Delay of game is a 5 yard penalty in the CFL, as it is in the NFL. It is also a frequently used tactic on 3rd (CFL)/4th (NFL) down if the coach of the team on offense feels that it is too difficult or too far to attempt a field goal, but might be tight for a punt without getting a touchback.
I remember the 1994 Orange Bowl: Florida State vs Nebraska. FSU fullback dove over the pile, but NU forced the fumble while he was in mid-air. The refs said it wasn’t a fumble, because the ball apparently crossed the line, even though he was in mid-air.
Didn’t Green Bay intentionally let Denver score TD in Super Bowl XXXII What was the story behind that?
That was a thought, though I think the GB coach denied it. Denver was in field position to kick an easy field goal to take the lead AND leave GB with no time on the clock. So, the story goes, GB lets Denver score a touchdown on 2nd down (here’s where the story breaks down, why not let them score on 1st?), so they’d have time left on the clock to try and score their own touchdown. In either case, Denver did score the touchdown, and GB failed to score theirs.
-lv
Oh man, that’s the worst I’ve ever heard of. And yeah, that’s definitely the kind of thing I’m talking about.
Others I’ve been mulling over:
NHL: There is no incentive whatsoever to avoid fighting. In any other sport, you see fines and/or suspensions.
NBA: The intentional foul. Intentional fouls in any other sport would result in fines and/or suspensions, but in basketball, it is actually built into the structure of the game that there are times when you want to foul. I thought of a particularly annoying hypothetical example:
Let’s say you are up by 2 with 10 seconds left in the game and the other team has the ball. They can win with a 3 pointer. Let’s say they have Michael Redd or Peja Stoyochovich (sp?) or anyone who can actually shoot. (I know, I know, you won’t find many NBA teams like this, but stay with me.) You could make the argument that even though you are winning, you should intentionally foul, because the most the other team can (likely) get is 2 points off a foul, sending it to OT at worst, whereas if they get Redd the ball he can win it at the buzzer.
This of course opens another can of worms in that on anyone’s second foul shot, shouldn’t you try to aim for the rim to get a good bounce to your teammate, who can then get the rebound and dunk for 2, turning a 2 point foul attempt into a possible 3 point play?
There’s still a couple more I’ve thought of over the years but can’t quite remember yet.
Professional basketball: the “no zone defense” is a completely inorganic rule that addresses a perceived flaw - these guys weren’t scoring quite enough :rolleyes: .
Professional golf: At least one foot has to be in front of the ball when you putt (because someone big - Palmer?) vastly improved his putting game by treating it almost like croquet.
Baseball: the balk. Because guys who are trying to steal bases aren’t getting enough of an advantage. Boo-hoo. Alright, that’s not really a fundamental flaw it addressed, but the balk rule is about as ugly as the prohibition amendment - it’s just a stain on the rules of baseball.
Although Green Bay didn’t intentionally do that, a high school team did around 1997 - if I recall correctly, the losing team had the ball in the red zone and was behind by like 6 points. Figuring they were going to score anyway, with little time left in the game, the winning team let them waltz in just to get the ball back. And, if I recall correctly, it paid off.
There is a reason to avoid fighting in hockey for certain players - you don’t want a good player off the ice for 5 minutes. People think that only the “enforcers” fight but that’s not always the case. Sometimes the top line players will fight too.
In FB giving up a safety also happens when a team is ahead late in the game and has to punt from down near their own endzone. Rather than risk a punt block and a TD for the other team, the punter will just run out of the back of the endzone. A free kick is a much safer option.
North American Football: stopping the play every time a person is tackled or fails to catch a pass makes for a very dreary and continually interrupted game.
Especially late in the fourth period, when the losing team will use every excuse it can get to stop the clock.
I cannot speak for Canadian tackle football, but to be precise, in American professional tackle football the clock stops for incomplete passes and when a player goes out of bounds and does not stop whenever a player is tackled. In college football it stops for those two reasons and briefly whenever a first down is made. Having said that, I agree that the continual clock stoppages can make for a long and dreary game, especially now that teams seem to pass the ball more frequently than they did in the past which results in more clock stopping.
I’ll gladly engage in this debate.
Stopping the play allows for much more strategy than you’ll find in rugby and soccer. I still stand by my hypothesis that football is so popular in America because Americans are fascinated by strategy. Just look at poker ratings on ESPN for confirmation of that fact.
The fact that play does not stop in rugby and soccer greatly reduces the amount of strategizing (sp?) that can be brought to bear in both the preparation and execution of any one game.
Would billiards be better if you had to strike the cue ball before it came to rest after the previous shot? Whould chess be a better game if you had to pick up a piece to begin your move before your opponent had placed his piece? Football is the same way. Stopping and setting allows for strategy.
I could go on for hours about this, but I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be interested.
The clock does not stop when a player goes out of bounds unless it is inside the final 5 minutes of the game. (Or is it the half? I can never keep up.) They pause the clock while the ball is set, and then wind the game clock with a 25 second clock.