Best examples of Rules Lawyering?

[The Controvert]

Share some good examples of clever rule lawyering. Both real life and fictional examples are permitted.

For example:

In Ender's Game,

SPOILER:

Ender figures out they can shoot their own legs and use them as shields.

Or, in baseball, perhaps the invention of the bunt, the curve ball, and the reverse pitch?

[friedo]

I don't see how either bunts or curveballs could be considered rules lawyering. And the reverse pitch is just cool.

There's a difference between taking advantage of the rules to do something clever, and endless nitpickery of the rules to the detriment of the game. IMHO, the latter is rules lawyering, not the former.

[Llama Llogophile]

Want to see rules lawyering? Become a pilot and deal with the FAA in the most minor dispute.

[Rysto]

Roger Neilson was a hockey coach his entire life. He was infamous for finding and exploiting loopholes in the rules(which were subsequently fixed). Some examples:

In hockey, a penalty shot is over if the goaltender touches the puck(unless its momentum subsequently carries into the goal). Neilson realized that the rules would allow him to substitute a defenceman for the goalkeeper, who could skate right up to the attacking player to tip the puck ever so slightly to end the penalty shot.

In hockey, when a player is serving a penalty their team plays a player short for the duration of the penalty. Two penalties will cause you to lose two skaters. That's the limit -- an additional penalty does not start to tick down until the first penalty ends. Neilson's team was clinging to a 1-goal lead very late in the game, and then his team was called for two penalties. Neilson send out a full 5-man line. Everytime his team played the puck the referee would call an additional penalty against his team for too many men on the ice, but as they were already down two men for the rest of the game this didn't hurt them at all.

[Jurph]

There was a training exercise in the Air Force where officers would be divided up into flights of about 16 and told to accomplish a goal. This was pretty common -- you'd be given a goal, a time limit, and some absurd rules and told to do your best, and then you'd all sit around and post-mortem your inevitable failures.

The one exercise that comes to mind was an exercise where the rules stated that

1. The objective is to end the exercise with 4 officers in Zone W, 4 in Zone X, 4 in Zone Y, and 4 in Zone Z.
...
3. No talking will be allowed
4. Any officer who talks will be moved back to Zone W.
...

It was like Towers of Hanoi, only more complex, and we had split our team wrong to begin with, meaning we'd never get it done in the time limit. We had plenty of people in Zones Y and Z, but no way to get them to W in time. The inability to talk meant that we couldn't do any planning. Then one officer said "Hey, I think I'll just walk over to zone W."
The observer said "No talking! Go to zone W."
The officer went to Zone W, and then said "Hey Lt. Smith - want to join me in Zone W?"
The reply: "Sure!"
He asked two others to join him and we completed the exercise with about a minute on the clock. I'm told that when they run that exercise now, there's a 30 second penalty for talking.

[Robot Arm]

In a soccer tournament in the Caribbean in 1994, Grenada were playing Barbados. Barbados needed to win by two goals to advance to the next round, otherwise, Grenada would advance. But there was a strange rule in this tournament that if a team won in overtime, it would be scored as a two-goal win.

So, Barbados were ahead 2-1 with seven minutes left to play. They realized they probably wouldn't score in the time left, and would have a better chance to advance by tying the game in regular time and playing for the win in overtime.

So they kicked the ball into their own goal.

This put Grenada in the position of needing to score a goal on either end of the field, and Barbados trying to defend both goals.

The Grenadans couldn't score; Barbados won in overtime and advanced.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Rysto

In hockey, when a player is serving a penalty their team plays a player short for the duration of the penalty. Two penalties will cause you to lose two skaters. That's the limit -- an additional penalty does not start to tick down until the first penalty ends. Neilson's team was clinging to a 1-goal lead very late in the game, and then his team was called for two penalties. Neilson send out a full 5-man line. Everytime his team played the puck the referee would call an additional penalty against his team for too many men on the ice, but as they were already down two men for the rest of the game this didn't hurt them at all.

While I recognize the utter brilliance of that tactic, the idea of a hockey team skating around on the ice with no possibility of being punished should strike fear into the hearts of peace loving people everywhere.

[jackelope]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

This put Grenada in the position of needing to score a goal on either end of the field, and Barbados trying to defend both goals.

I don't get it. If Grenada put the ball into their own goal, wouldn't that count as a goal for Barbados, which, because it was in overtime, would go down as a two-goal win for Barbados, thus giving Barbados what they needed to advance and knock Grenada out of the tournament?

ETA: Oh, wait, never mind. I get it now; Grenada was trying to score at either end while still in regulation play. I thought they were trying to score at either end in overtime. Neat!

[LSLGuy]

Doubly neat because Barbados, having cleverly kicked the own goal, created a doubly difficult & very wierd situation for themsleves (defending both ends) until time ran out.

I wonder if they realized they'd be in that pickle before they kicked the own goal.

Or was it one of those "Golly we're smart .... Oh shit, what have we done???" moments?

If they really thought about it & were clever enough to kick the own goal with just seconds remaining that'd be really neat.

[ZipperJJ]

Weird - I was discussing this just last month with some friends. Never knew there was a term for it.

I posited the theory that "baseball is the only team sport in which you can't use a penalty for your own good." Note that a foul ball isn't a penalty, and spiking a guy isn't a penalty unless you get called on it, in which case it is not for your own good. Running out of the baseline does you no good either because if you get caught you're out.

I hadn't watched much basketball until the Cavs were in the playoffs this year. Fouling - causing your team to be penalized - is a huge part of the strategy of the game.

In football, getting a penalty is often a strategy in the late minutes of the game.

I am not 100% sure but I believe in soccer and hockey, causing a penalty is a part of the strategy of the game. I think the above answers cover those sports(?)

No one I talked to was a tennis player, but we surmised there has got to be some sort of strategy involving foot fouls or hitting the ball out of bounds that would be beneficial to the "rule breaker."

We also agreed bowling and golf don't count because you play against yourself. You can't really do anything to another player to help your own game.

What about cricket and rugby?

Are there actually any intentionally-induced penalties in baseball that can work FOR your team? Are there any penalties at all?

[The Controvert]

In baseball, sometimes a coach will intentionally yell at an ump, kick dirt on their shoes, to try to get thrown out of the game in an attempt to fire up the team.

[Terminus Est]

Originally Posted by ZipperJJ

Are there actually any intentionally-induced penalties in baseball that can work FOR your team? Are there any penalties at all?

Sacrifice fly.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Terminus Est

Sacrifice fly.

How is a sacrifice fly breaking the rules of the game? What is the penalty for the rules infraction?

[Terminus Est]

It doesn't break any rules. Your team gets an out (which is bad), but it gets a run (which is really, really good).

[wolfman]

In baseball The pitcher could stick his fingers in his mouth four times, which would be four automatic balls and work as an intentional walk, which is often done(though not achieved that way) as strategy.

Come to think of it I wonder why they don't do that, it would cut down on the chances of any passed ball accident on the intentional pitches.

[Valgard]

A bunch of us sat down to play Monopoly a few years ago and one guy made a big deal about "Let's play be the Official Rules". I think he thought that just meant no money in the middle to be claimed when you land on Free Parking.

I knew differently and proceeded to play By The Rules. This isn't my proudest moment but some things I did include:

1. When someone decided not to buy a property they landed on I pointed out that the rules make the bank auction it off.

2. This gave me my first couple of sets which I proceeded to develop, strictly by the rules. I put four houses on everything and no hotels. The rules state that a limited number of houses are provided in the game and when they are all gone that's it, and I bought almost every house, leaving just a few, leading to...

3. The rules also state that you must have four houses on a property before you can build a hotel - you can't just pay five times the cost of a house and slap a hotel on there, and with me owning most of the houses, nobody else could put more than three anywhere. They were stuck.

I have matured so much since those days.

[Snooooopy]

Originally Posted by LSLGuy

Doubly neat because Barbados, having cleverly kicked the own goal, created a doubly difficult & very wierd situation for themsleves (defending both ends) until time ran out.

I wonder if they realized they'd be in that pickle before they kicked the own goal.

Or was it one of those "Golly we're smart .... Oh shit, what have we done???" moments?

If they really thought about it & were clever enough to kick the own goal with just seconds remaining that'd be really neat.

The Snopes article says that three minutes were left.

This leads me to a soccer question. Do teams make an effort to keep track of stoppage time? Do they assign some guy to click a stopwatch or something? Assuming that stoppage time was added to this match, I don't know if I should think that the Barbados team scored the own goal just a bit too early or that it was smart to play it safe.

[jackelope]

I just remembered an instance of this in NFL football.

I'm pretty sure it was the 1999 season. The Tennessee Titans, with quarterback Neil O'Donnell, were ahead by 3 (I can't remember against whom). It was fourth down, and there was something like 0:15 on the clock. The Titans had the ball somewhere around their own 30.

The obvious choice would be to punt here, and trust your special teams. Instead, the Titans "went for it," but not really. O'Donnell took the snap, then began running backward. He ran back into the end zone, watching the clock the whole time, and as the defense was running toward him, he saw that time had run out. So he stepped out of bounds in the end zone.

Result: Safety. Opposing team gets two points, the game is over, and Tennessee wins by one. It was cool.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Valgard

A bunch of us sat down to play Monopoly a few years ago and one guy made a big deal about "Let's play be the Official Rules". I think he thought that just meant no money in the middle to be claimed when you land on Free Parking.

I knew differently and proceeded to play By The Rules. This isn't my proudest moment but some things I did include:

1. When someone decided not to buy a property they landed on I pointed out that the rules make the bank auction it off.

2. This gave me my first couple of sets which I proceeded to develop, strictly by the rules. I put four houses on everything and no hotels. The rules state that a limited number of houses are provided in the game and when they are all gone that's it, and I bought almost every house, leaving just a few, leading to...

3. The rules also state that you must have four houses on a property before you can build a hotel - you can't just pay five times the cost of a house and slap a hotel on there, and with me owning most of the houses, nobody else could put more than three anywhere. They were stuck.

I have matured so much since those days.

That's not rules-lawyering, that's playing the game the way it's designed to be played. Ain't your fault if widespread reluctance to be bothered to learn the right rules means that most people know neither them nor the strategy to follow. Cornering the house market is a valid and skillful tactic and it's the other players' fault for not playing to prevent your using it.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Originally Posted by Malacandra

Cornering the house market is a valid and skillful tactic and it's the other players' fault for not playing to prevent your using it.

Not only that, it's monopolistic.

[LionelHutz405]

Originally Posted by Rysto

Roger Neilson was a hockey coach his entire life. He was infamous for finding and exploiting loopholes in the rules(which were subsequently fixed).

Also when he had to pull his goalie near the end of the game he had the goalie lay his stick across the crease before he went to the bench. The rules had to be changed to disallow leaving behind any equipment.

[jjimm]

The definition of "unlawful combatant" with respect to incarcerations wthin Guantanamo is pretty much the most worrying and prominent rules lawyering there has been in the past few decades, if I comprehend the term correctly.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

Not only that, it's monopolistic.

Exactly. The trouble is that most people use the Monopoly board and pieces to play a game that's sort of like Monopoly without actually being Monopoly. If you want to play chess under some kind of house rule under which a Knight can't take a Queen, then you'll never have to put up with the humiliation of seeing your Queen taken by a Knight - but what you're playing isn't chess any more.

[RealityChuck]

It hasn't happened, but, in theory, there can be ways in baseball where deliberately making an error could be good for your teammates.

For instance, consider the situation where it's the top of the ninth, none on, two outs, and your pitcher is one strikeout away from the record of strikeouts in a game (and your team is seven runs ahead). If the batter hits an easy grounder, and you deliberately bobbled the ball for an error, your pitcher would get another chance to break the record.

[fachverwirrt]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

It hasn't happened, but, in theory, there can be ways in baseball where deliberately making an error could be good for your teammates.

For instance, consider the situation where it's the top of the ninth, none on, two outs, and your pitcher is one strikeout away from the record of strikeouts in a game (and your team is seven runs ahead). If the batter hits an easy grounder, and you deliberately bobbled the ball for an error, your pitcher would get another chance to break the record.

Similarly, if the pitcher needs, say, two strikeouts to break the record (which is 21, by the way), and there are two outs in the ninth, and the pitcher strikes out the last batter, the catcher could drop the ball, allowing the batter to reach base. The strikeout still counts, even though it's not an out, and the pitcher gets his shot at the record.

[Malacandra]

Brian Rose, captaining his county Somerset in a one-day match, took the unusual step of ending his side's innings after one over in order to lose the match quickly and deny the opposition a chance to improve their net run-rate in the competition, which was the only way they could conceivably keep Somerset out of the knock-out stages. He was warned in advance that, while this was strictly legal, there were likely to be "repercussions", and there were: Somerset were thrown out of the competition. No matter what was down in black and white, the zeroth Law of Cricket is "No side shall deliberately throw the match."

Once upon a time, the Laws obliged the side batting second to take its second innings immediately after its first if it was more than a certain number of runs behind. (This, the "follow on", is now selectively enforced on the decision of the side with the better score.) There was an occasion where the fielding side, seeing that the pitch was deteriorating rapidly, wanted to avoid having to bat last on it, and seeing that the follow-on was about to be mandatorily enforced, began bowling wides (each worth a penalty run to the batting side). However, the batsman, realizing what was in the wind, deliberately knocked his own stumps over in order to end the innings.

Something similar to Jackelope's example happened over the weekend in the France - New Zealand encounter in the Rugby World Cup. In this case, the clock had just run out, but the game doesn't end while the ball's in play, so when France recovered the ball they had to get it off the field. Normally this would be done just by kicking it, but the Frenchman in possession, to minimise the chance that his punt would be blocked, ran towards his own corner-flag to stay as far away from the All Blacks as possible, and kicked the ball diagonally backwards over the touch-line. That's not rules-lawyering, but it's an unusual sight as you're normally looking to make ground (or at least not lose it) with a punt to touch.

[Malacandra]

Rules-lawyering in chess: In a postal game, White mailed off 1. d4, and Black, to save postage, replied "1. ... g6; 2. Any, Bg7" meaning that his second move was to be played no matter what White's second move was. So White unsportingly posted "2. Bh6, Bg7; 3. Bxg7" and also picked up the Rook on h8 as well. Of course no-one would have played 2. Bh6 over the board (except perhaps in one-minute chess gambling that the opponent would reflexively be halfway through playing some other move before noticing that the White Bishop was en prise) but Black was obliged to play the move he had written down instead of taking the Bishop.

[fachverwirrt]

Several years ago, my sister played in an indoor soccer league. It was pretty much a "just for fun" league, with no team being particularly good, and no real stakes (the champions just got a cheap trophy). My sister's team was the worst in the league. The two best teams in the league had developed a rather nasty (and stupid, given the nature of the thing) rivalry, and each really didn't want the other to win.

The championship was decided in a round robin tournament with number of goals as the tiebreaker in the case of two teams with the same record. My sister's team managed to win their first game. One of the two best teams won both of their games; it came down to the last game, with the second of the rivals having lost one game, and therefore out of the running. They were playing my sister's team. They decided that since they couldn't win it, they'd be damned if their rivals would win, so they decided to give it to my sister's team on goals. They basically stopped playing, except to occasionally kick the ball into their own goal. The guy who ran the league was massively pissed; he awarded the trophy to the other team (the one that should have won), which then pissed off the team that had just tried so hard to lose. My sister's team didn't really care.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by The Controvert

In Ender's Game...

I'm hardly an Ender but, back in the day, my friend and I played a laser-tag variant at some pizza place on a regular basis. One part of how the game worked was that, once shot, you had to go 'recharge' your life at some terminal before you could fire your gun again. So I'd get shot at some point but then, rather than recharging, I'd act as a human shield for my friend with him walking behind me and me heedless of whether or not I was shot since it wouldn't register against my score until I was "alive" again. We got into the enemy base quite a few times this way, partially because my friend was sheltered and partially because it was hard to see the "Dead" light on the vests so they'd waste a lot of shots trying to register a hit on me.

Eventually, the referees started saying in the pre-game that you had to head for a terminal as soon as you were hit. Spoil sports

[Asimovian]

Originally Posted by ZipperJJ

We also agreed bowling and golf don't count because you play against yourself. You can't really do anything to another player to help your own game.

I wanted to address this quickly as an avid bowler. There are, unfortunately, lots of league bowlers who cause themselves temporary disadvantages in order to gain a greater long-term advantage. I'll try to do this without rambling too much. I think, by the way, that this might also work with golf, but I'm not a golfer, so I have no idea how prevalent this might be.

Many bowling leagues are "handicap" leagues. For example, the league I bowl in currently has a handicap of 90% of 200. What this means is that for every individual who has an average below 200, 90% of the difference between their average and 200 is automatically added to their score every game. For example, if a bowler carries an average of 150, the difference between their average and 200 is 50 pins. 90% of 50 is 45, so for every game that bowler rolls, 45 pins is added to his score. The purpose of this is to level the playing field so that lower average bowlers and teams are still able to compete with those who have higher averages.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of high-average bowlers out there who aren't so much interested in their team doing well as much as they're interested in winning a lot of money at the end of the season. Most leagues have a mini-tournament called "sweepers" at the end of the season where you bowl three games and can win a lot of money. Your average from the "regular season" carries over into this tournament. So you'll get guys who can easily average 210 who will intentionally bowl well below their capability throughout the season in order to gain extra handicap. Then, when they get into the sweepers tournament, they'll bowl well AND get the benefit of extra pins they shouldn't have, making it very easy for them to dominate the tournament and take all the money.

These folks are called sandbaggers, and they are despised.

[Terminus Est]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

It hasn't happened, but, in theory, there can be ways in baseball where deliberately making an error could be good for your teammates.

For instance, consider the situation where it's the top of the ninth, none on, two outs, and your pitcher is one strikeout away from the record of strikeouts in a game (and your team is seven runs ahead). If the batter hits an easy grounder, and you deliberately bobbled the ball for an error, your pitcher would get another chance to break the record.

It occurs to me that the infield-fly rule was developed in order to prevent a similar occurrence of fielders deliberately dropping the ball in order to force two outs rather than a single out.

[ZipperJJ]

While the baseball example that RealityChuck provided is interesting, it doesn't do anything to help the team win the game, does it?

In basketball, if you foul a guy so that he gets foul shots instead of the possibility to shoot the winning three-pointer, you have helped the team possibly win that game.

In football, if you facemask a guy in order to stop the clock so your team can regroup and get ready for a hail mary, you've helped the team possibly win that game.

Dropping a grounder and letting a guy get to first just so a pitcher can win the league strikeout record....???

Asimovian - thanks, that is a good example for bowling and I totally forgot that. I used to be on a bowling team and I in bemoaned the fact that my teammates had 2 of the 3 highest averages in the league because our handicap was so shitty. Of course, my teammates being the pros that they were, thought I was nutty

[glee]

Originally Posted by Malacandra

That's not rules-lawyering, that's playing the game the way it's designed to be played. Ain't your fault if widespread reluctance to be bothered to learn the right rules means that most people know neither them nor the strategy to follow. Cornering the house market is a valid and skillful tactic and it's the other players' fault for not playing to prevent your using it.

Absolutely. Read the rules and learn the strategy.

An example of bad Monopoly is when a married couple sell certificates to each other, ignoring higher bids from other players.

[Asimovian]

Originally Posted by ZipperJJ

Asimovian - thanks, that is a good example for bowling and I totally forgot that. I used to be on a bowling team and I in bemoaned the fact that my teammates had 2 of the 3 highest averages in the league because our handicap was so shitty. Of course, my teammates being the pros that they were, thought I was nutty

My teammates start bitching whenever we find out we're bowling a low-average team. "Oh God, we have to make up SO much handicap, geez!" I've realized over the years that trying to point out to them that the lower average team still has to work harder is futile.

[The Hamster King]

I once played in a D&D campaign where the dungeonmaster had a house rule that ANY projectile that hit a target would due a minimum of one point of damage.

So the players starting carrying bags of sand and throwing handfuls of it at monsters ... .

[KidScruffy]

Originally Posted by Terminus Est

It occurs to me that the infield-fly rule was developed in order to prevent a similar occurrence of fielders deliberately dropping the ball in order to force two outs rather than a single out.

Not sure this applies either, and I don't know if it's ever happened: with one runner on, who happens to be a speedster at first base, a fielder could intentionally let a high pop fly drop and then throw to second - so now the slower runner is on instead of the fast one. Obviously risky, since you could end up with two runners on if you muck it up.

[Terminus Est]

Originally Posted by KidScruffy

Not sure this applies either, and I don't know if it's ever happened: with one runner on, who happens to be a speedster at first base, a fielder could intentionally let a high pop fly drop and then throw to second - so now the slower runner is on instead of the fast one. Obviously risky, since you could end up with two runners on if you muck it up.

I went and wiki'd Infield Fly Rule, which apparently only applies if there's a force play on third (who knew?).

This rule was introduced in 1895, in response to infielders intentionally dropping pop-ups in order to get multiple outs by forcing out the runners on base, who were pinned near their bases while the ball was in the air.

It seems there's also a separate rule that prevents fielders from intentionally dropping a caught ball in order to force an out, if the infield fly rule doesn't apply. In all cases, you're still allowed to let a ball drop to the ground and then try to catch it.

[Shodan]

In sport judo, you have to attack almost continuously or get penalized for stalling. I actually attended a clinic where the clinician demonstrated how to make a "proper false attack" - an attack that was realistic to keep you from getting penalized, but not realistic enough that you might get countered.

A Brazilian fighter won the Olympics by playing this game. He scored not one ippon in the whole tournament. All he did was grip fight and do "proper" false attacks, until his opponents got penalized for stalling.

Regards,
Shodan

[Rick]

You want rule lawyering?
May I present Smokey Yunick

As with most successful racers, Yunick was a master of the gray area straddling the rules. Perhaps his most famous exploit was his #13 1966 Chevrolet Chevelle, driven by Curtis Turner. The car was so much faster than the competition during testing that they were certain that cheating was involved; some sort of aerodynamic enhancement was strongly suspected, but the car's profile seemed to be entirely stock, as the rules required. It was eventually discovered that what Yunick had built was an exact 7/8 scale replica of the production car....Another Yunick improvisation was getting around the regulations specifying a maximum size for the fuel tank, by using eleven foot coils of 2-inch diameter tubing for the fuel line to add about 5 gallons[1] to the car's fuel capacity. Once, NASCAR officials came up with a list of nine items for Yunick to fix before the car would be allowed on the track. The suspicious NASCAR officials had removed the tank for inspection. Yunick started the car with no gas tank and said "Better make it ten",[2] and drove it back to the pits. He used a basketball in the fuel tank which could be inflated when the car's fuel capacity was checked and deflated for the race.

My favorite Smokey story was about him and a NACAR race in the 1950s. Racers back then took a torch and cut out the wheel wells on their cars to allow for quick tire changes. Smokey shows up for qualifying with the stock fenders in place. This gives him a huge aerodynamic advantage.
The other racers protest. Smokey points out that the rules say that the wheel wells may be cut, not that they have to be cut.
Protest denied.
Smokey's car qualifies on the pole.
Smokey then proceeds to cut the wheel wells out.
Other racers protest. Smokey points out that the rules do not say when the fenders may be cut.
Protest denied.

[zamboniracer]

In game 5 of the 1976 NBA Finals between the Celtics and Phoenix Suns, the Suns were down by 1 in overtime after John Havlicek of the Celtics scored a basket with one second left to play and the clock about to run out. The Suns were out of time outs but Paul Westphal of the Suns called one anyway, because the penalty at the time was only a one shot technical foul. Boston scored the technical foul shot to be up by 2, but then the Suns were able to inbound the ball at halfcourt after their "illegal" timeout. The Suns' Garfield Heard managed to hit a shot to tie the game and send it to another overtime, where the Celtics finally won. This game is considered one of the best in NBA history.

Nowadays, when a team calls a time out when it doesn't have any left the penalty is a technical foul and loss of the ball.

[Intelligently Designed]

Upon Sam Pollock's death last August, this story which is part of Canadian hockey's lore was recalled numerous times.

After the 1969-70 NHL season, Pollock, who was at the time GM of the mighty Montreal Canadiens, had traded to obtain the 1971 first-round entry draft pick of the Oakland Seals, which he felt would finish last in the standings the following season, thus earning the Habs the first pick overall.

A few weeks before the end of the 1970-71 season, though, the renamed California Golden Seals were neck and neck with the Los Angeles Kings at the bottom of the NHL. So what did Pollock do? He slightly weakened his own team and greatly strenghtened the Kings by sending them skilled veteran Ralph Backstrom for practically nothing. Result: the Kings finished above California, and the Canadiens had the first pick.

Who was some frail kid by the name of Guy Lafleur.

In the same vein, a couple of years ago, Lou Angotti, who was coach of the Pittsburgh Penguins in 1983-84, kind of admitted that his team did all it could to finish last that year and grab Mario Lemieux in the process.

Of course, most professional sports leagues now have draft lotteries to prevent that kind of stuff.

[fachverwirrt]

Originally Posted by Terminus Est

I went and wiki'd Infield Fly Rule, which apparently only applies if there's a force play on third (who knew?).

I did. The theory there is, I believe, that the only way you're going to get a double play on a dropped pop-up with only a force at second is if the batter doesn't run, or dogs it down the line, in which case he deserves to be out. In other words, the time for pop-up to go up in the air, come down, be dropped, picked up, thrown to second, and relayed to first should be more than enough for a runner to make it to first with normal effort.

[pravnik]

The rule book doesn't say anything about not throwing a potato in a game!

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by glee

Absolutely. Read the rules and learn the strategy.

An example of bad Monopoly is when a married couple sell certificates to each other, ignoring higher bids from other players.

Middle school. My brother, my best friend, and I all playing Monopoly. Strictly by the rules. My brother and my friend have succumbed to my edge in property and are slowly bleeding out. Then my brother, with properties already mortgaged to the hilt, hits my Pennsylvania Ave with Hotel. It's clearly over. I point out that he's in bankruptcy, and must turn over all his assets and property to me. He refuses.

"Hey, Chris," he says to my friend. "I'll sell you all my property and money for a dollar."

I object, pointing out that the rules forbid one player giving money to another, and you can't "sell" a $50 bill to someone for a dollar, since that's effectively giving money.

"Ok," he says. "Chris, I'll sell you all my property for a dollar." I object again, but he says, correctly, that clearly the rules permit someone facing a huge rental payment to sell property, even at a loss, to get cash -- and clearly they don't say anything about how much the player can ask.

At least I'll get his cash, I think, paltry though it is. Nope. "Chris," he says a moment later, "I made a mistake. I'd like to buy back the Water Works, there, for all my money."

Done. Then: "Chris, how would like to buy Water Work sfor $1?"

Done.

Then he handed me a dollar and said, "Yup, I'm bankrupt. Here."

[The Controvert]

So, Bricker, who won?

[HubZilla]

In high school or college football, interfering with the receiver will cost you a 15-yard-penalty. So, if you're getting burned and it may result in a TD, it's better to interfere. 15 yards is better than 6 points.

As a DB, it saved my bacon more times than I'd like to admit.

In the NFL, the penalty is assessed at the point of the interference.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by The Controvert

So, Bricker, who won?

I lost; Chris won.

I ended up writing to Parker Brothers, and they made a ruling that forbid a player facing backruptcy from selling property for less than face value. They pointed out that he still could have sold all his property, but at least I would have collected the cash.

I laminated the letter and stuck it in our Monopoly game box, where it lasted at least 20 years!

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by The Controvert

Or, in baseball, perhaps the invention of the bunt, the curve ball, and the reverse pitch?

The reverse pitch video was removed. Could someone describe it? I couldn't find anything with Google.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by ZipperJJ

We also agreed bowling and golf don't count because you play against yourself. You can't really do anything to another player to help your own game.

In golf, however, you can use a penalty shot to your own advantage. Let's say you have a short putt, but you momentarily freak out and your putt goes racing by the hole, off the green, and into the rough, from which it'd be a miracle to get up and down in two shots -- or it's so far away you just don't want to walk that far. You can declare your ball unplayable, take a one shot penalty, and place the ball where you originally played it -- that is, near the hole -- and try your putt again and not have to worry about getting up and down. (I saw that one on NBC's coverage of the PGA Championship this year, if memory serves.)

When I was a kid I read a story about a baseball player-manager who would find loopholes in rules. At the time, to make a substitution, the manager had to clearly announce the change to the umpire. A time came when an opponent popped up a ball near the player-manager's dugout: the manager ran out from the dugout, yelled "Walter Smith now catching for the Beltsville Sluggers!" and caught the ball for an out. The rule was later changed to make clear that the announcement had to come while the ball was not in play. (Unfortunately, I can never remember the manager's name.)

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

When I was a kid I read a story about a baseball player-manager who would find loopholes in rules. At the time, to make a substitution, the manager had to clearly announce the change to the umpire. A time came when an opponent popped up a ball near the player-manager's dugout: the manager ran out from the dugout, yelled "Walter Smith now catching for the Beltsville Sluggers!" and caught the ball for an out. The rule was later changed to make clear that the announcement had to come while the ball was not in play. (Unfortunately, I can never remember the manager's name.)

The usual hero of that story is Michael J. "King" Kelly, a colorful catcher and manager from the Nineteenth Century. I'm very skeptical that the story is true. I've never seen a date or a contemporary source for his alleged feat.

Originally Posted by fachverwirrt

The theory there is, I believe, that the only way you're going to get a double play on a dropped pop-up with only a force at second is if the batter doesn't run, or dogs it down the line, in which case he deserves to be out. In other words, the time for pop-up to go up in the air, come down, be dropped, picked up, thrown to second, and relayed to first should be more than enough for a runner to make it to first with normal effort.

That's correct. The infield fly rule is designed to prevent double force-outs on the basis. When there is a fast runner on first base, no runner on second, fewer than two outs, and a slow batter at the plate, allowing a pop fly to drop would be very legal and very smart. (Not to get a double play, of course, but to force the slow batter to replace the fast runner at first base.) One wonders why it isn't done more often. I've seen it done, but only rarely and never recently.