What are the worst rules in sports?

[JetsIn06]

DH Rule

Amount of playoff teams in NBA and NHL

Alternating possessions in NCAA basketball

Home field advantage for world series determined by all-star game

NFL overtime

[ISiddiqui]

RendeR: Now you've just lost pretty much all credibility

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Disagree, there is clearly an advantage to having a dead-ball free kick, anywhere on the field. You can kick the ball wherever you want it without any pressure.

I understand what you are saying about the player not getting a penalty, but there is a rule for persistant fouling being a yellow card AND no ref in the universe isn't going to give a card after the 3rd or 4th foul. Pretty consistent with the NBA, IMO.

Oh, and if every foul was a card, there wouldn't be a game. Not sure if you have ever actually watched a soccer game or not...

You're right never seen a game, whats soccer?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

RendeR: Now you've just lost pretty much all credibility

Feh, people honestly don;t know how terrific Buffalo is. The only real problem here is a lack of jobs. There are jobs, just not enough to bring more people in.

There a hundred reasons to love Buffalo, the only thing anyone ever really bitches about is the weather and our weather is better than most Northeastern cities.

[RendeR]

DOLA,, forgot to add a smiley

[ISiddiqui]

So... lack of jobs and lots of snow... yeeeeaah *backs away slowly*

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So... lack of jobs and lots of snow... yeeeeaah *backs away slowly*

+1

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Having pitchers hit is stupid. People who think otherwise, probably don't like DVDs and miss the days of record players and telegraph. They were talking about a DH as early as the 1930s. It just took another 40 years to overcome the Luddites who find some joy in watching pitchers hit .100.

Baseball has tons of problems, but the designated hitter is hardly one of them.

You could not be more wrong. Pitchers are on the field and in the game so they hit. Why stop at pitchers? Put 9 players on the field who specialiaze at defense and have 9 designated hitters. Why not take it all the way?

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Rules that should exist:

- In football, any pass that hits the ground before the line of scrimmage, for whatever reason, is a live ball.

This would actually be really cool in conjunction with no intentional grounding penalties at all. The QB should be able to throw the ball away to avoid a sack. Just better make sure it makes it past the LOS. Then add if you throw the ball out of bounds (not touched by any player) behind the LOS, it is a ten yard penalty.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

You could not be more wrong. Pitchers are on the field and in the game so they hit. Why stop at pitchers? Put 9 players on the field who specialiaze at defense and have 9 designated hitters. Why not take it all the way?

So baseball players hit the ball their entire lives, little league, pony league, high school, college but when they get to the pros they forget how? We all agree that today's (NL) pitchers cant hit. But if they had to practice it everyday and their job depended on it they would learn...

[ISiddiqui]

If we have the Designated Hitter, I wonder why we don't have a Designated Fielder? I mean, people say that no one wants to see a pitcher hit, but I'm positive that no one (and I mean NO ONE) wants to see Manny Ramirez field LF.

In addition, why just a DH for pitchers? I mean, there are plenty of other great players on the defensive side of the ball (which is what pitchers are - defense) who can't hit worth a lick. Even though he had a few key hits in the playoffs, you don't think the Rays wouldn't mind having a DH for Jason Bartlett, their great fielding, bad hitting SS?

[Grammaticus]

The DH rule is rediculous and results in an increased number of bean balls (hitting batters).

Get rid of it. Having to decide whether or not to pull a pitcher in order to pinch hit is a part of the strategy of the game.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If we have the Designated Hitter, I wonder why we don't have a Designated Fielder? I mean, people say that no one wants to see a pitcher hit, but I'm positive that no one (and I mean NO ONE) wants to see Manny Ramirez field LF.

In addition, why just a DH for pitchers? I mean, there are plenty of other great players on the defensive side of the ball (which is what pitchers are - defense) who can't hit worth a lick. Even though he had a few key hits in the playoffs, you don't think the Rays wouldn't mind having a DH for Jason Bartlett, their great fielding, bad hitting SS?

I'm fine with more specialization in baseball, because it'd just mean more jobs for players who otherwise wouldn't get to play. But I realize that's heresy to most folks. So in that sense, your argument doesn't really go anywhere.

That said, I almost always make my OOTP without the DH. I can appreciate baseball with it and would be fine with it if the rule was reversed to neither league had the DH or both had it, but the way it is now is silly having the same sport play under two sets of rules.

Just seems a bit ridiculous and yet...it keeps chugging along.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I mean, people say that no one wants to see a pitcher hit, but I'm positive that no one (and I mean NO ONE) wants to see Manny Ramirez field LF.

Speak for yourself. Without Manny in LF we never would have gotten him cutting off Johnny Damon's throw to the relay guy, or his inexplicable double somersault on top of the ball this summer, or his catch/high-fiving a fan/assist at 1B.

It may not be well played, but it's certainly a lot more exciting than watching Greg Maddux get up and stand with the bat on his shoulder for 3 straight fastballs.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Welp, I guess I'm done here.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

Amount of playoff teams in NBA and NHL

Too many ? If that´s what you mean : With less PO teams and the current large schedules the season would loose a lot more appeal much earlier with more team headed for the lottery earlier in the year and starting to tank or "experiment" ...

But on a similar note :

There´s too damn many games in the regular season. 60 games should be way enough.
This would mean more at stake for every single game, more practice time in between games, less fatigue, less injuries and all that making for a higher level of play overall.

[Buccaneer]

DH. National League >>>>> American League.

Any leagues that allow teams at or below .500 into the post-season.

Automatic bids for conference tourney winners into the NCAA bracket.

[Pumpy Tudors]

This doesn't really fit in with the "worst rules in sports," but my wife had an idea that I could actually be talked into. Of course, in hockey, if a team gives up a powerplay goal, their penalized player gets to leave the box if it was a minor penalty. Well, how about a shorthanded team being able to "earn" their player out of the box by scoring a goal? I wouldn't be against that.

[Logan]

Figured this article is perfect for this thread:

Obscure NFL rules baffle teams, sometimes the refs - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

[molson]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

You could not be more wrong. Pitchers are on the field and in the game so they hit. Why stop at pitchers? Put 9 players on the field who specialiaze at defense and have 9 designated hitters. Why not take it all the way?

Is there a name for this kind of retort because I find it hillarious and an FOFC staple. "Ya, if you're for this it follows that you're for everything extreme in that direction".

9 specalized defense players and 9 designated hitters is quite different than 1 DH for (most often) the pitcher. I no idea what your point is.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

One rule that has always bothered me - sacrifice flies in baseball. We're all used to them, but the concept of not leaving a base until the ball is caught is a little bizarre. Either the ball being caught should end the play, or not.

WHA?!!

[Young Drachma]

I actually could be fine with that. It would open up the game quite a bit, if you didn't have to sit on base and wait for a ball to be caught to run and could run whenever. It'd probably make baseball look like Pesäpallo but...a more exciting game wouldn't be the worst idea ever.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by whomario

Too many ? If that´s what you mean : With less PO teams and the current large schedules the season would loose a lot more appeal much earlier with more team headed for the lottery earlier in the year and starting to tank or "experiment" ...

But on a similar note :

There´s too damn many games in the regular season. 60 games should be way enough.
This would mean more at stake for every single game, more practice time in between games, less fatigue, less injuries and all that making for a higher level of play overall.

Yea, too many in my opinion. No team with a losing record should ever be able to play in the playoffs. It's ridiculous.

In the NBA, more teams make the playoffs the miss it. That's not good, IMO.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

Yea, too many in my opinion. No team with a losing record should ever be able to play in the playoffs. It's ridiculous.

In the NBA, more teams make the playoffs the miss it. That's not good, IMO.

I really afraid that if we see an 8-8 Chargers team get in over an 11-5 Pats team, there will be calls to expand the NFL playoffs to 14 or god forbid, 16 teams. 8-8 playoff teams would be the norm, and 7-9 wouldn't be unusual.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Is there a name for this kind of retort because I find it hillarious and an FOFC staple. "Ya, if you're for this it follows that you're for everything extreme in that direction".

reductio ad absurdum

9 specalized defense players and 9 designated hitters is quite different than 1 DH for (most often) the pitcher. I no idea what your point is.

It's just the logical end of the argument.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

reductio ad absurdum

It's just the logical end of the argument.

But can't someone have this as their order of preference?

1. DH
2. No-DH
..
...
..
500. 9 designated fielders and 9 designated hitters.

Is #500 really any closer to #1 than #2? It just seems like an obnoxious point...Sure, I like the DH, but I'd rather have pitchers try to hit than the "logical end of the argument".

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

+3 (are we up to 3) on the instigator. Especially when it's applied so arbitrarily. Also, although haven't seen it called for awhile, the game misconduct for not having your jersey tied down.

In the NFL, I'd never seen it until this past weekend when Aaron Smith got called for unsportsmanlike for "simulating the snap count". WTF! I guess they are saying that is too deceptive...isn't that what offenses are trying to do to defenses all the time!?
And one that has always bothered me-- spiking the ball to stop the clock. If that same "throw" occurs while a defensive player is running towards the QB, people will be howling for intentional grounding. Call it the same way all the time.

No that is same as the NBA coach I think it was the Knicks a few weeks ago screaming in the ear of the player as he launched a 3point shot at the buzzer.So it is more akin to cheating than good strategy or pussy play at best. Anyways that isn't the reason the Steelers lost that game.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd rather have pitchers try to hit than the "logical end of the argument".

But it's not. It's stopping short. So the question becomes why make a change that you're going to stop after one step? It's like how the US Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore that the ruling was never supposed to be used again.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Galaril

No that is same as the NBA coach I think it was the Knicks a few weeks ago screaming in the ear of the player as he launched a 3point shot at the buzzer.So it is more akin to cheating than good strategy or pussy play at best. Anyways that isn't the reason the Steelers lost that game.

I know that's not why the Steelers lost.

That reasoning reminds me of during the Steelers Super Bowl year, Joey Porter said the Colts could not beat the Steelers playing football (the Colts killed them in a regular season game in the RCA Dome), accused the Colts of having to use gimmicks etc to win.

How is that much different than the offense using a hard count to try and draw the D offsides? I guess you could argue "good strategy", but I'd argue that falls into the other category.

Or, what the Steelers used to do with Kordell-- the have him walk away from the shotgun towards the sideline, appearing to call a TO, then direct snap to the RB. I don't see how that is any different, in it's a "strategy" to deceive the D and gain an advantage.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Absolutely. Buffalo Trumps Pitt easily, hell Rochester or even Cleveland Trump Pitt easily. You'd have to be from somewhere like say....Texas, to not be able to trump Pittsburgh...

Dola

Quoting the great Patty Roy -- I can't hear what you are saying about Pittsburgh with these 2 Stanley Cup rings in my ears.



When's the last time Buffalo won anything? AFC Championship games don't count.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

I know that's not why the Steelers lost.

That reasoning reminds me of during the Steelers Super Bowl year, Joey Porter said the Colts could not beat the Steelers playing football (the Colts killed them in a regular season game in the RCA Dome), accused the Colts of having to use gimmicks etc to win.

How is that much different than the offense using a hard count to try and draw the D offsides? I guess you could argue "good strategy", but I'd argue that falls into the other category.

Or, what the Steelers used to do with Kordell-- the have him walk away from the shotgun towards the sideline, appearing to call a TO, then direct snap to the RB. I don't see how that is any different, in it's a "strategy" to deceive the D and gain an advantage.

Those are valid counter arguements. Hopefully we can get a rematch in the AFC Championship and settle matters on the field once again.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Those are valid counter arguements. Hopefully we can get a rematch in the AFC Championship and settle matters on the field once again.

Fingers crossed.

Tennessee was still the better team that day, without that call.
So it wasn't so much bitterness against TEN. That call is just really ridiculous.

[Big Fo]

- BCS system for college football

- NFL players needing two feet in bounds for a catch

- the one and one rule in college hoops, just make it all double bonus

- NBA teams being able to trade a player while making an agreement that the other team cuts said player who then resigns with the team who traded him

- any player who leaves the bench in an NBA scuffle is suspended, it's ruined at least one playoff series

- NFL refs constantly punishing celebrations and big hits

- the 90 minute rule in English soccer, where if a club wants to sign a youngster, they must live within 90 minutes of the club's training ground. Biased towards more densely populated areas (London clubs in particular)

- away goals rule in soccer

- MLS playoffs. more games in the quarterfinal round than in the semi-final and final? really?

- MLB playoffs, make the first round a best of seven. best of five is a joke after a 162 game season.

[Bad-example]

NFL - Helmet radios. These need to go away quick. Sending in plays from the sidelines with semaphore signals was the flavor of the game. The radios just add complications when they break down or when crowd noise renders them ineffective. Kill off the radios and let the backup quarterback have his signaling duties back.

[OldGiants]

I think the worst rules in all sports are the ones that require cheerleaders (under 130 pounds, of course) to wear uniforms.

[Crim]

In college ball, catching a kickoff, getting one foot inbounds and other out of bounds. This is somehow ruled as kicking the ball out of bounds, and is called against the kicking team. Receiving team gets the ball on their 40, instead of where the returner stepped out of bounds.

wtf seriously.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Crim

In college ball, catching a kickoff, getting one foot inbounds and other out of bounds. This is somehow ruled as kicking the ball out of bounds, and is called against the kicking team. Receiving team gets the ball on their 40, instead of where the returner stepped out of bounds.

wtf seriously.

Didn't realize that. Really odd, especially since the legal catch rule is one foot.


I just thought of another. When you score a touchdown and there is a penalty which get marked off from the end of the play causing your next play to begin from inside the end zone. That one causes Maximum Frustration.

[stevew]

I thought of one. Offense has the ball first and goal from the 6. Defense goes offside clear path to the QB. Play blown dead ball marked half the distance. First and goal from the 3. Next snap the left guard false starts. Its now first and goal from the 8. Wtf. Both are 5 yard infractions.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by stevew

I thought of one. Offense has the ball first and goal from the 6. Defense goes offside clear path to the QB. Play blown dead ball marked half the distance. First and goal from the 3. Next snap the left guard false starts. Its now first and goal from the 8. Wtf. Both are 5 yard infractions.

Works the same way in reverse. First and ten from my own 3, defensive offsides moves me to the 8, false start from the 8 moves me to the 4.

It may be stupid, but at least it's consistent.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Crim

In college ball, catching a kickoff, getting one foot inbounds and other out of bounds. This is somehow ruled as kicking the ball out of bounds, and is called against the kicking team. Receiving team gets the ball on their 40, instead of where the returner stepped out of bounds.

wtf seriously.

Same rule in the NFL. If the returner has one foot out of bounds and touches the ball it moves to the 40 too. Leon Washington did it a few weeks ago

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Didn't realize that. Really odd, especially since the legal catch rule is one foot.

Well, if you catch a pass with one foot out of bounds it doesn't matter if you get the other foot in.

[Nugget699]

Having a "Blue Line" in Soccer is probably the single stupidest idea I've ever heard. It will never work because the skill of the Goalie will be totally void. In Hockey for example, The Goalie is so close to the net, and the net so small that a player can be 2 feet away from the goal and still miss or have his shot saved. Yet in Soccer, due to the Goal being so big, the Goalie has to come off his line and close down the angle. If we allow Strikers to go charging in and stand where ever the hell they want we are going to get games with double figure scorelines constantly. All the Midfield will do is hog the ball outside the box, draw out a couple of Defenders then lob it over to the 2-3 players STANDING ON THE GOAL LINE and just tap it home, making the Goalie almost completely irrelevant. Why have a screaming from 35 yards when you can pass it to your team-mate half an inch from goal line?

I agree the Offside rule is bag of shit, yet If they were to introduce the "Blue Line" idea, I think it shouldn't be allowed inside the penalty area. Therefore, allowing many 1-on-1 situations, yet the Goalie still has a good chance of coming off his line and closing down the angle.

[BYU 14]

1. Hockey - Instigator rule - This has ruined the ability of the sport to self police and made play even chippier because it's hard to hold players accountable.

2 through 10 - See rule 1

[Taur]

The NFL rule that says a coach is only allowed 2 challenges. And , that is even applied if he wins both challenges. I understand that if you lose challenge you lose a time out, but when you win a challenge they don't charge you a timeout, but why don't you get the right to challenge back also for proving the refs got it wrong?


Once you have proven the officials wrong twice in a game they can screw you over for the rest of the game with bad calls and there will be nothing you can do about it? Crazy.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Well, if you catch a pass with one foot out of bounds it doesn't matter if you get the other foot in.

I was reading that as one foot in and the other lands out which is a catch. If the foot was already out than I see it not being a catch but that still doesn't seem like it should be used to rule for kicks as you are giving the receiving team the power to "create" a penalty.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Taur

The NFL rule that says a coach is only allowed 2 challenges. And , that is even applied if he wins both challenges. I understand that if you lose challenge you lose a time out, but when you win a challenge they don't charge you a timeout, but why don't you get the right to challenge back also for proving the refs got it wrong?


Once you have proven the officials wrong twice in a game they can screw you over for the rest of the game with bad calls and there will be nothing you can do about it? Crazy.

If you win both of your challenges, don't they give you an extra one? I can't remember for sure. I might be making that up.

[ISiddiqui]

No, I think you are right on that.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

If you win both of your challenges, don't they give you an extra one? I can't remember for sure. I might be making that up.

That's what I thought too as I was reading that. If your first 2 challenges are in your favor, you receive a 3rd challenge (assuming you've got timeouts left to "wager" against that challenge).

I guess in his theory, after 3 times, you'll still be screwed over by the refs. But if the refs make that many bad calls, you won't see them again later in the season (I hope).

[Young Drachma]

And I like the idea of 3 challenges, equal to the number of timeouts.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Nugget699

Having a "Blue Line" in Soccer is probably the single stupidest idea I've ever heard. It will never work because the skill of the Goalie will be totally void. In Hockey for example, The Goalie is so close to the net, and the net so small that a player can be 2 feet away from the goal and still miss or have his shot saved. Yet in Soccer, due to the Goal being so big, the Goalie has to come off his line and close down the angle. If we allow Strikers to go charging in and stand where ever the hell they want we are going to get games with double figure scorelines constantly. All the Midfield will do is hog the ball outside the box, draw out a couple of Defenders then lob it over to the 2-3 players STANDING ON THE GOAL LINE and just tap it home, making the Goalie almost completely irrelevant. Why have a screaming from 35 yards when you can pass it to your team-mate half an inch from goal line?

I agree the Offside rule is bag of shit, yet If they were to introduce the "Blue Line" idea, I think it shouldn't be allowed inside the penalty area. Therefore, allowing many 1-on-1 situations, yet the Goalie still has a good chance of coming off his line and closing down the angle.

Yeah. I don't know if I want a blue line, exactly, but I don't like the offside rule one bit as currently written.