Worst Rule in Sports

[ISUMatt]

Ok, what do you think is the worst rule in sports, there are many to choose from so lets start discussing...


In the NHL, if you commit a minor at the end of the game, that penalty time only counts until the 20:00 period is done...I think that the team should get the full 2:00 power play and then the game ends if they dont score...In football if the defense commits a penalty, at 0:00, you get another play, so why not let the full 2:00 penalty be served in hockey??

[BlueHen86]

Ok, what do you think is the worst rule in sports, there are many to choose from so lets start discussing...


In the NHL, if you commit a minor at the end of the game, that penalty time only counts until the 20:00 period is done...I think that the team should get the full 2:00 power play and then the game ends if they dont score...In football if the defense commits a penalty, at 0:00, you get another play, so why not let the full 2:00 penalty be served in hockey??

Are you sure about that rule? Is that new?

[andy7171]

Holding. It's complete BS! :p

[DSUrocks07]

Holding. It's complete BS! :p

Holding being a 10 yard penalty is BS IMO

[SunCoastBlueHen]

The sign your score card or get DQed rule in golf.

[Rob Iola]

Not sure what the official rule is, but the protection the QBs get from the refs is total nonsense - and in Brady's case, ineffective...

[BlueHen86]

The sign your score card or get DQed rule in golf.
Agreed. Also, getting DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard, even if the error works AGAINST you.

[lizrdgizrd]

Not sure what the official rule is, but the protection the QBs get from the refs is total nonsense - and in Brady's case, ineffective...
I think that stuff is more to protect the coaches and owners. xlolx

[andy7171]

Remember the "In the Grasp" rule?

[brownbear]

NFL OT rules

[DSUrocks07]

The sign your score card or get DQed rule in golf.

Especially when its a televised event (i.e. Michelle Wie)

[danefan]

NFL OT rules

I was just going to post that.

By far the worst rule ever.

[BlueHen86]

NFL challenge/replay rules. There should be no penalty for a correct challenge, under the current system a team gets 2 challenges and can get a third if they win one of the first 2, after that, they are out of challenges.

[89Hen]

In the NHL, if you commit a minor at the end of the game, that penalty time only counts until the 20:00 period is done...I think that the team should get the full 2:00 power play and then the game ends if they dont score...In football if the defense commits a penalty, at 0:00, you get another play, so why not let the full 2:00 penalty be served in hockey??
But also in football if you rip a guys face mask off on first down on your own 5 yard line it's only a 2.5 yard penalty and it's first and 12.5 so football isn't great either in this regard. xpeacex

The best example of this is a team is on their own 2 yard line:

A. False start + Offsides = ball on 6
B. Offsides + False start = ball on 3.5

How's that?? xconfusedx xsmhx

[bodoyle]

NHL - when you get a power play, be it 2 minute or 4 minute and you score a goal, you should still be on the power play for the entire time.

[mcveyrl]

The sign your score card or get DQed rule in golf.


NFL OT rules

These are ties, IMO.

[813Jag]

NFL OT takes the cake, but I hate the NFL pass interference.

[89Hen]

NHL - when you get a power play, be it 2 minute or 4 minute and you score a goal, you should still be on the power play for the entire time.
FWIW, if you score in the first two minutes of a double minor, the second two still get serverd. But I don't think I like your suggestion because I think the refs would be very hesitant to call any minor penalties since it would now carry more weight. xpeacex

[Cobblestone]

Holding. It's complete BS! :p

xlolx

That's how I feel about pass interference.

Seriously, I think the celebration penalty in college football pretty much sucks; this is coming from a defense guy BTW. I realize there was a need for it when it first went on the books but I really think the refs have gotten a little carried away with it in many cases. At the very least the penalty could be modified or at least defined differently.

[89Hen]

The insistance of the signing of the scorecard in golf is not as crazy as one would think. Golf is the only sport in the world (AFAIK) in which the player can call penalties on themselves. Because of that, there is only one person that really knows their true score. That is why you have to attest your score at the end.

Also, everyone thinks of the case of the PGA Tour where every group has a walking scorer, electronic scoring, etc... but they don't want one set of rules for the Tour and one set for Bushwood CC. Remember, the PGA Tour plays under USGA guidelines, just like you and I. xpeacex

[89Hen]

That's how I feel about pass interference.
You must love Aussie Rules then. xthumbsupx

[Marcus Garvey]

That's easy: The Designated Hitter in baseball!

This stupid rule keeps guys in baseball longer than they ought to be. Guys like Frank Thomas, Mike Piazza, Eddie Murray, et al... get to pad their stats and augment their HoF arguments due to the DH! If you can't field, get the hell out of the game. xnodx

[Cobblestone]

You must love Aussie Rules then. xthumbsupx

xlolx

Hell Yeah!

[Cobblestone]

That's easy: The Designated Hitter in baseball!

This stupid rule keeps guys in baseball longer than they ought to be. Guys like Frank Thomas, Mike Piazza, Eddie Murray, et al... get to pad their stats and augment their HoF arguments due to the DH! If you can't field, get the hell out of the game. xnodx

Look at the bright side, the National League agrees with you.

[AZGrizFan]

The insistance of the signing of the scorecard in golf is not as crazy as one would think. Golf is the only sport in the world (AFAIK) in which the player can call penalties on themselves. Because of that, there is only one person that really knows their true score. That is why you have to attest your score at the end.

Also, everyone thinks of the case of the PGA Tour where every group has a walking scorer, electronic scoring, etc... but they don't want one set of rules for the Tour and one set for Bushwood CC. Remember, the PGA Tour plays under USGA guidelines, just like you and I. xpeacex

Lame excuse. The NL plays under different rules than the AL. MLB plays under different rules than college. NFL plays under different rules than college. I could give a million reasons. There is absolutely NO reason why a professional on a tour event with a walking scorer should have to sign his scorecard...and even if the signing is required, to be penalized with disqualification if a mistake is made? WAY overboard....

[Marcus Garvey]

Lame excuse. The NL plays under different rules than the AL. MLB plays under different rules than college. NFL plays under different rules than college. I could give a million reasons. There is absolutely NO reason why a professional on a tour event with a walking scorer should have to sign his scorecard...and even if the signing is required, to be penalized with disqualification if a mistake is made? WAY overboard....

eh... it's one of those stupid, but amazingly simple rules to follow. Baseball has one just like it: "The Appeal."
If a pitcher does not follow the protocol precisely, the appeal will not be acknowledged and he cannot try again.

[89Hen]

Lame excuse. The NL plays under different rules than the AL. MLB plays under different rules than college. NFL plays under different rules than college. I could give a million reasons...
Or one. Some sports have different rules for pros and amateurs. Some don't (bowling, tennis...) seems like teams sports do, individual sports maybe not so much. xpeacex

[AZGrizFan]

eh... it's one of those stupid, but amazingly simple rules to follow. Baseball has one just like it: "The Appeal."
If a pitcher does not follow the protocol precisely, the appeal will not be acknowledged and he cannot try again.

I also don't like all the machinations involved with "going to the mouth" while on the mound....what a bunch of BS....should just call it the "Gaylord Perry" rule... xrolleyesx xrolleyesx

[AZGrizFan]

Or one. Some sports have different rules for pros and amateurs. Some don't (bowling, tennis...) seems like teams sports do, individual sports maybe not so much. xpeacex

Or, in baseballs' case, different rules for the SAME level.

[OL FU]

xlolx

That's how I feel about pass interference.

Seriously, I think the celebration penalty in college football pretty much sucks; this is coming from a defense guy BTW. I realize there was a need for it when it first went on the books but I really think the refs have gotten a little carried away with it in many cases. At the very least the penalty could be modified or at least defined differently.

xnodx xnodx I don't disagree with the rule but the no tolerance enforcement is just sillyxnodx

[89Hen]

Or, in baseballs' case, different rules for the SAME level.
LPGA players can wear shorts. I guess thay makes the AL, the LPGA of baseball. :p

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1196/533405137_7d19448365_o.jpg

[OL FU]

That's easy: The Designated Hitter in baseball!

This stupid rule keeps guys in baseball longer than they ought to be. Guys like Frank Thomas, Mike Piazza, Eddie Murray, et al... get to pad their stats and augment their HoF arguments due to the DH! If you can't field, get the hell out of the game. xnodx

I agree with this one as well. It also removes a major strategic decision from the managers. Do you lift a pitcher who is doing well in the sixth inning for a pinch hitter or leave him and hope his bat comes around in the ninth with the same option. Horrible rule.

[OB55]

The pussy-ass treatment for NFL Quarterbacks. If they are really football players, then they should be able to take a hit like football players.

[brownbear]

I agree with the DH and NFL pass interference rules. For the DH, it creates an unfair advantage for the AL in AL-NL matchups. AL teams get an extra hitter for their lineup, so when they play in AL parks, the AL obviously has an advantage.

For the NFL pass interference rule, why should teams be rewarded with a completion when they don't catch the pass?

[AZGrizFan]

LPGA players can wear shorts. I guess thay makes the AL, the LPGA of baseball. :p

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1196/533405137_7d19448365_o.jpg

You are just askin' for it today, aren't you?

Maybe the LPGA is the NL, and the PGA is the AL...ever think of THAT???





didn't think so.... xeyebrowx xeyebrowx xeyebrowx

[89Hen]

You are just askin' for it today, aren't you?

Maybe the LPGA is the NL, and the PGA is the AL...ever think of THAT???
"Our pitchers are too weak to hit". You tell me which are the ladies that need to wear skirts. xcoolx

[poly51]

I agree with the DH and NFL pass interference rules. For the DH, it creates an unfair advantage for the AL in AL-NL matchups. AL teams get an extra hitter for their lineup, so when they play in AL parks, the AL obviously has an advantage.

For the NFL pass interference rule, why should teams be rewarded with a completion when they don't catch the pass?

When playing in American League parks the National League plays by American League rules so no advantage to the AL. When playing in National League parks the American League pitchers have to bat.

[grizband]

The NFL eliminated one of the worst rules in sports: the "force out rule." Basically, this rule gave an unfair advantage to the offense, allowing receptions where the player would have come down in bounds, if the defense didn't do their job, and tackle him. Problem is, you didn't come down in bounds, why should you get the benefit of this catch? xrotatehx

[89Hen]

The NFL eliminated one of the worst rules in sports: the "force out rule." Basically, this rule gave an unfair advantage to the offense, allowing receptions where the player would have come down in bounds, if the defense didn't do their job, and tackle him. Problem is, you didn't come down in bounds, why should you get the benefit of this catch? xrotatehx
For the same reason of why there's a forward progress rule. xpeacex

[brownbear]

When playing in American League parks the National League plays by American League rules so no advantage to the AL. When playing in National League parks the American League pitchers have to bat.

Do you really think the NL pitchers are much better at hitting than AL pitchers?

AL teams are designed to have a 9th hitter, while NL teams have to pick one of their bench guys to be the DH when they play in AL parks.

[ISUMatt]

The absolute worst is in the NHL when they call player A for Hooking, and Player B for Diving...Folks its either hooking or diving, IT CANT BE BOTH!!!!

[tribe_pride]

In football, a fumble through the end zone (the one which you are trying to score on) is a touchback for the other team. That rule annoys me more than any other.

[OL FU]

The absolute worst is in the NHL when they call player A for Hooking, and Player B for Diving...Folks its either hooking or diving, IT CANT BE BOTH!!!!

Hooking and Divingxeyebrowx Diving I do in the summer and I thought hooking was illegal anywhere in the US but Nevadaxeyebrowx

[Grizzaholic]

As someone else said, the SPOT fouls in football. How can they justify a 40,50,60 yard penality? Make it 10 or 15 and be done with it.

[appmaj]

The concept of "Challenges" in professional tennis. If the technology exist to get a call corrected so quickly; do it all the time.

[Marcus Garvey]

As someone else said, the SPOT fouls in football. How can they justify a 40,50,60 yard penality? Make it 10 or 15 and be done with it.

Ehhhh... I disagree. The only spot fouls in college is pass interference less than 15 yards downfield.
The reason for spot fouls in the NFL is becaues you're dealing with the best and smartest Defensive Backs. If it was only 15 yards for pass interference, then anybody who got burned downfield would quickly tackle the WR to avoid a huge gain or TD. Hell, Al Harris alone would do that 20 times a season.

Besides, what other spot foul is there besides pass interference?

[89Hen]

The absolute worst is in the NHL when they call player A for Hooking, and Player B for Diving...Folks its either hooking or diving, IT CANT BE BOTH!!!!
Matt, we just can't seem to agree today. :p

You can legitimately hook me and then I can dive after the fact and both are deserving penalties. xpeacex

[89Hen]

Besides, what other spot foul is there besides pass interference?
Illegal blocks... marked from spot of foul.

[Marcus Garvey]

Illegal blocks... marked from spot of foul.

So are many personal fouls like horsecollars and facemasks, but that's not what I nor Grizzaholic (I think anyway) meant.

I think he was referring to moving the ball to the spot of the foul. He mentioned getting rid of 40 yard penalties and limiting it to 15 yards.
Besides Pass Interference, I can't think of a penalty where that's the case.

[Grizzaholic]

Ehhhh... I disagree. The only spot fouls in college is pass interference less than 15 yards downfield.
The reason for spot fouls in the NFL is becaues you're dealing with the best and smartest Defensive Backs. If it was only 15 yards for pass interference, then anybody who got burned downfield would quickly tackle the WR to avoid a huge gain or TD. Hell, Al Harris alone would do that 20 times a season.

Besides, what other spot foul is there besides pass interference?

I thought there was another spot foul in the NFL, didn't know that PI was the only one. I see your point, but I still cannot justify giving a team half the field in one penality just because of some PI. Make it 15 and a first.

On a side note, Al Harris would do it way way more than 20 times if it was not a spot foul.xlolx

[JayJ79]

I'm not sure if this is actually a rule or if it was just a proposed rule at some point. I've never seen it called but I saw it mentioned when I was doing research on the rules for free kicks (i.e. kickoffs) out of bounds:

If a returner catches a free kick with one foot out of bounds, the kicking team is penalized as if the kick had gone out of bounds on it's own.

Granted, if the kickoff is that close to the sideline, then there is a good chance it would go out. But not always.

Dumb rule (if it indeed is a rule)

[89Hen]

So are many personal fouls like horsecollars and facemasks, but that's not what I nor Grizzaholic (I think anyway) meant.

I think he was referring to moving the ball to the spot of the foul. He mentioned getting rid of 40 yard penalties and limiting it to 15 yards.
Besides Pass Interference, I can't think of a penalty where that's the case.
xconfusedx Facemasks are not spot fouls. They are enforced from the line of scrimmage or from the end of the play. On an illegal block the penalty is 10 yards from the spot of the foul. This could be a 50 yard penalty.

[Reign of Terrier]

No spot foul pass interference in CFB.

[89Hen]

:) I just remembered my least favorite football rule. In college they have it correct that for punts it is where the BALL is, not the player when trying to down a punt near the goalline. In the NFL, it's where the PLAYER is, not the ball. The goalline is a plane, not a line. It should matter if the ball crosses the G for a touchback to be called. The sidelines are a line, not a plane. The NFL has it backwards.

[I Bleed Purple]

No spot foul pass interference in CFB.
As Marcus mentioned, inside of 15 yards from scrimmage, defensive pass interference is a spot foul.

[Marcus Garvey]

xconfusedx Facemasks are not spot fouls. They are enforced from the line of scrimmage or from the end of the play. On an illegal block the penalty is 10 yards from the spot of the foul. This could be a 50 yard penalty.

I see your point about facemasks. About 90% of the time, the penalty occurs where the play, making it a "de facto" spot foul, thus my confusion.

But your argument about an illegal block is one of semantics. It's a 10 yard penalty. Have you ever seen an illegal black called during a play from scrimage? I haven't. I've seen holds, and crack-backs, but not the old "illegal" block is usually found on kick and punt returns.

The argument regardless is about "spot fouls," which are defined as placing the ball "At the spot of the foul."

[813Jag]

I thought there was another spot foul in the NFL, didn't know that PI was the only one. I see your point, but I still cannot justify giving a team half the field in one penality just because of some PI. Make it 15 and a first.

On a side note, Al Harris would do it way way more than 20 times if it was not a spot foul.xlolx
Which is why I like college football, of course you could say that's bad defense but sometimes it's the last line of defense. Southern should have did it at will on last Saturday.

[89Hen]

Have you ever seen an illegal black called during a play from scrimage? I haven't. I've seen holds, and crack-backs, but not the old "illegal" block is usually found on kick and punt returns.

The argument regardless is about "spot fouls," which are defined as placing the ball "At the spot of the foul."
There are most definitely illegal blocks in the back on plays from scrimmage, they're just not as common as on returns. It's usually a WR coming back to block on a screen. Most of the time the WR will lock on with his DB, but on rare occassion he comes back to get a LB or DL.

I guess what I'm talking about are illegal blocks in the back that really don't affect the play. How many times will you see a block in the back occur 10 yards away from the return man? Tons.

Maybe it's semanitics, but I think "spot fouls" are any penalty enforced from the spot of the foul. Not that the ball is "spotted" at the foul. xpeacex

[Marcus Garvey]

Maybe it's semanitics, but I think "spot fouls" are any penalty enforced from the spot of the foul. Not that the ball is "spotted" at the foul. xpeacex

Fair enough, but those weren't the types of penalties being discussed.

[JayJ79]

Have you ever seen an illegal black called during a play from scrimage?

Only in the deep south.
Perhaps during Citadel games.

[93henfan]

These two aren't necessarily bad, just peculiar. I wonder what prompted them to be made rules in MLB:

1. Batter can take first base on a passed ball third strike.
2. Batter is out on a foul bunt with two strikes.

Why? These two just seem like they must have been written at the end of a long Rules Committee meeting in the 1880s after the drinks had been consumed. Hey Bob, whatdayasay a guy strikes out and the catcher fumbles the ball, we'll let the guy run to first!

[I Bleed Purple]

Have you ever seen an illegal black called during a play from scrimage? I haven't. I've seen holds, and crack-backs, but not the old "illegal" block is usually found on kick and punt returns.

Actually, UNC-WSU had one last week. It was an option play and the WR (Tim Toone) where the option was running came behind the safety and blocked him in the back. Flagged.

I don't know the exact rule, but blocking in the back is legal at the point of attack. But away from the "tackle box," blocking in the back is illegal.

Ironically, we were penalized from the line of scrimmage when Toone blocked him two or so yards downfield. Should have been from spot of the foul, making it a 1st and 18 instead of 20.

[Marcus Garvey]

Only in the deep south.
Perhaps during Citadel games.

xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox xlmaox

Holy *****. I missed that mistake on my part. Funny stuff. xnodx I'm not going to fix it either.

[Marcus Garvey]

Actually, UNC-WSU had one last week. It was an option play and the WR (Tim Toone) where the option was running came behind the safety and blocked him in the back. Flagged.

I don't know the exact rule, but blocking in the back is legal at the point of attack. But away from the "tackle box," blocking in the back is illegal.

Ironically, we were penalized from the line of scrimmage when Toone blocked him two or so yards downfield. Should have been from spot of the foul, making it a 1st and 18 instead of 20.

See, I'm not sure that on a play from scrimage, it's "from the spot" if it's behind the line of scrimage. I think it's like holding: 10 yards from the line of scrimage or, 10 yards from the spot if it's beyond the line of scrimage.

During a change of possesion (punt, kickoff, turnover), that goes out the window and it's from the spot regardless.

[Marcus Garvey]

These two aren't necessarily bad, just peculiar. I wonder what prompted them to be made rules in MLB:

1. Batter can take first base on a passed ball third strike.
2. Batter is out on a foul bunt with two strikes.

Why? These two just seem like they must have been written at the end of a long Rules Committee meeting in the 1880s after the drinks had been consumed. Hey Bob, whatdayasay a guy strikes out and the catcher fumbles the ball, we'll let the guy run to first!

I think #1 is because there needs to be a putout, and on a K, the catcher gets the putout. But then again, the batter can't attempt to take 1st base if it's occupied with less than 2 outs. I suppose that stipulation would be to avoid a cheap double play, much like the reasoning by the dreaded "infield fly" rule.

As for #2: You got me.

[AZGrizFan]

Have you ever seen an illegal black ? I haven't.

Berg is working on figuring out if Obama is an illegal black as we speak... xnodx xnodx xnodx

[Marcus Garvey]

Berg is working on figuring out if Obama is an illegal black as we speak... xnodx xnodx xnodx

Most illegals are Mexican, right? ;)

[slycat]

I agree with the NFL OT rule....complete BS.

The other would be intentionally walking a batter in baseball. Just man up.

[Marcus Garvey]

I agree with the NFL OT rule....complete BS.

The other would be intentionally walking a batter in baseball. Just man up.
Nah, that's all part of the strategy involved. Besides, you only get to do that, at most, 3 times in a row before it really start to hurt you.

[slycat]

Nah, that's all part of the strategy involved. Besides, you only get to do that, at most, 3 times in a row before it really start to hurt you.

It is strategy but it annoys me.

[813Jag]

I watch SWAC games so I've seen alot of worst rules in action.

[I Bleed Purple]

See, I'm not sure that on a play from scrimage, it's "from the spot" if it's behind the line of scrimage. I think it's like holding: 10 yards from the line of scrimage or, 10 yards from the spot if it's beyond the line of scrimage.

During a change of possesion (punt, kickoff, turnover), that goes out the window and it's from the spot regardless.

Those used to by from the spot of the foul. Didn't change it until the late 90's or something. You'd get passing plays where an OL held six, seven, eight yards behind the line of scrimmage and you'd have essentially an 18 yard penalty. But yes, any offensive infraction committed upon an opponent except Pass Interference beyond the line of scrimmage is generally enforced from the spot of the foul. Rules infractions are enforced from the line of scrimmage, illegal man downfield. illegal touching, intentional grounding, etc.

[CatFan22]

Tuck rule.

[proasu89]

Tuck rule.

Raider's fan?

[Reign of Terrier]

I don't really understand the tuck rule

[MR. CHICKEN]

WORST RULE IN SPORTS....xconfusedx............ANY RULE........MEAC OFFICIALS.....ATTEMPT TA ENFORCE.....:(.......BRAWK/OBAMA-BIDEN!

[BlueHen86]

Worst rule in sports:

The Phillies aren't allowed to hit with runners in scoring position.

[BlueHen86]

I don't really understand the tuck rule
Nobody does.

[OhioHen]

When playing in American League parks the National League plays by American League rules so no advantage to the AL. When playing in National League parks the American League pitchers have to bat.

I have always thought that cross-league matchups should be played under the VISITING team's rules. That would do more to even the playing field.

[OhioHen]

Besides, what other spot foul is there besides pass interference?

Intentional grounding if it's more than 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage.

[OhioHen]

Batter is out on a foul bunt with two strikes.



I think that ALL foul balls should be treated equally. If a foul ball can be strike one or strike two, why not strike three? The foul bunt being strike three is the one they got RIGHT, IMO.

[OhioHen]

The other would be intentionally walking a batter in baseball. Just man up.

Maybe an intentional walk should move ALL runners up a base, regardless of being forced. Alternatively, an intentional walk could be made TWO bases instead of one.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I think that ALL foul balls should be treated equally. If a foul ball can be strike one or strike two, why not strike three? The foul bunt being strike three is the one they got RIGHT, IMO.


That rule is in place because a half decent bunter could just keep poking the ball foul trying to draw a walk ot increase the pitchers pitch count. I agree that it is actually a good rule.

[93henfan]

That rule is in place because a half decent bunter could just keep poking the ball foul trying to draw a walk ot increase the pitchers pitch count. I agree that it is actually a good rule.

Excellent explanation! Hadn't thought of that. xthumbsupx

[zymergy]

Baseball:
I have to agree with the DH, at no other level do you see DH and only in 1/2 of MLB. Either your a ball player or not. Man up and swing the bat. I also don't like that passed ball 3rd strike. I always thought it was tacky.

NFL.
If you spike the ball to stop the clock it should be intention grounding w/ 5yrd penalty. Make them chunk it out of bounds over the wideouts head so at least sometime comes off the clock.

[CrackerRiley]

I'm not sure if this is actually a rule or if it was just a proposed rule at some point. I've never seen it called but I saw it mentioned when I was doing research on the rules for free kicks (i.e. kickoffs) out of bounds:

If a returner catches a free kick with one foot out of bounds, the kicking team is penalized as if the kick had gone out of bounds on it's own.

Granted, if the kickoff is that close to the sideline, then there is a good chance it would go out. But not always.

Dumb rule (if it indeed is a rule)
I came into this thread to post just this...
Happened in a game I was watching a few weeks ago. A returner catches the ball with one foot out of bounds and they throw a flag on the kicking team. If the returner let the ball hit the ground it was going to go into the endzone for a touchback. Instead they get it on the 35. (I think it was an NFL game)
By the rule, any returner could just stand with his feet out of bounds and catch the ball if he thought it was going into the endzone.

[Grizzaholic]

Baseball:
I have to agree with the DH, at no other level do you see DH and only in 1/2 of MLB. Either your a ball player or not. Man up and swing the bat. I also don't like that passed ball 3rd strike. I always thought it was tacky.

NFL.
If you spike the ball to stop the clock it should be intention grounding w/ 5yrd penalty. Make them chunk it out of bounds over the wideouts head so at least sometime comes off the clock.

Now that is a good one.

[Grizzaholic]

Since we are talking about fouls and such.

I always thought that after a saftey the team kicking off had to kick the ball like a punt and not from a tee. Is that just the rule in the NFL?

[89Hen]

Since we are talking about fouls and such.

I always thought that after a saftey the team kicking off had to kick the ball like a punt and not from a tee. Is that just the rule in the NFL?
It's a free kick. They can do either.

[Marcus Garvey]

Baseball:
I have to agree with the DH, at no other level do you see DH and only in 1/2 of MLB. Either your a ball player or not. Man up and swing the bat. I also don't like that passed ball 3rd strike. I always thought it was tacky.

NFL.
If you spike the ball to stop the clock it should be intention grounding w/ 5yrd penalty. Make them chunk it out of bounds over the wideouts head so at least sometime comes off the clock.

It can't be "intentional grounding." That rule was is meant to punish a QB who's trying to avoid taking a sack for a loss of yardage and down. The spike is meant to stop the clock only.

Also, they lose a down by doing it, so it's not like it's some sort of free play. It's certainly not the first choice of coaches, but sometimes you have no choice but to do it to sop the clock. Nothing wrong with that rule in my opinion.

[wkuhillhound]

NFL OT rules

Hallelujah! The absolute worst rule period. xbowx

[Grizzaholic]

Hallelujah! The absolute worst rule period. xbowx

What is wrong about it? First team to score wins. Very simple.

[CrackerRiley]

What is wrong about it? First team to score wins. Very simple.
With the winner of a COIN TOSS determining who gets the ball first.
I don't like it at all either.

[Marcus Garvey]

What is wrong about it? First team to score wins. Very simple.

I agree. The part I like best about NFL OT is that, other than post-season, the game must end, period. In theory, a college game can go on forever. Also, the tie remains a possiblity, although it's become exceedingly rare.

I get the argument about "he who receives first wins XX% of the time. " That's because kickers in the NFL have becom insanely accurate over long distances.
When the OT rule was adopted for regular season games, there were 2 big differences:
- Kickers were nowhere near as accurate as today. I think there were still a lot of "straight-on" style PK's in the NFL at the time.
- The hashmarks were wider, about as wide as college I think. Today, the hashmarks are practically in line with the uprights.

I've got a better solution for NFL OT, other than scrapping sudden death entirely: Ban FG's in OT. First team to cross the goal-line or record a safety wins!

[Grizzaholic]

With the winner of a COIN TOSS determining who gets the ball first.
I don't like it at all either.

It doesn't really matter who gets the ball first. Half the time the team that goes on D first wins the game.


How do you think they should choose who gets the ball first?

Have opposing cheerleaders do a strip tease and the one that does it better gets their team the ball first?

DO Rock-Paper-Scissors?

Pick one guy from each team and see who can bench press 250 lbs the most times?

[Grizzaholic]

I agree. The part I like best about NFL OT is that, other than post-season, the game must end, period. In theory, a college game can go on forever. Also, the tie remains a possiblity, although it's become exceedingly rare.

I get the argument about "he who receives first wins XX% of the time. " That's because kickers in the NFL have becom insanely accurate over long distances.
When the OT rule was adopted for regular season games, there were 2 big differences:
- Kickers were nowhere near as accurate as today. I think there were still a lot of "straight-on" style PK's in the NFL at the time.
- The hashmarks were wider, about as wide as college I think. Today, the hashmarks are practically in line with the uprights.

I've got a better solution for NFL OT, other than scrapping sudden death entirely: Ban FG's in OT. First team to cross the goal-line or record a safety wins!

See here I like that idea. Or have no kick offs, would eliminate the runback and give the ball to whoever wins the coin toss, or one of my ideas, on the 10 or 20 yard line.

[Cobblestone]

I've got a better solution for NFL OT, other than scrapping sudden death entirely: Ban FG's in OT. First team to cross the goal-line (or record a safety) wins!

Pretty good idea. I think they should definitely do that in college. A team gets the ball on the opponents 20 to begin with, why should they be given the chance for a FG.

[CrackerRiley]

It doesn't really matter who gets the ball first. Half the time the team that goes on D first wins the game.


How do you think they should choose who gets the ball first?

Have opposing cheerleaders do a strip tease and the one that does it better gets their team the ball first?

DO Rock-Paper-Scissors?

Pick one guy from each team and see who can bench press 250 lbs the most times?
oh, I don't care who gets the ball first, I just don't like that the first team to score wins. So sometimes one team doesn't even get a chance on offense.

[Grizzaholic]

oh, I don't care who gets the ball first, I just don't like that the first team to score wins. So sometimes one team doesn't even get a chance on offense.

OH boo hoo. IT is the big boys playing here. Not some 10 year after school league. If they didn't get a chance on offense maybe their D should have put up a little better of a fight.

[Marcus Garvey]

It doesn't really matter who gets the ball first. Half the time the team that goes on D first wins the game.


How do you think they should choose who gets the ball first?

Have opposing cheerleaders do a strip tease and the one that does it better gets their team the ball first?
DO Rock-Paper-Scissors?

Pick one guy from each team and see who can bench press 250 lbs the most times?

I like that rule. Not just for the obvious reasons, but also because the Giants would be screwed on account of having no cheerleaders! xthumbsupx

[Grizzaholic]

I like that rule. Not just for the obvious reasons, but also because the Giants would be screwed on account of having no cheerleaders! xthumbsupx

I didn't even think about it. I just thought it would be a great marketing tool for each team. And the fans would never leave if there was a chance the game would go into OT.

[WWII]

Agreed. Also, getting DQ'd for signing an incorrect scorecard, even if the error works AGAINST you.

You only get DQ'd if the score was lower than your actual score. If you sign for a higher score, you get the higher score.

[JayJ79]

NFL.
If you spike the ball to stop the clock it should be intention grounding w/ 5yrd penalty. Make them chunk it out of bounds over the wideouts head so at least sometime comes off the clock.

Yeah. Late 4th quarter comebacks are so incredibly boring. They should minimize any chance of such things happening and reduce the amount of potential offensive plays in a football game.

In fact, they should just have a straight running clock for the whole game. xnutsx

[BlueHen86]

You only get DQ'd if the score was lower than your actual score. If you sign for a higher score, you get the higher score.
You are correct. I misremembered the story of Jaxon Brigman at Q school:

Brigman had one of the best closing rounds at Q-school, a 5-under 65 that put him at 8-under and right on the number for making the top 35 and ties. He was on top of the world --- until rules official Steve Carmen asked him about his card.

While Brigman had 65, he signed for a 66.

Because he signed for a higher score, Brigman was not disqualified. But he had to take the 66, which left him at 7 under and caused him to miss his PGA Tour card by one stroke.

"I never signed a wrong card in my life," Brigman told golf.com. "Today was the first and the worst time."

[zymergy]

It can't be "intentional grounding." That rule was is meant to punish a QB who's trying to avoid taking a sack for a loss of yardage and down. The spike is meant to stop the clock only.

Also, they lose a down by doing it, so it's not like it's some sort of free play. It's certainly not the first choice of coaches, but sometimes you have no choice but to do it to sop the clock. Nothing wrong with that rule in my opinion.

Sorry, but the QB is "intentionally" grounding the ball rather it is to avoid a sack or stop the clock the rule should apply to both.

As far as kickers being more accurate today why not shorten the width of the gold posts to make FG harder.

[blur2005]

I hate that every holding call on the secondary in the NFL is an automatic first down. I like the 5-yard penalty but the automatic first down bugs me.

[CatFan22]

Raider's fan?

Actually a Dallas fan. I think the rule is absolutely stupid. Even when Romo got that call a couple weeks ago.
And I am a Patriots hater.

[ToTheLeft]

So no one mentioned the rule where, in a certain division of athletic competition, the competitors for the Championship Game are chosen by a ridiculous formula based on subjective opinion and objective nonsense?

Really?

No one said the BCS?

I will say it.

The BCS is the worst "rule" in sports. "Let's take an 11 game schedule and turn it into one big joke, because it will never work out in the end where the clear-cut best teams play for a title."

Oh, and Pass Interference NOT being a spot foul 15 + in college is lame to me. If the ball was uncatchable, it would have been illegal contact or holding. If the ref says Pass Interference, that means the ball was catchable, and the actions of the defender impeded the receiver from catching the ball in a way that is beyond what is allowed in the rules (contact, face guarding, etc.)

I just don't like the idea of getting burned on a go route, and just diving and grabbing the guy's ankle at the 20 before he catches it to prevent a touchdown, and the ball being placed 30 yards behind the play.