupid rules, but I hate rules that contradict the other rules in the game. I'll give you three off the top of my head:

1) All spikes should be intentional grounding.
2) There should be no such thing as a field goal in college football... the holder is down as soon as he catches the ball (this is especially exacerbated during a fake).
3) If a forward fumble out of bounds is brought back to the spot of the fumble, why is the ball going through the end zone treated differently? This, of course, is what inspired this thread.

I also hate how rules are different at different times in the game (e.g. the review process or the clock stopping when the player goes out of bounds or the ball goes through the hoop), but at least those don't run in direct contradiction with the rules of the game. Oh, and I hate the infield fly rule... Let it factor into strategy! I know I'm forgetting some... What else do ya got?

allowing the spike to stop the clock didn’t become a rule until the 80s I think. I remember you used to have to throw the ball over the WR head on the sideline to stop the clock.

maybe someone remembers the specifics.

 

[BFo8]

allowing the spike to stop the clock didn’t become a rule until the 80s I think. I remember you used to have to throw the ball over the WR head on the sideline to stop the clock.

maybe someone remembers the specifics.

Yep, I remember that as well, you used to have to throw it towards the receiver on those type of plays. I guess that means we’re getting old that we remember when that was the rule.

 

[pittzap]

The one rule I hate in all of sport is the basketball fouling to gain an advantage. You should have the option of either shooting the foul shot or taking it out of bounds. I hate basketball.

If you are not in the act of shooting, I think in order to shoot a free throw, you should have the ball in your hands, regardless of the whether or not a team is in the bonus. Otherwise you should take the ball out of bounds. For example, if an offensive player sets an illegal screen (which is called way too much these days), the defender who got screened is now shooting FTs if they are in the bonus. Hate that rule, especially since so many games are over officiated. There is no way the player setting the screen is trying to foul.

 

[King Of All Message Boards]

Calling a timeout to advance the ball to the front court in the NBA is an awful rule.

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

Calling a timeout to advance the ball to the front court in the NBA is an awful rule.

Yeah, that's ridiculous. It would be like getting the ball on the 40 if you fair catch a kickoff with under two minutes left. Just a completely hokey rule that exists only to manufacture excitement.

 

[HOF Coach]

I can handle stupid rules, but I hate rules that contradict the other rules in the game. I'll give you three off the top of my head:

1) All spikes should be intentional grounding.
2) There should be no such thing as a field goal in college football... the holder is down as soon as he catches the ball (this is especially exacerbated during a fake).
3) If a forward fumble out of bounds is brought back to the spot of the fumble, why is the ball going through the end zone treated differently? This, of course, is what inspired this thread.

I also hate how rules are different at different times in the game (e.g. the review process or the clock stopping when the player goes out of bounds or the ball goes through the hoop), but at least those don't run in direct contradiction with the rules of the game. Oh, and I hate the infield fly rule... Let it factor into strategy! I know I'm forgetting some... What else do ya got?

Why do the little dots on the back of NFL quarterbacks' helmets have to be green?

Why not one of the more modern colors that Crayola has brought to market?

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

Why do the little dots on the back of NFL quarterbacks' helmets have to be green?

Why not one of the more modern colors that Crayola has brought to market?

Those aren't Mr. Yuck stickers? All this time I thought they were. Guess I can eat a football helmet after all. Hooray!

 

[King Of All Message Boards]

Why do the little dots on the back of NFL quarterbacks' helmets have to be green?

Why not one of the more modern colors that Crayola has brought to market?

Dating myself a bit

 

[Parkview57]

The one rule I hate in all of sport is the basketball fouling to gain an advantage

Why in basketball can you take the ball and whip it at an opponent to intentionally hit him so as to make it bounce off him into the out of bounds without being called for a foul. Stupid in my book.

 

[HOF Coach]

I don't like that rule that forces Pitt's quarterback to run to the sideline after each play.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

The elimination of the jump ball for possession in basketball.

The possession arrow is silly.

 

[bwh05]

Yep, I remember that as well, you used to have to throw it towards the receiver on those type of plays. I guess that means we’re getting old that we remember when that was the rule.

I was thinking the same thing about dating myself.

Someone posted a video on Twitter of an NFL game from the 80s and the returner got tackled by the back of his shoulder pads. Literally 85% of the comments were about a missed horse collar tackle penalty, which the people had no idea wasn’t even a thing until the 2000s. I then realized how old I am.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I get what you're saying. But I don't mind it just because it remains consistent with the rules of the game. Kind of like intentionally walking a guy in baseball or letting a guy score in football... To me, it's just strategy.

I think you are hung up on some things....the Spike and FG for instance. But the fumble out of the end zone is the most exasperating, ridiculously punitive penalty in sports.

 

[pittdan77]

A spike isn’t ruled intentional grounding because it would just slow the game down. Spot foul and a loss of down so you have to throw an flag and explain it and move the ball back a yard. The net effect is more or less the same. Play usually happens in the midst of chaos anyway. Chains and down markers are moving, players scrambling, spot is kinda close. It’s just a cleaner way to allow a team to stop the clock without giving in to the chaos.

 

[ratking17]

Not necessarily a rule, but the NFL chain gang is so stupid. The technology exists where they don't need to have such an archaic way of measuring 10 yards.

I hate the elimination of the defensive five second call in basketball. I like how it rewards a good defender.

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

A spike isn’t ruled intentional grounding because it would just slow the game down. Spot foul and a loss of down so you have to throw an flag and explain it and move the ball back a yard. The net effect is more or less the same. Play usually happens in the midst of chaos anyway. Chains and down markers are moving, players scrambling, spot is kinda close. It’s just a cleaner way to allow a team to stop the clock without giving in to the chaos.

That's a good point - the net effect would only be about two yards or less. It still bugs me. And if it hits a lineman's foot, I say back 'em up for illegal touching.

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

Not necessarily a rule, but the NFL chain gang is so stupid. The technology exists where they don't need to have such an archaic way of measuring 10 yards.

I hate the elimination of the defensive five second call in basketball. I like how it rewards a good defender.

Football spots in general are kind of hilarious. Especially the unwritten rules:

If a player gets 9.5 yards on first down, they just give him the first.

If a player is running down the sideline, they seem to usually go by where his foot hit out of bounds, as opposed to where the ball was (which would br virtually impossible to tell, but still).

Those rules are kind of like the rule in basketball where you don't call the foul but you just say the fouling player is the one who touched it last. Although I've seen that come back to bite officials at the end of games now with instant replay.

And then discerning where a punt went out of bounds is nothing short of comical.

 

[Upg bobcat]

Calling a timeout to advance the ball to the front court in the NBA is an awful rule.

IMO that's the dumbest rule in all of sports.

 

[jivecat]

Yep, I remember that as well, you used to have to throw it towards the receiver on those type of plays. I guess that means we’re getting old that we remember when that was the rule.

The old forward pass?

 

[pittdan77]

Actually, the dumbest rule in sports is advancing to first base on a passed ball, strike three. You’re out but you’re not.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

IMO that's the dumbest rule in all of sports.

2nd. The fumble out of the endzone that gives posession to a team who didn't recover it is the dumbest.

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

Actually, the dumbest rule in sports is advancing to first base on a passed ball, strike three. You’re out but you’re not.

Agreed. It's ridiculous to get rewarded for striking out. That's got to be up there in the "Why does this rule exist?" category.

The funny part is that it usually entails striking out on a pitch so bad that the catcher couldn't even catch it... and you actually have an opportunity to get a base for that?!

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Agreed. It's ridiculous to get rewarded for striking out. That's got to be up there in the "Why does this rule exist?" category.

The funny part is that it usually entails striking out on a pitch so bad that the catcher couldn't even catch it... and you actually have an opportunity to get a base for that?!

That's a great question on, "why does this exist?" I understand base runners, they can advance on a passed ball or wild pitch. But why does the batter have a chance? It's essentially saying it's an error on the catcher, even though no ball was put in play.

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

Very minor complaints (not really complaints at all, in fact) as compared to many of the others, but not being able to advance a muffed punt or an onside kick is a little strange to me. Not rules I'm passionately against, but the logic kind of eludes me.

I think at one time I may have thought of a few reasons as to why those rules might exist, but it certainly wasn't anything obvious.

 

[pittzap]

I can’t stand the balk in baseball. Every part of a pitcher’s job is to try to deceive the hitter, but not the runner? The pitcher throws a variety of pitches by using signals so the hitter does not know what’s coming, but you should just allow runners to get a clean start to steal? It’s not like there are guys picked off all the time. It hardly ever happens. Plus, the best throw out percentage rate to catch guys stealing last season was 46.2%.

I can understand faking a pitch and then throwing over, but you have to come to a complete stop while pitching out of the stretch? Or your foot can't go past the mound if you throw over?

 

[anon_d97v9o3a8b6xr]

Soccer penalty kicks has become a joke. So much was about the goalie not moving. Now the kicker can essentially run up stop dead to make a goalie jump and than slot it for a goal. Just like the baseball baulk. Either you can use deception or not.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

How's this for contradictory? If Mahomes tested positive for covid today, which for him would amount to no more than the sniffles, he'd be out next week. But because he only suffered a life altering concussion, you can bet your ass he'll be in there against the Bills.

Perhaps because concussions aren’t contagious ?

 

[King Of All Message Boards]

Soccer penalty kicks has become a joke. So much was about the goalie not moving. Now the kicker can essentially run up stop dead to make a goalie jump and than slot it for a goal. Just like the baseball baulk. Either you can use deception or not.

Speaking of. I don’t follow futbol that closely and I know they have changed the extra time. But Cana game still come down to penalty shots? I know extra time was added but I say they gotta play until someone scores. Having a World Cup decided on penalty shots is awful. And again I’m asking as I have no clue.

I don’t particularly care for shootouts in the NHL either but at least that goes out the window in the playoffs.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Speaking of. I don’t follow futbol that closely and I know they have changed the extra time. But Cana game still come down to penalty shots? I know extra time was added but I say they gotta play until someone scores. Having a World Cup decided on penalty shots is awful. And again I’m asking as I have no clue.

Knockout games in tournaments play 30 minutes of extra time if the game is tied at the end of regulation, and then they go to penalty kicks. So yes, the World Cup can end on penalties.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Knockout games in tournaments play 30 minutes of extra time if the game is tied at the end of regulation, and then they go to penalty kicks. So yes, the World Cup can end on penalties.

And it has. When was the last time? Italy over France sometime in the mid 2000's

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

And it has. When was the last time? Italy over France sometime in the mid 2000's

2006.

The only other time the final ended in penalties was the tournament in the US, 1994. Brazil beat Italy.

I guess it should be noted that 1978 was the first time they used penalties, although they didn't need them in any games that year. 1982 was the first time that a game actually went to penalties. Before that, if a knockout game ended in a tie the game was replayed from the start.

 

[TD#33]

I actually am beginning to love the rule regarding fumbling the ball through the end zone being a touchback. In addition to the fact it punishes ball carriers for reaching the ball out carelessly for the goal line, I am sick of all the tears behind a rule that has existed for decades.

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

Soccer penalty kicks has become a joke. So much was about the goalie not moving. Now the kicker can essentially run up stop dead to make a goalie jump and than slot it for a goal. Just like the baseball baulk. Either you can use deception or not.

I don't follow soccer or know anything about it. But deciding a game on penalty kicks seems, to my outsider eyes, like a small step above deciding a game on a coin flip. Isn't it about 90% guessing and 10% execution? If I were a fan, that wouldn't sit well with me.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Isn't it about 90% guessing and 10% execution?

No, not really. It's about 90% execution of the guy taking the kick and 10% everything else combined. If the guy taking the penalty places the ball well then anything that the goalie does is immaterial, because it's physically impossible for the goalie to stop a well placed, well struck shot.

Of course it's really hard to place the ball that well, and the margin of error is small so a small mistake results in a miss. Which is why many takers don't even bother to try to put the ball where the goalie can't possibly get to it.

 

[PharMorNightStocker]

No, not really. It's about 90% execution of the guy taking the kick and 10% everything else combined. If the guy taking the penalty places the ball well then anything that the goalie does is immaterial, because it's physically impossible for the goalie to stop a well placed, well struck shot.

Of course it's really hard to place the ball that well, and the margin of error is small so a small mistake results in a miss. Which is why many takers don't even bother to try to put the ball where the goalie can't possibly get to it.

A quick Google search says that about 75% of penalty kicks are successful. If you're telling me many people don't even try to put it in a place where the goalie can't get it, yet 3/4 of them are still going in... I don't know; that just sounds like there is an awful lot of guesswork involved.