View Full Version : Worst Sports Rules
Soccer
The offside rule.
So because the opposing team isn't back playing defense you get a penalized? Sorry, this life long hockey fan doesn't grasp this.
The way to fix it would be to a adopt a hockey like rule. The ball has to go through the last third of the field first.
Shoot-out to determine a playoff winner.
In 1999 The US women's team defeated China in a shootout 5-4 after playing to a 0-0 draw. Your not going to catch me waving the flag here. I didn't feel any national pride. I felt bummed for The Chinese team. I'm sure they practiced and played just as hard as anyone in the world. And then end, the championship is determined by one player on your team versus one player on their team.
The solution would be to continue to play until a goal is scored.
National Football League
The pass interference rule.
What makes this penalty ridiculous is how vague and severe it is. If a defensive player interferes with a receiver the ball is placed at the spot of the foul. So if you have a cannon arm like John Elway this penalty could be 60 yards easy. If an offensive player interferes with a defensive player, it's a ten yard penalty. If a defensive back smashes a wide receiver coming over the middle, it's a 15 yard penalty.
Like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztz1GjUylvU
Defensive pass interference should be a ten yard penalty, but the pass happy NFL will never implement this.
The tuck rule.
If the quarterback drops the ball behind him, it's a fumble. Enough said.
Major League Baseball
The infield fly rule.
If you pop the ball up, it has to go to a certain height and uh so far and uh, what?
If you pop the ball up and the defense can turn a double or triple play out of it well to bad for you.
akatemple
07-10-11, 11:42 PM
That Soccer can end with a tied score. Maybe it's because I'm American, but I just don't understand that. Not really into sports that much anyways but I still don't get it.
Or that you get in trouble for doing this.
http://www.truetalkblog.com/truetalk/images/zidane_head_butt_1.jpg
Harry Lime
07-11-11, 07:47 PM
One point in the standings for an overtime loss in the NHL.
What do you think it should be?
Dog Star Man
07-11-11, 08:18 PM
Worst, oh yeah, let's see:
http://i54.tinypic.com/2ufuiv4.jpg
"Well der ain't nothin' in da rool book about a dawg playin' footbawl..."
In all seriousness, I think the majority of rules make a good deal of sense. The ones listed are certainly frustrating much of the time, but there are significant downsides to not having them, too.
I tend to think the worst rule is whatever's supposed to be governing fouls in the NBA. I'm not a huge basketball fan, but even watching games casually I think I ought to be able to figure out what is and is not a foul with relative ease, and I simply can't, based solely on how they're usually called. The closest I can come is "if a guy charges the basket and there's a few other guys around, he'll usually get fouled."
One point in the standings for an overtime loss in the NHL.
What do you think it should be?
3 points for a win regular play or overtime, one point for a shootout win, and zero for a shootout loss.
Also in OT you play 5 on 5.
In all seriousness, I think the majority of rules make a good deal of sense. The ones listed are certainly frustrating much of the time, but there are significant downsides to not having them, too.
I tend to think the worst rule is whatever's supposed to be governing fouls in the NBA. I'm not a huge basketball fan, but even watching games casually I think I ought to be able to figure out what is and is not a foul with relative ease, and I simply can't, based solely on how they're usually called. The closest I can come is "if a guy charges the basket and there's a few other guys around, he'll usually get fouled."
NBA refs are a slight step above professional wrestling refs, or in Tim Donaghy's case, a slight step below.
Tacitus
07-12-11, 04:16 AM
Re: Offside
If you didn't have the rule you'd get professional football matches resembling primary school kickabouts with everyone just crowding the goalmouth. ;)
They've tried to amend it in recent years with attacking players allowed past the last defender if they're deemed not to be interfering with play, ie: not part of the current attacking move.
Re: Offside
If you didn't have the rule you'd get professional football matches resembling primary school kickabouts with everyone just crowding the goalmouth. ;)
I stated that they should adopt a rule like in hockey. The ball has to enter the last third of the field first.
They've tried to amend it in recent years with attacking players allowed past the last defender if they're deemed not to be interfering with play, ie: not part of the current attacking move.
You're going to make my head explode.
Other rules I hate.
College Football
The overtime format
What a bunch of circus nonsense.
American Pro and College Football
The extra point
Nothing should be almost automatic in sports. Either you go for two points from the two yard line or kick a 40 yard extra point.
Two points from the three-yard line. :)
"What a difference a yard makes... 36 little inches."
Tacitus
07-12-11, 04:43 AM
You've got to be in the attacking half of the field to be considered offside, if that helps.
Us football fans are simple people - we can't cope with thirds. :D
Two points from the three-yard line. :)
"What a difference a yard makes... 36 little inches."
I would definitely go for that.
You've got to be in the attacking half of the field to be considered offside, if that helps.
Now that I understand.
Soccer
The offside rule.
So because the opposing team isn't back playing defense you get a penalized? Sorry, this life long hockey fan doesn't grasp this. This rule may not make sense as a spectator, but as a player its there to prevent a guy just hanging next to the goal post waiting for a long range pass so he can just bump it in (a soccer goal is a lot bigger than a hockey one). Keeps the game civilized :)
the thing i hate about soccer is the fake injury's for penalties.
In U.S. sports, such as basketball, that guy hanging back behind the defense is called a "cherry picker". :cool:
Tacitus
07-12-11, 05:33 AM
Rather more literally (and less poetically) they're called 'goal hangers' here. :D
When we were kids this was a disparaging term but there's a real art to 'playing on the shoulder of the last defender', as they say, constantly millimetres between onside and offside.
Good call on the extra point. I'd much rather see, say, a play from the one-yard line for one point, and from the five for two, or something kind of like that. Anything to get rid of the extra point. Though making it longer would work, I'd definitely prefer something that cut a little kicking out of the game in favor of actual football plays.
I think it might actually happen, too. The NFL is pretty good about this kind of thing; they embraced replay (and it's worked out pretty well, I think) and they've actually started addressing the overtime rules. So they're amenable to smart changes.
honeykid
07-12-11, 12:17 PM
I have three, but only one of them is actually a rule change. All football.
Firstly, give a penalty in the box if you'd give a free kick in the centre circle. Two, seeing the ball out is fine, but you'll see players being pushed and pulled without any attempt by the defender to play the ball. This is a foul, not a goalkick. Obviously, both of those are to do with the ref/linesman having balls and enforcing the rules.
Lastly, go back to the old offside rule. It's clean and simple. If you're offside, you're offside. No second phase or not interfering with play, etc.
DexterRiley
07-13-11, 06:43 PM
The Worst rule imo relates to hockey.
checking a goalie is currently a penalty if he is outside of his crease. I'm not talking about crashing the net, that should be called.
What i mean is, Goalies that slide to the corners to gather a dump in...essentially acting like a 3rd defensemen at that point oughtta be fair game.
you stray you pay
honeykid
07-14-11, 09:56 AM
you stray you pay
There must be a firm of divorce lawyers somewhere with that as their motto. :D
the thing i hate about soccer is the fake injury's for penalties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHebuF8tNEM
iamwill
07-15-11, 06:00 AM
What about fictional sports? I'm a huge fan of Potter, yet the rules of Quidditch (http://www.mugglenet.com/quidditchrules.shtml) I find a bit unfair. "The game is over when the Snitch is caught."
Hey Fredrick
03-15-18, 10:15 AM
Bringing up an old thread but a lot of rules have changed since 2011 and MLB just dropped a doozy for the upcoming season:
"At all levels of Minor League Baseball, extra innings will begin with a runner on second base. The runner at second base will be the player in the batting order position previous to the leadoff batter of the inning (or a substitute for that player). By way of example, if the number five hitter in the batting order is due to lead off the 10th inning, the number four player in the batting order (or a pinch-runner for such player) shall begin the inning on second base. Any runner or batter removed from the game for a substitute shall be ineligible to return to the game, as is the case in all circumstances under the Official Baseball Rules."
This is an awful idea and I really hope it fails in the minors.
I think it'd be awful to do in the majors, but I'm not really bothered by it in any other place. So I guess I'm bothered only insofar as it might herald a change at the major league level. Which would definitely be terrible.
I guess that comes from seeing the minors as clearly just an unabashed funnel for the majors, without a lot of the same history or competitive legitimacy (star players routinely vanish to the majors in the middle of the season) in their own right that needs to be preserved the same way.
Yuck, that's as bad as it gets. I would rather see ties.
I do wish MLB would make a universal decision on the DH. At this point I don't care one way or the other. Let's just all play by the same rules already.
rauldc14
03-15-18, 11:33 AM
The tuck rule is the worst
The tuck rule is the worst
Football is 8n a real tough spot right now. I hate how all the rules seem to favor the offense but they have to continue to do something about head injuries.
Kid joined our baseball team the other day and I remembered him from my oldest son's football team a couple years back. He was incredibly good and aggresive for his age and size, played linebacker. I asked him how football was going, he said he couldn't play because he has had 5 concussions. 5! He's ten years old and they couldn't possibly be talking about head injuries more in our county.
Pleased my boys didn't take to football.
rauldc14
03-15-18, 11:49 AM
I know it's not the real thing, but flag football is a great way of staying safer and still playing the sport. I'd let my kid play it.
I know it's not the real thing, but flag football is a great way of staying safer and still playing the sport. I'd let my kid play it.
Definitely a possibility. I played football but quickly became basketball obsessed, seems like my kids are going that way as well. They really like baseball too, so no shortage of activities for them at this point.
Well the extra point rules have changed since the original complaint was made about that. Wonder if that has changed anybody's minds.
I find the kick offs to be almost pointless now. I know they moved up the kick off point to minimize injury opportunities in the crazy helter skelter free for all that is the average NFL kick return, but its resulted in NFL level kickers booming the ball through the end zone 80% of the time. Nothing more annoying then sitting through a whole set of commercials to come back and watch the ball get kicked 9 yards deep in the end zone where the catcher takes a knee and BOOM back to more commercials...
The NFL definitely needs to clean up this terrible reception rule and better define what a catch actually is. Its ridiculous right now. I would dare say 20% of what would have been a catch in the 90's and 2000's would not be considered a catch today. I know a catch when I see it. And they are splitting hairs and super over complicating what should be pretty straight forward. Did the receiver maintain control THROUGH the act of catching? Well if he caught it isnt it a catch?? Did he make a 'football move' AFTER catching the ball? What does this all mean?!
The NFL definitely needs to clean up this terrible reception rule and better define what a catch actually is. Its ridiculous right now. I would dare say 20% of what would have been a catch in the 90's and 2000's would not be considered a catch today. I know a catch when I see it. And they are splitting hairs and super over complicating what should be pretty straight forward. Did the receiver maintain control THROUGH the act of catching? Well if he caught it isnt it a catch?? Did he make a 'football move' AFTER catching the ball? What does this all mean?!
I don't disagree but the NFL rules so heavily favor the offense now that my knee jerk reaction is always to like a rule that favors the defense a bit. Perfect world scenario for me is to clean up the rule like you said but allow more chucking by the DBs.
cricket
03-15-18, 06:20 PM
The tuck rule is the worst
That's been gone since 2013. It was only used 4 times; once against the Patriots and then for the Patriots in the same year, and then in two other games after that. Crap rule it was.
cricket
03-15-18, 06:29 PM
I do wish MLB would make a universal decision on the DH. At this point I don't care one way or the other. Let's just all play by the same rules already.
Yes make the DH universal, put in the pitch clock, and limit the number of pitching changes you're allowed to make in the middle of an inning. Baseball needs new fans, and this would speed the game up a little while adding more excitement.
matt72582
03-15-18, 09:10 PM
NBA Basketball -- Tired of the replays, calling everything a flagrant foul... I also wouldn't be opposed giving every team the chance to win the lottery to avoid tanking which is the antithesis of competitive sports.
Hey Fredrick
03-16-18, 06:24 AM
I think it'd be awful to do in the majors, but I'm not really bothered by it in any other place. So I guess I'm bothered only insofar as it might herald a change at the major league level.
I agree. MLB does rule changes better than any other league because they have a minor league system. It's the perfect testing ground and I don't think this rule makes it to the "Show." But, if it does and there is a chance (slim as it may be), yeesh... That being said, if it is ever implemented I'll be outraged for approximately 8 games a year. Less if my team wins :)
As for the NFL (which is a mess) the rule change I would implement now is turn pass interference into a 15 yard penalty like college. You can rip a guys head off with a facemask or de-cleat him 5 seconds after the play ended and get 15 yards but heaven forbid you graze a guys arm 50 yards downfield while the ball is in the air. It's a dumb, one sided penalty (offensive PI happens A LOT more often than they call) that changes the outcome of too many games.
cricket
03-16-18, 08:01 AM
The NFL's pass interference rule is a tough one. Obviously they're just trying to avoid intentional penalties by the defense to prevent big gains.
As far as the catch rule, I don't think the spirit of the rule is any different than it ever was. They've just changed the writing over the years. Technology has made everything too exact in some people's eyes.
I see they( who is they?) fixed some of the rules since my last rant. :cool:
Any sport using video replay. WTF! The wide receiver was clearly out of bounds on my 55 inch TV! Is the NFL getting a different picture then me ? No! Then why have the ref on the field use technology inferior to what I have at home. You can't have someone signal to you? Really, a Microsoft Surface?
https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/9S9hA-FCFCNOvSoLzJFzsB8Gfc0=/950x534/filters:quality(90)/2016%2F01%2F28%2F21%2Fbb.44373.jpg
I guess this give them the opportunity to show more commercials.
Kicking the puck in the net. Distinctive kicking motion? If it goes off your skate, the goal doesn't count or allow them to kick the puck in.
Icing. If a puck is shot or passed beyond the center line and crosses the goal line not on net, the play is dead.
The trapezoid. Remove it, allow the goalie to play the puck.
Hey Fredrick
03-19-18, 11:30 AM
The NFL's pass interference rule is a tough one. Obviously they're just trying to avoid intentional penalties by the defense to prevent big gains.
The PI and the what is a catch rule are my two biggies with the NFL right now. Even if intentional, my thoughts are no penalty should be half the field of play. If 15 yards and a first down is punitive enough for sending someone to the locker room on a cheap shot, potentially missing a game or two with a concussion, its plenty for anything else. Safety is paramount, according to the Commish but I will admit that I love it when my team is the beneficiary of a 30-50 yard PI call. But I still think its unfair.
"... there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing AstroTurf (gone) and the DH."
cricket
03-19-18, 08:01 PM
The PI and the what is a catch rule are my two biggies with the NFL right now. Even if intentional, my thoughts are no penalty should be half the field of play. If 15 yards and a first down is punitive enough for sending someone to the locker room on a cheap shot, potentially missing a game or two with a concussion, its plenty for anything else. Safety is paramount, according to the Commish but I will admit that I love it when my team is the beneficiary of a 30-50 yard PI call. But I still think its unfair.
"... there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing AstroTurf (gone) and the DH."
I don't completely disagree with you on the penalties, and I think it's akin to a 5 yard illegal contact penalty resulting in a first down on third and long. They just don't want intentional penalties and it simply puts the onus on the defense to make a good and clean play. Of course, a lot of these penalties look like they could go against the offense. I think there will be occurrences that will piss people off either way.
The catch rule I find to be rather simple, but again, it will probably depend on who you're rooting for and which way the call goes.
https://twitter.com/MarkMaske/status/976098471718645760
This is a good change. Expecting catches to involve little to no ball movement after the catch is unrealistic, akin to the whole thing with very briefly coming off the bag on pop-up slides in baseball, creating a clear conflict between the letter of the rule and its spirit. In those instances, best thing to do is to change the rule so they're in alignment.
https://twitter.com/MarkMaske/status/976098471718645760
Yay!
Marginally hilarious that we now have all these huge NFL moments of great historical import that, just a couple of years later, would've gone the other way.
So hard to figure out why NFL ratings are dropping. :confused:
cricket
03-20-18, 08:25 PM
This is a good change. Expecting catches to involve little to no ball movement after the catch is unrealistic, akin to the whole thing with very briefly coming off the bag on pop-up slides in baseball, creating a clear conflict between the letter of the rule and its spirit. In those instances, best thing to do is to change the rule so they're in alignment.
That whole surviving the ground thing was actually originally implemented to help the offense, by limiting fumbles. I believe the new change is simply to quell the current outcry, but will still leave plenty of room for controversy. A player dives, appears to catch the ball a split second before he lands hands first, and the ball comes loose. Is that a catch now? I think players are coached according to the rules in place, and need to be constantly aware of them. Just hold onto the damn ball.
Should have just changed it back to what it was before the Bert Emanuel no catch.
"Just hold onto the damn ball" doesn't really argue for either side, since it just shifts the discussion to what "hold onto" means. And the players having to be aware of the rules has no relationship to whether or not a given rule is good or bad.
Sure, there's always going to be controversy, but some rules plainly lead to more counterintuitive or controversial results than others. And this was plainly one of them.
cricket
03-21-18, 02:33 PM
"Just hold onto the damn ball" doesn't really argue for either side, since it just shifts the discussion to what "hold onto" means. And the players having to be aware of the rules has no relationship to whether or not a given rule is good or bad.
Sure, there's always going to be controversy, but some rules plainly lead to more counterintuitive or controversial results than others. And this was plainly one of them.
I say hold onto the ball so there's no doubt. There are coaches who bench receivers for trying to stretch the ball across the goal line. Mike Tomlin was on the competition committee that upheld the surviving the ground rule, and then his tight end doesn't know the rule. It really was a simple rule, but more than that it provided a guideline. You will see more controversy than ever this coming year. The only controversy that resulted from before was because of people who couldn't understand the rule. I heard so many people screaming that James crossed the goal line, even though that had zero to do with if it were a catch or not.
I say hold onto the ball so there's no doubt.
No doubt about what? Whether or not it's a "catch." That's the thing being disputed: what should a "catch" be? So saying "just hold onto the ball" or "so there's no doubt" is just sidestepping the argument.
The only controversy that resulted from before was because of people who couldn't understand the rule. I heard so many people screaming that James crossed the goal line, even though that had zero to do with if it were a catch or not.
This is conflating two different things. The first, which is what you're talking about, are people who thought it should have been a catch under the rule at the time, because they didn't understand it. The second are people who realize it wasn't (or at least probably wasn't) a catch under the rule, but concluded that it was a poorly conceived rule. The second is what we're talking about here. I don't see any serious dispute about whether it was a catch at the time, only about whether it should have been.
All this other stuff about what players or coaches should know is totally ancillary to that point.
rauldc14
03-21-18, 03:04 PM
Actually the worst sports rule is the rule that The Patriots have to go to the Super Bowl every year.
I think they'll probably end up rescinding that one soon, too, Tom Brady's snake blood moisturizer and giant rubber band gyration therapy notwithstanding.
cricket
03-21-18, 05:06 PM
No doubt about what? Whether or not it's a "catch." That's the thing being disputed: what should a "catch" be? So saying "just hold onto the ball" or "so there's no doubt" is just sidestepping the argument.
I'm not sidestepping anything; I'm just adding some of my thoughts on the matter.
This is conflating two different things. The first, which is what you're talking about, are people who thought it should have been a catch under the rule at the time, because they didn't understand it. The second are people who realize it wasn't (or at least probably wasn't) a catch under the rule, but concluded that it was a poorly conceived rule. The second is what we're talking about here. I don't see any serious dispute about whether it was a catch at the time, only about whether it should have been.
I understand that, but if you only want to speak about whether or not it was a good rule or not, I think it was. Tell me what happens now when a player is parallel to the ground diving for the ball. He gets both hands on it for a split second before he hits the ground, the ball comes loose and it bounces out of the bounds. You think that's a catch? It may look different than the Jesse James play but it's essence is the same. What I do think they could have done is expand the "making a football move" scenario. I don't think you should have to take two steps to make a football move. I think reaching for the goal line or first down marker could be considered making a football move. Instead, they're giving us no defined guideline which is going to result in all kinds of controversy. At least before, we had concrete guidelines, like them or not.
cricket
03-21-18, 05:08 PM
I think they'll probably end up rescinding that one soon, too, Tom Brady's snake blood moisturizer and giant rubber band gyration therapy notwithstanding.
As much as his on field conduct and accomplishments are admirable, he sure seems like a bit of a kook.
I'm not sidestepping anything; I'm just adding some of my thoughts on the matter.
Oh yeah, I don't mean you're deliberately avoiding anything, I just mean that so many of these things are just providing different words for what's ultimately the same question: what is a catch, what does it mean to hold onto something, etc.
I understand that, but if you only want to speak about whether or not it was a good rule or not, I think it was. Tell me what happens now when a player is parallel to the ground diving for the ball. He gets both hands on it for a split second before he hits the ground, the ball comes loose and it bounces out of the bounds. You think that's a catch? It may look different than the Jesse James play but it's essence is the same. What I do think they could have done is expand the "making a football move" scenario. I don't think you should have to take two steps to make a football move. I think reaching for the goal line or first down marker could be considered making a football move. Instead, they're giving us no defined guideline which is going to result in all kinds of controversy. At least before, we had concrete guidelines, like them or not.
Can't tell ya' until they actually come out with the text of the rule. We'll see. It's totally possible that, even if the rule had to change, they might come up with something as bad or worse.
The football move tweak you mention sounds like a plausible fix.
As much as his on field conduct and accomplishments are admirable, he sure seems like a bit of a kook.
I just wanna say I'm very impressed by you saying this. :laugh:
Yeah, the stuff with the trainer is uncomfortable. I hope he wises up and ditches that guy. Partially just because of the sleaze factor, but also because if they're actually telling players they can reduce concussions with some of this stuff, it could actively hurt people.
Actually the worst sports rule is the rule that The Patriots have to go to the Super Bowl every year.
5-5 woo hoo. Congratulations Vikings and Bills fans.
hell_storm2004
03-21-18, 08:31 PM
I love offsides in Football, if it wasn't there, everyone would plant a player beside the goalkeeper. Wouldn't make much sense. Not to mention the size of the pitch. Football pitches are huge. I dont think any other sport uses a bigger playing surface. But I might be wrong on this one. Defenders cant possibly cover everything.
And not to mention the controversies it generates, perfect for bar arguments.
Hockey had offsides in till the mid 90s. Then they ditched it.
Draws are a good thing, there are days when no team really deserve to win. Just as in life everything is not black and white, isn't it?
Sounds like they've approved the changes, and the new catch rule is pretty close to what cricket was talking about. They've basically eliminated the bit about maintaining control to the ground, so a catch is now: control, stay in bounds, make a football move. With a third step or a reaching towards the goal line counting as a football move.
We'll see how it is in practice, but it sounds good.
Im glad theyve updated it and we no longer have to worry among other things that a little tiny wobble of the ball while falling means an incomplete pass. Im not a huge fan of the "football move" concept though. This rule change will likely lead to a few more fumbles after a catch no doubt but I'll take that ten times out of ten over the nonsensical silliness they had before.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.