The Worst Rules in Sports

[Chilli Dipper]

The one rule that bothers me the most is the 3 point game in the NHL. A win is worth 2 points in the standings, but with the advent of 4 on 4 overtime and shootouts, at the end of a tied game, each team gets a single point and the extra time is worth an additional point. It rewards teams for losing games and adds to the total number of points that can be won in a total season. I think the only solution would be to make a regulation win worth 3 points, but that still makes the record book somewhat meaningless.

The NHL's points-based classification system is a bit of a relic from the days of balanced schedules and frequent ties: the league in its current structure would benefit from a more typical win/loss classification.

I like the concept behind college football's overtime format, and my proposal for overhauling overtime in the NFL would have its roots in the NCAA's. I propose a "2-minute drill" tiebreaker: unlike the college game, teams would field a kickoff to start possession. A coin flip decides which team will first have possession, and towards which end zone they will drive toward. Unlike college, the two teams will attempt to score at opposite ends of the field, the teams will not change ends after each overtime period, and the team that possesses the ball first will possess the ball first in any subsequent period. Upon the kickoff, a team has two minutes to score a touchdown, kick a field goal, or cede possession to the opposing team, whether by punt or turnover. If the first team with possession scores, they then kick the ball off to the other team, and the clock resets to 2:00. If that team gives up the ball without scoring, the opposing team then has 2:00 to likewise score, punt, or turn the ball over from where they gained possession. Neither team may be charged a timeout during overtime. If the game remains tied after one round of possessions, an additional overtime period will be played until the tie is broken. If the defensive team scores a touchdown off a turnover during the first possession, the game will be declared over.

[goblue107501]

So kick the ball past them.

I guess that is part of my gripe with the rule. If I see my teammate make a steal and head to our goal. The defense is caught off guard and out of position. I can't sprint towards the goal behind the defense and receive a pass. My teammate and defenders are well behind my position, but so is the ball. I anticipated a play, made an athletic move to gain an advantage, but it will be against the rules because I will be behind the defense before the pass to me is made.

[iacas]

How does a "hail mary" type breakout pass work? Does the ball just have to be struck before you break past the defender?

No, the ball just has to stay deeper than you. So you'd have to wait for it to pass you (even just by a little bit) before you could be deeper than the defender.

The NHL's points-based classification system is a bit of a relic from the days of balanced schedules and frequent ties: the league in its current structure would benefit from a more typical win/loss classification.

A relic? It's not that old...

I like it. It makes sense. Shootouts aren't always won by the better team, and if you spend 60 minutes "playing hockey" and are still tied, I don't see the problem with giving each team a point. Imagine a team that's so evenly matched that they tie every game against every team they play all year, tie every OT period, and never win in the shootout. They should have 0 points despite being able to "play hockey" against every team? Some teams are better in shootouts than they are at "playing hockey." Shootout is a skill that is at best a small fraction of "playing hockey," so teams that lose to good shootout teams have still proven that they could "play hockey" well enough to merit some sort of reward. And I'm not saying this because it suits me or my team this year, either! The Capitals have lost six OT games (no idea how many they won, but it's > 1), are 15-5-6 right now, and have 36 points. Same point total as the Penguins, who are 18-9-0 (and not because they've not gone to OT, but because they've won them all).

[iacas]

I guess that is part of my gripe with the rule.

I get the feeling that you didn't play soccer very much, or if you did, not at a high level. Which is fine, but you don't hear footballers complaining about the rule very much. It's part of what makes soccer... uhhh... football.

I anticipated a play, made an athletic move to gain an advantage, but it will be against the rules because I will be behind the defense before the pass to me is made.

Yeah, so? If your teammate has the touch to drop the ball over your shoulder you can do just what you described.

You see it all the time in high-level soccer, particularly when someone will kick the ball to the corner in anticipation of a crossing pass for a one-timer (header or otherwise). Some of the most exciting plays in soccer occur when one or two forwards manage to beat a defender... But if you remove the requirement that the ball has to be ahead of them, it'll become mundane, boring, ordinary. Common.

[goblue107501]

I get the feeling that you didn't play soccer very much, or if you did, not at a high level. Which is fine, but you don't hear footballers complaining about the rule very much. It's part of what makes soccer... uhhh... football.

You're right. I actually never played in my life. I guess I don't fully understand the rule. I really don't care one way or the other, I don't watch that much.

I try and watch, I really do. Just to see what all the fuss is about and I can't make it through a game. Sometimes there is nothing to watch on Saturday morning so I will try that European League or English Premier League, or whatever it is on ESPN2. From an outsiders view, when watching on TV, it just seems like a stupid rule. A guy gets the ball and is streaking toward the goal, their isn't 2 defenders around him, and the play stops: offsides. Just when I thought something exciting would happen, it goes the other way.

[goin_low]

The MLB does have replay and college basketball also has a restricted area for this year

[jamo]

How does a "hail mary" type breakout pass work? Does the ball just have to be struck before you break past the defender?

Yup, thats it.

[woodzie264]

Lowest score in Golf wins. Despise that rule.

hilarious! one of my favorite quotes on the site...

[Chilli Dipper]

You're right. I actually never played in my life. I guess I don't fully understand the rule. I really don't care one way or the other, I don't watch that much.

It's not that hard to understand. In football, a player is offside if he crosses the line of scrimmage before the ball is in play. In hockey, a player is offside if he crosses the blue line before the puck does. The only difference between the offside rules in those two sports and soccer is that the former have fixed boundaries that determine whether a player is offside or not, while an offside position in the latter is subjective to the position of a defending player.

[Fourputt]

The MLB does have replay

Yeah... if you want to dignify it. It isn't used for most of the important calls, like the close calls on the base paths. Those can be the difference between winning and losing, yet there are endless missed calls on both forced plays and tags. Most of the time the camera is dead on, so why do they refuse to use the technology? Or consistency in calling balls and strikes. Some ups don't seem to have any set area for the strike zone. The zone changes from batter to batter and from right to left handers. The plate doesn't move anywhere, so why does the strike zone? I can see the variance up and down because of batters of different heights and stances, but inside and outside should never change. Just because one pitcher hits the zone more consistently, he shouldn't be allowed the fudge factor that umps give some of them. Greg Maddox made a career of throwing balls and getting them called strikes. I think I saw replay used once all season in a Rockies game to determine if a ball was a home run or not. 162 games and one replay. Why do they even bother?

[goblue107501]

I have another one. In football, why is it a player with ball the ball is allowed to grab the facemask of a defender, but no one else on the field is allowed? I have never understood why if you have the ball, it is perfectly okay to stiff arm a guy, grab his facemask, and continue running and there is no penalty. Any other player on the field, so much as puts a pinkie on a facemask it gets flagged. I have played a ton of football, once you get a hold of the facemask, that person is completely helpless. The 'grabbing of the facemask rule' is there for protection, why can one person do it? I just think it is a bad rule.

[iacas]

I have another one. In football, why is it a player with ball the ball is allowed to grab the facemask of a defender, but no one else on the field is allowed? I have never understood why if you have the ball, it is perfectly okay to stiff arm a guy, grab his facemask, and continue running and there is no penalty. Any other player on the field, so much as puts a pinkie on a facemask it gets flagged. I have played a ton of football, once you get a hold of the facemask, that person is completely helpless. The 'grabbing of the facemask rule' is there for protection, why can one person do it? I just think it is a bad rule.

You don't grab the facemask in a stiff-arm. You put your hand there and push, sometimes down into the ground. Facemask on the defense involves grabbing the facemask and yanking to tackle the guy. There's got to be some twisting or pulling action.

They just changed this rule recently, too, I think. The 5-yard version is gone. It's either a 15-yarder or it's just football contact. If you yank, it's a 15-yarder... and I have seen an offensive player do it (it ended up being offsetting because the guy he facemasked was facemasking him to try to tackle him).

[DavidFehertysBike]

You don't grab the facemask in a stiff-arm. You put your hand there and push, sometimes down into the ground. Facemask on the defense involves grabbing the facemask and yanking to tackle the guy. There's got to be some twisting or pulling action.

Adrian Peterson got a 15 yard facemask penalty during the minnasota/chicago game on sunday. He yanked the defender right out of his way.

[goblue107501]

It should matter whether it is grabbing and pulling or placing and pushing, any contact with a facemask with a hand should not be allowed, just becuase the guy has the ball. You see it all the time with lineman. Their hands will get up sometimes and be placed on the facemask when they are blocking. It gets called as a penalty for 'illegal hands to the face'. Most of the time they are not grabbing and pulling. Why isn't that rule in effect for a ball carrier? That is my point.

[goblue107501]

Adrian Peterson got a 15 yard facemask penalty during the minnasota/chicago game on sunday. He yanked the defender right out of his way.

I didn't see that one, but it should be called more. I don't think there should be an exception just becuase there isn't a 'yank' involved.

[iacas]

Adrian Peterson got a 15 yard facemask penalty during the minnasota/chicago game on sunday. He

Emphasis added. That's not a stiff-arm - that's a facemasking penalty.

It should matter whether it is grabbing and pulling or placing and pushing, any contact with a facemask with a hand should not be allowed, just becuase the guy has the ball.

I disagree.

You see it all the time with lineman. Their hands will get up sometimes and be placed on the facemask when they are blocking. It gets called as a penalty for 'illegal hands to the face'. Most of the time they are not grabbing and pulling.

Because they're violently shoving each other, moving from arms flexed to arms extended. A stiff-arm isn't a similar motion at all.

I've never seen anyone get injured from a true stiff-arm (besides the hurt to his ego), but some of the facemasking penalties I've seen have left me wondering how the guy's head is still attached to his body.

[Where's the Cart Girl?]

Adrian Peterson got a 15 yard facemask penalty during the minnasota/chicago game on sunday. He yanked the defender right out of his way.

The penalty should've been on the defender for being in Adrian Peterson's way. Guy is a maniac.

[murph182]

The one rule that bothers me the most is the 3 point game in the NHL. A win is worth 2 points in the standings, but with the advent of 4 on 4 overtime and shootouts, at the end of a tied game, each team gets a single point and the extra time is worth an additional point. It rewards teams for losing games and adds to the total number of points that can be won in a total season. I think the only solution would be to make a regulation win worth 3 points, but that still makes the record book somewhat meaningless.

It probably wouldn't bother you as much if you were more clear on the rule and the history behind it.

Originally, a win was worth 2, a loss zero, and a tie 1. In other words, a game was worth 2 points total. Overtime was the same 5 minutes as now, but 5-on-5. What was happening was that teams were playing to tie in OT rather than to win. With only 5 minutes of sudden death OT, all you had to do was play extremely defensively and you could almost guarantee the tie. Try to score, and you opened yourself up to breakaways and odd-man rushes. Just dump the puck and play the trap, and you'll end up tied more often than not. The league wanted more scoring. They wanted more exciting OT. They didn't want these 5-minute OT crapfests. So they changed the rule: at the end of regulation, both teams get 1 point. If you WIN in OT, you get a second point but if you lose you still get that first point. And what happened? More OT games ended in wins rather than ties. OT was more exciting, teams played for the win, and tv ratings went up. The standings column was wins-losses-ties-OT losses. 4 columns. It takes 2 minuntes to understand it but most people are idiots, aparantly, and everyone complained about it. So when they revamped the game after the lockout, they got rid of the tie. Now you either win, lose, or lose in OT/shootout. OT is 4 on 4 (although I think they implemented that before the lockout), and you get a point no matter what. You win in OT, you get a point. No win? Shootout until a winner, who gets the third point. Frankly, I think the shootout is stupid. I have no problem with a tie. Two teams played for 65 minutes and they played equally well. give them each a point and move on. I don't see why we have to have a definitive winner (just like I don't see the need for a college football national champion). I think it's silly that we play a complete game, 5 more minutes, and then settle it by focusing on a very small part of the game like the penalty shot. But it's good for ratings and it brings new, easily impressed, simpleton fans to the game. Well, if that's what it takes to keep it on tv and in my city, then I guess that's ok but I still don't like it.